I never said there are holes. I said that there are red flags. Science may be infallible, but humans are not. You don't seem to understand this, and you also don't seem to understand how a collective influences humanity.
OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
I never said there are holes. I said that there are red flags. Science may be infallible, but humans are not. You don't seem to understand this, and you also don't seem to understand how a collective influences humanity.
I'm perfectly aware of how easily influenced human beings are. For example, it's extremely easy to convince simpletons that climate change isn't real, or that the data is ambiguous, or there's nothing we can do about it.
My favorite is when you KNOW we need to do all we can, but you're lazy as shit and so you go with the cop-out of "Well, Russia, India and China aren't doing anything, so fvck it!"
Which is even more ironic considering India and China are both part of the Paris Agreement, and those same people supported us backing out of it. These people are not very bright.
And, we're talking about the human race survival here. Now, I realize that some of the predictions have not "come true" in specific instances. However, you have to be intentionally ignorant to not be able to look at what is happening, consider the data and the way it is being collected and measured, and then ignore it all because The Day After Tomorrow hasn't happened yet.
Most of the incorrect predictions came from people like Al Gore, who misquoted the data. It wasn't the science that was necessarily wrong, it was how people who aren't scientists interpreted it. But even a few incorrect predictions from scientists doesn't change the massive amount of data that is pointing towards the same conclusion.
There's already extremely troubling consequences from climate change, including permafrost melting. Which is particularly disturbing because there is more carbon trapped under the permafrost than has been released by humans since the industrial revolution. We're about to drop a giant carbon bomb on our atmosphere.
It won't be long before wars start over resources as countries lose viable farmland and start facing famine.
Si, Senor! Glad Jake Gyllenhaal got the antibiotics to save her life!Emmy Rossum is hot. She's the best part of that movie.
This post just proves you incorrect. I know that people can be convinced that climate change isn't real, just like people can be convinced that climate change is real. It's narcissists like you, who think you are above being conned, which make the most interesting cases. I'm naturally a cynic. No matter what side the information is coming from, I'm always guarded. You're the kind of guy who chooses a position, then seeks out information that proves said position.
You're a classic collectivist, a true believer. You would rather just accept what someone tells you, just so you can be part of the group. I'm exactly the opposite. I don't want to be part of a group, and this is why we constantly clash on here. I don't care what people think about me. For you, that's all you care about. You latch on to whatever group makes the best impression on you and then do whatever you feel will impresses them.
You're a follower.
Lol.
I’m probably the only person here that doesn’t believe in free will, yet you claim I believe I’m above influence. You really are a riot. Good entertainment value at least.
What wars did he "start?" America never starts wars!
But, Reagan deployed plenty of troops.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...y-said-reagan-sent-troops-conflict-only-once/
"During the trip, Romney praised the military strategies of President Ronald Reagan. "(He) was able to accomplish extraordinary purposes for our country," Romney said in an interview on Face the Nation. "Without having to put our military forces into conflict. Only in one circumstance, which was in Grenada, did our forces go in a conflict setting. We were in a peacekeeping setting in Lebanon."
The implication is that Reagan did not get American forces bogged down in protracted wars. But for this fact check we will focus on whether Romney had his history right. Under Reagan, did U.S. soldiers go into a conflict setting just once and does calling Lebanon a "peacekeeping setting" mean that conflict was any less of a threat? (We asked the Romney campaign about this but didn't hear back.)
For those who may have forgotten, the invasion of Grenada took place in late October 1983. About 5,000 troops subdued Grenadian and Cuban soldiers and laborers in about two days of fighting. The U.S. and six Caribbean nations were concerned about Cuba extending its reach in the region. Deaths included 19 Americans, 45 Grenadians and 59 Cubans.
The U.S. Navy’s History and Heritage Command has compiled a list of the use of U.S. forces abroad from 1798 to 1993. It makes no distinction between deployments into areas where there was open conflict and those that were more tranquil. During the Reagan administration, from 1981 to 1988, American forces were active on overseas missions 16 times in a total of 12 countries. Often, they played a support role, such as the AWACs electronic surveillance aircraft that provided intelligence to Saudi Arabian fighter jets as they shot down two Iranian fighter planes in 1984.
But on five or six occasions, U.S. forces took a more direct role. In 1986, the U.S. Navy and Air Force struck targets in Libya. While there was no long-term military engagement, two Air Force flyers died on that mission when their F-111 was hit over Libya."
And, on and on in the article
Grenada was a “rescue mission.”
I don’t care if we send jets and bomb shit. I just don’t want anyone on the ground getting shot at. Beirut was definitely a peace keeping operation. They were having a horrible civil war and we were there to keep Christians from being massacred IIRC.
I also don’t care if he was selling guns to Iran to fight the Iraqis. Keep those people fighting each other and not us.
Good job! A person can bullshit themselves into believing anything. And justifying everything.
Case in point- I bullshited myself into believing you actually want to have a discussion.
GFY.
"I don’t care if we send jets and bomb shit. I just don’t want anyone on the ground getting shot at."
I can't bullshit myself into thinking it's worth the effort.
You need to sort the rotten produce and quit goofin off
Man...things we don't call "wars" but troops/aid/weapons sent to support some of the worst leaders in the world just because they were anti-communist.
Angola, air strikes on Libya, Nicaragua was a freaking disaster, Grenada, El Salvador, the Falklands, Afghanistan, etc. etc. etc.
Reagan was the biggest slave to a huge defense agenda in the last 50 years I'd argue. Everything he did was to stop the spread of communism, much for public perception because our intel was correctly telling him that the USSR was collapsing by the mid-80s.
They won’t have to do that anymore, once all the Mexicans are here.
John "Deep Throat" Hickenlooper and the rest of the Democrat primary circus.
https://theweek.com/articles/830443/why-are-2020-democrats-weird
https://theweek.com/articles/830443/why-are-2020-democrats-weird
In the time that I can recall, if ever there were a president ripe for being denied a second term, strictly on his horrible PR and communications dumpster fires, it is DJT. It is hard for a party to screw it up, to miss the slam dunk. Lots of time to go, but Dem candidates are saying, "here, hold my beer"
...by continuing to debate these things that have zero chance of changing in the next ten years, let alone by 2024:
eliminate electoral college
put more justices on supreme court
pass medicare for all
pass any environmental change even close to Green New Deal
remove DJT from office via impeachment
allowing all inhabitants of US to vote
.... and taking positions out of line with the vast majority of voters not on the far left of the party on:
late term abortion, or allowing termination of infants post-birth (abortion failure)
raising taxes punitively on persons who actually pay most of the income taxes
pushing for generally socialist style economic policies
immigration restriction, sanctuary cities / states
restriction of 2nd amendment rights on law-abiding gun owners
If the Dems would just be more moderate and focus on things they can actually change, the general distaste by most people for DJT could carry them to victory.
But I think the things Dems are spending so much time debating, are such radical changes to the norms that people expect in life, people will be scared to vote for them in the general. Or voters don't care much about the issue (global warming), compared to other issues that impact them more (economy, health care, immigration);
or some voters are smart enough to know many things the Dems are discussing have little chance of changing anytime soon (electoral college, massive radical environmental changes)
Last edited:
Again- I don’t care about this shit until the infantry rolls in and Americans start dying.
And the intel community was predicting a Soviet collapse and further advised him to ramp up defense spending to put even more pressure on their economy.
The Dems have capitulated to their extreme wings.
I would vote for Gabbard over Trump. Maybe Schultz too. Neither of those 2 has a chance in hell of being the nominee
So that’s not a bad argument. But I’d also argue the thing that scared the Soviets the most, Star Wars, didn’t cost a dime.
Mueller report done, no further indictments. Going to be screaming at the sky for the next several days. Tick tock the clock is dead.
Bobby three sticks must not have done a good job.
The report dropping on a Friday afternoon totally hints at nothing huge being in the report. That's not to say that the media and DC lawyers won't beat the report to death for the next year and a half.
That’s not really true, but it also doesn’t matter. At that point we were just throwing the kitchen sink at them.
I think Bobby 3-Sticks indicted who could be indicted and that's all. The whole hype around what people THOUGHT he would do was just a bunch of wishful thinking... a LOT of wishful thinking, and HOPING. Some flunkies went down, as always. Look at all the criminals in the Reagan Administration! Reagan was never implicated personally.
I agree with you. I think we've both said since the begining that nothing would happen because nothing happens to people that high up. There were a couple of people here who insisted Muller was going to bring Trump down. I hope someone looks in on them tonight.
Manafort, Stone, Cohen are all pleading guilty. They did something wrong, obviously. Manafort and Stone are fvcking crooks from way, WAY back! Trump has rubbed elbows with NYC slime like Roy Cohn. But, everyone who Cohn may have represented aren't automatically dirty... but, most were. Studio 54 owners, for example!
I never believed Trump was going anywhere. At least not from the Mueller thing.
None of those guys are big fish though. Those are just the small fish who always take the heat. If those guys are the only ones that get charged, the investigation is a huge waste of money.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Class of 2025 Recruiting Thread (Update 11/12: Wilson/Dybantsa notes)
- Latest: worthy is the best
-
-
