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 - D.W.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 50
I'm largely guessing here as I'm ignorant on a lot of of what's going on there, but...

NATO is cool with Turkey going into Syria, and probably sympathetic to the "buffer zone" objective.  They would LIKE Turkey to ignore / work around the Kurds though.  However Turkey feels the Kurds are the largest threat to their security at present. 

While we had supporting troops in place Turkey could not attack the Kurds.  With the US out of the way though, they can hit the Kurds as they've wanted all along.

NATO is not willing to go so far as to say the Kurds deserve their own state carved out of this area.  That would jeopardize/ruin their relationship with Turkey.  Fortunately the US was in there with them so they could ignore this snag.

What that doesn't answer, is why didn't NATO step in to take the place of the US troops as it was announced by Trump they were on the way out?  If they gave a *censored* about the Kurds, even short of sponsoring statehood, why aren't they there to form the same protective umbrella? 

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 10, 2019, 12:31:11 PM »
A:  Hey, C has got their finger on the scale!
B:  Now now, if you point that out, people will unfairly assume we ASKED them for help.  That will damage the electoral process.
A:  I suppose that makes some sense...
C:  <laughs quietly>
B:  Hey, look we won!

D:  C, if yer out there, we're gonna need your help again!
A:   Are you kidding me?  You gotta stop him!  He cannot DO that!
B:  What?  if E is corrupt, it's up to D to sort that out!

This may make for an amusing comedy bit, but it makes a real *censored* show out of our nation.

Suddenly, they love the idea of other Americans kids dying in “meaningless war

Spin it as per Trump loyalist talking points advise but I suspect your wondering if your wrong side of this one.
No he isn't.  Neither are the others.  While some of them are nutters, most have just decided that the ends justify the means.  Things are getting done.  I dislike most of them, but I understand why many want those changes.  Right or wrong is not factoring in  on it.  Trump the person, Trump the criminal, Trump the bane of democracy and the constitution, doesn't matter.  Agenda is all.  And things are getting done.  (like them or not)

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 09, 2019, 03:09:19 PM »
Probably a silly question:  but what do you think the point of whistle blower laws are?

What possible positive outcome, in terms of the public good, would be served by outing a whistle blower?  In ANY situation, let alone this one...

We are well aware of the negative outcome.  I mean, when the president is already calling you a traitor, it's pretty clear they want to plug leaks and make an example of the whistle blower. 

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 09, 2019, 10:59:47 AM »
Crunch, just to save time.
They ARE out to get Trump.
They DO coordinate to that end.

They (again) think they got him cornered.  Either your guy will worm his way out of it, or just delay through election time, or he won't. 

SC:  check
Tax break:  check
Deregulation:  check
Poison Globalism trends:  check
Poison environmentalist trends:  check?

In order to do so he intentionally acts as sleazy and corrupt as possible (hopefully) without ending up in jail or bounced out of office.  The constant outrage IS the plan.  And shockingly it seems to work.  You'll just have to wait for the rest of us to catch up to the die hard "Trump supporters".  We didn't realize how far gone the country already was.  You guys are ahead of the curve and willing to sacrifice the last of the facades for the "gains" above. 

We kinda knew everyone was hungry, we just didn't realize half of you had already decided cannibalism was the solution.

General Comments / Re: BoJo Boffo or Bozo?
« on: October 09, 2019, 10:05:06 AM »
I'm sure he's got that covered.  Any day now he'll tweet that the kurds should just execute all their prisoners before they abandon the sites.   ::)

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 08, 2019, 07:53:01 PM »
We know the leaker lied on the WB complaint.
Granted, the story is moving fast, but what did they lie about?  I missed that part.   ???

General Comments / Re: Heart-Bern?
« on: October 08, 2019, 01:23:22 PM »
if the DNC pulls another 2016 I'll be voting 3rd party the rest of my life
Not sure I'm quite there yet, but if they blow it and Trump get's another term...  maybe I will be.  However it's not just them.  It took a heart attack for the media to pay attention to Sanders again.

Outsourcing a job comes with its own costs.  By this point, in that region, we've got a pretty good idea of what the cost is.  At least we can't claim surprise when/if the bill comes due this time.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 01, 2019, 11:17:57 AM »
All this "Deep State" stuff keeps getting more and more bemusing as it goes on.  As if it requires some grand conspiracy that the entire apparatus of government is allergic to Trump's personality, statements/tweets, and actions.  It requires no coordination or planning.  Huge swaths of the world want this embarrassment to end.

Didn't follow all the logic, but one report on this mentioned that this act/process was raising hell with a lot of peoples' security clearance.  They made it sound like it was a black mark by default that required affected parties to take measures to 'clear their names'.  The interview didn't dig very deep on this point though.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: September 30, 2019, 09:12:37 AM »
The second one sounds like what Trump is being accused of.  The first though?  That sounds like it would tie our hands in pretty much all dealings with foreign powers...

Putting pressure on a foreign leader is not at issue.  Doing so for your personal gain rather than national interest, is.

I'm no Biden fan.  Maybe he did do just that, but all the timeline info I've seen so far makes that seem unlikely.  But... here we have his son, in the right place at the right time to make money.  Everything (well, one small thing) I think is wrong with our government.  I'd feel a lot better about the investigation into such nepotism / corruption if it wasn't by a man who gives all appearances of trying to trump those who went before him on that front.   ::)

General Comments / Re: BoJo Boffo or Bozo?
« on: September 25, 2019, 07:34:27 PM »
In all politics I think the base line is a large block of people content with doing nothing.  :)  You gotta keep on your toes when everyone wants to do "something".

General Comments / Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« on: September 25, 2019, 01:31:11 PM »
I get the appeal of this idea, you want to say "we're all in it together," but that's only true on the environmental issue - not the economic one.
And THIS is the real issue worth discussing.  Because we are not all in it together on the economic issue, it’s improbable if not impossible to be in it together on the environmental one.  Therefor finger pointing at the “real problem” isn’t all that useful. 
My approach has always been, most efficient producers first, harsh penalties on non-efficient producers, and agreeing on how to deliver the products of the production in a manner that obviates the need for non-efficient production
I just don’t know how this could be implemented in practice.  I mean, I suppose the easy answer is use force.  Either economic or military.  There is NO persuasive argument that is built around, “Accept a lower standard of living and/or less economic stability than us because you are incapable of achieving the standards we have set.”  All that also assumes that WE are already doing all we can (or at least could reasonably be expected to persuade our people to do).

There are 2 separate goals here, and unfortunately only one of the tribes could meet both goals, while the second can beat the first on one goal only by destroying the second goal.
Think you nailed it here.  It suggests that one of the tribes is perfectly fine as is, which I don’t agree with, but the rest of it sums things up nicely.

  I mean really, if they honestly believe we have 10 years till death what are they holding back for?
I will only address this to say, that no rational person believes this, as you have stated it.  SOME (mostly) rational people believe that we may reach a point of no return within that time frame, such that we cannot un-fork the damage we are doing.  I’m an optimist as far as our ability to innovate under pressure.  I’m ALSO in an area with abundant clean water unlikely to suffer the brunt of negative effects for a long time…  So there’s that.  Also in architecture, so if whole coastal cities DO sink… that’s more work for us! 

Not sure how you equate that to abortion, but yes.  The obvious is stated, we see a difference.

General Comments / Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« on: September 25, 2019, 12:01:30 PM »
All analogies are terrible, the more complete they get the less useful they are as a shorthand to the larger issue.  :P

If we’re poking holes in each other’s ships…  In yours, there IS no other island.  It’s a fantasy being sold to us by both sides ship building industries.  For now, floating along in your own ship is pretty nice.  Less crowded, less dirty and you have more freedom.  But eventually you need to stop back at Impoverished Danger Island to restock. 

The only ‘real solution’ is to freely give the technology and methods used by the US to the Chinese.  To work together to make the island less dangerous and decide exactly how many ships we need, of if maybe we should be using that lumber to build better shelters and ways to make the place less dangerous and in general a good place to live.

Converting THAT solution back to the real world contains seemingly endless complications.  None of which are possible with a {my country}-First policy and seeing world economies as a competition you are either winning or losing.  I certainly don’t have the answers on that front.  Or rather, I’ve got the answer, but as my math teachers use to bemoan, I cannot show my work.

But let’s go with another one. 
There are two tribes living in a network of natural caves.  The weather outside is deadly cold.  Neither tribe can reach the other without braving the cold.  One tribe has access to material that burns more cleanly producing A LOT of heat, but little smoke.  They keep their portion of the cave very warm and comfortable.  The other tribe has access only to material that burns less cleanly.  It produces A LOT of smoke but only enough heat to make things tolerable, but not as comfortable as the other tribe.

The problem is this cave network has small gaps allowing the smoke to diffuse and even out between both tribes.  Unable to seal off the smoke coming in from their neighbor what are the cleaner burners to do?  They cannot force their neighbors to stop creating smoke unless they are willing to brave the cold, go around and enter the mountain from the other side.  The travel would likely kill many and unless they were willing to hand over some of their cleaner fuel the only other option is war. 

When environmentalists suggest that WE (the cleaner burning tribe, that granted is far from actually being “clean” still) could cut burn a bit less material and produce even LESS smoke, while looking for even CLEANER methods to keep comfortable.  Sure, the neighbors are the far more significant problem, but without offering them aid, or going to war, you do what is within your power to reduce the smoke that threatens your tribe. 
Just as contrived

Do you really believe we are terraforming the planet and this is not a natural cycle like all the previous ones?
Yes.  Though the way I’d use the term implies a process undertaken for a desired result.  What we are doing is a side effect.  So… also no?  :P  I’ve also said many times on this forum that one of the thing that keeps me from being more alarmist about the whole thing is that I believe we need to know how to tip the scales in both directions.  Today’s serious problem may be tomorrow’s solution.  Though by tomorrow I mean a depressingly long time from now and likely on another spinning ball of dirt than this one. 

As for Obama’s beach front property, he’s wealthy.  Most with money get what they want right now.  Even if he KNEW that house would slide into the ocean in 15 years I doubt that would matter.  Your point is bull*censored* to distract the rubes while the rich do what they’ve always done.  Splurge on instant gratification.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: September 25, 2019, 01:11:39 AM »
And if they are indeed for sale, why wouldn't one think that is probably still the case and worth offering or withholding cash to get what YOU want as well?  :P

I think Trump is still useful for draining the swamp.  Just like he told us he was.  Follow the man.  Pay attention to what he does.  Let him show you the way.  I think what he rakes up could be enlightening.  ;)

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: September 24, 2019, 11:34:42 PM »
(note: calls aren't "transcribed")
Is there a more proper term for this process?

Or are you suggesting that recordings to/from the White House are not converted into text?

General Comments / Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« on: September 24, 2019, 11:26:05 PM »
So there "should be a debate" provided that it starts by assuming the reality of one side?
As much as I love the many worlds theory, there's not much room for it in politics.

I agree there should be a debate, it should be about what solutions are real and can be accomplished, the costs of those solutions and how to minimize them.
Bingo.  And to be honest, I'm not interested in finger pointing.  But trying to avoid this, does tie the world's hands in working towards real solutions. 

not remotely understanding that "our sacrifice" will destroy the planet even faster as dirty plants proliferate in the third world.
Please expand.  I think you may be onto something here.  Granted you cannot sway the zealots, but there ARE people concerned about our future home who are willing to listen.

Force China to open their markets, to products produced in cleaner western plants.
This doesn't seem contradictory to your earlier statement about "real" solutions?

The group that correctly identifies that environmental laws and especially international laws are an environmental hoax is what's large.
Just to be clear, it's a "hoax" because we refuse to quit firing our hand gun into the hull of our slowly sinking ship because the crew refuses to do anything about that nut with the shotgun blasting dinner plate sized holes at the other end of the ship?  That makes it a "hoax"?

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: September 24, 2019, 04:26:26 PM »
The point is to short circuit the race to the bottom and start holding everyone to SOME standard.  Even if it's one that no one is happy with.  We start enforcing laws even when, or especially when, it's not politically expedient to do so.  When we protect or defend the "chosen ones" of 'our team' everyone loses. 

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: September 24, 2019, 03:38:45 PM »
But at the same time the Biden story has been known for a while. Plenty of time to get the details behind it if you desired to. Instead we just see see Trump and his allies spreading rumors instead of doing actual investigating.
Sadly, neither side cares until it is ALSO politically useful.   :'(

Therefor the timeline is useless as an indicator of whether or not there is any there there.

General Comments / Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« on: September 24, 2019, 03:04:19 PM »
Just saw a headline, in case it wasn't obvious the cynicism expressed by Seriati and Crunch has some basis.

"Bully commentary born of anger": Fox News host Laura Ingraham mocks 16-year-old girl with autism

General Comments / Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« on: September 24, 2019, 03:00:07 PM »
OK... so why not pour a significant amount into education and publicly fund/subsidize research then?  If we're going to rely on a magic bullet solution, let's at least do some test firing.  To be clear.  I'm in the same camp.  I think we'll innovate our way out of this cluster-F.  I however think we need to buy more time, and try to cultivate a better... environment, for that type of innovation.  At a minimum we should maintain current efforts to show some G.D. restraint. 

General Comments / Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« on: September 24, 2019, 02:21:25 PM »
Doing that to any child is sick and you shouldn’t be defending it.
Interesting that both sides agree on this point.   ;D

General Comments / Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« on: September 24, 2019, 01:54:41 PM »
Indeed.  Which makes the current trends of demonizing socialism, globalism and immigration so alarming.  Aren't these the very tools most likely to achieve fixes to the engineering problems?  How do you convince anyone, let alone the younger generations, that you have alternative solutions?

The current counter seems to be, "The whole topic is BS and we can ignore it." or "Trust the free market" which results in the exact engineering problem we (some of us?) are diagnosing.  After all, in the US at least, the current climate denier position of the administration is paired with a deregulating agenda.  That is not conducive to debate.  In fact it seems to many to be the flip side of the 'cliff' alarmists.  These are the people looking for one last huge cash grab before the party is over.

I get that these are complicated topics that the very young are not equipped to deal with.  Hell, most adults, myself included, are hard pressed to follow decent arguments in this tact.  Fortunately for The Green Side, you almost never encounter them...

General Comments / Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« on: September 24, 2019, 01:24:49 PM »
Or it could be about wanting to not pay the debts of reckless parents running up a huge tab.  Pleading for them to stop and act responsibly.  Even children can grasp the concepts of trashing a place for instant gratification. 

Some of them learn why that's a terrible plan.

General Comments / Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« on: September 24, 2019, 01:16:14 PM »
There isn't a debate though.  :) 
There is the data, and then propaganda.  The debate amounts to emotional manipulation.  (with a sprinkling of outright lies) 

There SHOULD BE a debate.  It should center around what (if any) sacrifices we are willing to make to our lifestyle given the quantifiable cost of that lifestyle; and what (if any) responsibility those in more developed countries have to those in less developed countries?  Do those who crossed benchmarks first somehow have the right to maintain everything and deny the same benefits to other late comers?  Do those causing more harm have a duty to solve the problem and be burdened with more of the cost of doing so?  Those are debates.

Instead we've got one group acting more alarmist than most (apparently 70%?) find rational, and another large group insisting that the whole thing is a hoax.  Debate requires a shared understanding of reality.  THEN you can begin to address the issue (or not) as seems appropriate (or... ick... cost effective).

General Comments / Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« on: September 24, 2019, 12:58:29 PM »
Which differentiates them from the rest of humanity... how exactly? 

Con:  they don't know who not to trust yet, and have underdeveloped "critical thinking skills".
Pro:  They've not yet decided they know everything they need to know about a subject and reject new info that doesn't jive with their current world view.

I'm not going to say I want young kids calling the shots for all of us, but I'm skeptical they are any more of a threat than the older power brokers willing to sacrifice those kids and those in the middle to make themselves comfortable and to retain power.  :)

General Comments / Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« on: September 24, 2019, 12:15:03 PM »
Meaning there isn't a question for me.  It IS predatory.  It is a calculated move to use this kid, and to focus media attention on the younger generation and their protests / walk outs. 

Now, I think those kids are being genuine and come to their conclusions honestly (and correctly), but the political/media machine, is 'using them'.  I expect many of these kids understand this, and to use an old timer phrase, "aren't looking a gift horse in the mouth".

General Comments / Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« on: September 24, 2019, 11:51:15 AM »
This is a difficult question for me: whether inclusivity here is celebatory or predatory.
It's a little inspiring/hopeful that you can still question this.  I think part of why I like listening to the kids talk is I can still entertain such questions.  (An aside, not calling you a kid Fenring)  :P

General Comments / Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« on: September 24, 2019, 11:27:06 AM »
Thanks for clarifying.  Sadly it seems that anymore we need to spell all this out.  As you can see, simply stating data points has potential to be leveraged for emotional gains in both directions.  That's how the game is played now (or perhaps always was). 

Do facts only matter when they are advantageous to a position?  I like to think that's not the case. 

I had to do a quick 30 second google search (rather than assume Crunch is a monster) when I read his statement. 

The logical approach seems to have fallen flat.  Now an emotional plea is under way.  While it's convenient to suggest that using kids is just a 'tactic', they are the ones who's future is most at risk so brushing off their opinion seems insincere to me.  I get the rejection by climate deniers to fall into the trap of being painted as evil.  But what other leavers are present to shift behavior?  Divine dictates of environmental stewardship?  The pope isn't having a lot of luck on that front last I checked. 

I don't think shame will do the trick, but I can't blame them for giving it a shot.

General Comments / Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« on: September 24, 2019, 10:41:11 AM »
Calling teenage girls mentally ill and autistic because you don't like what she is saying is sick. Seriously sick.
Are you claiming that is a false statement?  Or just criticizing him bringing it up in relation to her politics?

General Comments / Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« on: September 24, 2019, 10:34:35 AM »
But if third-hand rumor is sufficient to impeach a president then I find this reasonable.
I get that this is your brand of snark; but even joking that absurdity justifies absurdity is how we ended up where we are in today's politics.

As for Greta Thunberg, the only reason I'm not freaked out is my love of science fiction.  I've been reading about teraformed planets since I was her age.  The idea that we cannot one day unfork this planet is as ridiculous as those claiming the damage we are doing to the environment is a hoax. 

The problem with that is another fairly consistent trope in that same genre of stories, is us not pulling our heads out of our rumps until after the type of catastrophic events being predicted right now.  Why not try to fix our problems at the height of global potential rather than waiting until we are in the middle of some mad-max scenario trying to reclaim lost potential while struggling to survive?

It's not going to be some flashy Day After Tomorrow action sequence.  It's going to be statistically abnormal weather events and gradual coastal erosion and food shortages funneling people to our boarders.  Boarders, more and more want closed off to just this type of immigrant.  It's going to lead to more and more sanctions against those deemed the worst offenders further isolating / antagonizing them.  But funny thing about those of us in those offending countries.  We've got huge economic (and military) power to throw around.  That can't end well...

Our ability to manipulate our environment is already too great to be anything but a global society to at least some extent.  Everyone being {my country}-First, means we all lose.  I mean, who really wants to sit on rain-forest land and 'protect it for the good of all' at the cost of economic opportunity for their own people and a better ability to feed themselves without relying on 'hand outs' from the rest of the world eroding your sovereignty?  Who's going to let other countries tell you that you cannot provide power at the levels and geographic coverage your people demand to be part of the modern world? 

This only works with either incredible sacrifices, incredible innovation and spending, OR widespread global and population collapse. 

I kinda like the middle one, while it's still on the table.

General Comments / Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« on: September 23, 2019, 11:38:29 PM »
As a lover of context, did you already look at the survey? 

Are we talking climate change global uninhabitable?  I mean, if you accidentally lumped in religious prophesied doom, or those who believe we are close to a nuclear war within a decade that skews the numbers a bit.  ;)

Not, "take action within 10-15 years" but "we've only got 10-15 years before it IS uninhabitable"? 

I know statistics are a well of despair, but I find 29% unbelievable.  I suppose given a small enough selection set in a radical population, you could find 29% who would SAY this, but even there finding that many who believe it seems a stretch.

But... sometimes reality is depressing and the population lets ya down.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: September 23, 2019, 09:28:18 PM »
Nuke em both from orbit.  It's the only way to be sure.

General Comments / Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« on: September 23, 2019, 04:05:11 PM »
Way to prove rightleft22's point.  :P
Welcome to the quantum age!  Information age is caveman stuff now.

General Comments / Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« on: September 23, 2019, 11:45:45 AM »
Read as:  D.W. agrees with this
Not much to LIKE about it.  :P

General Comments / Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« on: September 23, 2019, 09:10:12 AM »
I'd doubt it.  Most of the group you are referring to either don't agree it's a significant issue that he left off "most of you" in that statement; OR (the more significant portion) believe it was well worth these bumps. 

That this is trotted out as some grievous deception told to the public to rob them of their doctors reads as, "Wow, if that's their main gripe I think they are bigger fans of the guy than us!"

General Comments / Re: Is it Still DUI if the Horse is Sober?
« on: September 19, 2019, 04:00:06 PM »
And it keeps getting funnier, every single time I see it!

Presidents are allowed to change their mind.  They are allowed to react to new events.  I'm getting sick of both sides trying to score points by illustrating when this happens as if it's some horrible sin.

Attack the new position if you want.  Hell you can even question the sincerity of the original claim if you want.  Crying foul when it happens seems pretty ridiculous to me.

Trump lies with damn near every breath.  You don't need to redefine what a lie is in order to trip him up on one.   ::)

General Comments / Re: Impeaching Kavanaugh
« on: September 18, 2019, 01:19:44 PM »
Oh, I'm not surprised in the least.  I don't even think they necessarily answered 'wrong'.  I'm just pointing out that when being coached, your answers have the side effect of projecting guilt, or at least obfuscation. 

Direct answers with zero 'wiggle room' in them are the opposite of 'lawyer speak'.

Listen to someone like Hillary speak for any extended period of time.  She's trained herself to be always on in terms of 'lawyer speak'.  I think that is a clear detriment to her, hard to pin down, likability or trustworthiness.

General Comments / Re: Impeaching Kavanaugh
« on: September 18, 2019, 12:46:46 PM »
Pretty selective on your part when they also add in "that if Brett did that, it would have been grossly out of character for him to have done so."
Why would I focus on this?  It's ALSO nonsense talk.  "I mean, I'm not saying it DIDN'T happen, but wow was it way out of character, I'm kinda surprised it happened!  I mean, being intoxicated changes some people... but WOW!"

This type of wording is what made Ancient Aliens hilarious to watch.  It's less entertaining in the headlines as it relates to people in power, and possible sexual misconduct.

Now, the proper retort to my completely unfair characterization is.  "They were also partying and it was a hell of a long time ago D.W.!  Seems plausible to me that they really don't remember at all!" 

I know I had friends who would get blackout drunk and not remember vomiting into a dresser drawer last night or no clue why they decided the bath tub looked like a comfortable place to sleep...  Asking them decades later and getting, "I do not recall" seems reasonable.  (if the stories others told them about the stupid *censored* they got up to didn't hang around forever that is)   I can even say those were things "not in their character" and mean it.  They did those things, but they were notable because of how abnormal they were.

Now with something more serious?  I don't know how that impacts things.  All I'm saying is the language we choose, says a lot more than the sum of those words.

I can't keep up.  Is that a lie, a misstatement, fake news, flip-flop or evolving position or just a witch hunt?

So many options.  Maybe all of the above?  This new quantum-stuff makes forming opinions about reality a dicey proposition. 

General Comments / Re: Impeaching Kavanaugh
« on: September 18, 2019, 09:25:03 AM »
Not that I want to keep dragging this back up over and over again like Crunch does (seriously, let it go man)  :P  Phrases like “I have zero recollection.” strike a lot of people as legal speak for, "Yep! but forgetting isn't perjury!  Just say "It didn't happen in my presence."  Or "that claim is false" FFS.

From a legal stand point I get it, and not being forced to incriminate yourself is a good thing too, but don't whine when all the world assumes you did it.  It's hard not to look at our system at times as a high stakes game show of gotcha, rather than a "justice system".  It should be little shock to anyone we also focus so intently on the public trial of appearances.

But seriously Crunch, leave the poor SCJ alone.  Hasn't he been through enough?  :)

General Comments / Re: Dem debates
« on: September 16, 2019, 01:28:56 AM »
Does anyone realistically think this could win a national election?
Against Trump?  Ya.  I think Trump correctly diagnosed (or got lucky?) that the nation was looking for anything but the same-ol'-same-ol'.  Sanders would fit right into that niche as well.  And do so by scapegoating the super wealthy instead of scapegoating the super marginalized / desperate. 

I think he would have absolutely won last go round, and has a good shot this time.  Though I think the better play would be for two of the front runners to share a ticket.  (and announce that sooner rather than later)

General Comments / Re: NRA as domestic terrorists
« on: September 14, 2019, 09:29:49 PM »
I could try and hypothetical this out... but as I don't agree with the position, is that worthwhile to anyone here?  While I know a few people in the "guns-bad!  stop them all!  NRA EVIL!" crowd, I'm not one of them.

I only think the NRA is a greedy industry lobby. 

Are either of you arguing that people DON'T feel that way?  Even if some of their arguments may have as many holes as paper silhouettes in a gun rage trash bin.  :P

The NRA enables the power fantasy of present and would be gun owners.  I find it dumb, but others find it to be a huge part of the problem surrounding gun violence.  I would shed no tears if the NRA vanished tomorrow, but we're an Amendment and multiple landmark cases too deep to call them terrorists with credibility as I see it.  I want them gone the same way I want big money pharam or tobacco or oil away from our politicians.  /shrug 

Though... chemical attack terrorists!  Bio terrorists or climate-terrorists labels can solve ALL our problems!  Hold up, I'm reconsidering.     ;D

General Comments / Re: NRA as domestic terrorists
« on: September 14, 2019, 06:14:19 PM »
Not my argument to make, as I find the accusation a silly one.

My guess?  By rigorous attempts to block any measures some people feel could stop or reduce the number of these attacks. 

As I see them as just another industry lobby I understand the desire to hold them accountable.  I would draw the parallels with the pharmaceutical companies being sued over the opioid crisis, rather than providing material support for terrorism. 

General Comments / Re: Dem debates
« on: September 13, 2019, 10:09:55 PM »
Umm, when "bleeding from the eye" is a possible side effect, WTF are you treating?   :o

I'm normally pretty dismissive of the, "is so and so healthy / young enough to run this country?" speculation but, yikes! 

I mean, that one bond villain kinda made it look creepy/intimidating, but it's pretty gross.

General Comments / Re: Dem debates
« on: September 13, 2019, 08:36:46 PM »
I was reading other stuff while I had it on so missed anything to do with his teeth.  First I heard of the eye bleeding? 

But even just focusing on what he said, it was underwhelming. 

All good points.  Probably just part of me being angry a trashy celebrity was elected over politicians who try not to act like that in public. 

General Comments / Re: Dem debates
« on: September 13, 2019, 05:49:34 PM »
True, the only equivalent is just ignoring candidates into oblivion. 

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 50