I want the UK govt to stick up for Britain's legitimate interests, not to detain people who are wanted by other nations for sharing their dirty secrets.
Printable View
I want the UK govt to stick up for Britain's legitimate interests, not to detain people who are wanted by other nations for sharing their dirty secrets.
It seems there isn't news yet on exactly why they were detained.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You can bet your sweet ass if Pettibone was a social justice barbarian, the red carpet would have been rolled out for her.
They're in Vienna.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Tommy Robinson has made his way to Vienna to complete the interview. Thanks to the UK govt, this interview will get MUCH more coverage on social media.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brittany Pettibone
Of course, Tommy, Brittany and Martin will all have a significant increase in their Twitter followers too.
Not only does this expose the fucked up nature of our immigration policy (let ISIS killers in, turn away western journalists), but it's counterproductive in that it gives them so much more publicity than they otherwise would've got.
I had no idea who these people were until recently, and I'd imagine a lot of people who know who they are had no idea who Tommy Robinson was until recently.
Bravo, dickheads. What a fucking embarrasment for the UK.
I think you're right in that this sort of way authoritarians and propagandists go about shutting things down is counterproductive for their agenda. However, this effect probably doesn't manifest unless that way of shutting things down is used.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I say this because it's pretty common for people to say that trying to shut down opinions just makes those opinions more prominent. I don't agree with that. Those opinions do experience a boost often due to attempts to shut them down, but if compared to how those opinions would manifest if they weren't attempted to be shut down, I don't think there is comparison. If nobody was trying to shut down people like Robinson or Pettibone in the first place, I bet their opinions would be espoused by a remarkably higher number of people than the gain they get by the Streisand effect.
It's like how the media's unfair coverage of Trump got Trump some extra followers. Yeah, except if the media covered Trump fairly in the first place he'd have many multiples more followers than that.
If Pettibone was a leftist she might be the most famous one. Because the left would be screaming "we finally got a pretty one, peoplekind!"
Something has Kim seriously spooked. Reports that he wants to return US detainees and a peace treaty and U.S embassy in Pyongyang.
Can't say for sure why there is so much movement on his end, but it is most likely due to the economic collapse in NK after China finally started backing U.S. attempts to stop its oil.
I like how you phrased that to remove china as much from the equation as possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I don't believe anything coming from Pyongyang until there is real action. I'd be extremely surprised if there will be. Peace treaty would be purely semantic and would come with ridiculous demands. De-nuclearization will not happen. If there's a way I could bet on that, I'd flip for rolls.
House Intel Committee CONCLUDES that there is no evidence whatsoever of collusion or conspiracy between the Trump Campaign and Russia. In a 150 page FINAL report of their investigation they totally exonerate everyone connected to Trump, and goes even further to debunk the claim that Putin favored Trump.
Done. Finished. Investigation over. Trump's innocent.
News Flash: Democrats still not convinced.
Just as long as they keep the Mueller smokescreen on while Sessions quietly investigates Obama/Clinton/DNC crimes.
At this point, I will bet anything I own that Mueller finds some reason to at least impugn Trump. If a cop follows you for 500 miles, I don't care how good of a driver you are, that cop will find a reason to pull you over.
What I don't understand is why it's taking so long. The obvious reason is to hold the specter of Russia over the 2018 midterms. Democrat turnout will be through the roof if the prospect of impeachment is on the table.
Though, other than Mueller himself, I can't figure out who would be pulling those puppet strings. Who is responsible for dragging this out so long? If it is Mueller himself.....why?
Inserted that slightly relevant bit of information you conveniently omitted there. Don't start ordering your MAGA2020 hat just yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Distraction from the real investigation and legitimacy for Mueller that the Democrats can't deny when their heroes' crimes are uncovered.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
There are democrats on the committee.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
14 months, 73 witnesses, 300,000+ pages of documents. Do you have anything to suggest that the investigation is incomplete or incorrect....other than the fact it didn't conclude your preferred outcome??
Which do you think Trump cares about more? Exposing Obama, or not getting impeached?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Do you have anything to indicate Mueller has reached the same conclusion as the House REPUBLICAN committee?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
To Mueller's credit, he's run a tight ship. I mean, no one saw the 13 russian indictments a couple weeks ago. But it's not airtight and what has leaked all seems to suggest that Mueller's investigation has given up on charges of collusion. They're currently focused on charges of obstruction. Specifically, whether or not Trump obstructed justice when he A) fired comey and/or B) lied to CNN about Trump Jr's meeting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Comey got fired for being terrible at his job, and I'm not sure how it's illegal to lie to CNN. So I'd say Trump walks away from this one unscathed.
Cool story bro.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
This isn't much of a dilemma to choose from since Trump has no reason to think he would be impeached.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
And getting the government criminals is probably very high priority for Trump, if not #1.
Speaking of Russia, anyone following this nerve agent case in the UK?
The tl;dr of it is a former double agent and his daughter were found slumped on a bench in Salisbury, apparently poisoned. Naturally we've blamed Russia, since the dude is a Russian traitor in exile and they seem to have form for this kind of thing (see Alexander Litvinenko).
Now we've declared that the nerve agent used was Novichok, a Soviet-era agent, and demanded they give full disclosure of their programme by midnight tonight. We're saying it's either the Russian state, or they've lost control of their checmical weapon stockpiles.
What we're refusing to do is to allow Russia to have access to the agent we've allegedly found.
For the last week, I've been literally 50-50 on whether this is Russia, or the UK. Now I'm of the opinion this is our doing, not theirs, and it makes me question all the previous incidents. If we really believed they might have lost control of their stocks, we'd let representetives come to the UK and analyse the agent found. But we won't. Why? Because it wasn't Novichok.
The motive? Military budget, in particular Trident. Also, votes. It's important that the general public continue to see Russia as a direct threat.
Ong......Russia did it
They did? What evidence do you have? Motive? I just gave you a motive for why we'd do it.
I can tell you this... we're as trustworthy as Russia.
Why won't we let them analyse the substance?Quote:
What we're refusing to do is to allow Russia to have access to the agent we've allegedly found.
He's a lot more tactful than we are. I look forward to seeing what he has to say.Quote:
Earlier, asked whether Russia was to blame, President Vladimir Putin told the BBC: "Get to the bottom of things there, then we'll discuss this."
There have been plenty of Russians-in-exile dying in the UK. Often they have "committed suicide". There was a British scientist who was involved in the Litvinenko case who was found dead in his kitchen with multiple stab wounds, the British (not the Russians) called this a suicide. He knew too much.
If you trust the UK, you're too trusting.
I'm happy to entertain any number of possible culprits.
It would be a good false flag for the UK to kill this guy in a spy novel kind of way and then say 'must be Russia, we don't do this kind of thing'.
Could also be some third party that wants to start a fight between UK and Russia.
All that said, my guess is it was probably Putin.
Better ways to do this than kill one of their ex-agents imo. All that shows is that they're a threat to Russian traitors.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Not when it involes radioactive materials and nerve agents.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
There's a cop who's seriously ill, around 500 people were told to wash belongings with detailed advice, the city of Salisbury is swarming with police and hazmat suited agents... the whole point is to make people think "whoa this is dangerous, we need to let them know this isn't acceptable".
When their traitors find themselves impaled on spikes after falling from windows, or hanging in their bedroom, then perhaps that's Russia. But when it involves issues of national security... there's more than one motive, and more than one potential perpetrator.
I very much doubt it's a thrid party trying to stir trouble. For that to be the case, Russia would need to be closely involved in the investigation, because it's their nerve agent, and we're not allowing them to analyse it. We know it's not a third party.
So the Litmitov (sp?) thing was a dry run? I don't remember any type of reaction like this to that incident.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Also, apart from the seriously ill cop who was directly exposed, is there any evidence any of those 500 people are getting sick? Maybe that's just part of the game to make it look much more of a threat than it was (in which case I guess it is a good way to scare people). Or maybe they're just being extra-cautious.
You can theorize all you want about how Russia kills defectors, truth is we have no way of knowing who did it or why.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Maybe they used this poison specifically to send a message to defectors that they're not to be fucked with. Maybe the UK did to make it look like Russia did it. Maybe the Ukraine or another one of Russia's neighbors did it so we'd be more likely to support them against Russia.
Why would Russia need to be involved in the investigation if it was a third party? Say the UK doesn't know who it is, but suspects/blames Russia. Why let them be involved in the investigation? 'Hey come over here and check out this poison we think you used on our soil. Don't worry, we trust you.'Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Blaming Russia and then letting them come in on the investigation would make no sense at all. It would be like asking the Mafia to help investigate a suspected mob hit.
Not at all. It too had the effect of maintaining Russia as a direct threat to national security in the eyes of the British public.Quote:
So the Litmitov (sp?) thing was a dry run? I don't remember any type of reaction like this to that incident.
No, it's all theatre.Quote:
Also, apart from the seriously ill cop who was directly exposed, is there any evidence any of those 500 people are getting sick?
The UK isn't seriously considering this as an option, because if they were, then they would refer the suspect nerve agent to Russian experts to prove it's their agent.Quote:
Maybe the Ukraine or another one of Russia's neighbors did it so we'd be more likely to support them against Russia.
To demonstrate to the Russians that we take the idea of third party involvement seriously. They will want to know it's their agent so they can investigate themselves to see if the Ukranians, for example, could have done this.Quote:
Why would Russia need to be involved in the investigation if it was a third party?
We're blaming them without proof. All we're claiming is it's a Russian nerve agent, so we should prove that to them if we want a serious response from them.Quote:
Blaming Russia and then letting them come in on the investigation would make no sense at all. It would be like asking the Mafia to help investigate a suspected mob hit.
The Mafia are not a state.
But we already blamed them, so why get them involved. You're arguing as if we're actually interested in it possibly being a third party, when we're not.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Even if we were interested in assessing the possibility of third party involvement, why in the fuck would we ask an enemy state to come investigate a crime on our soil? It just doesn't happen.
On what planet are we interested in giving them a chance to dispute our claim it was them? Either we say 'we know it's you and no fuck off you can't come see the agent - you already know what it is you cunts', or we say 'hmm, not sure who this was - Russia wanna help us figure it out?' We've already chosen option 1, and so not letting them come in on the investigation is completely consistent with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
In other words, denying Russia access to the evidence is completely undiagnostic as to whether or who did it. It's only diagnostic to who we claim did it.
The analogy was to make the point that if you blame a crime on some entity you don't then go and ask that entity to assist your investigation.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You really can't see the problem here?
Basically we said to Russia "either you did it or you lost control of your nerve agent stockpiles".
Russia say "ok let's see the nerve agent".
We say "no".
We haven't actually blamed them directly, we've said it's either them or someone has their agent.
If we take the latter seriously, how can we expect Russia to get to the bottom of it if we won't prove to them it's their nerve agent? Do we expect an "enemy state" as you put it to take our word for it?
Cmon dude, they are clearly tapping into the distrust people have for Russia, and the blind trust people have for their own nation.
We haven't blamed them yet, we're pointing fingers while leaving the door open for other options.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
We're not taking those other options seriously.
We should want them to investigate, because if they have lost control of their nerve agents, both UK and Russia need to know.
The idea a third party did this is MUCH more serious, fwiw.
Fact is we (officially) strongly suspect it was them. Even the 'lost control' theory suggests they're a danger because they're not keeping things out of the wrong hands.
And what if they come - they're just going to say 'nope not ours'. You don't imagine they would say 'oh shit we fucked up and forgot to lock the door where we keep this stuff, sorry world we're idiots'.
Expecting us to cooperate with Putin in an investigation is pushing it. We'd be just as likely to cooperate with Iran or N. Korea in some investigation.
So you see a murder; looks like a mob hit but could be someone else. You still don't ask the mafia to help.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
yall brits are dangerously close to wrongthink.
What's rightthink wuf?
Whatever agrees with his way of thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
This week's castoff from Survivor WH is:
https://www.vox.com/world/2018/3/13/...ate-department
I have no opinion on Tillerson, but the fact that so many "experts" lacking skin in the game dislike him, I guess he is probably a swell guy who did a good job.
The term wrongthink is flipped from what you might think since it's satire and from the perspective of an authoritarian regime. Wrongthink is questioning things (which is bad for those in power when their power derives from indoctrination).Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I see.
One thing this will do... create more hooligan problems between England and Russia fans this summer. Irresponsible idiots, both Putin and May.
Does giving a shit what happens in the world count as having skin in the game?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Depends on if the person experiences downside risk of his opinions/actions within the specific domain in which his opinions/actions are intended.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
School kids across America are walking out of class today to protest.....well I don't know what exactly they are protesting against. Murder I guess?
While I obviously support anyone's right to exercise their first amendment freedom of assembly....I have to wonder what the fuck these kids are even learning in school if they think that their message is something viable within the public discourse. Even worse, it seems apparent to me that this "protest" is just a chess-move by the leftists who don't actually care about individual rights, nor do they care about shootings.
It's all a ploy to facilitate another incremental step towards the ultimate goal of banning all guns, period. And these poor kids don't even know what they're doing.
Holy fucking shit
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/14...gop-chair.html
Interesting word of the use 'coercion' there; I might go with 'encouragement', but there doesn't seem to be any evidence students are being threatened if they don't take part.
there doesn't seem to be any evidence that students even realize that is an option. Do you really think 4th graders have fleshed out opinions on this issue? Or are they just gonna do what the teachers do? That's alot closer to 'coercion' than 'encouragement'. Even if you dislike both of those terms, 'indoctrination' is completely apt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Right, because teachers never share their views with students unless their radical left-wingers. There's no such thing as a teacher who preaches God in their first grade class, or one who talks about abortion, or one in Texas who tells their students that happiness is a warm gun. If you accept that teachers are gonna influence students, then you have to accept that sometimes they influence them in ways that don't agree with what you would want.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
there is a HUGE difference between a teacher's lectures being tainted with political bias (which happens all the time)Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
and a school 'coercing' students to participate in a demonstration in favor of one side of an issue that most of the students lack the capacity to understand.
There sure is.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/14/u...gun/index.html
This is hilarious
whats not hilarious...is why its news
Who was it that argued here that accidents with teachers having guns would outnumber lives saved by arming teachers?
Obviously someone pretty stupidQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
It wasn't someone who thinks 17.7% = 5.5% if that's what you meant.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Given how much many people who love teachers hate cops, you'd think they'd be down with arming some of the most trained teachers instead of relying on cops to show up ten minutes later.
It was obviously someone stupid enough to think that it's possible to quantify how many lives are saved by teachers having guns.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Tucker Carlson just had a guest on...some libtard...and he challenged him with this exact idea. He confronted the guy with his own tweetstorm about how racist cops are, then asked "Why do you want the cops to be the only people with guns?". Libtard meltdown ensued.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I wouldn't mind seeing that. It would add to my library of cognitive dissonance signals, so I could more effectively tell when I see it in real time (or perhaps when I do it myself).Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I read a paper that estimated the impact of civilian carry on shooting deaths. The number of documented averted potential mass shootings is EXTREMELY high. But of course you never hear about the times when a civilian with a firearm stopped a criminal shooting at other civilians since the dictatorial-propagandist wannabes, the western mainstream media, don't cover facts that better inform decent people.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
forget all that. I mean, that's great if it's true because it completely debunks whatever liberal garbage Poopadoop is spewing. And certainly that's enough. But what you've both missing, is the deterrence.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
There is absolutely no way to know how many crimes are simply not committed because the intended target is protected. But the number has to be uncountable.
An absolute jackpot robbery target would be a police evidence locker. I mean that's just gotta be full of cash, and drugs, and guns and shit that any criminal would love to get their hands on. How many of those get robbed compared to convenience stores or banks?
That's true. Big time.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
And it's not just the deterrence (incentives-wise), but the filtering (skin in the game -wise). With a system that sufficiently deters criminal shootings, it will be the case that those it does not deter end up weeded out of the gene pool, and what's left is the evolutionary adapted reality, where those that "need to be deterred" simple don't exist anymore.
I thought it was a meme. I think it's hilarious that you guys actually think arming teachers is a sane solution.
Oh boy... You could also have healthcare programs that help kids with antisocial personality disorders, but I guess you could also just bust a cap in Timmy's ass if he acts up. A++Quote:
That's true. Big time.
And it's not just the deterrence (incentives-wise), but the filtering (skin in the game -wise). With a system that sufficiently deters criminal shootings, it will be the case that those it does not deter end up weeded out of the gene pool, and what's left is the evolutionary adapted reality, where those that "need to be deterred" simple don't exist anymore.
murica.
Pay attention.
That's not an argument Wuf, that's just being patronizing. You're better than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
What in the wide wide world of sports makes you think that this will make schools safer than armed staff??Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Your arguing that:
Teachers <> Cops
And you're supporting that argument by saying:
Psychologists = Wizards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Yes Oskar, I'm interested to see how you try to defend this argument you didn't make.
Classic reductio ad bananum.
Bullshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Oskar clearly stated that he does not believe teachers should be tasked with preventing or stopping crimes. His phrasing clearly demonstrated that he think the idea crosses beyond ill-advised into the realm of comical. If that's in dispute, then you just don't get English.
He then went on to say that an alternative solution would be to treat social disorders with enhanced healthcare programs. If that's in dispute then you just don't get english.
So...statement 1: Teachers acting as cops is laughable
Statement 2: A better solution is for wizards to control people's minds and tell them not to do bad things.
I'm merely asking why he thinks that statement 2, in its original or paraphrased form, is not also laughable.
Lol you can't even get through one post without committing reductio ad bananum.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
"Teachers acting as cops is laughable" is in line with Oskar's post.
After that you go off on some fantasy about mind control and magical beings, which is an attempt to rephrase his argument, such as it was, in a way so as to mock and belittle it.
Tell me, if you don't take the idea seriously, why are you asking him to defend it? I mean apart from the fact that he didn't say it, why should he indulge you?
You're obviously not open to hearing anyone else's thoughts and considering any merit they might possibly have. You're only apparent reason for being here is you're bored at work and think calling everyone who disagrees with you an idiot (or whose words you can twist into something absurd they didn't say) is a form of entertainment.
Fuck your life must be sad if this is the best thing you can find to do with your time.
Who cares if he's mocking or belittling oskar's argument? He's also challenging him to elaborate, which is what I'd rather see, than waa waa stop being childish.
The mockery, it's purely tone, it's purely a difference in debating styles. I hate it when people go "you're being mean" and use that as an excuse to sidestep the debate in question and even attempt to grab moral high ground.
Stop being so fucking sensetive. It's just words, you know what he means. The idea a shrink can do more to stop school shootings than an armed teacher is laughable, and warrants challenging.
I'm simply pointing out how poor his argument skills are. Challenging someone doesn't involve changing their argument to make it sound retarded, sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Mockery neither makes someone's argument stronger nor weaker. Ignore it and focus on the actual argument, rather than the method of delivering it.
If it were only mockery, that's one thing. I do it myself. But I generally have a point to make other than 'if I change what you said to X, I can argue against it being true.' Wtf is the use of that?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
See how easy it is to say that without being obnoxious about it?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Why are defending his right to be obnoxious but complaining when someone's obnoxious to him in return? Are you his mum?
If there were an actual argument that were stated in such a way that you didn't have to sift through a lot of ad hominem and reductio ad bananums to get to, people might be more inclined to address it.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
All fuckwits who behave like that do is kill people's desire to have open discussions about things.
Because obnoxiousness is not something I give a flying fuck about.
The problem isn't you being obnoxious back, it's deflecting from the argument to bicker about how mean he is.
Well i'm going to keep pointing out his reductio ad bananums and other logical fallacies until he does something about it. Maybe have a word with him if you don't like it.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Point is, we're all adults here, if we can say fuck and cunt we can mock each other's ideas and not get butthurt.
Then don't get butthurt when we point out the weakness of said approach to argumentation.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You could just as easily say 'we're all adults here, let's try to have reasonable discussions and not just fling poo at anyone who disagrees with us'.
The fact that you prefer to try to reason with me than try to reason with a certain other person speaks volumes doesn't it?
This is exactly what I mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
You reduce to insults and butthurt without argument.
Banana reduces to mockery while maintaing debate.
You think I'm butthurt? Absolutely not, I'm simply pointing out that you have moved away from what was actually being argued about to instead complain about banana's mockery, and now to argue with me about who's butthurt and who isn't.
At least banana is arguing something of substance. All he said was wizards instead of shrinks. How hard is it to mentally replace one word with the other? Too hard, clearly, because saying wizards is mean.
Honestly, it just descends into shit slinging (like this) and attacking each others' personalities. It's getting boring.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Lol. Fuck off.
I point out where his insults and butthurt make debate impossible, because the person he's 'debating' with would eventually rather ignore him that engage him. And when those insults and butthurt are directed at me I point out that they aren't actually arguments.
Well you're the one who started this argument with me, so if complaining about what someone else says counts as being butthurt when I do it, it must the same for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You're the one who started the argument about butthurt lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You're right about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
There are countless times you guys are obnoxious to banana, but while actually arguing about the topic in question. I don't complain then.
It's when it's "fuck the debate, you're being mean".
You knew exactly what banana meant, yet YOU decided to turn this into an issue about mockery.
fwiw, I rarely see banana abandon the topic in favour of being a twat. He does sometimes, but as I recall he's nearly always taking the bait.
He just uses language that sensetive types don't like. And I'm brutally honest about what I'm observing.
Any psychologist with a clue about anything knows that it is an absolute waste of time to try and help someone who genuinely doesn't want to change. You can't just put someone in a "healthcare program" (whatever that is) and expect them to get better. They have to WANT to be there. And if they truly do desire change, then they've already made the monumental breakthrough of realizing that their problems aren't with the world, but rather with the way they interacts with the world.
Someone intent on mass-murder does not have those thoughts. They just don't.
So, I'm wondering how Oskar expects these "health care programs" to reduce mass-murder. And the only explanation that fits...is sorcery.
If that's wrong then Oskar, or anyone else, is welcome to posit an explanation for how a government funded social welfare program is going to change someone who doesn't want to be changed.
^ a great example.
Ignoring the bollocks, getting on with the topic.
Nice.
I don't even agree with him. I think psychologists can help those who don't want to be helped, or at least maybe encourage someone into reflecting on their behaviour and perhaps sewing the seed of someone wanting to change.
Shrinks can do great things if they understand what's going on in someone's head better than the individual does himself.
Is it better to treat the symptoms or the disease?
I understand; you hate to see your little banana friend getting spanked.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga