https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8094321.html
Thank god you didn't elect some crazy warmonger like Hillary.
Printable View
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8094321.html
Thank god you didn't elect some crazy warmonger like Hillary.
I soundly reject any decision making input that looks anything like this:
Don't do [something] because if you do, arab people will react violently.
Really really really fucking sick of the days where not-tiptoe-ing around the Arab world is the same thing as war-mongering.
I'd hope more people are more sick of the days where telling the Arab world "Hey guys, you know your holy city? I don't think you should be there, it belongs to the guys who've been oppressing you for a few decades." is not the same thing as warmongering.
A few decades huh? Maybe those guys feel owed after the FEW THOUSAND YEARS of oppression they experiencedQuote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
I'm pretty sure none of them have lived a few thousand years, and even if they had, I don't think one wrong justifies another.
C'mon man you can think of a better excuse.
This is a shitposting thread man. If you wanna have this debate, I might not be the right guy. I can't say I keep my finger on the pulse of Isreali-Palestinian relations. But from what I can tell, both sides are fucking vile to each other.Quote:
C'mon man you can think of a better excuse
However, Israel is nice to America and has a stronger military. Since we can pick our friends, they win.
So we agree, it's on the arabs if they choose to go ape-shit and kill people because the US chose to move its embassy. That would not be justified, in your opinion. Correct?Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Why should the US concern itself with un-justifiable reactions of others? If you're gonna go down that road, then you're giving all the power to the most violent and over-reactive factions of the world.
Correct, yes.Quote:
So we agree, it's on the arabs if they choose to go ape-shit and kill people because the US chose to move its embassy. That would not be justified, in your opinion. Correct?
Because policies and decisions should be based on reality, and the [justifiable] reactions and the [unjustifiable] violence will both be very real.Quote:
Why should the US concern itself with un-justifiable reactions of others?
In other news: https://www.thebeaverton.com/2017/12...s-part-mexico/
I notice you snipped my quote so you could conveniently ignore the ramifications of what you're suggesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
There's a reason we don't negotiate with terrorists. It only encourages more terrorism.
One man's terrorist is another one's freedom fighter. We absolutely should negotiate a peaceful resolution, whether it's the 2-state model or something else. What we should not do is meddle by taking a dump on one of the parties, which is what Trump is doing. World wars have started for far less. He outraged a billion people, and apart from a few rednecks the other 6 billion aren't too happy either.
No way around it. It doesn't matter where we put the embassy, one side is gonna be pissed. Choosing not to piss off a loyal and militarily powerful ally seems like the smarter play.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Israel has felt dumped on by Obama for the last 8 years. That's all ok because Israeli's won't blow up buses over it?
What kinda logic is this??
Somehow all other countries on the planet have been able to handle their Israeli embassies without making front page news.
If one side laid down its arms, peace would happen. If the other side laid down its arms, it would cease to exist.
I find Linda Sarsour kinda hot. I wonder why. I think it's because if a chick desperately wants to be tied up and controlled I'm like okay.
She's so retarded. Bitch is running a "Woman's March" and all of the sheep get in line while she's talking about wanting to bring in Sharia Law and inviting a convicted terrorist murderer and convicted rape-torturer/murder to speak at the fucking thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I'm talking about Rasmea Odeh (convicted terrorist murderer) and Donna Hylton (convicted rape-torturer and murderer), specifically.
Religion should just stay the fuck out of government, period. That goes for Christian Law too.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Indeed.
A neat thing is that it was Christians who put into practice separation of church and state in order to protect Christianity.
Or that's how a group of deist, agnostics and atheists sold secularism to the masses.
My professor of American Christian history told me that at the time of the framing, there were virtually no non-Christians. "Atheism" at the time was essentially Deism. What made Deists thought of as atheists at the time was that they believed God didn't actively influence human lives. They still believed in God.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
I forget which primary documents are used to support the idea that the Freedom of Religion hinges on the desire by Protestants to protect the numerous quantity of different sects in America, but they were by prominent figures.
One of the main reasons American Protestants didn't like Catholicism was because of how state-like Catholicism was. There were so many different types of Protestants in America that they didn't want to codify any one sect with legal power.
That was one of the most informative classes I've taken. There is a strong argument to be made that the movement to restrain government and empower the people was primarily for the purpose of protecting religion.
So much ridiculousness in this thread. So much of Scientism is based on the occult. Scientism is the one-world religion talked about in the Bible. People have been fooled into thinking that because science says so that it is fact... and they've also been fooled into thinking what a fact actually is. Before one can truly know what truth is, he must first realize that no one "knows" anything, and everything we think we know we actually just believe.
Hi spoon.
No. You know about yourself. You know what you are thinking, what you observe, what you prefer, what you remember, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by hlester25
Whether these bits of knowledge are worth believing is another question entirely. If your perceptions are being fooled is not known, but what you perceive is known.
You teach right? Are students attending your class required to bring their own bongs? Or do you provide them?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Most people don't need drugs to have an open mind.
A couple of paragraphs on the problem statements of epistemology will get you up to speed on this subject.
Some of these assertions are questionable but in general it's saying your experience is what it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Any idea that an experience (or any future recollection of it for that matter) is reflecting an objective 'truth' with a high degree of fidelity is provably false, the simplest example of that being an optical illusion. A more subtle examples would be the kinds of fine motor adjustments people make that occur before they are consciously aware of either the need to make them or the fact that they are making them.
Moreover, knowing what you are thinking does not imply you know why you're thinking it at a basic level. A lot of thought is reconstructive in the sense that it amounts to the thinker trying to convince themselves they are a sensible being living in an understandable world, interpretable within their frame of reference..
They folded like a blanket.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
ART OF THE DEAL
The hilarious part is that I'm seeing a lot of dems tout alot of BS about a "victory" for CHIP and DACA.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
What keeps not getting mentioned is that they were offered that same deal on Friday and decided to shut the government down anyway.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/23/o...pgtype=article
They hate us, cuz they ain't us.
Weren't all the remaining teams in the playoffs at one point all non-kneelers?
I know some Patriots were kneelers at one point in the season. Though that was the week Trump opened his mouth about it and just about everyone knelt.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I think most teams/players got the message that kneeling during the anthem accomplishes nothing in terms of communicating the message they actually want to communicate.
Last week I saw the Patriots all stand side-by-side, right hand on their heart, left hand on the shoulder of the person next to them. Not sure if there was a message or demonstration in that or what. Maybe it's just a 'team unity' thing. I only saw it last week, but they don't usually televise the anthem anyway, so I probably wouldn't have noticed on any other week.
I'm like lol keep fucking around and embarrassing yourself and your team. That'll go well.
What's amazing to me is that I think that there is so much intense hatred of Trump that some people are constructing delusions and acting them out just to prove their egos are correct. I mean, is there much of a chance that NBC would undergo such a glaringly stupid operation and make such mistakes otherwise?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
At this rate, Peaceful and Beloved Kim Jong-un could run for US President and probably get 45% of the vote.
He does have some very effective policies to combat obesity.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
And look at how well he has stood up to a warmongering tyrant meanie.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
CAN'T STUMP THE TRUMP LOL SUCK IT LOSERS BERNIE 2020 MY ASS
i give it maybe 2% chance clinton and obama will face criminal charges.
LOCK HER UP
barry is the bigger criminal.
any ordinary citizen would get life for spying like that.
CUCK NEWS NETWORK
IT'S, LIKE, VERY FAKE NEWS
cookie cutter news
lolQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I had it on while I was cooking dinner yesterday. They can't go 8 seconds without using the word "impeachment"Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
They were also tickled with themselves for reporting that the FBI lovers texts about a "secret society" was "probably just a joke"
Since when is "probably" worth reporting as news?
It's also worth mentioning that they had no source with any familiarity with the situation making that determination. They had no clue what the joke might have been about, or why it was supposed to be funny. They just spent 15 minutes roasting republicans for seeing monsters under the bed.
Trey Gowdy told Fox something like "I'm an investigator, and when I see people talking about "secret society", I'm compelled to ask them what they meant"
There is no accusation or innuendo whatsoever in that statement. There isn't even a hint of suspicion. He's just stating a fact about the evidence he was given, and that his job is to follow up. Factual, measured, professional. Yet CNN played that clip as if he was some crackpot conspiracy theorist chasing ghosts.
Advertising dollars and political influence are the incentives. Everything else just follows from that.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/01/2...ess-it-happens
And everybody better pony up some extra taxes so the government can afford to send more people to college to get stupid.
Brilliant.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I've seen others. The best one so far asked Bernie supporters to comment on Trump policies, except the policies they cited were actually Bernie's.
This is the typical misinformation campaign that the oppressor uses in an effort to take advantage of disadvantaged people to try to discredit the fact that they are oppressed by a society that systematically cuts them off at the knees at every opportunity.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
This whole Rob Porter situation just feels like the Dems are desperate for a scandal.
Yep.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Stormy Daniels is going to "tell her story"
I can only imagine her story is "I'm a slut who fucks rich guys"
But there is a more interesting story here. After two years of incessant and downright nasty media bullying, Melania is about to become the most sympathetic figure in America.
Evangelicals sold their soul to beat Hillary. Now it looks like they want it back.
Anyone else notice that Mike Lindell, the 'My Pillow Guy', shows off a crucifix in the new commercials?
They did? How so?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
They supported a guy who was a democrat for the first 3/4 of his life, is obviously pro-choice despite his recent claims during the campaign, has multiple divorces, and countless allegations of adultery.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
maybe 'sold their soul' isn't a perfectly apt phrase.
But they clearly decided that they do not need a President to be a moral leader. They decided Jesus was enough for that purpose. I think there was a clear shift where voting stopped being about values, and all about policy.
I'm predicting that will result in a lot more preachy-ness to compensate. And right now, exhibit A is the Pillow Guy
who is the pillow guy? what are these evangelicals doing that shows they want their souls back now?
Are you serious here? You haven't heard of "My Pillow"?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
For the third time now.....Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
They gave up having elections as a platform for preaching. they're going to find other ways to put jesus in your face.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...Asu?li=BBnb7Kz
This is pathetic
How do these illiterate fucks get jobs writing articles for news companies? Oh yeah, by being shamelessly biased.
They are rapidly running out of credible ways to criticize Trump on policy, fitness for office, mental stability, and criminal fantasies. Now they are trying to find inconsistencies in Trump's virtue signaling
Trump says he wouldn't shit his pants if he were in the shoes of an armed, trained, and sworn peace officer. But that cant be true cuz he was startled by an eagle once while sitting in his office.
If this is the shit they're spewing now....what's gonna be left by 2020?
I don't give a crap if he would or wouldn't go running into a school unarmed to contront a gunman. We've all made bravado comments like that, he's echoing what tens of millions of people are saying in USA after it turned out that cop stood outside holding his dick. It doesn't matter if it's sincere, it reflects public outrage.
Of course, Trump is more worthy of their contempt for what he said than the cop who did nothing.
Is this new though? These low thinkers have always gone petty.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Cherry picking.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I don't know man. We might be witnessing a new lowQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/28/asia/...ntl/index.html
This reads like democrat fan-fiction.
I kinda hope it's true though. I hope she actually has videos of Trump getting kinky with Russian hookers.
I can't wait to see Elizabeth Warren's stupid stunned face and concession speech when Trump still wins
While he's complimenting his favorite gorilla Ook Ook on his hitting technique.
The whole video is good, but the best part starts at 3:57. Watch Tucker's face
https://youtu.be/zsu7wGbpzmo
Trump in televised meeting about gun control
https://i.imgur.com/8ug5ZyU.jpg
Trump meeting with the NRA behind closed doors
https://i.imgur.com/M2QOsjL.jpg
Trump after NRA meeting
https://i.imgur.com/C1rNtkl.jpg
One thing Tucker is not quite correct on is the overpopulation causing high cost of living. That's not true, though statistics will show that *association* (doesn't mean causation). It would have been better if instead Tucker related that to how the politicians and the voters have made the cost of living in California extremely high by restricting housing. That's probably the main driver of the cost of living heights in California. Interesting to note, Texas also has a ton of immigration from Latin America and it has a burgeoning tech hub like Silicon Valley, yet its cost of living is quite low. This is because Texas has much more free housing policy.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
On a side point, if California was a real free market, its housing costs would probably become so low that they would compare to some places like Wyoming. But that would mean no more views for the incumbent owners of housing and very little skyline, both due to tall-ass apartment complexes one after another after another.
California doesn't restrict housing. You can set up a tent wherever you want
Did hollywood really just go through a year of feminist revolution and then give an Oscar to Kobe Bryant??
Did that really happen??
Murky...Quote:
"Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did. After months of reviewing discovery, listening to her attorney, and even her testimony in person, I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter."
I had no idea who he is, had to google that one.
It's a lot less murky than other incidents that have been used as a basis to destroy people's careers.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
In fairness, I'm of the opinion that the Oscars are given out based on merit, not based on character. They are Acadamy Awards, not morality prizes.
I have no idea if he's deserving of his award.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...DAr?li=BBnb7Kz
I'm stunned that there are professional journalists out there that would actually have the balls to cite Christopher Steele as a credible source of news.
So what exactly do you mean by him not being a credible source?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...p-dossier.html
Did you even read the link you posted?Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Of course I did. I ask again, what exactly do you mean by him not being a credible source?
His efforts were financed by Hillary. Everything he did, every piece of "research" that he compiled was financially incentivized to benefit Hillary and hurt Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
He is quoted by DOJ officials as saying he “was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.”
The sources of much of the information in his dossier are known Clinton associates like Sydney Blumenthal.
Steele was FIRED by the FBI for leaking to the press in an effort to use his work to enhance his personal fame.
And let's not forget the simple fact that much of the information reported by Steele are obvious blatant fantasies. For example, he alleges that Carter Page facilitated meetings between Trump and the Russians, and in return Page was given an ownership stake in a Russian energy firm. That sounds plausible until you realize that the reported shares would be worth $11 billion fucking dollars!!! Yet instead of living the lifestyle of a Russian billionaire.... Page is making a living doing appearances on Hannity.
You make it sound like I shouldn't trust FOX on their reporting on democrats.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Or he leaked the data as retaliation for Comey opening the investigation on Hillary at the end of the campaign and the FBI never paying him for his job.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Ehh. No one claims Page got $11bn. Gazprom sold $11bn of it's shares to Glencore Plc, a multinational commodity trader, seemingly as a way to circumvent the sanctions.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Until being fired, Steele actually had a long business relationship with the FBI and was considered a credible and reliable source. The only reason to question his credibility seems to be his anti-Trump bias. Now that's a one thing, but for example Page's congressional testimony already has corroborated many of the things in the dossier, so it's quite clearly at the very least not all bs.
I ask again, what actual reasons are there to question Steele "as a credible source of news", besides your bias against him for attacking Trump?
Besides banana's bias? I think it's Steele's bias that makes him lack credibility. banana isn't working for Fox.Quote:
I ask again, what actual reasons are there to question Steele "as a credible source of news", besides your bias against him for attacking Trump?
... but he parrots them regularly.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
It doesn't matter. My point is that who cares if bananas is biased? He's arguing shit with a handful of people in some shitty corner of the internet, he is not influencial. Steele's bias is a different matter. He has infleunce, people read what he has to say. He has financial bias, he has political bias. He has zero credibility when it comes to matters that involve Trump, precisely zero.
Slightly less than banana would have if he was writing an article about Trump.
So where do you imagine to find this entirely objective source of information that's never heard of Trump and has no opinion on him one way or the other?
The person's bias is irrelevant to the evidence presented. If a cop finds a black man with a smoking gun standing over a person with a bullet in their head, it doesn't matter if he's a card-carrying racist if he argues the man with the gun is probably the murderer.
Though I'd add it does matter because that guy's defense team will try to undermine the cop's credibility by saying he's biased and so any evidence he reports must lack credibility. Kinda like the story we're being fed about Steele.
GRRRRRR.....you're so close. But your stubbornness just won't let you embrace reason.
Law enforcement, but only if they have probably cause to investigate a crime. There are people who are professional investigators, bound by oath, with skin in the game, to objectively serve justice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
That was not Steele's job. Steele's job was to dig up dirt on Trump. That is precisely what he was hired to do. Asking how you find an objective source for that is pure stupidity. As if it was ever possible that Steele would report back to Clinton that Trump was "clean as a whistle".
The bias becomes extremely relevant if you found out that before he started his shift, the cop was offered money to impugn a black personQuote:
The person's bias is irrelevant to the evidence presented. If a cop finds a black man with a smoking gun standing over a person with a bullet in their head, it doesn't matter if he's a card-carrying racist if he argues the man with the gun is probably the murderer.
Fine. Let a judge hear both sides. Let a neutral arbiter of the law weigh the facts and make a decision. But the Steele dossier was used to secure a surveillance warrant on Carter Page WITHOUT the court knowing of its financial and political bias.Quote:
Though I'd add it does matter because that guy's defense team will try to undermine the cop's credibility by saying he's biased and so any evidence he reports must lack credibility.
*yawn*Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Regardless of the motives of those who hired him, if the evidence is damning, it's damning. Unless you can prove he fabricated the evidence, then it doesn't matter if the evidence came from Steele, Fox News, or Trump's mother-in-law. It's still evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
What if the report of a black man with a smoking gun is corroborated by others? Do you automatically assume they're all in on the conspiracy?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
So says Nunes. Why is he suddenly the arbiter of truth? The same guy who ran to WH in the middle of the night to report to DJT about the investigation of him. Doesn't seem like an objective person to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Just curious - did you read the dems reply to the Nunes memo?
ad hominemQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
ad hominemQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
ad hominemQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
ad hominemQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
non-sequitur / circumstancialQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Not one logical thought in this post.
It doesn't matter if the report is written by Hillary and one of Putin's aids.
It's the content of the memo which needs to be discredited, not the motive of the people who wrote the memo.
What would you consider "proof of fabrication"? It is known that a lot of the information was fed to him by known Clinton associates like Sydney Blumenthal. That's like me doing a background check on a potential employee by asking his mother if he's a "good boy".Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Other parts of the dossier are so fantastical that they could only be fabricated. For example, Page getting 4 times Trump's net worth in exchange for setting up a meeting.
Also, the FBI used all of the resources at its disposal and was not able to verify any information in the dossier. Comey described it as "salacious and unverified" AFTER he had already used it as evidence in a surveillance warrant. [ sounds like a fireable offense ;) ]
Nothing in the steel dossier is corroborated. The FBI director described it as "salacious and unverified"Quote:
What if the report of a black man with a smoking gun is corroborated by others? Do you automatically assume they're all in on the conspiracy?
It was announced this week that the DOJ has found Nunes credible enough to launch an investigation into this. There are widespread and growing calls for transcripts to be released. Eventually they will be. And we'll see what the court actually knew.Quote:
So says Nunes. Why is he suddenly the arbiter of truth? The same guy who ran to WH in the middle of the night to report to DJT about the investigation of him. Doesn't seem like an objective person to me.
Yes. It says "we had more of a reason to investigate Page beyond the dossier". Except it doesn't say what that is. It also says that they believe that the warrant would have been issued even without the dossier. However, the provide no other evidence that would have resulted in the warrant being issued. Furthermore, Deputy FBI Director is on record saying that there is no way they would have gotten a warrant for Page without the Steele dossier.Quote:
Just curious - did you read the dems reply to the Nunes memo?
You can not be seriousQuote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
EDIT: Do you really wanna live in a world where one competitor in an election can invent an accusation out of thin air, then back-channel it to law enforcement, and have it be credible??? You're making it really really really hard for me to stop calling you Pollyanna
The FBI attempted to verify the information in the dossier. They couldn't. Not a single word.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
No, fair point. Your average journo in London who has clearly heard of Trump and surely has an opinion is precisely as credible as someone on Clinton's payroll.Quote:
So where do you imagine to find this entirely objective source of information that's never heard of Trump and has no opinion on him one way or the other?
Next you'll be saying Laura Kussenberg is a reliable source of info for British politics. Or Louise Mensch is sane.
So?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Let's say a cop gives you a bullshit ticket. Then you find out that the cop was out the night before ranting about how much he hates monkeys, and he's gonna give a ticket to any monkey he sees, no matter what.
Would you just pay the ticket because your only defense is ad-hominem?
Well I won't be saying those things cause I don't know who those people are. Do you have a more general point?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Even that, they're not, not well at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The Oscars is professionals judging professionals. This is a skin in the game problem. You want consumers judging professionals.
nah, consumers have no skin in the game to pick the best movies or performances. They'll just pick what's most popular. Winning will be less about strong performance, and more about how many times you were on Jimmy Fallon, or how many funny car insurance commercials you do.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
This is demonstrated whenever they have fan-voting for all-star games in sports. There's usually some superstar who is immensely popular but missed 3/4 of the season with an injury and therefore has no business in the all-star game.