Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,283,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

**** Elections thread *****

Page 82 of 111 FirstFirst ... 3272808182838492 ... LastLast
Results 6,076 to 6,150 of 8309
  1. #6076
    I approve of that "Machiavellian shrewdness". The tax thing is now wonderful for Trump. It wasn't before, now it is.
  2. #6077
    Maddow, MSNBC, standard shitlibbery BTFO themselves.
  3. #6078
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I approve of that "Machiavellian shrewdness". The tax thing is now wonderful for Trump. It wasn't before, now it is.
    I doubt it. Showing that he made a good sum of money and paid taxes one year out of the last twelve begs the question of why he isn't sharing the other years.

    If that's good for Trump then the wiretapping thing being shown to be false is good for Obama.

    Neither of those is as good for the person in question as having never had the respective issue brought up in the first place.
  4. #6079
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    I doubt it. Showing that he made a good sum of money and paid taxes one year out of the last twelve begs the question of why he isn't sharing the other years.
    For some people. Most are much more detached and see only the surface. The main message they receive is that Trump's taxes are a supposed enormous deal and then when released he paid loads of taxes and there was nothing bad.

    It will be fun to watch all the cognitive dissonance play out. It was immediately apparent that this was a huge Trump win and that Maddow fucked up big, and it was only after the initial impact when rationalizations came about and we began seeing these cognitive dissonance responses. Remember Trump IS STUPID and Trump's taxes ARE HIDING SOMETHING TERRIBLE and he IS A FOOLISH PERSON WHO COULD NEVER ORCHESTRATE SOMETHING THAT HURTS GODDESS MADDOW; therefore Trump's antagonists have only two choices: acknowledge that they are wrong and have been wrong for a long time, or find some sort of dismissive explaining-away cognitive dissonance rationalization that allows them to maintain their self-image and worldview.
  5. #6080
    You're missing my point. According to the logic people use when Trump does something dumb, Trump's enemies at NBC aren't worried about looking stupid themselves, their goal was to get people talking about Trump's taxes in general.

    It was 'last night in Sweden' for the MSM.
  6. #6081
  7. #6082
    Still talking about Trump's taxes?

    NBC 1-0 Wuf

    hehe
  8. #6083
    Above I'm on record saying the more we talk about Trump's taxes now the better for Trump. The release turned the tables. I'm happy that MSNBC tried to up it's game from tic-tac-toe-with-just-one-box-and-Trump-goes-first, but 3d chess is just too big a jump for them.

    Please, more Trump tax talk. More more more.
  9. #6084
    Where's the rest of his tax returns for the other years? When do we find out where all his business conflicts of interests lay? What is he hiding?

    NBC 2-0 Wuf
  10. #6085
    All but those who hate Trump no matter what view that as beating a dead horse after the Maddow fiasco. We were told for many months that he was hiding something, we were made to anticipate anything at all that could lead to uncovering the secret, we then got exactly that, and it made Trump look great. We (meaning, all people who don't hate Trump no matter what) now no longer care, we think MSNBC was possibly lying to us for a long time (or just being terrible journos), and we're tired of the issue. The more it's in the news, the more shitlibs btfo themselves.
  11. #6086
    If that's true then the more it was talked about that 'last night in Sweden' never happened, the more Trump btfo himself.

    You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either it's a good move when Trump does it and good when NBC does it, or it's bad when either does it.
  12. #6087
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    If that's true then the more it was talked about that 'last night in Sweden' never happened, the more Trump btfo himself..
    What do people think about now when they think of "last night in Sweden"? They think about all the horrible shit that's going on in Sweden. That statement is an example of pre-suasion, of an anchor with predictive power. It got eyes on Sweden in a way that reporting actual facts on Sweden does not, and then later it was "confirmed" to many people the truth about Sweden the next time something bad happened.

    That was also a Trump win. If I could go back in time, I would have him say the same thing. Shit, the very next day, riots broke out in Sweden. Guess what every person who isn't lockstep anti-Trump already thought about that? "I guess he was right, Sweden's a mess..."
  13. #6088
    Ok, let's say the riots were viewed differently because he said that.

    You can make the same argument about the NBC report. It had no substance, but it drew attention to his taxes specifically and his finances in general. So the next time there's some news about a conflict of interest or some shady deal (and we know there will be) it's going to make people who aren't lockstep pro-Trump think "I guess they were right, Trump's a crook..."

    It's precisely the same logic as you've used explain Trump's stupid pronouncements. The difference is now you are the one saying it's stupid and I am the one saying there's a method to their madness.
  14. #6089
    I agree with that, as long as there's credibility in the claim and it's during the "pre-suasion window". If, for example, tomorrow a new tax story broke with some nasty shit revealed in his taxes, it would probably more powerfully make Trump look bad than if it just appeared on its own.

    If it appeared on its own, a lot of defenders or people on the fence would just say "but what did we expect, we already figured if his taxes were released they would look bad." So, a bad release is already baked into public opinion. However, in your scenario, it would be a lot of people saying "there's nothing to see here, you showed us, we listened, nothing to see....BOOM omg he REALLY was hiding something all along." This scenario could influence people that wouldn't be influenced by the others.

    That's my guess at least.
  15. #6090
    Covered interesting theory that is (afaict) derived from the supply and demand model: the efficiency wage. A derivative element of the theory is that reductions in employment increases efficiency of firms. I certainly remember seeing this discussed quite a lot in the media during 09. There was a lot of "people are working harder so they don't get fired" type stuff.

    Anyways, derivative from this, we can suggest that a way to create a better government is to make it smaller than it wants to be. Cuts in a department may just make that department more effective by incentivizing better results from its employees.
  16. #6091
    There's news, fake news, and clever propaganda.
  17. #6092
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    There's news, fake news, and clever propaganda.
    Which of the three is Trump's 'wiretapping' claim?

    Hint: It's not fake news.
  18. #6093
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Which of the three is Trump's 'wiretapping' claim?

    Hint: It's not fake news.
    Dunno. Which is Trump's record-low approval ratings?
  19. #6094
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Dunno. Which is Trump's record-low approval ratings?
    Old news
  20. #6095
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Old news
    You've clearly been brainwashed by the facts.

    http://constitution.com/trump-approv...ance-movement/
  21. #6096
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Which of the three is Trump's 'wiretapping' claim?

    Hint: It's not fake news.
    http://www.npr.org/sections/health-s...loyed-isolated

    TOld you that autistic adults are much more likely to be unemployed. I've already established I've been fired from most jobs. So, you get to speak from a position of privilege, in that you don't have autism.

    I've provided sources, you've provided none.

    I went to a meeting for autistic adults last night, and I asked the therapist, what the unemployment rate for autistic adults is, and she said roughly 70%. So should I listen to some blowhard on flopturnriver, or a psychologist with a PHD on this matter?
  22. #6097
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    You've clearly been brainwashed by the facts.

    http://constitution.com/trump-approv...ance-movement/
    looks like a sweet ass website i may have to check out a couple times
  23. #6098
    Quote Originally Posted by JimmyS1985 View Post
    TOld you that autistic adults are much more likely to be unemployed.
    I never said I didn't believe you. What I don't believe, is most people who say they have autism.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimmyS1985 View Post
    I've already established I've been fired from most jobs. So, you get to speak from a position of privilege, in that you don't have autism.
    Why did you get fired?

    Quote Originally Posted by JimmyS1985 View Post
    I've provided sources, you've provided none.
    You haven't explained why you got fired.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimmyS1985 View Post
    I went to a meeting for autistic adults last night, and I asked the therapist, what the unemployment rate for autistic adults is, and she said roughly 70%. So should I listen to some blowhard on flopturnriver, or a psychologist with a PHD on this matter?
    So you got confirmation bias from someone with a profit motive. Amazing.

    Look man, you obviously have the mental capacity to deal drugs. there's no reason you can't get yourself a job and keep it. If you can't get up in the morning, get a better alarm clock. If you have trouble taking orders....too fucking bad.

    At age 31, you've already thrown in the towel and given up on ever advancing yourself through your own efforts.

    What's amazing to me, is that you rage against the republicans. the Democrats did this to you. They've spoon fed you excuses and safety nets and provided you with a villain. You've been literally enslaved by a political party that bought your allegiance with government entitlement programs.
  24. #6099
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,799
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by JimmyS1985 View Post
    http://www.npr.org/sections/health-s...loyed-isolated

    TOld you that autistic adults are much more likely to be unemployed. I've already established I've been fired from most jobs. So, you get to speak from a position of privilege, in that you don't have autism.

    I've provided sources, you've provided none.

    I went to a meeting for autistic adults last night, and I asked the therapist, what the unemployment rate for autistic adults is, and she said roughly 70%. So should I listen to some blowhard on flopturnriver, or a psychologist with a PHD on this matter?
    Why resign yourself to the bottom 70%?
  25. #6100
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Where's the rest of his tax returns for the other years? When do we find out where all his business conflicts of interests lay? What is he hiding?
    Haha I wonder when this comment will look stupid?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  26. #6101
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    You've been literally enslaved by a political party that bought your allegiance with government entitlement programs.
    I had deliberately avoided using the word "slavery" to describe a system in which people are bullied into a life of work, because I recognise that the word is too strong to accurately describe the system, and it would be an insult to those who have suffered actual slavery.

    But here you not only use the word, but with the caveat "literally". Made me laugh. Am I enslaved? Why is the person who goes to work every day to justify his existence not enslaved, but the person who has no job literally enslaved? I'm confused, I thought slavery was something to do with being forced to work, either for nothing, or basic provisions. That why I know the system we live in is not slavery. At least people generally get paid a living which allows a healthy and happy life. Someone who relies on government to survive, they're not enslaved, such a word seems wholly inappropriate to me, especially considering I accept it's inappropriate for me to use it in a slightly more accurate context. Slavery is far too powerful a word to think it even remotely applies to the vast majority of people in first world countries.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  27. #6102
    Given that a legal authority granting a minimum provision is one of the key features of the slave plantation, it's a compelling point to make.
  28. #6103
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Given that a legal authority granting a minimum provision is one of the key features of the slave plantation, it's a compelling point to make.
    Yes but slavery requires labour, of which Jimmy is giving zero. I'm uncompelled.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  29. #6104
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,650
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  30. #6105
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,650
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I had deliberately avoided using the word "slavery" to describe a system in which people are bullied into a life of work, because I recognise that the word is too strong to accurately describe the system, and it would be an insult to those who have suffered actual slavery.


    But here you not only use the word, but with the caveat "literally". Made me laugh. Am I enslaved? Why is the person who goes to work every day to justify his existence not enslaved, but the person who has no job literally enslaved? I'm confused, I thought slavery was something to do with being forced to work, either for nothing, or basic provisions.



    Oh snap!
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  31. #6106
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Yes but slavery requires labour, of which Jimmy is giving zero. I'm uncompelled.
    I'm glad you brought that up. The theorized replacement for labor in the neo-plantation hypothesis is the vote. Politicians provide the minimum provision in exchange for the vote.
  32. #6107
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,650
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Politicians provide false promises in exchange for the vote.

    There, ftfy.
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  33. #6108
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Politicians provide false promises in exchange for the a false promise of the vote.
    This one.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  34. #6109
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I'm glad you brought that up. The theorized replacement for labor in the neo-plantation hypothesis is the vote. Politicians provide the minimum provision in exchange for the vote.
    That's the only reason the Democratic party exists.

    It's not surprising that the vast vast vast majority of successful working people are Republicans.

    If there were no entitlement programs for those able to work, then the most popular political ideas would be the ones that create jobs, raise wages, encourage investment and innovation, and tax less.

    Instead people are given a check and suddenly problems like taxes, unemployment, wages, etc are not problems anymore. It's all solved by the check. ANd the only problem to worry about, is republicans looking to give out fewer checks
  35. #6110
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    There, ftfy.
    Indeed. The urban plantation hypothesis* is an atypical situation in which the promises are kept. We've seen for several decades this symbiotic relationship play out in some parts of the country. The promise is more handouts in exchange for the vote, and both happen.

    *I prefer calling it neo-plantation because "urban" triggers some. "Urban" is more correct, though.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 03-18-2017 at 11:11 AM.
  36. #6111
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    That's the only reason the Democratic party exists.

    It's not surprising that the vast vast vast majority of successful working people are Republicans.

    If there were no entitlement programs for those able to work, then the most popular political ideas would be the ones that create jobs, raise wages, encourage investment and innovation, and tax less.

    Instead people are given a check and suddenly problems like taxes, unemployment, wages, etc are not problems anymore. It's all solved by the check. ANd the only problem to worry about, is republicans looking to give out fewer checks
    Some say that without the urban plantation deal, the Democrats could only win a handful of districts and states.

    Middle-upper class folk tend to provide the capital and intellectual defenses for Democrats, but it's the strategic use of the neo-slaves that vote Democrat at >90% that keeps the party breathing.
  37. #6112
    bigred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    15,462
    Location
    Nest of Douchebags
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    That's the only reason the Democratic party exists.

    It's not surprising that the vast vast vast majority of successful working people are Republicans.
    The concept of liberal elitism and this post makes me lol.
    LOL OPERATIONS
  38. #6113
    Yeah I wonder what his source is. My guess is there's probably little difference, but maybe some.
  39. #6114
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I'm glad you brought that up. The theorized replacement for labor in the neo-plantation hypothesis is the vote. Politicians provide the minimum provision in exchange for the vote.
    It's still a million miles away from slavery. I mean, is the voter under contract and obliged to vote for the party giving him money? Or does he just make the vote because he knows it is the best chance of him continuing his lifestyle? He is not compelled by anyone to vote a particular way, he is only compelled by his own ideology.

    A slave has no choice in the matter at all. The use of the word "slave" to describe someone who votes for a party who pays him to do fuck all is offensive, to be honest. You really should find a better word.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  40. #6115
    fwiw, I've used the word "slavery" in my arguments against work in the past, but I knew I was misusing the word, and I agree with those who told me that I was insulting those who have suffered slavery. That is why I have tried very hard to stop using that word in that context. If I am compelled to get a job, then so long as I can go home, and so long as I am paid a "fair" wage (meaning a competetive wage relative to the job), I am not a slave.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  41. #6116
    I sympathize with your position. The use of "slavery" in the urban plantation context takes great literary liberties. It's calling being "brainwashed" being "enslaved" and pointing out parallels with the plantation.

    On the literal plantation, who's the best slave master but the one who gives all his slaves "freedom" yet they remain with him and do his bidding (and sometimes even take a whipping)? If a slave master did that (IIRC it wasn't unheard of), would it be wrong to call the "enslaved" freemen "slaves" still? It's an interesting question.
  42. #6117
    "brainwashed" is another misused word.

    Quote Originally Posted by google definition
    brainwash - pressurize (someone) into adopting radically different beliefs by using systematic and often forcible means.
    In the case of someone voting for a party that will grant them a survival without condition, there is no "aopting radically different beliefs", not necessarily anyway. I can see how some people might vote for a party for no reason other than getting their benefits, and where that party otherwise represent views that the voter opposes, than yes, maybe we can use the word "brainwashed" in its proper context. But how many people that rely on state handouts meet this criterion? I certainly wouldn't vote for a party that would bring in the death penalty, and a unconditional unemployment benefit. I could overlook minor political differences, but unless we find a political party that exactly matches our own ideology, then we all make these compromises when voting.

    A party's policy on state handouts is but one aspect of their electability. Those who fail to realise this, well I'd hope they're in the minority, but truth be told, I have no idea how many people we're talking about here.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  43. #6118
    There are some relationships in politics I don't know how to describe except by brainwashing.
  44. #6119
    Yeah I mean fair enough if the caveat is not "literally", but "for lack of a better word".
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  45. #6120
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Yeah I mean fair enough if the caveat is not "literally", but "for lack of a better word".
    Shut up slave.
  46. #6121
    I'm a slave to weed.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  47. #6122
  48. #6123
    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/...alk-about.html

    All members of the committee realize that if Comey states there is no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia and if he confirms that FISA warrants were requested, it’s a whole new ball game.
    I really hope we get to see this new ball game.

    My guess though, Comey will find some way to punt. Maybe claim the FISA stuff is classified and he can't confirm or deny.
  49. #6124
    Comey won't comment one way or another if a FISA request by the Obama administration to wiretap Trump Tower was turned down.
    Here we go....

    Why have these congressional hearings if no one will answer a question!
  50. #6125
    Comey says it was a "fairly easy judgment for the [intelligence] community" that Putin preferred Trump to Clinton. Comey's logic being that Putin did not like Hillary Clinton. Therefore, Putin wanted Trump to win, Comey reasoned. He says the two assessments are inseparable. Rep. Conaway does not agree
    Did Russia really want Trump to win? Or did they just prefer a 'softened' Hillary Clinton that they felt could be bullied
  51. #6126
    What even is the evidence of Russia hacking? That Ukranian software was used? Big LOL
  52. #6127
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I'm a slave to weed.
    Preach...
  53. #6128
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    What even is the evidence of Russia hacking? That Ukranian software was used? Big LOL
    I believe that Russia did the hacking. multiple intelligence agencies agree wholeheartedly on that, and have stated so publicly many times, not the least of which was the January report from the DNI

    What's totally absent is any evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. Literally zilch, and the DNI himself has stated exactly that, publicly. Comey said this morning that the investigation has been going on since July. Don't you think that's enough time to determine if there was a connection. If they haven't found it by now, they aren't going to find it.

    I also find it completely unbelievable that they have found even circumstantial evidence. We would have heard about it by now in this age of leaks we live in.

    Yet the investigation grinds on, and as long as it remains open, the democrats can keep raising this specter of Russia to undermine anything the President does.

    The other side of the coin here is that there are reports, though yet unconfirmed, that there was a FISA warrant authorizing monitoring of the Trump organization. Comey would not confirm or deny the existence of such a warrant today. But, if there were no warrant, he wouldn't be commenting on anything classified by denying its existence. So my inference here is that there was a warrant issued.

    Those warrants are supposed to be used in situations of dire urgency related to matters of significant national security. And they require a high standard of cause in order to be issued in the first place. When you're using them to monitor a major party political candidate for president, the standard should be even higher.

    So there must have been a really really really good reason to monitor Trump right? Yet after 9 months of investigations by every intelligence agency we have....there's not even a whisper of evidence against Trump suggesting he colluded with the Russians.

    So, if the FISA monitoring was authorized without that high level of proof.....then it means it was a fishing expedition launched by Obama against his political opposition. That's wicked wicked wicked bad!

    So, either Obama acted because there was enough evidence to suggest Trump was in collusion with Russia, or he abused his power for partisan political interests.

    So weighing the state of affairs right now, on one side I see Trump who owns nothing in Russia, owes no one in Russia, and has nothing more to gain by employing Russia than he does by employing Argentina or Bahrain. On the other side you have Obama, who has already demonstrated that he is capable of abusing his power to harass his political opponents (remember the IRS scandal???)

    Who do you believe??

    I guess there is a third option where there was no FISA warrant and there was no monitoring of the Trump campaign.

    But I find that exceedingly difficult to believe since we know, most definitely, that somebody wire tapped Michael Flynn
  54. #6129
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Surprisingly catchy.
  55. #6130
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I believe that Russia did the hacking. multiple intelligence agencies agree wholeheartedly on that, and have stated so publicly many times, not the least of which was the January report from the DNI

    What's totally absent is any evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. Literally zilch, and the DNI himself has stated exactly that, publicly. Comey said this morning that the investigation has been going on since July. Don't you think that's enough time to determine if there was a connection. If they haven't found it by now, they aren't going to find it.

    I also find it completely unbelievable that they have found even circumstantial evidence. We would have heard about it by now in this age of leaks we live in.

    Yet the investigation grinds on, and as long as it remains open, the democrats can keep raising this specter of Russia to undermine anything the President does.

    The other side of the coin here is that there are reports, though yet unconfirmed, that there was a FISA warrant authorizing monitoring of the Trump organization. Comey would not confirm or deny the existence of such a warrant today. But, if there were no warrant, he wouldn't be commenting on anything classified by denying its existence. So my inference here is that there was a warrant issued.

    Those warrants are supposed to be used in situations of dire urgency related to matters of significant national security. And they require a high standard of cause in order to be issued in the first place. When you're using them to monitor a major party political candidate for president, the standard should be even higher.

    So there must have been a really really really good reason to monitor Trump right? Yet after 9 months of investigations by every intelligence agency we have....there's not even a whisper of evidence against Trump suggesting he colluded with the Russians.

    So, if the FISA monitoring was authorized without that high level of proof.....then it means it was a fishing expedition launched by Obama against his political opposition. That's wicked wicked wicked bad!

    So, either Obama acted because there was enough evidence to suggest Trump was in collusion with Russia, or he abused his power for partisan political interests.

    So weighing the state of affairs right now, on one side I see Trump who owns nothing in Russia, owes no one in Russia, and has nothing more to gain by employing Russia than he does by employing Argentina or Bahrain. On the other side you have Obama, who has already demonstrated that he is capable of abusing his power to harass his political opponents (remember the IRS scandal???)

    Who do you believe??

    I guess there is a third option where there was no FISA warrant and there was no monitoring of the Trump campaign.

    But I find that exceedingly difficult to believe since we know, most definitely, that somebody wire tapped Michael Flynn
    Some people in power hate America and what we stand for. They want globalism, Marxism, and a new caste. Trump is their biggest threat. Of course they're going to lie and cheat to stop him.
  56. #6131
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Some people in power hate America and what we stand for. They want globalism, Marxism, and a new caste. Trump is their biggest threat. Of course they're going to lie and cheat to stop him.
    It's not so much the lying and cheating that bothers me, there's plenty of that on both sides. But it's the fact that this Trump/Russia thing seems to become more prominent as time goes on, despite there being less and less potential for any evidence.

    It's gone now, but earlier today, the headline on CNN.com was "Trump-Russia: Yes, Obama Wiretapping: 'No Evidence'"

    Seemingly they are referring to Comey's confirmation that Russia preferred Trump to Hillary, and his narrow statement that he has no information supporting Trump's tweeted accusations.

    This is why Trump calls CNN fake news. Anyone who is a casual observer of the news, reading that headline would surely think that Comey confirmed the Trump-Russia connection and categorically absolved Obama. Neither are even close to true.
  57. #6132
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Some people in power hate America and what we stand for. They want globalism, Marxism, and a new caste. Trump is their biggest threat. Of course they're going to lie and cheat to stop him.
    More like half of America hates the other half, and the feeling is mutual.
  58. #6133
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    More like half of America hates the other half, and the feeling is mutual.
    And Comey hates the Patriots

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...-patriots.html
  59. #6134
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    More like half of America hates the other half, and the feeling is mutual.
    The hatred comes in large part from the narrative pushed by those I mentioned.
  60. #6135
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    The hatred comes in large part from the narrative pushed by those I mentioned.
    You can easily make the same argument the other way, and blame things largely on the right. But I wouldn't.
  61. #6136
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,650
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    Security theater at its finest

    US bans tablets and laptops on flights from eight Muslim-majority countries
    http://www.theverge.com/2017/3/21/14...ountries-trump
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  62. #6137
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer View Post
    I have no problem with this.

    Senior administration officials are calling the measure an active-emergency amendment based on “evaluated intelligence”
    Obviously they are aware of some terrorist activity, from some specific area(s), and are trying to protect people. The idea that this is "theater", or worse, a deliberate act of hostility toward muslims, seems totally farfetched.

    People act like they should be treated like kings on airplanes, and it's pathetic. Once upon a time, if you wanted to get from Kuwait to the US, you'd have to travel for like, 9 years, and you'd probably die. Today, we have this magic mechanical beast that will get you there in half a day. All you have to do is ride on a chair in the sky.

    "waaaaahhhhh, but I can't play angry birds now!"

    I hope someone pushes that guy out of the plane.

    For more about how flying is awesome, and no one is happy

  63. #6138
    Can someone tell me how Trump's claim of being wire-tapped by the Obama administration has been "debunked", "torpedoed", "discredited", "denied", "unfounded", and "false" but the claim that Trump colluded with Russia is none of those things?

    Does it matter that the amount of evidence supporting each of those claims is exactly the same?
  64. #6139
    They haven't been debunked, and the Russian claims are still bollocks. Only, that's not what MSM is telling people.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  65. #6140
    We're at the stage now where whatever you want to believe is real news, and whatever you don't want to believe is fake news.

    It's fucking great. People are finally being forced to think for themselves.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  66. #6141
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    We're at the stage now where whatever you want to believe is real news, and whatever you don't want to believe is fake news.

    It's fucking great. People are finally being forced to think for themselves.
    I don't see how any of this has resulted in anyone thinking for themselves. Also whilst FTR may care literally no one in real life gives the slightest fuck.
  67. #6142
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post

    People act like they should be treated like kings on airplanes, and it's pathetic. Once upon a time, if you wanted to get from Kuwait to the US, you'd have to travel for like, 9 years, and you'd probably die. Today, we have this magic mechanical beast that will get you there in half a day. All you have to do is ride on a chair in the sky.]
    Says the idiot moaning about things on the internet? You're just massively missing the point. Unfortunately this is a recurring theme with you so I can only conclude that you're stupid. So will resort to just calling you stupid rather than trying to say anything of worth.
  68. #6143
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    I don't see how any of this has resulted in anyone thinking for themselves. Also whilst FTR may care literally no one in real life gives the slightest fuck.
    It will result in people thinking for themselves. It has to. Even the masses are starting to wake up to the fact that the MSM cannot be trusted to give impartial and honest information. More and more people are reading news and asking themselves "is this fake or not" and doing the required research to determine its authenticity. The more this "fake news" tactic from the MSM plays out, the less people will trust ANY news source.

    Literally noone is real life gives a flying fuck? I think you're doing a banana with that use of the word "literally".
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  69. #6144
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    You're just massively missing the point
    The point is that professionals, whom we rely on to keep tabs on bad guys, have told us not to let folks have big electronics in airplane cabins.

    What are you seeing that an idiot like me isn't?
  70. #6145
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    What are you seeing that an idiot like me isn't?
    Smartphones are good, laptops are bad. Smartphones are basically mini laptops. What can a laptop do that a smartphone can't? Break a window I guess.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  71. #6146
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Smartphones are good, laptops are bad. Smartphones are basically mini laptops. What can a laptop do that a smartphone can't? Break a window I guess.
    I suspect that the reason they want large electronics in checked luggage, is to give security personnel more time to search/evaluate them for threats.

    I'm not a security expert, but I would guess that it's easier to hide weapons, explosives, or other contraband within a larger unit.

    It's obvious they are acting based on some intelligence that tells them bad guys are using, or are seeking to use, large electronics to do something bad.

    My only point is.....why is that a problem? Why do people think they have so many "rights" on an airplane?
    Last edited by BananaStand; 03-21-2017 at 11:32 AM.
  72. #6147
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I suspect that the reason they want large electronics in checked luggage, is to give security personnel more time to search/evaluate them for threats.
    Who's checking the phones?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  73. #6148
    I'm not a security expert, but I would guess that it's easier to hide weapons, explosives, or other contraband within a larger unit.
    Well we've had bombs hidden in shoes before, I think belts and underwear pose a risk too. It's not like a large bomb is required to bring down an aircraft, a small bomb would suffice, especially if detonated near a window.

    It's obvious they are acting based on some intelligence that tells them bad guys are using, or are seeking to use, large electronics to do something bad.
    To you, that might seem "obvious". To me, it's obvious they're trying to further the climate of fear.

    My only point is.....why is that a problem? Why do people think they have so many "rights" on an airplane?
    If security was the issue, then smartphones would be banned too. Who needs a phone on a flight? I'm not arguing in favour of people's rights on planes, I'm arguing for honest and relevant policy, instead of project fear.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  74. #6149
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Who's checking the phones?
    You seem to be ignoring the underlying fact here, that there is intelligence suggesting that the bad guys will use large electronics, not small ones, to do something bad.

    Senior administration officials are calling the measure an active-emergency amendment based on “evaluated intelligence”
    Apparently, that "evaluated intelligence" said phones are ok, bigger stuff is not. I'm not privy to that intelligence, so I can't comment on its conclusion. But at the same time, on what basis could I challenge it?

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    If security was the issue, then smartphones would be banned too. Who needs a phone on a flight? I'm not arguing in favour of people's rights on planes, I'm arguing for honest and relevant policy, instead of project fear.
    how are you concluding that the policy is not honest, nor relevant? How are you determining that it has no basis in security, but is "obviously" a fear-mongering tactic?
    Last edited by BananaStand; 03-21-2017 at 11:39 AM.
  75. #6150
    You seem to be ignoring the underlying fact here, that there is intelligence suggesting that the bad guys will use large electronics, not small ones, to do something bad.
    I'm not ignoring this "fact", I'm disregarding it as fear mongering. It's obviously fear mongering. For a start, if I were the leader of Al-dieameriqa, I'd be instructing my adherants to analyse many different methods of hiding weapons. This is clearly what they're doing, because hiding a bomb in a shoe is creative and goes to show that trying to predict their methods is an act of futility. Did anyone have intelligence about shoes? No they fucking didn't, and has anyone said since that we have to take our shoes off when going onto flights? No.

    how are you concluding that the policy is not honest, nor relevant? How are you determining that it has no basis in security, but is "obviously" a fear-mongering tactic?
    Because smartphones are good. If you think smartphones can't bring down an aircraft, but shoes can, well you're right where they fucking want you.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •