|
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 May 09 2017 00:13 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2017 00:07 LegalLord wrote:
The "intelligence community" said it, I believe it, that settles it. Never mind that they acted in bad faith and based their findings on rather faulty perceptions of the situation that makes what should be a pretty obvious and straightforward matter to prove.They should be ashamed that a hacky bunch of "private investigators" (e-detectives) made a better case than they ever did.
But hey, the intelligence community never lies and is even less likely to be incompetent, right? If seventeen intelligence agencies say something we should believe them and leave it at that. Do you actually think they're wrong in this case or are you just doing your usual bullshit where you try to muddy the waters for the hell of it and discredit anything and everything? Interestingly enough LegalLord's posting matches the best explanation I've ever read for Putin's infowar against the west. + Show Spoiler +After the collapse of the Soviet Union, this kind of cynicism was referred to as the "reverse cargo cult" effect.
In a regular cargo cult, you have people who see an airstrip, and the cargo drops, so they build one out of straw, hoping for the same outcome. They don't know the difference between a straw airstrip and a real one, they just want the cargo.
In a reverse cargo cult, you have people who see an airstrip, and the cargo drops, so they build one out of straw. But there's a twist:
When they build the straw airstrip, it isn't because they are hoping for the same outcome. They know the difference, and know that because their airstrip is made of straw, it certainly won't yield any cargo, but it serves another purpose. They don't lie to the rubes and tell them that an airstrip made of straw will bring them cargo. That's an easy lie to dismantle. Instead, what they do is make it clear that the airstrip is made of straw, and doesn't work, but then tell you that the other guy's airstrip doesn't work either. They tell you that no airstrips yield cargo. The whole idea of cargo is a lie, and those fools, with their fancy airstrip made out of wood, concrete, and metal is just as wasteful and silly as one made of straw.
1980s Soviets knew that their government was lying to them about the strength and power of their society, the Communist Party couldn't hide all of the dysfunctions people saw on a daily basis. This didn't stop the Soviet leadership from lying. Instead, they just accused the West of being equally deceptive. "Sure, things might be bad here, but they are just as bad in America, and in America people are actually foolish enough to believe in the lie! Not like you, clever people. You get it. You know it is a lie."
Trump's supporters don't care about being lied to. You can point out the lies until you're blue in the face, but it makes no difference to them. Why? Because it is just a game to them. The media lies, bloggers lie, politicians lie, it's just all a bunch of lies. Facts don't matter because those are lies also. Those trolls on Twitter, 4Chan, T_D, etc. are just having a good laugh. They are congratulating each other for being so smart. We are fools for still believing in anything. There is no cargo, and probably never was. Credit for concept to Ilya Kukulin. Explanation shamelessly stolen from reddit.
I know you like your strawmen and your bogus little pattern matching almost as much as you like living the British empire vicariously through the US. But if you wanted a serious answer rather than to seek to throw out a potshot, the only part that you would have actually wanted is this one:
On May 09 2017 00:13 KwarK wrote:
Do you actually think they're wrong in this case?
Simple answer, though, is this. No, I don't think that it's wrong to assume that Russia hacked the DNC and John Podesta's email account and then leaked both to Wikileaks. The evidence is circumstantial but the motive, opportunity, and evidence seem to point most strongly to Russia doing those two hacks. However, the "intelligence community" is doing its best impression of an OJ Simpson prosecution. The ODNI report isn't worth the photons it's e-printed on, James Comey (who I generally respect and have defended many times in the past) talks out of his ass at the Congressional hearings, and the "Russia investigation" is running into all of the false starts, misdirections, and media frenzies that one would expect from a hilariously ineffectual intelligence-led investigation. The blind faith that Plansix expressed (in the aftermath of talking about how lied to he was in Iraq no less) is not in the least justified.
|
United States44203 Posts
On May 09 2017 00:46 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2017 00:13 KwarK wrote:On May 09 2017 00:07 LegalLord wrote:
The "intelligence community" said it, I believe it, that settles it. Never mind that they acted in bad faith and based their findings on rather faulty perceptions of the situation that makes what should be a pretty obvious and straightforward matter to prove.They should be ashamed that a hacky bunch of "private investigators" (e-detectives) made a better case than they ever did.
But hey, the intelligence community never lies and is even less likely to be incompetent, right? If seventeen intelligence agencies say something we should believe them and leave it at that. Do you actually think they're wrong in this case or are you just doing your usual bullshit where you try to muddy the waters for the hell of it and discredit anything and everything? Interestingly enough LegalLord's posting matches the best explanation I've ever read for Putin's infowar against the west. + Show Spoiler +After the collapse of the Soviet Union, this kind of cynicism was referred to as the "reverse cargo cult" effect.
In a regular cargo cult, you have people who see an airstrip, and the cargo drops, so they build one out of straw, hoping for the same outcome. They don't know the difference between a straw airstrip and a real one, they just want the cargo.
In a reverse cargo cult, you have people who see an airstrip, and the cargo drops, so they build one out of straw. But there's a twist:
When they build the straw airstrip, it isn't because they are hoping for the same outcome. They know the difference, and know that because their airstrip is made of straw, it certainly won't yield any cargo, but it serves another purpose. They don't lie to the rubes and tell them that an airstrip made of straw will bring them cargo. That's an easy lie to dismantle. Instead, what they do is make it clear that the airstrip is made of straw, and doesn't work, but then tell you that the other guy's airstrip doesn't work either. They tell you that no airstrips yield cargo. The whole idea of cargo is a lie, and those fools, with their fancy airstrip made out of wood, concrete, and metal is just as wasteful and silly as one made of straw.
1980s Soviets knew that their government was lying to them about the strength and power of their society, the Communist Party couldn't hide all of the dysfunctions people saw on a daily basis. This didn't stop the Soviet leadership from lying. Instead, they just accused the West of being equally deceptive. "Sure, things might be bad here, but they are just as bad in America, and in America people are actually foolish enough to believe in the lie! Not like you, clever people. You get it. You know it is a lie."
Trump's supporters don't care about being lied to. You can point out the lies until you're blue in the face, but it makes no difference to them. Why? Because it is just a game to them. The media lies, bloggers lie, politicians lie, it's just all a bunch of lies. Facts don't matter because those are lies also. Those trolls on Twitter, 4Chan, T_D, etc. are just having a good laugh. They are congratulating each other for being so smart. We are fools for still believing in anything. There is no cargo, and probably never was. Credit for concept to Ilya Kukulin. Explanation shamelessly stolen from reddit. I know you like your strawmen and your bogus little pattern matching almost as much as you like living the British empire vicariously through the US. But if you wanted a serious answer rather than to seek to throw out a potshot, the only part that you would have actually wanted is this one: Show nested quote +On May 09 2017 00:13 KwarK wrote:
Do you actually think they're wrong in this case? Simple answer, though, is this. No, I don't think that it's wrong to assume that Russia hacked the DNC and John Podesta's email account. The evidence is circumstantial but the motive, opportunity, and evidence seem to point most strongly to Russia doing those two hacks. However, the "intelligence community" is doing its best impression of an OJ Simpson prosecution. The ODNI report isn't worth the photons it's e-printed on, James Comey (who I generally respect and have defended many times in the past) talks out of his ass at the Congressional hearings, and the "Russia investigation" is running into all of the false starts, misdirections, and media frenzies that one would expect from a hilariously ineffectual intelligence-led investigation. The blind faith that Plansix expressed (in the aftermath of talking about how lied to he was in Iraq no less) is not in the least justified.
This is exactly my point and exactly why you are the primary peddler of reverse cargo cults in this topic.
You show up with this shitOn May 09 2017 00:07 LegalLord wrote:
But hey, the intelligence community never lies and is even less likely to be incompetent, right? If seventeen intelligence agencies say something we should believe them and leave it at that. and then when pushed on the specific point confess that you don't actually think they're wrong. Literally all you do is make vague passive aggressive comments designed to discredit every institution without ever stating what your view is unless specifically pressed, in which case surprise surprise, there's nothing actually behind the vague passive aggressive comments, you don't even think they're wrong. But you just had to snipe at them because you have to snipe at everything.
You're a clown. And not a funny clown. You're a weird clown who needs to go home and take a long hard look at his Putin makeup covered face in the mirror.
Next time you post trying to discredit something I want you to stop, look at the post you're about to submit and seriously ask yourself "do I believe this or am I just trying to throw shade at everything around me because that's what I do?" and then if it's the second one, just don't make the post. I know that's a strange request to make and it's strange for me to have to ask anyone to only post opinions they actually think are true because most people do that by default but in your case I really think you could benefit from that rule.
|
I don’t really know how you get blind faith simply because I do not mirror your level of skepticism. I also find the comparisons to the ramp up to Iraq a bit silly, having been an adult during that time.
|
@Kwark: I see, you're just trolling. No need to respond to you then.
On May 09 2017 00:53 Plansix wrote:
I don’t really know how you get blind faith simply because I do not mirror your level of skepticism. I also find the comparisons to the ramp up to Iraq a bit silly, having been an adult during that time.
It's just ever so slightly hilarious how you make a big stick out of "I was gullible, I was lied to, I trusted them" and yet in every situation in which one might expect that newly found skepticism to manifest, there is little more than trust and belief that the intelligence folk are all good. Or your attempts to justify why Hillary Clinton wasn't wrong for pushing Iraq because "we were all lied to." Bottom line is that while you always make a big stink out of how you have changed since then it's clear that in reality you learned nothing and would fall for it again if the nation were in the warring mood again.
And yes, that contradiction is certainly worthy of mockery.
|
United States44203 Posts
On May 09 2017 00:58 LegalLord wrote:
@Kwark: I see, you're just trolling. No need to respond to you then.
You literally just made one post attacking the untrustworthy intelligence communities and deriding anyone who takes their word at face value and then followed it with a second one where you admitted that in this case they can be trusted and their word is legit.
But sure, I'm the one trolling by calling out your ridiculous bullshit.
|
On May 09 2017 00:18 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2017 00:13 Paljas wrote:
Kwark, the reason why we believe in experts in precisly because they can prove their claims and have the knowledge to correctly use and gauge the data and information. If you would ask a biologist to prove that evolution exists, he would have plenty of data to proof that evolution is real. And if you ask a historian to prove the existence of a person (e.g. Napoleon), they would again be able to provide historical documents etc. to support and proof their claims.
From this, i think its pretty obvious what i mean when i say "actual proof": reliable data and information which confirm and assure the assumptions and claims. No such data was provided in this case. Of course, you may claim that i am overly skeptic and distrustful, but the considering what can happend (iraq and libya) i believe that my distrust is justified.
What would you accept as actual proof of Napoleon that could not have been falsified by a conspiracy of experts working to deceive you? I'm not sure there is anything I could accept, every route just leads me to more experts. Dating primary sources needs me to trust concepts like nuclear decay and so forth, it's not feasible that I ever do it all by myself. All I can do is trust that the conspiracy would collapse if it existed. And oddly enough the intelligence community was publicly divided on the case for Iraq, exactly as we would want to see if there was something unreliable. Experts were speaking out against the politician's misrepresentation of facts. The intelligence services of other nations were speaking up and saying that this report isn't right. The Chilcott Report in the UK concludes that there was sufficient information at the time for the politicians to have made the correct choice and that the incorrect decision was deliberately made despite the intelligence for political reasons.
Whether or not the data and information is fabricated is indeed something i might not be able to decide for myself. In such a case, i must belief the experts in this field and if something is fishy, there might indeed be a dispute between experts which shows me that something is up. However, in the case at hand, I am even unable to check the data and information and ask an expert about it, exactly because no such thing was provided. and if i look data that is public, i can see that the experts can not draw safe conclusions from it.
this is clearly different from the historian who tries to persuade me that napoleon is real. (its even different from the alleged wmd in iraq case, as data was provided. its just that the data was fabricated.)
The point which i wanted to make with my first post on this topic wasnt that there wasnt any russian involvement in the hacks. However, i wanted to point out how strange it is to mock people that dont believe in involvement when there is also zero conclusive proof that confirms the involvement. The people who fell for the regular cargo cult can, in a dialectical twist, start to mock the people who believe in the reverse cargo cult. They just should remember that their own airstrip still yields no cargo
e:@plansix as i wasnt an adult during 2003, i am curious what you think are significant differences between now and then.
|
Sally Yates is scheduled to testify at 2:30 EST. What are the odds that something important actually comes out from this? It seems the most likely of any of the testimonies, but at the same time I would've figured we would've heard at least something about what she's going to say if it were truly important
|
Edit: never mind, it's not worth it.
|
United States44203 Posts
On May 09 2017 01:01 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2017 00:18 KwarK wrote:On May 09 2017 00:13 Paljas wrote:
Kwark, the reason why we believe in experts in precisly because they can prove their claims and have the knowledge to correctly use and gauge the data and information. If you would ask a biologist to prove that evolution exists, he would have plenty of data to proof that evolution is real. And if you ask a historian to prove the existence of a person (e.g. Napoleon), they would again be able to provide historical documents etc. to support and proof their claims.
From this, i think its pretty obvious what i mean when i say "actual proof": reliable data and information which confirm and assure the assumptions and claims. No such data was provided in this case. Of course, you may claim that i am overly skeptic and distrustful, but the considering what can happend (iraq and libya) i believe that my distrust is justified.
What would you accept as actual proof of Napoleon that could not have been falsified by a conspiracy of experts working to deceive you? I'm not sure there is anything I could accept, every route just leads me to more experts. Dating primary sources needs me to trust concepts like nuclear decay and so forth, it's not feasible that I ever do it all by myself. All I can do is trust that the conspiracy would collapse if it existed. And oddly enough the intelligence community was publicly divided on the case for Iraq, exactly as we would want to see if there was something unreliable. Experts were speaking out against the politician's misrepresentation of facts. The intelligence services of other nations were speaking up and saying that this report isn't right. The Chilcott Report in the UK concludes that there was sufficient information at the time for the politicians to have made the correct choice and that the incorrect decision was deliberately made despite the intelligence for political reasons. Whether or not the data and information is fabricated is indeed something i might not be able to decide for myself. In such a case, i must belief the experts in this field and if something is fishy, there might indeed be a dispute between experts which shows me that something is up. However, in the case at hand, I am even unable to check the data and information and ask an expert about it, exactly because no such thing was provided. and if i look data that is public, i can see that the experts can not draw safe conclusions from it. this is clearly different from the historian who tries to persuade me that napoleon is real. (its even different from the alleged wmd in iraq case, as data was provided. its just that the data was fabricated.) The point which i wanted to make with my first post on this topic wasnt that there wasnt any russian involvement in the hacks. However, i wanted to point out how strange it is to mock people that dont believe in involvement when there is also zero conclusive proof that confirms the involvement. The people who fell for the regular cargo cult can, in a dialectical twist, start to mock the people who believe in the reverse cargo cult. They just should remember that their own airstrip still yields no cargo
But the system actually worked in the case of Iraq. Iraq was a political adventure, not an intelligence one. The intelligence community was far from united behind the claims the politicians were making and had it not been for Blair having a fetish for supporting America and the American population assuming that "we want to attack them after 9/11 so they must have been involved because why else would we be doing that" it wouldn't have happened.
The UN were saying there weren't WMDs, the intelligence services of France and Germany were saying there weren't WMDs, British intelligence said there might be WMDs but were refuting the extreme claims made by Blair about 45 minutes, South African intelligence showed up and said that they actually worked on the Iraqi nuclear project and knew it was definitely shut down.
|
On May 09 2017 00:58 LegalLord wrote:@Kwark: I see, you're just trolling. No need to respond to you then. Show nested quote +On May 09 2017 00:53 Plansix wrote:
I don’t really know how you get blind faith simply because I do not mirror your level of skepticism. I also find the comparisons to the ramp up to Iraq a bit silly, having been an adult during that time. It's just ever so slightly hilarious how you make a big stick out of "I was gullible, I was lied to, I trusted them" and yet in every situation in which one might expect that newly found skepticism to manifest, there is little more than trust and belief that the intelligence folk are all good. Or your attempts to justify why Hillary Clinton wasn't wrong for pushing Iraq because "we were all lied to." Bottom line is that while you always make a big stink out of how you have changed since then it's clear that in reality you learned nothing and would fall for it again if the nation were in the warring mood again. And yes, that contradiction is certainly worthy of mockery.
I am with Kwark on this one, you are sort of a joke. You are either passive aggressively casting doubt on any agency or group that might have something bad to say about Russia, pretending to be British or telling the EU politics threat that it is Poland’s fault for not assimilating when they were part of the U.S.S.R. The most amusing part is that you keep doing it even though most of TL has caught on to your bullshit.
|
On May 09 2017 01:02 Nevuk wrote:
Sally Yates is scheduled to testify at 2:30 EST. What are the odds that something important actually comes out from this? It seems the most likely of any of the testimonies, but at the same time I would've figured we would've heard at least something about what she's going to say if it were truly important
I dunno, she seems like a pretty pointless individual who sought undue relevance by straight up refusing to do the job she was assigned to do. But I'm sure if there's a bombshell we'll hear about it.
|
Canada13410 Posts
On May 09 2017 01:09 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2017 01:02 Nevuk wrote:
Sally Yates is scheduled to testify at 2:30 EST. What are the odds that something important actually comes out from this? It seems the most likely of any of the testimonies, but at the same time I would've figured we would've heard at least something about what she's going to say if it were truly important I dunno, she seems like a pretty pointless individual who sought undue relevance by straight up refusing to do the job she was assigned to do. But I'm sure if there's a bombshell we'll hear about it.
I'm pretty sure she did her job and got fired for it because she didn't fall in line.
The EO she didn't support was struck down by other courts just a few days after it was put in place. She told them it wasn't constitutional but they did it anyway then fired her.
|
On May 09 2017 01:02 Nevuk wrote:
Sally Yates is scheduled to testify at 2:30 EST. What are the odds that something important actually comes out from this? It seems the most likely of any of the testimonies, but at the same time I would've figured we would've heard at least something about what she's going to say if it were truly important
No bomb shells imo and just more confirmations of what we already know. Trump's team repeatedly ignored warning of the connections.
Its just that for an investigation the information needs to move from Twitter leaks to being expressed in a formal hearing.
|
On May 09 2017 01:12 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2017 01:09 LegalLord wrote:On May 09 2017 01:02 Nevuk wrote:
Sally Yates is scheduled to testify at 2:30 EST. What are the odds that something important actually comes out from this? It seems the most likely of any of the testimonies, but at the same time I would've figured we would've heard at least something about what she's going to say if it were truly important I dunno, she seems like a pretty pointless individual who sought undue relevance by straight up refusing to do the job she was assigned to do. But I'm sure if there's a bombshell we'll hear about it. I'm pretty sure she did her job and got fired for it because she didn't fall in line. The EO she didn't support was struck down by other courts just a few days after it was put in place. She told them it wasn't constitutional but they did it anyway then fired her.
Well it's not really her place to decide whether the EO is constitutional or not, is it? She simply had to defend the order in court, whatever the ultimate result may be.
|
On May 09 2017 01:02 Nevuk wrote:
Sally Yates is scheduled to testify at 2:30 EST. What are the odds that something important actually comes out from this? It seems the most likely of any of the testimonies, but at the same time I would've figured we would've heard at least something about what she's going to say if it were truly important
NPR and other agencies are saying that Flynn will likely be the biggest topic of discussion. Though some have also hinted that the transition team and the way they handled classified documents might also come up. There have been come reports that documents were removed from the White House that should not have been removed. But I am betting Flynn and that she alerted the Trump team to the problems with him, which they clearly ignored.
|
On May 09 2017 01:12 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2017 01:09 LegalLord wrote:On May 09 2017 01:02 Nevuk wrote:
Sally Yates is scheduled to testify at 2:30 EST. What are the odds that something important actually comes out from this? It seems the most likely of any of the testimonies, but at the same time I would've figured we would've heard at least something about what she's going to say if it were truly important I dunno, she seems like a pretty pointless individual who sought undue relevance by straight up refusing to do the job she was assigned to do. But I'm sure if there's a bombshell we'll hear about it. I'm pretty sure she did her job and got fired for it because she didn't fall in line. The EO she didn't support was struck down by other courts just a few days after it was put in place. She told them it wasn't constitutional but they did it anyway then fired her.
I think the point Legal (and several others at the time) is making is that she should have resigned if she did not agree. Instead she refused to do her job and was fired for it.
I guess it depends on your viewpoint if the AG serves the President or the People.
|
On May 09 2017 01:17 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2017 01:12 ZeromuS wrote:On May 09 2017 01:09 LegalLord wrote:On May 09 2017 01:02 Nevuk wrote:
Sally Yates is scheduled to testify at 2:30 EST. What are the odds that something important actually comes out from this? It seems the most likely of any of the testimonies, but at the same time I would've figured we would've heard at least something about what she's going to say if it were truly important I dunno, she seems like a pretty pointless individual who sought undue relevance by straight up refusing to do the job she was assigned to do. But I'm sure if there's a bombshell we'll hear about it. I'm pretty sure she did her job and got fired for it because she didn't fall in line. The EO she didn't support was struck down by other courts just a few days after it was put in place. She told them it wasn't constitutional but they did it anyway then fired her. I think the point Legal (and several others at the time) is making is that she should have resigned if she did not agree. Instead she refused to do her job and was fired for it.
Yes, that's basically it. Though she also made a political circus out of it in a way that wasn't particularly professional and not becoming of a lawyer.
Sure, Trump did worse with his firing letter, but that just means we have two idiots involved in the situation.
|
On May 09 2017 01:17 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2017 01:12 ZeromuS wrote:On May 09 2017 01:09 LegalLord wrote:On May 09 2017 01:02 Nevuk wrote:
Sally Yates is scheduled to testify at 2:30 EST. What are the odds that something important actually comes out from this? It seems the most likely of any of the testimonies, but at the same time I would've figured we would've heard at least something about what she's going to say if it were truly important I dunno, she seems like a pretty pointless individual who sought undue relevance by straight up refusing to do the job she was assigned to do. But I'm sure if there's a bombshell we'll hear about it. I'm pretty sure she did her job and got fired for it because she didn't fall in line. The EO she didn't support was struck down by other courts just a few days after it was put in place. She told them it wasn't constitutional but they did it anyway then fired her. I think the point Legal (and several others at the time) is making is that she should have resigned if she did not agree. Instead she refused to do her job and was fired for it. I guess it depends on your viewpoint if the AG serves the President or the People.
That is literally her job. Telling the president “This order is not enforceable” is her role in the government and the justice department. The Justice department is supposed to do that. The current AG, Sessions, specifically asked her that question during her confirmation hearing if she would stand up to the President if ordered to do something she felt went against the constitution. Of course, he was talking about her standing up to Obama.
|
On May 09 2017 01:17 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2017 01:12 ZeromuS wrote:On May 09 2017 01:09 LegalLord wrote:On May 09 2017 01:02 Nevuk wrote:
Sally Yates is scheduled to testify at 2:30 EST. What are the odds that something important actually comes out from this? It seems the most likely of any of the testimonies, but at the same time I would've figured we would've heard at least something about what she's going to say if it were truly important I dunno, she seems like a pretty pointless individual who sought undue relevance by straight up refusing to do the job she was assigned to do. But I'm sure if there's a bombshell we'll hear about it. I'm pretty sure she did her job and got fired for it because she didn't fall in line. The EO she didn't support was struck down by other courts just a few days after it was put in place. She told them it wasn't constitutional but they did it anyway then fired her. I think the point Legal (and several others at the time) is making is that she should have resigned if she did not agree. Instead she refused to do her job and was fired for it. I guess it depends on your viewpoint if the AG serves the President or the People.
The people... Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth, it's Abraham Lincoln during his Gettysburg address.
|
On May 09 2017 01:09 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2017 00:58 LegalLord wrote:@Kwark: I see, you're just trolling. No need to respond to you then. On May 09 2017 00:53 Plansix wrote:
I don’t really know how you get blind faith simply because I do not mirror your level of skepticism. I also find the comparisons to the ramp up to Iraq a bit silly, having been an adult during that time. It's just ever so slightly hilarious how you make a big stick out of "I was gullible, I was lied to, I trusted them" and yet in every situation in which one might expect that newly found skepticism to manifest, there is little more than trust and belief that the intelligence folk are all good. Or your attempts to justify why Hillary Clinton wasn't wrong for pushing Iraq because "we were all lied to." Bottom line is that while you always make a big stink out of how you have changed since then it's clear that in reality you learned nothing and would fall for it again if the nation were in the warring mood again. And yes, that contradiction is certainly worthy of mockery. I am with Kwark on this one, you are sort of a joke. You are either passive aggressively casting doubt on any agency or group that might have something bad to say about Russia, pretending to be British or telling the EU politics threat that it is Poland’s fault for not assimilating when they were part of the U.S.S.R. The most amusing part is that you keep doing it even though most of TL has caught on to your bullshit.
I stand with Kwark and P6 on this one. Almost every post I see from legallord is either full on trolling, or just attempting to cast shade on literally anything and everything that isn't russia or putin. He tries to discredit the fact that russia has been hacking and interefering with foreign elections by making non factual posts that he can't back up, and with the constant "electable" comments. He did the same in the Ukraine thread by constantly talking about how he wasn't convinced that russian soldiers were in Crimea and how he wasn't convinced there was anything fishy going on there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
