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 August 12 2016 11:21 oBlade wrote: We already drone strike US citizens, so that ship is sailing.
Well, I think there's still time to turn around. "Full steam ahead" doesn't seem like the best response in regards to losing the freedoms of classic liberalism. It took two terms for Obama to close Gitmo and really I think he just shuffled the deck to another offshore site (minus the whole 'enhanced interrogation" *cough* torture). And now one of the next presidential candidates wants to go back to square one. I think the right to a fair trial is a fight worth winning in this modern era.
So much for the progress of humans. We refight the same battles, and forget what we already know whether it is immunizations or the freedoms that create a just society.
edit. On the other hand, it was the reporter that asked if he would use military tribunals to try US citizens, so this may be classic Trump ignorance. ie Gitmo is off US soil, therefore Gitmo = Safe and Good. And he simply doesn't recognize the difference between military trials vs civilian trials. Alternatively, maybe he's just used to talking and not listening to the question... being one that doesn't subscribe to "Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak..." I don't know which of these scenarios is worst, but none of them are particularly good.
I don't really understand what a fetishization of experts is supposed to be. Is it to trust that the people whose job it is to know stuff on a subject tend to have more informed opinions on said subject than the people who have different jobs? I find the people who distrust and discard experts when they disagree with them much more concerning than the people who take their word for granted a little too easily.
On August 12 2016 17:53 Nebuchad wrote: I don't really understand what a fetishization of experts is supposed to be. Is it to trust that the people whose job it is to know stuff on a subject tend to have more informed opinions on said subject than the people who have different jobs? I find the people who distrust and discard experts when they disagree with them much more concerning than the people who take their word for granted a little too easily.
That's not wrong per se.
What is wrong is keep grasping to what an expert said a decade ago, with information already available that debunked part of it. Yeah, i didn't go to lengths to hunt down the sources of the paper immediately to find the guy responsible saying "well only 3 years later, turned out everything changed" - but if you apply at least a fraction of common sense, you realize that something someone said a decade ago needs to be fact checked. Not by me, but by Kwark, since he quoted it as source. Not just that, you also realize that a country like russia, who literally just went and rubbed its dick in the faces of EU and US while annexing part of another country (which also happened after the paper was published, indicating that russia isn't as tooth- and spineless as it makes it out to be) wouldn't give a flying fuck if they can afford "weapon X". As was stated by Kwark as well (russia doesn't bother spending much on nuclear stuff etc anymore). These things are objectively wrong, with information that didn't take an hour to find. If so much is wrong with a paper, and you still say "well but THAT you haven't debunked yet", .. yeah. You either fetishize that paper, or you know you're wrong and just hope that i don't find a source (the actual expert that made the claim in the first place) that literally said "what i said three years ago is worthless".
But that doesn't mean that an authoritative source on the subject should be dismissed because m4ini reckons otherwise without providing anything other than his gut feeling on the issue. Until he actually went to try and find out something about the subject my facts were the most up to date offered.
Which btw is utter bullshit, i told you what parts of the paper were wrong beforehand. It's not hard to check my claim of subs being increasingly sighted across the world, and even less in regards to "they don't spend much anymore". I even gave you numbers in regards to their latest submarine which is ridiculously expensive. Which moots two points in your paper already. It's reasonable to assume that other things in that paper are wrong too, which turned out to be correct. It's btw also not my job to factcheck your source, and make sure it actually is correct.
Actually, there are some really well written, highly technical articles on Wikipedia in math and sciences, mostly because no one bothers vandalizing articles that contain esoteric math.
That's because the average joe has no idea what he's even looking at in these articles. Including me.
A handful of moderate House Republicans in tight reelection contests have done something that most Republicans would consider unthinkable — renounce the GOP catechism on repealing Obamacare as they fight for their political lives. They say they oppose the health law but are reluctant to tear it up completely.
"Unless there is a bipartisan solution to fix the law, I don't think we should be taking symbolic votes," to repeal it, said Rep. Bob Dold of Illinois, who is casting himself as a bipartisan voice in Congress as he fights to hang on to one of the most competitive districts in the country.
The break with party leaders in the deeply contentious health care fight reflects a larger change on the campaign trail throughout the country: For the first time since Obamacare’s passage six years ago, and after House Republicans have taken over 60 votes to try to repeal it, the crusade appears to be losing its fire as a political rallying cry, taking a back seat to worries over national security and the economy.
Donald Trump spends far more time bashing Mexicans, Muslims and “job-killing” free trade than talking about repealing the Affordable Care Act.
The Republican Senate candidates — with the exception of Sen. John McCain in Arizona — haven't made the health law an overarching theme this year, even though many of them won their last race in 2010 railing against the law that was only a few months old at the time.
Most surprising, Dold was one of three House Republicans — along with Reps. John Katko of New York and Bruce Poliquin of Maine — to openly flout GOP orthodoxy by voting against the law’s repeal in January 2015. Earlier this year, Dold and Katko also voted against repealing huge portions of the law as part of a budget bill.
It's not even that. There's a form of asshole in public life now who is often masquerading as a comic, who sees how far he can go without offending the room and then says "it was only a joke" when they lose everyone.
There's a right-wing issue movie lately about that, mostly blaming leftists and social justice sensitivity for the lack of tolerance for blue humor. You've got Gilbert Gottfried complaining about losing his Aflac gig due to his tsunami joke, Penn Jillette expressing his support for free speech, etc. The problem those guys are ACTUALLY facing, is not that the crowd has become too sensitive, it's that there's too many mean people using comedy as a shield to retract a horrible opinion.
On August 12 2016 07:29 PassiveAce wrote: Except it's objectively true
Is it? What part? The one that said "nobody is challenging the US", which is objectively and factually wrong, or the "age of peace", which is even worse, considering that there never was more fear, death and terror for the west, and the shit show that you guys turned the middle east into?
Right.
What nation provides a credible threat to the united states military? How many fighter jets does Isis have?
Also I'm not sure if your aware of this but very very very few Americansare killed by terrorism.
That you think this is an age of fear and death shows that you don't have much knowledge about American or western history. This is by far the safest time to be alive in the West in last hundred years
It's honestly amusing to me that your so wrapped up in your own time that you would ignore the cold war, world war 2, world war 1, Vietnam, and straighttacedly claim that we are living right now in the most dangerous times.
Obama didn't found ISIS, but his and Clinton's foreign policy lead to the rise of ISIS, and the EU "refugee crisis". Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya. They were involved in all of those civil wars on the side of radical islam. On top of that they were involved in Ukraine, which gave Russia valid reasons to invade and annex Crimea. Similarly now in Syria, USA's foreign policy has enabled Russia to join on the opposite side. The russians are fighting (in a very popular war) against ppl who are armed with american guns. Please try and put yourself in the shoes of a russian soldier, and imagine how this situation would make you feel? The Obama/Clinton administration has systematically targeted secular regimes in the muslim world, and they have destabilized most of the region, broken apart all the goodwill they had built with Russia since the fall of the USSR, and manufactured a "refugee crisis" that is currently destroying Europe.
If only it were so well that Obama was ONLY the founder of ISIS. Stop supporting leaders who are actively destroying the world!
Gosh, now we can see what a moderate attack on Obama looks like. He may not be the sole founder of ISIS, but the Obama/Clinton Administration manufactured the Syrian refugee crisis. Much more moderate.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Sht2vW7.jpg)
