Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - godsblackestcrow

Pages: [1] 2
1
Btw, Seriati:

Have you found any new leads in that Seth Rich case (which you're on record implying led back to Clinton)? Or are you too busy shutting down paranoid, proof-less propaganda in the Russian collusion witch-hunt to follow through with the specifics in your erstwhile objective objections against injustice, these days?

Parse the principles in your priorities, so I can see, pretty please.

2
Lol!

Gee, Seriesly--just because I juggle more than one meaning doesn't mean my meaning is unclear. This diatribe--like most times I indite--indicts both bias-tribes who go on spinning bull*censored* here.

Be honest, now--I'm sure you see one of my meanings entirely right: you can't seriously expect me to believe that you can't see precisely what I specifically mean regarding the biased hypocrisy of partisan liberal hypocrites, here?

No--I'm certain that you're cognizant of exactly how hypocritical certain parties seem in leaping breathlessly from defending a corrupt leader of one political team from Justice, to attacking the corruption of the leader of the other team, and demanding Justice.

In reality, both sides of my meaning are entirely clear to anyone not turning a blind eye toward one side or the other...

3
How are you partisans not ashamed of the hypocrisy you're spewing here?

How do you guys yo-yo so quickly on an issue as to jump from attacking to defending a categorically similar action on a single issue on the basis of nothing but your personal partisan bias?

Do you not care that anyone reading this thread who isn't partisan is bound to be absolutely disgusted by your blatant, shameless hypocrisy?

Do you realize that you are demonstrating that you're failing to even pretend to intellectual integrity, or are you completely unaware that you are showing that your opinions follow no objective principle other than partisanship? Do you care that you are clearly and undeniably as hypocritically biased as the biased hypocrites you're arguing with, or are you so angry at someone else's hypocrisy that you have zero cognizance of your own?

This thread is absolutely amazing--both sides in this argument are doing nothing but point out what intellectually bankrupt hypocrites the other side is, and you're both indisputably correct.

Welcome to Ornery, all of you intellectually bankrupt partisans on both sides are right: the other side consists of biased hypocrites.

4
Quote
you can say anything about yourself you like. It doesn't mean I have to accept it. The beautiful thing about a position like yours is that you can be right and wrong at the same time.
Lol!

That is indeed a beautiful thing, but again: you're not actually talking about my position, you're speaking to a beautiful truth about your own position.

I'm willing to accept that you're usually right about the hypocrisy of partisans who are on the other side, and that you're usually simultaneously wrong too, but I don't actually have to: the point is that the things you think and say reflect on you.

We are all the sole authors of our own hypocrisies...

5
Quote
you find yourself stuck in the same partisan morass
Orange you ever going to figure out that you don't read me right?

I didn't say I was a partisan, I said I was a hypocrite.

I'm a villain, so I vilify. Sorry if it seems to you that I vilify your side more than I do the other, but that you say that I have such a seeming seems to me to reflect the way you see things more than it reflects anything true about my meaning.

6
Caw caw caw!

It takes one to know one, no?

In any case, we find what ye seem to seek to say sooth: we be the worst being in being--whether we refer to our subject in the first person or the second is just a seeming in meaning; ye have it entirely true: the crow is always the blackest villain evil ever knew…

In other words, of course I’m a hypocrite, you fool: that’s precisely how I know you’re one too…

As to aught that ought not be forethought: This is naught that you've sought--we thought ye already knew.

7
Uhhh...

Lol.

See?

Pure slanted bias, evincing zero shame (or awareness) of the blatant hypocrisy.

All of you folks who have aligned yourself with one side or the other are the problem.

If you are attacking one side for something, and defending the other side for a similar thing, you are literally the definition of a hypocrite.

Have a cookie for your trenchant insight into the hypocrisy on the other side of the aisle, since you sound like you think you deserve one, but the only thing any of you hypocrites are actually proving with your transparently biased arguments is exactly that: what a shamelessly biased hypocrite you yourself personally are.

You aren't really making cogent, articulate points, and this dialogue isn't productive, it's just a bunch of hypocrites demonstrating how deaf to reason their own hypocrisy makes them...

Congratulations on expanding your critical word counts, twits; y'all are exactly what's wrong with America.

8
Why do you guys keep talking to these intellectually dishonest partisan hypocrites?

They're not going to suddenly realize what biased hypocrites they are just because you clearly spell it out--they're just going to keep changing the subject to the hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance that they see in you.

The problem conservative hypocrites have is that they only care about liberal hypocrisy. As long as liberal hypocrisy exists, conservative hacks will remain blind to what egregious hypocrites they are proving themselves to be--they're too busy freaking out over the motes in liberal eyes to take an honest look in the mirror.

You partisans have all ruined this country.

Ruined.

You guys divided up into biased teams, and you all refuse to look at ANYTHING objectively (all while ludicrously congratulating yourselves on your intellectual integrity and objectivity).

The internet put the nail in the coffin: now you hypocrites can publish your biased points of view, putting your cognitive dissonance down in black and white for posterity--like the intelligent outliers of generations past--which means you can't actually gain perspective, or learn anything new, because you're so busy defending the stupid opinions you already committed to permanent ink a long time ago.

Further discourse between partisan hypocrites on the internet isn't going to solve any of this--it's just making it all worse.

9
Pete:
Quote
The classic sophists such as Gorgias would respond that integrity itself is a "bias."
Caw caw caw!

So concur crows (bad eggs and all): such is sooth--truth can be tricked out of any true sophistry! But (by the bends of our beak!) the bit to get in this ‘course’s carry-on is the bent to the bights. You see, we might agree that words will interweave veracity with mendacity as a rule (such is the Crow’s confabulatory Law, of courpse, caw caw), but (tautologically speaking), while yer yarn holding how twisting lines of logic can increase a thread’s capacity for carrying tension seems strung together well enough to hold true, one nonetheless can’t truly twine twain open-ended lines of logic into that closed kind of loop which is purported to be the tautest logical knot…

...the knot which one can pull apart needs not Occam's razor to cut through...

10
General Comments / Re: Charlottsville
« on: August 18, 2017, 03:38:08 AM »
Quote
I don't mean "twist words" for you.
Sure you do.

You do nothing but twist words to support your prepossessed point of view.

You're good at it, too.
Quote
Anit-fa is a fascist organization
No it isn't. It's not an organization at all.

You could call it a movement and speak wholly true, but that wouldn't fit your scheme as well, so that's not what you do.

You could suggest that some members of the movement utilize tactics that resemble those of fascism, but it still wouldn't make the anti-fascist movement fascist--so again, you twist words to tangle your series of lies into half-truth.
Quote
I'm sorry you're falling for a transparent propaganda ploy.
I'm not.

If you weren't so busy ordering your reality into the same sequence you always use, you'd have figured out that the problem you sometimes have following my meaning follows from the fact that I see right through you.

11
General Comments / Re: Charlottsville
« on: August 18, 2017, 03:24:01 AM »
Quote
I'm not playing dumb
...then don't be dumb?
Quote
The right surely doesn't identify with the neo-Nazis, as Seriati mentioned, but I do think that part of the left at least embraces the principles of Antifa, if not their manners.
This is (IMO) the problem in this particular echo chamber of late. Seriati is smarter than most of you--so you all follow along with his biased point of view.

He prints pure spin, and y'all's heads spin right along with what you can't see through.

GodsBlackestCrow: Please see your email. -OrneryMod

12
General Comments / Re: Charlottsville
« on: August 18, 2017, 03:14:21 AM »
...it's also incorrect to assert that "antifa" is a specific organization, or that anti-fascists homogeneously utilize or advocate the use of proactive violence.

Many or most "antifa" are anarchists--they aren't marching with orders, because the kind doesn't follow rules.

These cats clutter in glarings, they don't herd the way sheep do.

Meanwhile, murders are conspired of crows...

13
General Comments / Re: Charlottsville
« on: August 15, 2017, 12:47:30 AM »
So y'all know, you don't have twist words too much to see that being anti "anti-fascist" more than kind-of-sort-of means that one might be a fascist--regardless of whatever rose-odored *censored* complicit nitwits convince themselves that they can pull out of their biases...

14
General Comments / Re: Charlottsville
« on: August 15, 2017, 12:24:57 AM »
What a bunch of *censored*ing fascist-fronting phonies...

Y'all keep heiilng with them Nazis, yo...
Quote
why assume he was 'blaming the victims'?
Because that's what Trump meant.

*censored* y'all fakers for pretending that the politest interpretation of that fraud's gaudy facade has any value at all.

He meant EXACTLY what he meant, and what's getting "a little old" here is the way you sheep keep denying that this liar's duplicitous doublespeak belies his lies...


15
Quote
Imagine, if the Russians were to hack into the IRS, steal and release Trump's tax returns.  Where the press got the information would be (spin spin spin BS spin spin spin spin spin, spin spin BS spin spin spin BS spin spin spin spin spin BS spin spin spin spin spin. Spin spin spin BS spin spin BS spin).

We need a national moment of zen or something, where we cut through the BS and stop just falling for spin hook, line and sinker.
Maybe if people would stop telling themselves that their blatant biases were actually intellectual integrity, that moment of enlightenment could actually happen...

16
General Comments / Re: Trump Fires FBI Directer Comey
« on: June 09, 2017, 02:45:23 AM »
Quote
there is absolutely no law against the Russians trying to "manipulate" our opinions, votes or even elections through propaganda,
Banner days for American Patriotism.

Go team Putin-puppets!

17
General Comments / Re: Trump Fires FBI Directer Comey
« on: June 09, 2017, 02:40:33 AM »
Quote
Where's the reasoning behind your assumption that (a) the CIA actually said what the press said it said
Nobody is denying that the CIA said what the press reported they said. Nobody. There aren't any leaks from officials with clearance to see such reports that claim that what the press is reporting is in error. Even that proven liar Donald Trump isn't lying about what the CIA reports say--he's just been been denigrating their assessment.
Quote
(b) that the CIA knows what it's talking about,
It's kind of their job. I don't assume that they're omniscient, but I do accept that they're the ones who are charged with the task of protecting Americans and American institutions from espionage.

I certainly believe they know more about what they're talking about on this issue than you or I do...
Quote
that the CIA is telling the truth?
Did you miss the point of my question?

Nobody has proffered even slightly credible evidence that the CIA is lying about this issue.

There's just a big smear of vague Orange lies, innuendo and propaganda--starting with our Liar-in-Chief, and filtering through biased, know-nothing partisans.

Here's the reality about the record here: the intelligence reports all say it was Russia. This warrants such a claim. If you have a reason for claiming that these particular intelligence report are error/mendacity, then go to: then the burden of providing evidence and reasoning for such an unwarranted assertion is on YOU, bub.

You want to see the evidence? Get a clearance, and take an oath to protect America, then dedicate your life to that duty. Until then, y'all should stop spreading paranoid rumors that warrantlessly traduce the individuals who are dedicating their lives to keeping you and your loved ones safe at night...

Or at least put up some coherent reasoning for why anyone should believe that the CIA is lying about this specific issue.

18
General Comments / Re: Trump Fires FBI Directer Comey
« on: June 09, 2017, 12:17:37 AM »
The CIA told us the hack was committed by Russia.

You keep implying that the CIA was lying.

What is the reasoning behind YOUR innuendo, Seriati?

19
General Comments / Re: Trump Fires FBI Directer Comey
« on: June 08, 2017, 11:53:51 PM »
Quote
There are laws against hacking (which occurred, but no proof of who did it has actually been released)
The proof is presumably classified, Ser. The fact that you don't have the clearance to see the evidence doesn't actually mean that you are providing a valid reason for your implication that the intelligence community reports regarding who committed the hack (Russia did it) are unreliable.

Or is there substance behind your suggestive words, Ser? Do you have credible evidence that all of the agencies in our Intelligence Community are conspiring to lie to us about who it was who hacked your political opposition?

Are you just calling our national intelligence community a bunch of liars and traitors to demonstrate your partisan political bias, or do you actually have some substance of reasoning to add to your innuendo?

20
Quote
Crows caw, ducks quack, and geese honk.
...and the wise owl hoots...

;D

But keep to cover when you espy the darkest wings alighting from the sky--it's said that Zeus' eagle can rend the heavens with its screech...

21
Jason:
Quote
Julian Assange I have heard of too and when he says the data was leaked from the DNC I believe him and I don't believe the lying CIA.
It should be noted that when we say "y"all," we're really not talking to all of youse. After all, what is traitorous slander for the American Gander, is just quackery, coming from a Canadian Goose.

:D

Everybody lies. I believe what people say is truth when they provide proof.

22
I make no apology for the length of the following, nor for the length of time it took to edit out enough of the assonance to fit the character count limit.
 
:D
 
Seriati:
Quote
You write like a literary student using words rather than substance to make your case.  I take issue with that.
I object--on your honor: you issued the substance of this complaint using literally naught but words. But have your way, Master: we will play the foolish Student as you script your play… ;)
 
Pray Teacher, say: what issue have you with the way a literary Pupil words his say? You see no substance in the subtext wordwrights write under the page? Profess, professed Professor: issue us instructions in this issue with which you issue take.
 
Go on, Teach: crack this unruly case--corner a class Fool, raise your rule, beat a black black blue. Run red ink across my page.
Quote
Lol.
:lol:
 
(I miss the laughing emoji--the Smiley face which I like to imagine will still be bouncing up and down with laughter through the eternity of the ether... The rumor around parenthetical parts of the underground is that Mod Almighty anathematized that thematic ideogram during the Great Migration, ‘cause of a cacophony of complaints that came in claiming it was being abused by cackling crows with immoderacy unto a degree that was deemed obscene. Thus was lost Laughter, by Moderate Decree. The crows convened, considered the consternation of the Mods, and conspired to  a common cause: caw caw caw caw caw! Seriesly though, I’m glad I’ve got you laughing--that’s almost the entire substance of the subtext in my Ornery interactivity. In truth, I’m too terse of tongue to type out half of a fraction of my whole response to the things I’ve seen you say, but if you could imagine this text:

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

...only doubled up, time and time again, just rolling all the way down the page, it might give you some sense of the fully sincere appreciation I’m inclined to express to my dying breath at the way you sometimes say your sway. Seriesly: if you’ll read the above text aloud, aspirating each H and vocalizing each assonant A, while picturing a crazy man who's staring at a screen in an otherwise empty room, seizing with laughter, for days--just hooting and cackling away--then you may get an idea of how happy it makes me to hear that you’re laughing too…lol.)

:)
Quote
You clearly know little about law.
Caw caw caw.
 
We concurse: what I know is so sleightly versed, it might be contra legem
Quote
A public claim can not be evidence of collusion.
Oh, no? So--in your esteemed judgment--nothing said in public can be used against criminal conspirators in a court of law?
 
What an arresting claim.
 
Wouldn’t that make it impossible to convict a conspirator of committing collusion on the basis of evidence in the form of a public confession?
Quote
I get that District court judges have so ruled, an interesting Precedent - in my view unlikely to hold, may even be reversed by the liberal 9th Circuit.  And why?  Cause the flip side of it risks every the left holds dear, empowering everyone of the district judges to overrule facially legal rules because of what a politician once said exposes everything.
 
Think about it, Texas court bans all payments - Nationwide - to Planned Parenthood because of what a politician said in writing the bill that funds them and inputs that the bill was to fund abortion (illegal) despite that it doesn't do so facially.
 
Lol! That’s some Seriesly sophisticated reasoning. One almost cannot contend but that you prove your point, so adroitly have you considered both sides of things--this is nigh undeniably Principled Print dripping off of your pen, start to end.
 
Then again: take a second look at the sophistically-worded way you sort of sidestepped from the substance in this case (the stated fact of present precedent in Rule of Law in the question of whether the court will consider the campaign statements of the present President as evidence of what is evident), to a confabulate a far-fetched forecast of a fictive future in which the facts are more favorable to your favored point of view than they happen to be in present reality. Id est, it is noted that when the present state of facts doesn’t support your case, you just conjure up alternative facts to speculate into the conjectural record, to proclaim your point will prevail, as soon as your pretext takes shape.
Quote
Rejoicing in a nonsense standard that has district court judges replace the President's decision making with their own personal opinions is directly contrary to the rule of law,
Lol. Lookit--I’m sure your Ornery record shows that you’ve been an uncompromisingly consistent supporter of the unjudgeable, uninfringeable right of a President to rule by Executive Actions, across the years, Ser.
 
But please do note that you shifted the subject here from the original substance--the question of what will constitute evidence of our present President’s motives in the eyes of the courts--to a separate argument in which you appear to be defending the idea of federal government privileges over state rights (nowadays, for the present case, anyways). I’m not inclined to comment on my perception of any internal consistency I may or may not see in the new line of argument you conjecture, but I will observe that your answer has nearly nothing to do with the substance of the point to which you were responding. Regardless of whether or not (in the end) your team gets to abuse the power of the executive pen the way it has been getting abused by recent presidents, the precedent of using anything a criminal says against him in court is likely to remain established law.
 
In other words: you can deny that a man means what he said he meant until you’re literarily red in the face, but what a man says that he means will still be read in as evidence of what the man meant, by anyone not seeing too red to read what I mean.
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Ahh... so it's foulest treachery when the Russian's hack the DNC or Hillary and reveal that they have been lying to the American population and directly manipulating the Presidential election
Nah...the foulest treachery is committed by biased partisans who pretend to have principles while they bend their ethics one way to catch crooks who aren’t on their team, and then bend their ethics the other way defending crooks who are on their side.
Holding however, the Trump admin responsible to a political standard, while exculpating the Clinton campaign on a legal standard is rank hypocrisy. Colluding with CNN to influence an election is FAR more likely to have an impact than colluding with the Russians would.  Whether Russian hackers, US hackers or some poor kid working for the DNC who mysteriously ended up murdered in a robbery where nothing was stolen, revealed a secret shouldn't make a bit of difference to your level of outrage, yet it only matters to the Dems if the Russians did it.
I’m sorry--you were pointing out my partisan hypocrisy, and you lost me in your haste to get to your party: remind me where I exculpated Clinton of anything?
What makes you think that was a personal comment?
Mostly the fact that your script was responsive of my cited text...but I also read the second person possessive pronoun you slipped in toward the end of the part I quoted as a hint...
 
(I don’t take offence, though, because I know I’m known to overstep the boundary--I’m just noting that you seem to be just as guilty of a libelously liberal use of the literary “ye” as me. Dost see?)
 
At any rate, whatever your aim, do note that your blindside is ever the same. Tell me: how goes the deluded propaganda campaign partisan hypocrites like Hannity are slandering all over Seth Rich’s grave?
Quote
Quote
If--nine years ago--Obama had publicly asked Cuba to commit espionage against McCain while on the campaign trail, and then Wikileaks released a load of stolen internal communications from the Republican campaign,...
If that had occurred, we'd still, nine years later be seeing new stories in the MSM detrimental to the Republicans from either direct quotes in the email or "meta analysis" proving some version of the Republicans are racist...
Nah. Republicans proved themselves racist way back when--in reality--they pushed a paranoid conspiracy narrative that the last President was born in Africa (with no reasonable cause excepting for the fact that the color of his skin raised racist Republican suspicions that he was a Manchurian Muslim Nigerian).
 
I’m sure you right-minded Republicans are all over the record vehemently defending Obama against that racist Republican hoax, though (just like I believe you when you say you would have been defending Obama from liars on the conservative Fake News airways, had he sold American foreign policy promises to Cuba in exchange for a little espionage to help him beat McCain, in the hypothetical case).
Quote
Did I miss where McCain actually committed a federal crime and the Bush administration refused to prosecute?  Where there was a secret meeting between two planes on a tarmac where the head of the Justice Department met secretly with McCain's wife
I’m fine with you fitting such script into my analogy, if you feel you need it there to follow along without froth at your lip (believe it or not, I initially banged out something sorta similar to your exact bit, but I bit it back in the edit, with a boatload of bombast, because it browbeat the issue til the beat didn’t fit…)
 
In such a case--to be honest--I confess I suspect I would probably find it hard to find McCain guilty of high crimes--even if there were evidence that he intentionally subverted national security protocols, and then obstructed attempts to investigate the evidence...mostly because he’s John *censored*ing McCain, and his history of service gives him patriotism credit in my book which I don’t extend to the rest of these popularity clowns. (As for the rest, the gist of my jest suggests that the guillotine is the only machine in history made just to measure off the height of Treachery in the High Crimes of any King or Queen--but I’d be fine here if we slightly spite the legacy of Liberty, and just lock ‘em both up, and throw away the key. As I understand it, the latter is lately established ornery American political idiomese.)
 
In any case, you do get that your bias is showing when you can’t follow the rhetorical direction of an analogy for fixating on subsidiary substance in a purely partisan way?  Why is it that you Orangey Americans are so intent on maligning McCain, anyways?
Quote
Quote

and then our National Security apparatus publicly announced that Cuba had been behind the leak in an act of espionage specifically targeting Republicans in order to influence our election…
And then failed to ever put forward actual proof of the fact, while actual questions about whether their claim was politically motivated in the first place persist?
By these “actual questions” I assume you mean <treasonously partisan> queries which were openly questioning whether the US national security apparatus were the real enemy of America, not “Cuba,” in such a case?
 
Such red herring queries--hypothetically--would probably just be Partisanship unto Treachery, Seriati--no matter what you Orange-Kool-Aid-drinking partisans may have non-hypothetically convinced yourselves (and most of the purple sheep, apparently) an alternative reality might be...
 
Unless, of course, such hypothetical questions came along with some substance of evidence that individuals in our national security agencies really were criminally conspiring to deceive the American people on such an issue, for purely political purposes. Feel free to script that “analogy” for me. 
 
In other words, Teach: put some substance into these treasonous conspiracies of all your allusively worded speech! The posture of your print presumes that your political opponents must proffer proof in an arrangement conforming to the proper pattern of a prosecutorial arraignment, lest what they say be used against them to convict on counts of Bias, Partisanship, and Hypocrisy in your book of judgment, but then you turn right around and postulate purely partisan paranoid propaganda that our national security agents went rogue and conspired to commit mysterious crimes against America--all on the basis of pretty much nothing but what you presumably read in your alt-right/KGB-troll-factory Fake News feed.
 
What is the composition of this Orange Kool Aid?
Quote
If you want to play this game, play it straight, cause throwing down a pre-judged version of nonsense that doesn't matched what happened just proves a bias on your part to me.
:lol:
 
Let me straighten you out, Ser, it seems you’ve mistaken our game. The part that we play remains ever the same, it’s every fool’s favorite, this script even is named--we fools call this folly: The Hypocrisy Game. You should know: you called this roll call, wrote our roles, and rolled curtain on our play...
 
We’ve been reading the way you’ve been writing blame--typing out terms like “bias” “partisan” and holy “hypocrisy,” as if you weren’t the hypocritest cat to scratch out slant always the same. You claim I’ve proved my bias, eh? And Seriesly: you want me to spit a straight game?
 
:D
 
(Caw caw caw! Hear me clear my craw, don’t you know Imma crow?)
 
Straight up then (since we’re saying, you know?)--here’s what your proven part is on the level I’m reading you, yo:
 
Your book reads so red, it’s clear you’ve never read what you write right, cuz you can’t start a sentence straight--you’ve always left off reading right before you even get to the left half of the page! You’re so biased toward recto, you pen that part onto paper like it makes you erect, yo, and you’re literally averse to verso: I heard from the birds you “take issue” with subtext because you see that it’s what’s left underneath the partisan part of print you read every time you turn a page! Everybody knows the way you write is: never not right--only always in the wrong way!
 
You’ve proven yourself so slanted, when people tell you to get bent, their intent is only to set you straight! You sound so partisan, you’re like that guy who always parties on so hard that he talks sideways and clearly can’t see straight! Seriesly, you look more biased than the backside of Siamese twins who are joined at the hip--you partisan-parted double-wide hip o’ crit’ writ!
 
(Why you even step, child? You’re such a redhead, you’re bound catch a beatdown! Don’t be sore, you’re just ginger--ya know?)
 
Don’t get me wrong, Seriesly: I’m just trying to follow the substance of your lecture the way I’m reading it. The way I see it,  you’re so blatantly right, you’re unusually welcome Ornery.
 
;)

23
Quote
The missing email comment was easily Trump's finest moment in the election,
Welcome to Ornery, you’re wrong. His finest (and funniest) line was easily the “pardon me” punchline at the Al Smith dinner: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXDoP-gH4aE
Quote
I think it's pretty clear what Trump meant by that comment and I fully support him in that. I find the suggestion that he was promoting espionage hilarious - nearly as hilarious as the original comment
The thing about irony is that it reflects the way reality belies the way you think you see a thing.

The fact that a joke is a joke, doesn’t prove that the subtext isn't true...

24
Quote
How you like living in a glass house?
:lol:

Life is but a stage, on mine stands no cage: my play gambols over shambles of shards. It’s sharp sometimes, but my claws are hard...
Quote
Holding however, the Trump admin responsible to a political standard, while exculpating the Clinton campaign on a legal standard is rank hypocrisy.  Colluding with CNN to influence an election is FAR more likely to have an impact than colluding with the Russians would.  Whether Russian hackers, US hackers or some poor kid working for the DNC who mysteriously ended up murdered in a robbery where nothing was stolen, revealed a secret shouldn't make a bit of difference to your level of outrage, yet it only matters to the Dems if the Russians did it.
I’m sorry--you were pointing out my partisan hypocrisy, and you lost me in your haste to get to your party: remind me where I exculpated Clinton of anything?

What should one do when a red pot retorts to a raven-colored kettle that red is rubber, and black is actually blue?

Seriesly, who the *censored* do you think you’re talking to?

I’m not actually one of them Dems, but even I think it’s funny to see you pretend that they weren’t outraged by the scenes where the Clinton machine colluded with the media mainstream. Anyone not stuck seeing straight red could tell you that the leftmost half of the Democrats haven’t stopped complaining about exactly that since the 2008 primaries! Don’t you suspect that at least some “level of outrage” over CNN feeding Clinton questions (at a Democrat primary townhall) came from folks wearing blue in the Bernie camp?

Do you ever publish points that aren’t first filtered through a biased-partisan-hypocrite-talking-point-generation machine?

By the way, you forgot to mention the pizza shop basement pedophilia ring--I’m pretty sure that’s tied together with the DNC intern murder thing, even if the connection is shrouded in mystery--undoubtedly because isn’t getting the coverage it deserves from the mainstream media. Let us know when you and your completely credible buddies Alex Jones and Kim Dotcom crack the Clinton-has-been-secretly-assassinating-her-way-to-the-top case, K?
Quote
I started this with a specific demand.  Show the actual evidence of collusion.
I already did. You can claim the liar was just joking when he publicly asked Russian spies to help him win, but you might keep in mind the fact that federal judges have already ruled that the things Trump said on the campaign trail can and will be used against him in a court of law.

History is going to be laughing at that joke for a while...

25
Quote
Truth and accuracy aren't politically preferred ends.  They are ethical principles, and I think you will agree with me when your blood cools.
Caw caw caw.

Haven’t you heard? My beak is steeped in blood that burns with that fire which never cools.
Quote
By your standards, we should try Obama for treason for dealing with Iran and with Cuba.
...Hmm...I guess so...maybe if we really squint? Here: let me help you fit your analogy to my standardized script:

If--nine years ago--Obama had publicly asked Cuba to commit espionage against McCain while on the campaign trail, and then Wikileaks released a load of stolen internal communications from the Republican campaign, and Obama stumped on reopening a closed federal investigation into McCain’s mishandling of classified information, and then the FBI director announced that he needed to reopen the McCain investigation to sort through all of McCain’s aide’s husband’s dick pics to see if McCain had exposed anything highly private to Cuban spies, and then our National Security apparatus publicly announced that Cuba had been behind the leak in an act of espionage specifically targeting Republicans in order to influence our election...then I might have been laughing my ass off at this failing American democracy experiment of y’all’s, but I do think I’d also have been pointing out that Obama’s “joke” asking Cuban spies to help him win the election was a gag that, in context, quacked like treason...

Wouldn’t you?

If it also happened that, a year prior to the 2008 election, “Cuba” had invaded the southern half of “Nicaragua” to build a waterway to move billions of dollars worth of “cigars” into the Pacific, and Obama had campaigned on reneging on defense commitments to a “North America Central America Treaty Organization” which (in hypothetical history) had been vital to American security interests for all of living memory, and then it came out that Obama’s campaign manager also had been on the payroll as a lobbyist for the pro-”Cuban” occupation faction in “Nicaragua,” and less than a month after Obama took office, his National Security Advisor got fired for lying about having talked to the “Cuban” Ambassador, about relaxing sanctions imposed by Bush in response to the “Cuban” occupation of “Nicaragua,” and it came out that Obama’s business partners had been drafting “peace” plans permitting Cuba to keep the southern half of Nicaragua for the next century, while other members of Obama’s circle were brokering eleven figure deals for stakes of Cuban cigar companies, and Obama was all the while waging war against America’s fourth Estate for constantly pointing out what a liar he kept proving himself to be...well,yeah--I really do think I’d have been mocking liberal sheep who presumably would have been screaming that all the reports were “Fake News” in the shrillest leftspeak screech which is audible to the human ear…

What about you?
 
Quote
Since I've never used the word "treason" as broadly you have, since reading the constitution, I cannot be said to have sold out my ethics in this matter.  I disagree with your ethics.
Lookit: I’m no lawyer, but every ornery American knows that the American “Justice” system is never going to convict a big league politician of high crimes. There wasn’t any way the Blue team was gonna let the Red team burn the Witch, and there’s no way Putin’s faux-gold Puppet is coming out of the deal he made with the Russian devil without yet another deal for a pardon and a full emolument on the back end from Uncle Sam. The history of American Justice will read just as it always reads...

So if y’all purpose to prosecute the point to the point that I have to lawyer up, I’ll concede I’d have to plead “no contest” to a count of the crime of hyperbole for suggesting we should string the turncoat turkey up--I’m not seriously calling to for the crowd to lynch the man, just to feed the crows (I don’t even recognize trial process of the court to be valid, to be honest--which I kinda figured some of y’all might get). But I’m calling this anti-American partisanship Treason, and I’m just fine with my reasons: my kind may come to crow in murders, but y’all’s a raven mob.

And...for real, Pete? Never mind for a minute the way you think I’m mis-crossing my T’s against Traitors, Treason and Treachery--you’re really telling me that, ethically, you see nothing wrong with each candidate calling for Russian spies to commit crimes to help him/her win the presidency, going forward, as long as he/she claims it’s a joke, and has enough partisan support?

Why don’t we just cut out the middleman, and put Putin in office?
Quote
Disclosure of the unjust is just.
Just never mind any unjust means, huh? Tell me: if an end is an end is an end, and justice is just how it just now is, then how does it happen that, no matter how you look at it, the unjust villain just ain’t ending up locked up?

Smh. Card ought to change the name of this place to the “Orangey American.” Never mind the way that red folk turned yellow, even the putatively purple people have been tainted by this agent Orange.

;)

26
Quote
You should then be most displeased at the media centers I criticize.
;D

Whoever said I wasn't? If you haven't noticed, my displeasure is great enough to go around.

To be honest with you, though, I'm less displeased with the mainstream media these days than I am with social media.

In the last decade, the masses have acquired powers of publication which vastly exceed the powers possessed by the mainstream corporate publishers of yesteryear. But we are not using these powers to expand knowledge and truth--we are using them as an unruly mob is wont to do: spreading lies, and gossip and innuendo--disseminating untruth.

It's not the journalists in the mainstream media who are really lying to the average Joe. It's us--the mob of know-nothing liars on his Facebook page whom Joe trusts, in spite of the fact that we refuse to check our sources as a rule, and we generally don't even know what journalistic ethics are--much less hold ourselves accountable to any such protocols whenever we spew the ignorant nonsense we do.

What I think happened is that, when we developed technology which eliminated the cost of publication, we also eliminated the processes and systematic practices which functioned to curate the expensive published content.

You can blame the mainstream institutions if you like--I won't welcome you to Ornery over it: the idea isn't wrong. They've always had an angle, and they're still mostly just snowing us to sell us *censored*. But if you're asking me for my opinion, we are the real problem. We just don't care enough about truth not to spread our own stupidity.

27
Quote
Ahh... so it's foulest treachery when the Russian's hack the DNC or Hillary and reveal that they have been lying to the American population and directly manipulating the Presidential election
Nah...the foulest treachery is committed by biased partisans who pretend to have principles while they bend their ethics one way to catch crooks who aren’t on their team, and then bend their ethics the other way defending crooks who are on their side.

You know--it's those hypocrites who want to bend the law to hold an opponent politician to the fire when the crooked liar has negligently disregarded national security protocols, but then turn around and defend another crooked liar who has similarly negligently disregarded national security protocols, simply because he’s on their political team…

Those are the foully treacherous folk, to my mind. It’s the pretense to principles that gets my goat, if you know what I mean--they truly seem to believe themselves to be people of principle, even as they demonstrate themselves to be biased hypocrites, over and over again.

What's sad is that some of these hypocrites are some of the smartest people I meet. They're just blind to their biases, and oblivious to the way they use their intelligence with rankly partisan hypocrisy...

28
Quote
Before jumping into a diatribe against Ornery members you might stop to first ask them what point they're actually trying to make rather than assuming they've taken a side.
Lol!

Don’t get too bent, Fenring--diatribe is simply the font I use whenever I’m wielding a pen.

All I’m really saying in your direction is that it disappoints me to see you painting yourself Orange so often these days.

29
Quote
The US constitution is inot a "modern, post-cold war convention."
Of course it isn't--you need to re-read what I said. The US constitution is a pre-modern, relatively obsolete document which was written without any understanding of what modern statecraft conventions would be 2+ centuries after it was drafted. The fact that it limits the power to declare war to Congress, for example, hasn't stopped the modern America of our lifetimes from ignoring the irrelevant, obsolete stipulation of the constitution, and adapting to modern conventions by engaging in war after war with nary a declaration of war from the body which ostensibly has the sole power to initiate war.

Your argument seems to pretend that adhering to, aiding and colluding with Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War wouldn't have been treason because Congress never officially declared war against Iraq.
Quote
"Attacked our country" -- you mean providing America with the stuff that American courts had demanded by subpoena?
No...I mean what I said: that an American calling for a foreign adversary to commit espionage against fellow Americans constitutes treason.

When did you sell out your ethics so hard that you decided that treasonous, illegal means are justified by the possibility of attaining politically preferred ends?
Quote
I've never seen you so sold out to a political party
No, you haven't. And that's not what you're seeing here, either.

I'm not shilling for loser liberals here--I'm railing against traitors and partisan tyranny.
 
The actual sell-outs here are the folks who completely abandoned their ethics and patriotism the second they found an end that they wanted badly enough to justify traitorous, criminal means.

On an emotional level, I sympathize with y’all (and I don't mean "thou" when I refer to "ye," excepting insofar as thou wouldst self-identify as part of my object's plurality). It’s my opinion that Clinton is a liar whose arrogant disregard for vitally important national security procedures endangered us all. I wanted to see the evidence she burned.

But on an intellectual integrity level, I've never been so disgusted with my fellow Americans. If there be such a thing as Justice, it most hold that just ends do not justify unjust means.

30
Quote
No, it means that it's all too easy to bend a quote to mean whatever one wants to.
:lol:

Sooth. The craft in any spell is in the reading...

But your failure to read this liar right seems to be based in denying the power of subtext--as if the conspiring context around quoted text can't simply be taken as a given.

This traitor whose part I keep reading you as taking not only called upon our adversaries to attack our nation through the commission of espionage against his political opponents, but after our adversaries committed the espionage he publicly requested, the traitor and his partisan followers were among the principal disseminators of the stolen information (you know, those "Wikileaks" that you seem to be reluctant to admit were really always Russian propaganda which our intelligence services have told us were illegally obtained through foreign espionage in a directed attack against our country).

The way you seem to want to read things allows the liar to box up and keep the cake he's already ordered and eaten.
Quote
There's a difference between acknowledging that the current President doesn't live up to the dignity of his office, and between saying he should be impeached on principle.
Who the *censored* is claiming that principle has *censored*-all to do with any of this!? I'm of the mind that y'all mob-minded dumbocracy-sheep just definitively proved that your principles have not a *censored* thing to do with your politics (which is actually what I've been saying all along)!

Please remember that y'all partisans just surpassed the point in American history where your political hatred for your fellow Americans grew large enough for half of the *censored*ing country to treasonously help the Russians disseminate propaganda in a blatant attack on our political process.

What I'm saying--if you were asking--is that we should try and execute the orange traitor for inciting this act of mass treason. (I'd be amenable to locking up Hillary too, incidentally, if it would help nail the coffin on this bipartisan political system which is sabotaging our country...)
Quote
Why don't you tell me which part I always seem to end up taking?
I'm talking about the way I keep seeing you take the traitor's side, every time I drop by to see what my Ornery American friends are saying about the treasonous clown who the think-they're-right partisans have put into office.

And while it may read like I'm telling, in my spelling, I'm actually asking, Fenring: why are you selling your credibility out by constantly defending this obvious traitor and fraud?

31
Fenring:

So...Trump is too much of a liar to take what he says at face value? Awesome defense of your persistent defense of the man...

I thought you were the type who liked to pretend that truth matters, and that there is supposed to be some kind of dignity to the office of the POTUS, Fen...what's up with this constant stream of defense for this untruthful, undignified, un-American clown which I keep seeing flowing from your pen?

Keep telling yourself you're just siding with the legitimate winner of the democratic process because the hate is coming from biased leftist liberal losers, if you like, but you might be careful how you bend your brand around kissing the ass of the powers the be, brother--for all the disclaimers of distaste and independence that preface the side-taking tune you keep singing, surely you'll understand that people will end up seeing which part you always seem to end up taking, in the end...

Pete:

What's your point? That we're not technically at war with Putin and his peeps, so I haven't given a proper reason for calling Trump's treachery treason?

Putin's an enemy of the US, in my book, Pete, regardless of how modern, post-cold war conventions may have muddled our postmodern definitions of war. And the video I posted was of Trump promising our "adversaries" that they would be rewarded if they attacked our country.

That constitutes treason, yo.

The *censored* I care if all this partisan bull*censored* has the whole herd of sheep too confused to admit that the basic facts read so?

32
Hmm.

I thought I was relatively restrained there...I wrote it last night, then slept on it before posting...I even erased the paragraph that had all the "*censored* yous" in it...

Tell me, Mod: what word would you recommend instead of "traitor," if the intent is to point out that a pattern of partisan actions has attained the level of literal treason, but the word needs to pass some arbitrary standard of politically correct insultlessness?

33
The Times report said that Trump revealed the city in Syria where the information was obtained. This would presumably allow Russia to identify the local network within which the intelligence asset is embedded. The fact that our incompetent braggart of a president is compromising our allies' intelligence assets in Syria to Russia IS actually objectionable, regardless of whether or not it is technically within the presidential prerogative. Regardless of our puppet president's claims, the reality remains that Putin hasn't been on exactly the same page as the US and her allies in regards to Syria...

On a more personal note, y'all traitors who keep crying "Fake News!" and denying that Putin is puppet-playing our a$$es, are doing nothing more than showcasing the obvious biases y'all already put on record back when you were passing around Russian propaganda last fall. Y'all heard the a$$ clown ask Russia to hack his political opposition ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL, and y'all cheered when it actually happened--then you voted your treasonously partisan consciences to put a traitorous liar into office.

Quote
Let's see the proof on Russian collusion, period end of story, now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNa2B5zHfbQ

So tired of watching you traitors pretend to be patriotic. Y'all aren't patriots--you're partisans. You're so hypocritically biased that you can't tell the difference.

godsblackestcrow: Please see your email. -OrneryMod

34
General Comments / Re: Holy......
« on: November 25, 2016, 11:48:58 PM »
Quote
Quote
Surely we agree that Madison and Jefferson would understand that the dynamics of social interaction are different today than they were two and a half centuries ago...
Only in the specifics and the speed in which it happens. Human behavior hasn't changed
I suspect you mean something more along the lines of "Basic human motivations haven't changed." Human behavior absolutely has changed, in tandem with technology. The invention of the telegraph, for instance, represents the emergence of  socially complex behaviors related to the construction, operation and maintenance of the telegraphy system, as well as engendering entirely new modes of communicative behaviors that had previously been impossible. More germane to my point is the fact that the availability of instantaneous communication at a distance created the possibility of a completely new and different solution to complex social problems which require instantaneous interactivity between individuals belonging communities at great distances from each other. Prior to the invention of telecommunications, the only viable solution to these types of problems was to delegate an individual (or individuals) who were capable of transporting themselves to the location of an interactive meeting with delegated individuals from other communities, and competent to represent the interests in the home community in such a meeting. After telecommunications were invented, the availability of new type of communicative behavior changes the behavioral solution set to complex social problems which involve distant communities.

In other words, after the framers set up their framework, human beings learned to behave in new ways which permitted for an entirely different type framework to resolve the problems the initial framework was designed to resolve. Even if one assumes that they found the optimal solution set given the tools they had to work with, the availability of new, more sophisticated tools should be sufficient in and of itself to mandate a reanalysis of the chosen solution framework.

35
General Comments / Re: Holy......
« on: November 23, 2016, 05:10:42 PM »
Quote
Quote
Meanwhile, representative democracy was considered an optimal solution by the framers largely because of the contemporary constraints related to the pre-industrial transportation and communications infrastructure--constraints which simply do not exist today.

James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, among others would likely disagree.
Only if they misunderstood my statement the same way you seem to have, I think. I didn't actually argue that direct democracy would be a better solution (though I do think that if suffrage had to be earned by citizens through demonstrated competence/merit, it would effectively provide the benefit of reasoned competence which is ostensibly provided by representative democracy, without maintaining the actual tyranny of "popular people" which characterizes the current system), I simply pointed out that the choices they made were based on environmental constraints which are no longer extant.

Surely we agree that Madison and Jefferson would understand that the dynamics of social interaction are different today than they were two and a half centuries ago...no?

36
General Comments / Re: Holy......
« on: November 23, 2016, 03:30:48 PM »
Quote
So you suggest we go all W.O.P.R. and the only winning strategy is not to play?
I suggest that we go back to the drawing board and assemble another constitutional convention. Everybody apotheosizes the wisdom of the founding fathers, but the game has changed, and the rules they wrote don't really work anymore.

2A is a good example: the original intent behind the amendment has basically zero relation to the interpretation and application today, because technological and social changes have so altered the environment within which the right is operable.

Meanwhile, representative democracy was considered an optimal solution by the framers largely because of the contemporary constraints related to the pre-industrial transportation and communications infrastructure--constraints which simply do not exist today.

If people do really have a right to pursue happiness, and governments are instituted to secure such a right, isn't it relevant that these elections are really functioning to create increasing unhappiness and division among the people whose happiness the contests were intended to secure?

"...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

PS: Tic Tac Toe is a dumb game because--played correctly--nobody wins. But at least it doesn't result in Donald Trump being in charge--in Democracy, as should be clear by now, everybody loses...

37
General Comments / Re: Holy......
« on: November 22, 2016, 10:40:50 PM »
Quote
We all have to live with the responsibility of putting forward two candidates, neither of whom should have been there, leaving the decision up to people to pick which they hated less.
We disagree (noting that for a self-described anti-royalist, and conservative, you seem to me to be a bit liberal with your use of our royal we).

The actions of the two major parties are the responsibility of all of the voters who by their own actions have made themselves responsible for supporting Democrats and Republicans (all while doubtlessly applauding themselves for their dutiful civic participation in the ridiculous popularity contest procedure this circus uses to determine who gets to be head clown) in the latest contest of this perpetually silly game, not of everybody else who helplessly watched while you morons went through your regularly scheduled incredibly stupid process of tearing the peace of our social fabric apart.

Democracy itself is clearly the rule of the mob, and thus a shame against the name of all society, but just because you regret the riot you and your kind ran the other night, let's not forget that only the mobbers among society are truly responsible for the damage they do in their perennial socially destructive folly.

Looked at logically, the census puts the US population at 318 million, and there were 62 million who voted for the p#ssy-pawing president-elect, and 64 million who voted for the alleged (but never formally charged) anti-christ, which means that just over one in five Americans voted for Clinton, and just under one in five Americans voted for Trump. So sure, shame on every single one of you--this part of your point is totally true!--but do note that a solid majority of Americans had nothing at all to do with the shameful party games you bipartisan idiots play to give your favored flavor of the policy mob the putative right to rule.

38
General Comments / Re: Holy......
« on: November 09, 2016, 06:06:20 PM »
Scifi:
Quote
I think there's a resentment factor in this result for sure.
Yes.

Resentment drove the voting choices made by voters this election cycle. But this is nothing new, in and of itself: it is fairly difficult to inspire others with prodigious public policy, but easy enough to inspire others to anger. The adversarial nature of the game makes it more cost effective to establish support by engendering opposition against one's opponent, than by building a platform pretty and sturdy enough to both draw and carry at least a plurality.

Grant:
Quote
I think this is why Trump won.  I think all those people go tired of us, people like you and me, telling them they were stupid, and that he couldn't possibly win.
Well, first and foremost, I'll observe that you don't seem to me as being much like the kind of people who tell others that they're stupid, and I'll point out that I'm not actually like the people who have been saying that he can't win (I won money on this election, which seemed to me to clearly recapitulate the conditions that caused the socially desirable responding bias which confounded polling efforts in Brexit).
Quote
It wasn't policy or race or any of that stuff.  It was simply the less smart kids in class got fed up with the smarter kids in class and together they collectively gave a big "FU".
The second sentence seems to me to be an incredibly apt metaphor for what happened, but I'll note that this that doesn't mean that racism or policy preference has nothing to do with it. After all, less-smart voters have policy preferences too--they're simply less-smart preferences than those of more-smart voters (while I assume that racism is correlated with ignorance, I wouldn't go so far as to assume that racism is as strongly correlated with intelligence--or, in other words: Trump's voters aren't America's best--they're stupid, and they're racist...and some of the racists, I assume, are smart people  ;D).
Quote
They hated you and me more then they cared about politics or policy or anything else.  Maybe calling them stupid isn't the best path to take.
Like I said, you don't strike me as the type to take that tack. And as it happens, I'm not the type to take hate without giving back.

39
General Comments / Re: Holy......
« on: November 09, 2016, 03:34:45 AM »
It was clearly rigged, Deedub.

This was obviously a conspiracy perpetrated by the same all-powerful cabal which has always controlled the destiny of every democratic society: the Stupidati.

40
Quote
The "survivors guilt" story of "I watched my buddies die to someone I refused to shoot at" (in a combat context, prisoners are another matter) is a virtually unheard of thing so far as I am aware.
Well, it would be unheard of: no one who has experienced something like that wants to think about it, much less tell the story to an audience.

Like I said, I personally think that Marshall's numbers look low. But it's not really an area in which I have especial expertise, and it does bear mentioning that there have been significant changes made across our military training programs that were very much based in Marshall's analysis.

Grossman responded to criticism of his use of Marshall's figures in a military journal. Nothing he says dissuades me of my perception that the percentages look too small to be valid, but he does make some good points.
Quote
I appreciate Mr. Engen’s kind words about aspects of my work and research in his review of my On Killing and On Combat in Canadian Military Journal, Vol. 9, No. 2. However, it appears that his primary concern is that Brigadier General S.L.A. Marshall’s work concerning non-firing behaviour in soldiers during the Second World War has been discredited, and, therefore, anything based upon Marshall’s work is equally discredited. This is, indeed, a worthy topic for scholarly consideration.

However, in reference to Marshall’s research, I would ask the reader to keep an open mind. The definitive US military source on Marshall is the US TRADOC (Training and Doctrine Command) Historical Monograph entitled, SLAM The Influence of SLA Marshall on the United States Army, by Major F.D.G. Williams. This document gives a well-rounded insight into Marshall, and it generally supports him as a scholar. Indeed, the author claims to have seen the rough copies of S.L.A. Marshall’s field surveys, which others claim do not exist. Permit me to include here an extract from my entry on “Aggression and Violence,” as published in The Oxford Companion to American Military History:

One major modern revelation in the field of military psychology is the observation that this resistance to killing one’s own species is also a key factor in human combat. Brigadier General SLA Marshall first observed this during his work as the Official US Historian of the European Theater of Operations in World War II. Based on his post-combat interviews, Marshall concluded in his book, (Men Against Fire, 1946, 1978), that only 15 to 20 percent of the individual riflemen in World War II fired their weapons at an exposed enemy soldier. Key weapons, such as a flame thrower, usually fired. Crew served weapons, such as a machine gun, almost always fired. And firing would increase greatly if a nearby leader demanded that the soldier fire. But, when left to their own devices, the great majority of individual combatants throughout history appear to have been unable or unwilling to kill.

Marshall’s findings have been somewhat controversial. Faced with scholarly concern about a researcher’s methodology and conclusions, the scientific method involves replicating the research. In Marshall’s case, every available, parallel, scholarly study validates his basic findings. Ardant du Picq’s surveys of French officers in the 1860s and his observations on ancient battles (Battle Studies, 1946), Keegan’s and Holmes’ numerous accounts of ineffectual firing throughout history (Soldiers, 1985), Richard Holmes’ assessment of Argentine firing rates in the Falklands War (Acts of War, 1985), Paddy Griffith’s data on the extraordinarily low killing rate among Napoleonic and American Civil War regiments (Battle Tactics of the American Civil War, 1989), the British Army’s laser re-enactments of historical battles, the FBI’s studies of non-firing rates among law enforcement officers in the 1950s and 1960s, and countless other individual and anecdotal observations, all confirm Marshall’s fundamental conclusion that man is not, by nature, a killer. Indeed, from a psychological perspective, the history of warfare can be viewed as a series of successively more effective tactical and mechanical mechanisms to enable or force combatants to overcome their resistance to killing.

By 1946, the US Army had accepted Marshall’s conclusions, and the Human Resources Research Office of the US Army subsequently pioneered a revolution in combat training which eventually replaced firing at ‘bulls eye’ targets with deeply ingrained ‘conditioning’ using realistic, man-shaped ‘pop-up’ targets that fall when hit. Psychologists know that this kind of powerful ‘operant conditioning’ is the only technique which will reliably influence the primitive, mid-brain processing of a frightened human being. Fire drills condition terrified school children to respond properly during a fire. Conditioning in flight simulators enables frightened pilots to respond reflexively to emergency situations. And similar application and perfection of basic conditioning techniques increased the rate of fire to approximately 55 percent in Korea and around 95 percent in Vietnam.

Equally high rates of fire resulting from modern conditioning techniques can be seen in Holmes’ observation of British firing rates in the Falklands, and FBI data on law enforcement firing rates since the nationwide introduction of modern conditioning techniques in the late-1960s.

At the end of the Second World War, when our armed forces consisted of a very high ratio of veterans, when our generals, officers, and NCOs had led us through one of the most horrendous wars in history, at this time S.L.A. Marshall’s work was universally accepted. In Korea and Vietnam, Marshall was treated with deepest respect by the men in war, and was asked repeatedly to visit, to study, and to train.

Were all these military leaders wrong? Did Marshall fool all of them, and, today, somehow, a few individuals have discovered ‘The Truth?’ It was only in the 1980s, after Marshall was dead, that a handful of individuals began an attack campaign. None of these people (to my knowledge) still has works in print. In the great realm of ideas, the anti-Marshall camp appears to be ‘out of print.’

On Killing, on the other hand, is on the USMC Commandant’s Required Reading List, and is being used as required reading at the FBI Academy, DEA Academy, West Point, the USAF Academy, and Peace Studies programs and other courses in many colleges. In the realms of criminal justice, psychology, sociology, and peace studies programs, the possible existence of an innate resistance to killing, in most healthy citizens, is widely accepted. A few historians disagree, and I would respectfully submit that they may be operating outside their area of expertise. I can’t help but wonder if S.L.A. Marshall’s true sins were 1) to author numerous popular historical books, while 2) also failing to acquire a Ph.D. in history. Either one of these realities would be guaranteed to draw the fiery pens of academia, and the combination appears to be deadly – but only after the target is safely dead and gone. Marshall’s methodology may not meet rigorous modern standards, but that does not mean he lied. He has been accused of claiming a battlefield commission during the First World War, while he was actually an OCS graduate. But he could well have been assigned in an officer’s position prior to the training. And he claimed to have been in combat with an infantry unit, when actually he was assigned to an engineer battalion; but his unit may have been attached to a line infantry unit.

Perhaps all the combatants, leaders, and veterans of the Second World War, Korea, and Vietnam were wrong about Marshall, or perhaps the handful of men in recent years who have attacked him are wrong. Let us hope our life’s work gets a better hearing when we are dead and gone.

Basically, all S.L.A. Marshall was saying was that some of our warriors (military and police) do not shoot in combat, and more realistic targets will raise the firing rate. Marshall was the pioneer whose research and writing caused us to change from ‘bulls eye’ targets to realistic combat simulations, and who can argue with that? We can disagree as to how much of an advantage it gives us, or exactly how much of an increase in the firing rate this kind of training has created, but, today, no one wants to go back to shooting at ‘bulls eye’ targets. And every time you shoot at a silhouette, a photo-realistic target, or a video training simulator, you should take a moment to remember and thank S.L.A. Marshall.

Today, the body of scientific data supporting realistic training is so powerful that there is a US Federal Circuit Court decision that states that law enforcement firearms training must incorporate realistic training, to include stress, decision-making, and ‘shoot-don’t-shoot’ training. (Oklahoma v. Tuttle, 1984, 10th Federal Circuit Court.) Law enforcement trainers now teach that an agency is not in compliance with legal standards if it fires at anything other than a clear, realistic depiction of a deadly force threat. Again, we have S.L.A. Marshall to thank for that.

Finally, as to Mr. Engen’s finding of high Second World War firing rates among Canadian units, I would say that this is entirely possible. I would refer the reader to David Lee’s excellent book, Up Close and Personal, in which the author finds supporting evidence for low firing rates in many units during the Second World War, but the author also identifies units that pioneered realistic marksmanship training and were thus able to achieve much higher firing rates in battle.



41
While the numbers presented look like they're on the low side to my eye, I don't see a reason to doubt the idea that many drafted soldiers spent a lot more time hiding than firing in WW2.
Quote
I'd expect to see there being all kinds of clinical reports and studies on soldiers having psych issues over "I could have shot the enemy attacker, but I couldn't do it, and my buddy died because of it." Rather than the more classical "survivors guilt" story we normally hear about, where their survival, and the deaths of the rest of their group(buddies), seem to be entirely left to chance and dumb luck in many cases.
Did an expectation that you won't see such clinical reports and studies obviate an attempt to look?

This is from the wikipedia article on Survivor's Guilt:
Quote
Stephen Joseph, a psychologist at the University of Warwick, has studied the survivors of the capsizing of the MS Herald of Free Enterprise which killed 193 of the 459 passengers.[2] His studies showed that 60 percent of the survivors suffered from survivor guilt. Joseph went on to say: "There were three types: first, there was guilt about staying alive while others died; second, there was guilt about the things they failed to do – these people often suffered post-traumatic 'intrusions' as they relived the event again and again; third, there were feelings of guilt about what they did do, such as scrambling over others to escape. These people usually wanted to avoid thinking about the catastrophe. They didn't want to be reminded of what really happened.
Notice regarding the issue of the types listed in Joseph's study, that the greater degree of perceived personal culpability, the more the survivors used avoidance as a psychological defense mechanism. This means that the fact that you hear more about the first type of survivor's guilt probably reflects the fact that the second and third types are reluctant to publicize their experience...

Even so, it is nonetheless a well enough known phenomenon as to be a cliche represented in mainstream movies about WW2, such as Saving Private Ryan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uW9Q1cm_Tnw


42
Quote
Alexander the Great - throughout his campaigns - only lost 700 soldiers to the sword.
Ardently piquant fact. Too bad it's not true: google suggests this claim comes from a book by Ardant du Picq, who seems to have lowered the bar within a longstanding tradition of historians who have apotheosized Alexander's battle prowess. Even the wildest claims of antiquity's biographers don't suggest the real number was anywhere near this low...

43
General Comments / Re: Avoiding police
« on: July 31, 2016, 07:19:57 PM »
Quote
The courts view themselves as adequate recourse to correct the injustice of an unlawful arrest"
Quote
Simple logic should suffice to refute such a simplistic view: “Yeah, well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.”
How does your "simple logic" refute that the courts see themselves as adequate recourse?  It doesn't of course, you're disputing that they are correct, not that it is what they believe.
Yeah--that's what was implied by my use of the word “view” as a noun, rather than a verb...

My point was that an argument amounting only to an appeal to its author’s own authority can be dismissed with the simple contradiction indicated in the Dude’s dictum.

(I also pointed out the reality that, regardless of rhetoric, the courts can really provide neither recourse nor justice to a corpse--but this was actually unnecessary in refuting the force of an idea fully founded in an argument from authority fallacy, so we might be warranted in holding such a superfluous argument as evidence in contempt of the court…)
Quote
I think your truncation of the quoted passage is misleading, it certainly presents what I disagree with in a false light.  But even, more my comment was in response to the whole point Fenring was making not just the quoted passage.  Your attempt to restate what you think I meant is just inaccurate. 

The court's lack of serious rigor on whether arrests and the violence used were appropriate, and the overwhelming preference they give to officer testimony over that of victims and witnesses, leads directly to the appearance and/or reality of legitimizing abuse by officers.  That certainly needs to change.  I disagreed with Fenring's apparent desire to interfere with and rethink how officers act in the legitimate performance of their duties.
I’m glad you acknowledge the mockery of justice that the courts have been making of the issue, but I think my understanding of your argument against “rethink(ing) how officers act” is still a bit twisted. Regardless of the apparent contentiousness of the claim that “black lives matter” in the present cultural narrative, I presume that the assumption that “all (human) lives matter” isn’t currently in dispute. I likewise assume that no one is contending the fact that the execution of contemporary police policy results in the de facto trial-less execution of hundreds of civilians per year. So...do you not see the problem with standing pat at a component of the status quo civil code which is connected to a civilian body count? Because I don't see a valid argument being presented in defense of the present police force policy--simply a groundless insistence that the powers-that-be hold what you believe is moral high ground a priori (presumably founded in some social contract which is liable to carry nary a signature of any single signatory...).
Quote
Would you re-read godsblackestcrow's responses to me.  Maybe I misinterpreted him, he seems to go to some lengths to try and make that easy,
;D

Let this go to your head: this seems to me to be the strongest line of argument you've stitched into this thread.
Quote
Quote
Fenring: I don't know that anyone here is advocating using force against the police
Seriati: I took his references to the right of self defense even in arrests to mean exactly that.
...this knot of logic looks less taut. You believe that a defense of the right to use force in self-defense is "exactly" the same as advocacy for the use of force?

44
General Comments / Re: Avoiding police
« on: July 22, 2016, 11:00:26 PM »
Quote
So to be clear, you're not "claiming an ethical high ground" you are disputing someone else's "claiming an ethical high ground."  Honestly, there is a difference, but it's marginal.
To my mind, most of meaning is marginalia--and you might be missing most of mine, mind:
Quote
...the true high ground...
Like, the superlatively constructivest of constructive fictions? By all means, if we mean to make mores of monumentally mythical mendacity, let’s build the bestest tower of truest babble that our barter of blather can buy--we’re all down to reach purchase of our very own piece of that pie at the height of the sky!
Quote
...the laws on resisting unlawful arrest... do not include the right to violently resist all improper or unlawful arrests.
So reads what is written in civil irony. Natural law, red in beak and claw, objects. In spite of any unwritten right, the survival of harms can require a fight, and note that no matter how the sophisticate might bill a civil right, the basest ape is born bearing arms.
Quote
...Physical defense against an unlawful arrest is going to require a real risk of harm present in the arrest or by the arresting officers...the officers have to be out to hurt you, not just arrest you.
You seem to have lost track of where we were going with this. Surely we can cut to the chase and say that in every case where a cop has killed a constituent, said dead’s prior possession of a reasonable reason for fear of his killer’s use of hurtful force isn’t really in question, it’s already been tagged, bagged, and logged into evidence.
Quote
it has to be that risk that is unlawful, not just that officers pursuing what they believe is a valid arrest may use force.
What insolence of office! The only opinion that matters by this logic is what the violence-initiating oppressor believes...

It's astounding the absence of grounding upon which we're founding our "highest" ideals.
Quote
The courts view themselves as adequate recourse to correct the injustice of an unlawful arrest
Simple logic should suffice to refute such a simplistic view:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c

In “truth,” judgment in epitaph does no justice to the dead, it just haunts the grieving head: the courts can provide no recourse to the corpse.
Quote
Quote
Fenring: I think the onus on the police needs to be a lot stronger than it is right now
Seriati: I don't think I can agree.  What needs to change is the way the courts back bad arrests routinely.
So, you believe the current bar leads to the court’s legitimization of what is actually illegitimate force, as par for the routine course, but you nonetheless also think: "Nah, modifying the burden that must be met to get away with murder is simply something on which we can't agree?"

What can we say, seriesly? Way to stick to the convictions of your morality?

45
General Comments / Re: Avoiding police
« on: July 20, 2016, 06:42:47 PM »
Quote
So what's the relevance?  Are you just attempting to claim an ethical or moral high ground that is disputable within a country governed by laws?
No. The claims made herein simply dispute the pretense of an ethical high ground held by those that make and uphold laws.
 
The crow isn't bound to high ground: uniformed people fight for their right to hold a plot at a perceived height, a blackbird simply descends to bend its beak in the carrion of those who are fallen below.

46
General Comments / Re: Avoiding police
« on: July 20, 2016, 05:21:10 PM »
The force is strong with this demon…
Quote
"Force"(bullying) can take many forms, and doesn't need to involve the use of physical objects when concepts and ideas are sufficient in their own right.
Right, but what’s right, in its own right?

Methinks ye might be right: a demon might possess another’s mind, and whisper words to bend a brain to fight with force against its skull and skin. But whose might makes it so, in its own right? In our imaginary exercise, assuming we can’t exorcise a rite, who exercises the right of might, levying armed force against the sovereign self within?
Quote
the other way to skin this proverbial cat
A mute brute can skin a cat with sticks and a sharp enough stone, but while words can spell a task, even the sharpest silver tongue can’t cut quite to bone all on its own.

47
General Comments / Re: Attribution error, BLM and Dallas
« on: July 19, 2016, 07:59:33 PM »
Sorry.

I edited the post. The insertion of the missing comma might help with the issue, and the new conclusive clause might frame my meaning a little better...

48
General Comments / Re: Attribution error, BLM and Dallas
« on: July 19, 2016, 07:48:52 PM »
Quote
The argument equating a skin color to a military "uniform" is a characteristic argument of white supremacists
It's a loss in Godwin's book, in any case.

But one of the groups suggested in the OP was the police--a militant organization whose characteristic of association is a uniform.

And while I'm willing to play along with the meme that argumentum ad Hitlerum is universally noxious (for the fun of it), one might consider the fact that our police are a group of individuals who are charged with sequestering individuals in the execution of state policy, before automatically dismissing the comparison made as irrelevant or reductive. One might even consider the possibility that modern society should learn something from seeing a modern nation "lawfully" impose its racial bias on its constituents by force of a socially authorized group of police, rather than presuming prima facie that no valid comparisons between our society and Hitler's Germany are permissible...

49
General Comments / Re: Attribution error, BLM and Dallas
« on: July 19, 2016, 06:37:39 PM »
Quote
There is extra effort required to arrive at the conclusion that any given individual you meet should not be penalized for the actions of others sharing a common characteristic.
There is also extra effort required to determine whether such a conclusion is universally valid.

I'll reiterate that both our ability to categorize based on common characteristics, and our tendency to focus our attention on objects associated with danger to the exclusion of other information (google "weapons focus") are evolved mechanisms which are fundamental to survival.

If the common characteristic you speak of is associated with danger, then your assumption that individuals should go through a process to convince themselves not to allow their reaction to be based on such a perceived association is, well, dangerous.

The failure of our instincts to conform to our politically correct fantasies may be disappointing to us as idealists, but if we really think things through, we might realize that this says more about our ideals than it does about our instincts.

From the evolution of the modern inner monologue, in accordance with Godwin's law:

"This human individual is wearing jackboots and a swastika. I note that this is a characteristic he has in common with the individuals who have been sequestering all the members of my synagogue. I must be careful not to base my reaction to this encounter between myself and this fellow human to be prejudiced by my inclination to stereotype this person as a threat to me simply because he superficially appears to be associated with a group of individuals who appear antagonistic toward my group of people. I must make the effort required to allow my thinking to become more evolved..."

50
General Comments / Re: Avoiding police
« on: July 19, 2016, 03:37:16 PM »
Pete:
Quote
Your cawcawphony failes to address the case, Corax v Tisias.
No it didn't. Paranomastic judgments deserve replies in kind.

Jason:
Quote
You are wrong.
...about a lot, no doubt. But don't my plethora of errors dissuade you from specifying.

:)

Pages: [1] 2