It's more using biased sites to claim another site is biased I have trouble with.
GasBandit
Staff member
Hey, you post politifact (which is in fact the Miami Herald), I can post the Federalist. Both your sites and mine source their claims the same way (links embedded in the keywords of the sentences) so they're easy to see.
But - called it -
Ejection from the argument in T minus three... two...
The irony is so thick here you could cut it with a knife. If you've EVER maligned an argument because it was linked to fox news (cough or the federalist) you have no room to talk here.
Yeah, that era was pretty rife with fallacious leftism, too.
Psst.
An actual INFLATABLE giant chicken, more like.
EDIT: Ah, I see @Dei has already provided the link.
I still feel mine was more relevant.
--Patrick
GasBandit
Staff member
If you'd actually read my links instead of attacking the source via blindly me-tooing Krisken's post, you'd see in fact there were direct links to politifact making shit up like it's the truth.
It was not refuted, it was strawmanned. You "refuted" a claim I didn't make because it sounded similar to my actual claim. And yes, I attacked your source, because I'm tired of leftists holding up politifact like it's some kind of infallible bastion of truth and impartiality, when it has plainly demonstrated its bias on numerous occasions.
Except the article showed why it came to the conclusions it did, you just don't bother to look at the information. Did you even bother to read the article or did you instantly go running to your staple websites?
This feels like the time a friend of mine tried to tell me Snopes was so biased by directing me to InfoWars.
Cue me not falling for your bully tactics in 3... 2... 1...
This feels like the time a friend of mine tried to tell me Snopes was so biased by directing me to InfoWars.
Cue me not falling for your bully tactics in 3... 2... 1...
God damnit. I leave work, have a nice evening, then come back to this later, and holy shit the thread just... yikes.
First of all, Krisken's link lines up pretty well with that Rolling Stone article about NK (I know, odd to have that place be the source, but hey) and how the USSR gave them a working reactor in the 80s. I don't doubt whatever Clinton gave helped, but I agree in general with Gas's analysis with how Diplomacy (doesn't) work(s) with the Kim family.
Second, funny how Sarah changed her response to China when asked about red lines on NK. Never called out on it. But I agree with most of what Gas was saying about her waffling the issue.
Third, funny the idea of me joining the US Army, given I'm Canadian. And would be medically ineligible (back surgery twice). But nice idea there trotting out "unless you're willing to go, you shouldn't advocate for it" approach to anti-war. Adding on the ad-hominem Bush-era whatever the fuck is also unexpected. As I recall back then, quite a few (left and right) were criticizing Bush back then for NOT "going in" on NK and instead going into Iraq. But hey, it's history now.
Basically, what I expect to happen is that Trump will give something to China to get them to just not do anything, and the USA will invade (you already have 28,000 troops stationed in SK). Then there will be reunification, and it'll be over. A good "bargaining chip" would be to allow a LOT of Chinese aid and ownership (construction contracts, etc) of the rebuilding of Korea (both sides, depending on how the War goes and how long). That'd be a sweet deal economically, along with staying out of it and being able to be seen as the "good guys" for a long time internationally in the region. I'm actually somewhat surprised China's army hasn't already deposed Kim, but they've been distancing themselves from NK for quite a while now. That was more realistic 10 years ago.
The longer you wait though, the greater the chance of Nukes being deployed militarily and/or on ICBMs.
First of all, Krisken's link lines up pretty well with that Rolling Stone article about NK (I know, odd to have that place be the source, but hey) and how the USSR gave them a working reactor in the 80s. I don't doubt whatever Clinton gave helped, but I agree in general with Gas's analysis with how Diplomacy (doesn't) work(s) with the Kim family.
Second, funny how Sarah changed her response to China when asked about red lines on NK. Never called out on it. But I agree with most of what Gas was saying about her waffling the issue.
Third, funny the idea of me joining the US Army, given I'm Canadian. And would be medically ineligible (back surgery twice). But nice idea there trotting out "unless you're willing to go, you shouldn't advocate for it" approach to anti-war. Adding on the ad-hominem Bush-era whatever the fuck is also unexpected. As I recall back then, quite a few (left and right) were criticizing Bush back then for NOT "going in" on NK and instead going into Iraq. But hey, it's history now.
Basically, what I expect to happen is that Trump will give something to China to get them to just not do anything, and the USA will invade (you already have 28,000 troops stationed in SK). Then there will be reunification, and it'll be over. A good "bargaining chip" would be to allow a LOT of Chinese aid and ownership (construction contracts, etc) of the rebuilding of Korea (both sides, depending on how the War goes and how long). That'd be a sweet deal economically, along with staying out of it and being able to be seen as the "good guys" for a long time internationally in the region. I'm actually somewhat surprised China's army hasn't already deposed Kim, but they've been distancing themselves from NK for quite a while now. That was more realistic 10 years ago.
The longer you wait though, the greater the chance of Nukes being deployed militarily and/or on ICBMs.
China doesn't want several million NKs trying to flood over it's borders during the fighting or want to be forced to rebuild the damn country after. That and the fact that they don't want to share a border with a Pro-US state is all that has kept them from cutting NK off years ago.
There's also the possibility that Putin might try something, as they also share a border.
I know you are; that's exactly the point. Have your country do it if you're so adamant about it happening instead of advocating that the U.S. do it for you.
Gas posted something years ago, I can't remember the exact wording, but essentially that when when the U.S. doesn't do anything, it's "where's America when we needed them?", but when the U.S. does something, all every other country does is bitch, bitch, bitch.[DOUBLEPOST=1502331410,1502331360][/DOUBLEPOST]
Exactly.
It's a shitty situation, but not one all that difficult to understand.
Okay, you've all had some fun tonight, but now I'd like to take it in a different direction.
It has become popular to use trumps language to mock him. And by continuing to use trumps botching of the English language, we are keeping it alive. And by keeping it alive it will become common place. And if it becomes commonplace it will become accepted. If it becomes accepted it becomes part of the English language forever. Our own mockery of his idiocy will ironically be the cause of his idiocy becoming normality.
So can we please stop using trumps poor uneducated and horrible trashing of the English language against him, as it may become part of our language forever.
It has become popular to use trumps language to mock him. And by continuing to use trumps botching of the English language, we are keeping it alive. And by keeping it alive it will become common place. And if it becomes commonplace it will become accepted. If it becomes accepted it becomes part of the English language forever. Our own mockery of his idiocy will ironically be the cause of his idiocy becoming normality.
So can we please stop using trumps poor uneducated and horrible trashing of the English language against him, as it may become part of our language forever.
Last edited:
Hmm, this post needs an editor.
whot eye right gud!
This back and forth of the last few pages reminded me of an article I read this morning on Cracked. While it's not specifically about Trump, it goes over the fact that more and more people are radicalizing themselves into certain ideologies, and then because of the nature of the internet, they inoculate themselves from being challenged. Over time being surrounded in an echo chamber, they just assume they, and their group, are correct, and everyone else is wrong, which as the article goes into can lead to either terrible intolerant "safe spaces" (Red Pill) or straight up murderers who decide to take up the "creed" with some vigilantism.
For years I always considered myself an independent, someone that cares more about facts rather then affiliations. When I saw Trump win, I was heartbroken, not because he was a republican, but because he is absolutely one of the worst human beings I have ever seen, and this was before he ever decided to run for President. I look at his supporters and just can't believe they let someone like that win, and even through all his flubs and failures, stand by him, but the fact is none of those people are SEEING a problem, because they go to their safe space and yell "MAGA" and "FAKE NEWS" at each other thinking they are the righteous ones fighting a obsessive libtard agenda.
I was appalled when I saw the video from Trump Tower that dares call itself the "Real News", that is some dictator state run TV bullshit, but people stick by him because pride will not allow them to admit to being wrong. They will spin it, go to a site where people believe the same, circle jerk each other, and repeat the cycle the next time he goes to justify one of Trumps lies. This is making me scared for the future of the nation and way more diligent with what my son consumes as he gets older. I want him to think critically and not just get sucked into a internet cesspit because they were the first to give him a virtual high five.
For years I always considered myself an independent, someone that cares more about facts rather then affiliations. When I saw Trump win, I was heartbroken, not because he was a republican, but because he is absolutely one of the worst human beings I have ever seen, and this was before he ever decided to run for President. I look at his supporters and just can't believe they let someone like that win, and even through all his flubs and failures, stand by him, but the fact is none of those people are SEEING a problem, because they go to their safe space and yell "MAGA" and "FAKE NEWS" at each other thinking they are the righteous ones fighting a obsessive libtard agenda.
I was appalled when I saw the video from Trump Tower that dares call itself the "Real News", that is some dictator state run TV bullshit, but people stick by him because pride will not allow them to admit to being wrong. They will spin it, go to a site where people believe the same, circle jerk each other, and repeat the cycle the next time he goes to justify one of Trumps lies. This is making me scared for the future of the nation and way more diligent with what my son consumes as he gets older. I want him to think critically and not just get sucked into a internet cesspit because they were the first to give him a virtual high five.
Oh this is a wonderful sign: North Korea details plan to fire 4 missiles toward Guam
I thought somebody on the board lived in Guam? What's their take?
I thought somebody on the board lived in Guam? What's their take?
Ah yes, this sort of thing never ever happened before the Internet came along... nope, can't think of any examples of anything like that happening before the 21st century.
Not enough apparently.
No no, you misunderstand. That was him firing 700+ people with one tweet. Efficiency!
GasBandit
Staff member
Well, I mean, obviously if their job was to be in Russia, and they can't be in Russia any more, then obviously they're out of a job, right? That's how jobs work. Or so he's heard, never actually having had one, himself.
Actually, it's not really clear from what I'm seeing. I'd like to see something which outlines what happens in these situations.[DOUBLEPOST=1502405032,1502404962][/DOUBLEPOST]
Feasible, though we still don't know if his tweets are official declarations or not. I'm pretty sure judges have been ruling that they are though.
I don't have a source for this other than my memory, but fairly sure Foreign Service officers would just get a different assignment. It's not like the diplomats kidnapped during the Iranian crisis were out of a job when rescued.
That's what I was thinking too. From what I saw non FSO, or Ambassadors, are serving at the whim of the President anyways so it's not like he couldn't just fire them if he wanted to.
Dave
Staff member
I have a friend whose son is a US diplomat. The shit they have to go through to get that post is astounding. (Unless they have really high friends in really high places and get the job regardless of their ability or qualifications.)
They won't lose their jobs. They might not even get reassigned right away. In fact, they might be in limbo while still getting paid. But unless an actual firing order comes down, I think they still have their jobs.
Of course, that information comes from the real world, not the bizarro world that is Trumpland.
They won't lose their jobs. They might not even get reassigned right away. In fact, they might be in limbo while still getting paid. But unless an actual firing order comes down, I think they still have their jobs.
Of course, that information comes from the real world, not the bizarro world that is Trumpland.
No, no, no, he said "Harder Daddy." Get it right.
While I'm not sure he meant it that way, there may be a kernel of truth in what Trump said.
My information is only on how the Finnish system works, but as I understand it things work in a similar fashion in most countries. Embassy staff on a foreign posting get paid their normal salary, but they will also get various benefits, increases, and allowances. Cost of living increase, hardship increase, the government pays their rent, spousal allowance, school fees for the children, paid flight tickets for holidays etc.
The Finnish foreign service official who told me about these things said that, on average, it costs the government about three times as much to have an official posted to an embassy, than it does to have the exact same person with the exact same salary doing the exact same work in Helsinki.
So, assuming things work according to a similar system in the US foreign service, the government might actually save some money by having fewer diplomatic staff at an Embassy/Consulate/other representation.
My information is only on how the Finnish system works, but as I understand it things work in a similar fashion in most countries. Embassy staff on a foreign posting get paid their normal salary, but they will also get various benefits, increases, and allowances. Cost of living increase, hardship increase, the government pays their rent, spousal allowance, school fees for the children, paid flight tickets for holidays etc.
The Finnish foreign service official who told me about these things said that, on average, it costs the government about three times as much to have an official posted to an embassy, than it does to have the exact same person with the exact same salary doing the exact same work in Helsinki.
So, assuming things work according to a similar system in the US foreign service, the government might actually save some money by having fewer diplomatic staff at an Embassy/Consulate/other representation.
This is a pretty good article IMO: A Trump nuclear strike against North Korea: constitutional or not?
A good reminder that the War has never actually ended, and that may impact things as well.
Oh and the TLDR version of the article is "it's never been tested, but probably yes."
A good reminder that the War has never actually ended, and that may impact things as well.
Oh and the TLDR version of the article is "it's never been tested, but probably yes."