Devolution
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-08-2016, 01:56 PM (This post was last modified: 29-08-2016 02:02 PM by Szuchow.)
RE: NOT DEFENDING! SAFETY YOUR WEAPONS!
@Deesse23

Job of journalist is to earn money, giving public information is merely mean of earning said money. It's not journalist fault that public seems to want controversy, blood and black and white view of events. More insightful press is not a match for likes of "Bild".

As for ethos one must ask if such even existed in the first place. I doubt that past was place of only superb journalism and deep intelectual discussions.

Wysłane z mojego 6045K przy użyciu Tapatalka

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Szuchow's post
29-08-2016, 01:57 PM
RE: NOT DEFENDING! SAFETY YOUR WEAPONS!
(29-08-2016 01:48 PM)Anjele Wrote:  
(29-08-2016 01:39 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  As Texas threats go, that's kinda wimpy.

Big Grin

That's what you think. Evil_monster

[Image: eyebrow-010.jpg?w=500]

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
29-08-2016, 02:02 PM
RE: NOT DEFENDING! SAFETY YOUR WEAPONS!
(29-08-2016 11:59 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(28-08-2016 08:13 PM)Fireball Wrote:  I agree, except that I think that it's more like 99.99999%. And if one wanted to go help out a particular political party, they'd be supporting the candidate chosen by the people already in the political structure, not some dewy-eyed upstart who was going to make it all right, because those people will have to make deals and be compromised before they will get anywhere in the political system. I need to go back out and work on my truck, so that I can take my new trailer out camping, without worrying about politics. Laugh out load

One thought regarding your post, imo Obama was as close to “dewy-eyed upstart” as we have had for POTUS in decades. He didn’t get elected to the Illinois Senate until 1996. In 2004 he was elected to the US Senate. He went from upstart to pres in an amazing 12 years.

Have fun camping or glamping.

OK, Obama is an exception, I can agree on that.

Had to look up "glamping". Now THAT'S the way I'd like to go. But nooooo, we have to take our trailer up into the boonies with our own water and food (no hookups). We couldn't afford to go camping when I was a kid. No tents, no sleeping bags, no nothing. So, I didn't do any of it until I got married. Having three sons in the Cub and Boy Scouts, I've slept many a night on the ground, and backpacked into some remote places. I'll stick to a trailer with a bed now that I'm an old man. Rolleyes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Fireball's post
29-08-2016, 02:02 PM
RE: NOT DEFENDING! SAFETY YOUR WEAPONS!
Hiya FC, plenty of us Texans aren't interested in posturing or threats, don't look to ass-whuppins to solve a problem, and generally handle our business with aplomb.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
29-08-2016, 02:07 PM
RE: NOT DEFENDING! SAFETY YOUR WEAPONS!
(29-08-2016 02:02 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Hiya FC, plenty of us Texans aren't interested in posturing or threats, don't look to ass-whuppins to solve a problem, and generally handle our business with aplomb.

I think I recall a study which indicated that sentence is beyond the reading comprehension of your typical Texan. Unless they live in Austin. And maybe San Antonio. Tongue

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
29-08-2016, 02:23 PM
RE: NOT DEFENDING! SAFETY YOUR WEAPONS!
(29-08-2016 12:37 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  Your accusations of propaganda and incompetency is but an opinion as opposed to the points made on that list, those can easily be confirmed or refuted since they aren’t opinions but statements of fact. Knock yourself out.
I'm supposed to do the fact-checking for you? Sorry, but that's not how that works. I knew you were not being sincere the moment I saw your feigned curiosity in response to Losty. You simply copied and pasted the list from The Daily Kos or from whatever website or person decided to repost their original article without fact-checking it yourself. Go ahead and deny it, I dare you. As for my charges being mere opinion, well, I'd refer you to James Comey who laid out in detail why Clinton is incompetent when he testified before Congress. You should watch the footage if you haven't already, it's extremely damning. The only reason why she's not on her way to trial right now is because Comey didn't think they would be able to prove that she violated the relevant laws and statures with criminal intent (nevermind the fact that, as many legal minds have pointed out afterwards, gross negligence is completely sufficient).

(29-08-2016 12:37 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  The warmongering charge is a link to what Bernie thinks (you can do better than that Vos Wink ) [...]
No, it isn't. The link was posted in response to your request for citations about her voting record, not in support of my warmongering accusation. At least do me the courtesy of reading my post carefully before you decide to respond condescendingly.

(29-08-2016 12:37 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  [...] and all it says is that she voted to go to war against Iraq. In case you don’t remember how then Sec of State Colin Powell stood before the UN and delivered this speech https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/feb/05/iraq.usa citing intel sources that Iraq had or was soon to have WMDs. Faulty info at best and a downright lie for economic ends at worst (and that was how it turned out). Warmongering is a charge that best fits the Bush presidency and not those who were led to believe that a Clear and Present Danger existed.
There's a good reason why Sanders and the majority of Democrats voted against it. Hillary is not some poor innocent victim who was misled by the bad bad Republicans. Her hawkishness is a well-established fact and has been for a long time. The New York Times and other respectable outlets can attest to that if you're inclined to do some research into it (How do you like them apples? Tongue).

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2016, 02:26 PM
RE: NOT DEFENDING! SAFETY YOUR WEAPONS!
(29-08-2016 02:07 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(29-08-2016 02:02 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Hiya FC, plenty of us Texans aren't interested in posturing or threats, don't look to ass-whuppins to solve a problem, and generally handle our business with aplomb.

I think I recall a study which indicated that sentence is beyond the reading comprehension of your typical Texan. Unless they live in Austin. And maybe San Antonio. Tongue

[Image: th?&id=OIP.M76dfbb133c68347ce5b5...mp;amp;r=0]

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Anjele's post
29-08-2016, 02:53 PM
RE: NOT DEFENDING! SAFETY YOUR WEAPONS!
(29-08-2016 01:56 PM)Szuchow Wrote:  @Deesse23

Job of journalist is to earn money, giving public information is merely mean of earning said money. It's not journalist fault that public seems to want controversy, blood and black and white view of events. More insightful press is not a match for likes of "Bild".

As for ethos one must ask if such even existed in the first place. I doubt that past was place of only superb journalism and deep intelectual discussions.

Wysłane z mojego 6045K przy użyciu Tapatalka

Noted!
Interesting point of view, however i disagree. But i dont wanna hijack this thread.
Maybe we can continue somewhere else if you want (PM?).

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2016, 04:25 PM
RE: NOT DEFENDING! SAFETY YOUR WEAPONS!
(29-08-2016 11:41 AM)Vosur Wrote:  @The Dark One: There's an epistemological thought experiment which convincingly demonstrates that we can never be completely certain about the validity of any knowledge. I'm a pragmatist like Thump so I'm not very bothered by this fact. I believe our degree of certainty only matters up to the point where it still makes a practical difference. To put it in the context of this thread, I think people will be voting for their candidate come November regardless of whether they are only 95% or 99% percent sure that the reasons behind their choice are valid. I agree that the US mainstream media, even respected outlets like the NYT, didn't provide the public with this fair and honest journalism this election cycle, but it's ultimately up to the individuals to inform themselves properly. Anyone with Internet access has almost the entirety of human knowledge at their fingertips so there is no excuse for being uninformed.

What good is the internet if you don't know how to decipher what is fact and what is made up shot by some person?

There's a massive excuse for Americans to be uninformed or more often illinformed. Our education system sucks. Our economy isn't that great. Our social services are severely lacking. In a first world nation, people are more concerned with how they will feed and clothe their children. Even if they have the time to search the Internet for information it doesn't mean they have the skills necessary to actually find the information they seek.

Swing with me a while, we can listen to the birds call, we can keep each other warm.
Swing with me forever, we can count up every flower, we can weather every storm.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2016, 06:17 PM
RE: NOT DEFENDING! SAFETY YOUR WEAPONS!
(29-08-2016 02:23 PM)Vosur Wrote:  I'm supposed to do the fact-checking for you? Sorry, but that's not how that works. I knew you were not being sincere the moment I saw your feigned curiosity in response to Losty. You simply copied and pasted the list from The Daily Kos or from whatever website or person decided to repost their original article without fact-checking it yourself. Go ahead and deny it, I dare you.

The things I do for you. Had you double-dog dared me I would have gone point by point.

Will the Britannica bio suffice?

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Hil...am-Clinton

(29-08-2016 02:23 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(29-08-2016 12:37 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  [...] and all it says is that she voted to go to war against Iraq. In case you don’t remember how then Sec of State Colin Powell stood before the UN and delivered this speech https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/feb/05/iraq.usa citing intel sources that Iraq had or was soon to have WMDs. Faulty info at best and a downright lie for economic ends at worst (and that was how it turned out). Warmongering is a charge that best fits the Bush presidency and not those who were led to believe that a Clear and Present Danger existed.

There's a good reason why Sanders and the majority of Democrats voted against it. Hillary is not some poor innocent victim who was misled by the bad bad Republicans. Her hawkishness is a well-established fact and has been for a long time. The New York Times and other respectable outlets can attest to that if you're inclined to do some research into it (How do you like them apples? Tongue).

Drooling I love apples.

Hawkishness does not equal warmongering, far from it, so that is a step in the right direction. Thumbsup

warmonger
: a person who wants a war or tries to make other people want to start or fight a war

hawks and doves definition
Popularly, “hawks” are those who advocate an aggressive foreign policy based on strong military power. “Doves” try to resolve international conflicts without the threat of force.

"Following the September 11 attacks in 2001, she supported the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan but grew highly critical of Pres. George W. Bush’s handling of the Iraq War.” from the hyperlink above.

Below are two links, one from the NYT as you suggested, showing the differences on how the two voted. I could make a strong case for either based on their votes but personally would not agree with either of them on each topic.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/upshot...nders.html
http://occupydemocrats.com/2016/03/30/31...fferently/

Sanders is an isolationist, something that history shows us isn’t always the best policy as Neville Chamberlain found out the hard way https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Chamberlain. Bare in mind that you brought Sanders up, not me and I have no desire to spar with you over Bernie, that would be fighting the last battle and to be frank I like Bernie. .

And Clinton’s hawkish votes come in part as a result of what I said earlier regarding the Bush administration. You allude that she was not being misled like the rest of the country, just as you ask of me I shall ask of you...citation please. Big Grin

May I offer you one? A token of my respect for you.
[Image: 245259-apples.jpg]

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Full Circle's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: