|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 24 2016 02:23 farvacola wrote: Somewhere in between killing families and complete pacifism lies the solution, clearly. But those options are complicated. I hate complicated solutions to complex problems.
|
On June 24 2016 02:01 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 01:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 24 2016 01:54 Mohdoo wrote:On June 24 2016 01:50 GreenHorizons wrote: Didn't someone post an email from Hillary saying that she agrees with Solar that threatening terrorists families (namely Assad's) was a legitimate tactic? So if that makes him crazy, I suppose he has decent company? Got a link to the email? It was posted here earlier by someone else. Did you not see it or are you questioning the veracity? I can't keep track of every post in this thread. Wasn't really sure what to search for, so I was assuming you had it on hand in some way.
The quote was already posted but here's the doc for reference.
wikileaks.org
|
GH -> the quote didn't sound like it remotely said what you said it said.
PS man I wish tl would stop having annoying ads so I didn't have to disable stuff that breaks other discussion/forum features just to be able to use tl.
|
On June 24 2016 02:26 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 02:23 farvacola wrote: Somewhere in between killing families and complete pacifism lies the solution, clearly. But those options are complicated. I hate complicated solutions to complex problems.
The large statement the right wants to get across is that the left is trying to re-write what the problem is in the first place and not accepting it when it's staring them in the face.
|
On June 24 2016 02:29 zlefin wrote: GH -> the quote didn't sound like it remotely said what you said it said.
PS man I wish tl would stop having annoying ads so I didn't have to disable stuff that breaks other discussion/forum features just to be able to use tl.
You mean on mobile? Running ublock and I don't see anything on desktop. I tried to whitelist TL, but some of the inappropriate ads kept slipping through and I have zero tolerance for that when I'm at work.
|
On June 24 2016 02:30 SK.Testie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 02:26 Plansix wrote:On June 24 2016 02:23 farvacola wrote: Somewhere in between killing families and complete pacifism lies the solution, clearly. But those options are complicated. I hate complicated solutions to complex problems. The large statement the right wants to get across is that the left is trying to re-write what the problem is in the first place and not accepting it when it's staring them in the face. That we need to execute the families of terrorist without due process in order to win? Because that is what this discussion is about.
Edit: Before you answer, just remember this was the really uplifting discussion that got the thread closed last time. And it was brought up by Solar last time. Personally, I think we need a moratorium on murdering families as a solution to terrorism.
|
On June 24 2016 02:29 zlefin wrote: GH -> the quote didn't sound like it remotely said what you said it said.
PS man I wish tl would stop having annoying ads so I didn't have to disable stuff that breaks other discussion/forum features just to be able to use tl.
Mute the tab you view TL in has been working well for me.
|
On June 24 2016 02:14 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 01:43 xDaunt wrote: Comparing the danger of mentally unstable white people to the danger of Islamic terrorism is disingenuous. The critical difference is that, unlike the lone, mentally unstable white person who shoots up a bunch of people, Islamic terrorists have an actual agenda that is backed by a lot of people: supplanting Western culture with Muslim culture. It's this assault on Western identity that merits governments giving extra -- and if you look at it in a vacuum, undue -- attention to Islamic terrorists. Am I less dead if someone kills me without an agenda? If not I don't really care. The dangerous part is the murder thing, not the agenda Sure, but the point is that Islamic terrorism also threatens those who won't die from the immediate acts of terrorism. It's not a "one off" type of thing.
|
On June 24 2016 02:32 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 02:29 zlefin wrote: GH -> the quote didn't sound like it remotely said what you said it said.
PS man I wish tl would stop having annoying ads so I didn't have to disable stuff that breaks other discussion/forum features just to be able to use tl. Mute the tab you view TL in has been working well for me. the problem is it's not just the sound; it was also randomly freezing up my other tabs because of something.
|
On June 24 2016 02:29 zlefin wrote: GH -> the quote didn't sound like it remotely said what you said it said.
PS man I wish tl would stop having annoying ads so I didn't have to disable stuff that breaks other discussion/forum features just to be able to use tl.
It's literally no different than what Trump was saying from a functional perspective. Use threat against the opposition's family as leverage.
The only difference is Trump came and said it outright bluntly on an interview that would get spread by the MSM like wildfire while Hillary is secretive about it.
|
On June 24 2016 02:39 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 02:29 zlefin wrote: GH -> the quote didn't sound like it remotely said what you said it said.
PS man I wish tl would stop having annoying ads so I didn't have to disable stuff that breaks other discussion/forum features just to be able to use tl. It's literally no different than what Trump was saying from a functional perspective. Use threat against the opposition's family as leverage. The only difference is Trump came and said it outright bluntly and Hillary is secretive about it. please don't say literally when you mean figuratively. I disagree with your reading of the Hillary statement on this point; that's not how it reads to me. But I can see how you might read it your way; though the evidence that she intended it to mean they should direct attacks against members of Assad's family who aren't guilty of anything seems rather thin.
|
On June 24 2016 02:30 SK.Testie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 02:26 Plansix wrote:On June 24 2016 02:23 farvacola wrote: Somewhere in between killing families and complete pacifism lies the solution, clearly. But those options are complicated. I hate complicated solutions to complex problems. The large statement the right wants to get across is that the left is trying to re-write what the problem is in the first place and not accepting it when it's staring them in the face. as the left and right are quite groupings, with many disparate opinions; it's hard to tell which left groups you're responding to. There may well be some groups which aren't recognizing the problem, but I'd say most of them do have a good sense of what the problem is. There are some on the left who understate the degree to which the problem is Islam; there are some on the right who overrstate the degree to which the problem is Islam.
|
On June 24 2016 02:42 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 02:39 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 24 2016 02:29 zlefin wrote: GH -> the quote didn't sound like it remotely said what you said it said.
PS man I wish tl would stop having annoying ads so I didn't have to disable stuff that breaks other discussion/forum features just to be able to use tl. It's literally no different than what Trump was saying from a functional perspective. Use threat against the opposition's family as leverage. The only difference is Trump came and said it outright bluntly and Hillary is secretive about it. please don't say literally when you mean figuratively. I disagree with your reading of the Hillary statement on this point; that's not how it reads to me. But I can see how you might read it your way; though the evidence that she intended it to mean they should direct attacks against members of Assad's family who aren't guilty of anything seems rather thin.
I meant literal when I said literal. Functionally, they are literally advocating the same use of force policies.
We just have to disagree then but I think you're being unfairly biased here in your interpretation of the two's positions.
|
On June 24 2016 01:57 SK.Testie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 01:50 GreenHorizons wrote: Didn't someone post an email from Hillary saying that she agrees with Solar that threatening terrorists families (namely Assad's) was a legitimate tactic? So if that makes him crazy, I suppose he has decent company? Yes, Hillary laid out everything on Assad in her e-mails. The only thing I didn't see mentioned was the Qatar pipeline. + Show Spoiler + That is completely different from what Trump says.
Trump says kill their families.
That email says that because Assad's life and the lives of his family is in danger he will only react to force and not other means of negotiation.
The email does not say to threaten his family. It states the present situation (rebels threatening his life and that of his family) and its effect on negotation.
Once again a basic failure of the English language leads to stupid strawman statements.
|
On June 24 2016 02:46 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 02:42 zlefin wrote:On June 24 2016 02:39 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 24 2016 02:29 zlefin wrote: GH -> the quote didn't sound like it remotely said what you said it said.
PS man I wish tl would stop having annoying ads so I didn't have to disable stuff that breaks other discussion/forum features just to be able to use tl. It's literally no different than what Trump was saying from a functional perspective. Use threat against the opposition's family as leverage. The only difference is Trump came and said it outright bluntly and Hillary is secretive about it. please don't say literally when you mean figuratively. I disagree with your reading of the Hillary statement on this point; that's not how it reads to me. But I can see how you might read it your way; though the evidence that she intended it to mean they should direct attacks against members of Assad's family who aren't guilty of anything seems rather thin. I meant literal when I said literal. Functionally, they are literally advocating the same use of force policies. We just have to disagree then but I think you're being unfairly biased here in your interpretation of the two's positions.
I mean Trump literally isn't saying that. Especially since he changed his view.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-terrorists_us_56e0d7cde4b065e2e3d4d82d
Donald Trump said Wednesday night that he doesn’t necessarily want to kill the families of terrorists — a controversial proposal he has raised at various points during his campaign.
Instead, Trump told CNN, his policy would merely be “to go after them” if he wins the White House.
What “go after them” actually means is left to the imagination of voters, since Trump spoke only in evasive bromides during the interview.
“We have to do something and it’s the only way you stop it.” “We have to be a lot tougher. We are playing with a different set of rules.” “We have to play the game at a much tougher level than we are playing.” “We’re not fighting it strongly enough.”
Fact is we have no idea what Trump will do. He changes his ideas too often.
|
The email is an analysis of a scenario rather than advocating for a specific response.
|
|
On June 24 2016 02:49 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 02:46 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 24 2016 02:42 zlefin wrote:On June 24 2016 02:39 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 24 2016 02:29 zlefin wrote: GH -> the quote didn't sound like it remotely said what you said it said.
PS man I wish tl would stop having annoying ads so I didn't have to disable stuff that breaks other discussion/forum features just to be able to use tl. It's literally no different than what Trump was saying from a functional perspective. Use threat against the opposition's family as leverage. The only difference is Trump came and said it outright bluntly and Hillary is secretive about it. please don't say literally when you mean figuratively. I disagree with your reading of the Hillary statement on this point; that's not how it reads to me. But I can see how you might read it your way; though the evidence that she intended it to mean they should direct attacks against members of Assad's family who aren't guilty of anything seems rather thin. I meant literal when I said literal. Functionally, they are literally advocating the same use of force policies. We just have to disagree then but I think you're being unfairly biased here in your interpretation of the two's positions. I mean Trump literally isn't saying that. Especially since he changed his view. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-terrorists_us_56e0d7cde4b065e2e3d4d82dShow nested quote +Donald Trump said Wednesday night that he doesn’t necessarily want to kill the families of terrorists — a controversial proposal he has raised at various points during his campaign.
Instead, Trump told CNN, his policy would merely be “to go after them” if he wins the White House.
What “go after them” actually means is left to the imagination of voters, since Trump spoke only in evasive bromides during the interview.
“We have to do something and it’s the only way you stop it.” “We have to be a lot tougher. We are playing with a different set of rules.” “We have to play the game at a much tougher level than we are playing.” “We’re not fighting it strongly enough.” "We should go after them" and give them hugs and cuddles?
|
On June 24 2016 02:49 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 02:46 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 24 2016 02:42 zlefin wrote:On June 24 2016 02:39 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 24 2016 02:29 zlefin wrote: GH -> the quote didn't sound like it remotely said what you said it said.
PS man I wish tl would stop having annoying ads so I didn't have to disable stuff that breaks other discussion/forum features just to be able to use tl. It's literally no different than what Trump was saying from a functional perspective. Use threat against the opposition's family as leverage. The only difference is Trump came and said it outright bluntly and Hillary is secretive about it. please don't say literally when you mean figuratively. I disagree with your reading of the Hillary statement on this point; that's not how it reads to me. But I can see how you might read it your way; though the evidence that she intended it to mean they should direct attacks against members of Assad's family who aren't guilty of anything seems rather thin. I meant literal when I said literal. Functionally, they are literally advocating the same use of force policies. We just have to disagree then but I think you're being unfairly biased here in your interpretation of the two's positions. I mean Trump literally isn't saying that. Especially since he changed his view. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-terrorists_us_56e0d7cde4b065e2e3d4d82dShow nested quote +Donald Trump said Wednesday night that he doesn’t necessarily want to kill the families of terrorists — a controversial proposal he has raised at various points during his campaign.
Instead, Trump told CNN, his policy would merely be “to go after them” if he wins the White House.
What “go after them” actually means is left to the imagination of voters, since Trump spoke only in evasive bromides during the interview.
“We have to do something and it’s the only way you stop it.” “We have to be a lot tougher. We are playing with a different set of rules.” “We have to play the game at a much tougher level than we are playing.” “We’re not fighting it strongly enough.”
Isn't that what I argued he was getting at like 2-3 weeks ago prior to a thread lock when everyone was bringing up how it made him such a monster for 'advocating we prioritize killing innocent families' as his foreign policy platform.
Golly-gee what a coincidence
I guess the billionaire running for president isn't a complete nutjob sociopath who just wants to murder innocent people. Fuck me right? haha
|
All of those could mean anything or nothing. That is like mafia level "It would be a shame of something were to happen to them," passive aggressive.
On June 24 2016 02:50 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 02:49 On_Slaught wrote:On June 24 2016 02:46 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 24 2016 02:42 zlefin wrote:On June 24 2016 02:39 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 24 2016 02:29 zlefin wrote: GH -> the quote didn't sound like it remotely said what you said it said.
PS man I wish tl would stop having annoying ads so I didn't have to disable stuff that breaks other discussion/forum features just to be able to use tl. It's literally no different than what Trump was saying from a functional perspective. Use threat against the opposition's family as leverage. The only difference is Trump came and said it outright bluntly and Hillary is secretive about it. please don't say literally when you mean figuratively. I disagree with your reading of the Hillary statement on this point; that's not how it reads to me. But I can see how you might read it your way; though the evidence that she intended it to mean they should direct attacks against members of Assad's family who aren't guilty of anything seems rather thin. I meant literal when I said literal. Functionally, they are literally advocating the same use of force policies. We just have to disagree then but I think you're being unfairly biased here in your interpretation of the two's positions. I mean Trump literally isn't saying that. Especially since he changed his view. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-terrorists_us_56e0d7cde4b065e2e3d4d82dDonald Trump said Wednesday night that he doesn’t necessarily want to kill the families of terrorists — a controversial proposal he has raised at various points during his campaign.
Instead, Trump told CNN, his policy would merely be “to go after them” if he wins the White House.
What “go after them” actually means is left to the imagination of voters, since Trump spoke only in evasive bromides during the interview.
“We have to do something and it’s the only way you stop it.” “We have to be a lot tougher. We are playing with a different set of rules.” “We have to play the game at a much tougher level than we are playing.” “We’re not fighting it strongly enough.” "We should go after them" and give them hugs and cuddles?
We need to change the rules on hugs and cuddles.
|
|
|
|