US Politics Mega-thread - Page 8753

On September 17 2017 02:50 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Jeez, whoever the Press Secretary is doesn't know how to use a spell checker. Or proof read. Actually it's scarier to think he proofread it.

________

So marching with guns for white supremacy is a right that you vehemently argue for as an absolute right, but draping a statue in cloth is not a good idea in society, that you must vehemently argue against because it is a slippery slope. Ok...y'all.

On September 17 2017 04:48 Danglars wrote:

Only when people slap Trump around for saying that Jefferson will follow Lee. Slippery slope, indeed. First came confederate war generals, then founding fathers.

But I'm thankful you took the time to understand (mostly) the thought conveyed.

WASHINGTON (AP) — There must be an answer.

Whatever is harming U.S. diplomats in Havana, it’s eluded the doctors, scientists and intelligence analysts scouring for answers. Investigators have chased many theories, including a sonic attack, electromagnetic weapon or flawed spying device.

Each explanation seems to fit parts of what’s happened, conflicting with others.

The United States doesn’t even know what to call it. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson used the phrase “health attacks.” The State Department prefers “incidents.”

Either way, suspicion has fallen on Cuba. But investigators also are examining whether a rogue faction of its security services, another country such as Russia, or some combination is to blame, more than a dozen U.S. officials familiar with the investigation told The Associated Press.

Those officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to publicly discuss the investigation. The AP also talked to scientists, physicians, acoustics and weapons experts, and others about the theories being pursued.

Perhaps the biggest mystery is why the symptoms, sounds and sensations vary so dramatically from person to person.

Of the 21 medically confirmed U.S. victims, some have permanent hearing loss or concussions, while others suffered nausea, headaches and ear-ringing. Some are struggling with concentration or common word recall, the AP has reported. Some felt vibrations or heard loud sounds mysteriously audible in only parts of rooms , and others heard nothing.

“These are very nonspecific symptoms. That’s why it’s difficult to tell what’s going on,” said Dr. H. Jeffrey Kim, a specialist on ear disorders at MedStar Georgetown University Hospital who isn’t involved with the investigation.

To solve the puzzle, investigators are sorting symptoms into categories, such as auditory and neurological, according to individuals briefed on the probe.

There can be a lag before victims discover or report symptoms, some of which are hard to diagnose. So investigators are charting the timeline of reported incidents to identify “clusters” to help solve the when, where and how of the Havana whodunit.

While Cuba has been surprisingly cooperative , even inviting the FBI to fly down to Havana, it’s not the same as an investigation with the U.S. government in full control.

“You’re on foreign soil,” said David Rubincam, a former FBI agent who served in Moscow. “The quality of the information and evidence you collect is limited to what the host government will allow you to see and hear and touch and do.”

Especially when you don’t even know what you’re looking for.

On September 17 2017 04:48 Danglars wrote:

Only when people slap Trump around for saying that Jefferson will follow Lee. Slippery slope, indeed. First came confederate war generals, then founding fathers.

But I'm thankful you took the time to understand (mostly) the thought conveyed.

On September 17 2017 04:51 Dangermousecatdog wrote:

What? Danglars explain yourself. At least within recent memory, your sentences made sense, even if people disagreeed with them.

On September 16 2017 13:54 Sermokala wrote:

"He was in a day where racism and outright white supremism was not only accepted but was the societal norm. He had slaves he bought slaves he sold slaves and he didn't free his slaves apon his death."

Judging people of the past on the standards of today is okay and all but the man has an important place in history that people need to remember and learn from. The things that were acceptable back then and the progress that we've made on issues can go hand in hand with the good things that were done.

Not celebrating anything that happened more then 20-30 years ago just seems dumb. I don't know where you can draw a decent line but the amount of important people that owned slaves vs the amount of important people who didn't own slaves and didn't do other things we'd consider horrible today doesn't really leave with many positive examples of the past for people to look to.

On September 17 2017 05:03 Danglars wrote:

When people said that other statues would come other fire in the wake of the Charlottesville protests, they were dismissed by many mainstream journalism figures as cranks. They claimed it was the slippery slope fallacy. If you read what I said, I quoted Trump on it, and he was dead right. Next Francis Scott Key is covered up. Statues in eight major cities are vandalized. These were unrelated to civil war figures, but progressed from arguments tailored to the confederate states of America. One followed the other. The search function is open to you if you need my prior posts on the subject to give you necessary context.

When I said you took the time to understand the thoughts, I meant what you said was pretty impressive from this thread's standards at understanding what I said. Of course, for a complete summary, you'd have to include the part about vandalizing and toppling statues in the night and the parallels with not bearing to look at a statue of one founder of this country and vandalizing Francis Scott Key. It looks like you can't bear to examine history, not that you're using it to grab attention to parallels with racism in modern society or whatever. Which makes society more stupid.

((Better cover it up, the man had slaves, we can't learn a damn thing from him now))

On September 17 2017 05:03 Danglars wrote:

When people said that other statues would come other fire in the wake of the Charlottesville protests, they were dismissed by many mainstream journalism figures as cranks. They claimed it was the slippery slope fallacy. If you read what I said, I quoted Trump on it, and he was dead right. Next Francis Scott Key is covered up. Statues in eight major cities are vandalized. These were unrelated to civil war figures, but progressed from arguments tailored to the confederate states of America. One followed the other. The search function is open to you if you need my prior posts on the subject to give you necessary context.

When I said you took the time to understand the thoughts, I meant what you said was pretty impressive from this thread's standards at understanding what I said. Of course, for a complete summary, you'd have to include the part about vandalizing and toppling statues in the night and the parallels with not bearing to look at a statue of one founder of this country and vandalizing Francis Scott Key. It looks like you can't bear to examine history, not that you're using it to grab attention to parallels with racism in modern society or whatever. Which makes society more stupid.

((Better cover it up, the man had slaves, we can't learn a damn thing from him now))

From the WSJ article
While Mr. Eissenstat outlined a plan to reassure partners that the U.S. would be constructive, he did not provide clarity on the new emissions-reduction objectives, the person said.

“They are seriously considering the terms on which the U.S. could re-engage,” the person said. “They have also made clear that they have no intention to renegotiate or develop a parallel track to Paris.”

On September 17 2017 06:28 NewSunshine wrote:
I can't exactly say I'm displeased by his sudden change of heart, but it is worrying how quickly Trump can change his entire philosophy. He's like the cartoon villain who shoots his number 2 in the head because he failed him once. It's not exactly the mark of a good leader, but in this case I'll take it.

On September 17 2017 05:44 Dangermousecatdog wrote:

Sorry, too many cultural references and Trump references for me to understand your context. I don't even understand what you are refering to when you say " you're using it to grab attention to parallels with racism in modern society. What I got from your post is that you are not arguing with me, or have confused my post for some other poster, or just generally arguing at a perceived entity to which I am not part of. AlsoI got that you appear to genuinely beleive that marching for white supremists with guns is a good idea in society, but not the draping of statues. You got to understand I think the fetishization of your founding fathers is pretty damn wierd, you are not exactly disabusing me of that.


Also, I can bear to examine history, but world history has a rather larger breadth than a country which has only existed for a couple of centuries. I think perhaps you should broaden your understanding of history instead.

On September 17 2017 06:33 Lmui wrote:


.... Seriously. probably anyone who sucks up to trump a bit can change his opinion on everything as long as they're smooth talkers.

He literally can't think for himself.

On September 17 2017 06:43 Danglars wrote:

Whatever, man. Your approach is to point out a single sentence in the second paragraph, and claim the entire thing is incomprehensible. I can't help you with your reading comprehension, and there's no dearth of posts to reread if your context is shoddy. I've got several exchanges on this exact topic over the last dozen pages. There's disagreement and bad faith but understanding.

It's seriously sounds like you're moving backwards. First you figure correctly that I defend "marching with guns for white supremacy is a right that you vehemently argue for as an absolute right, but draping a statue in cloth is not a good idea in society." Then you edit the exchange and drop the edited original post in the quote train (and ps that's why I quote, so if you suddenly substantially alter the meaning and issue, I can recall your original argument). If you can't separate standing for rights in society and commenting on protest movements that are ineffective or counterproductive, we're obviously done here.

On September 17 2017 06:51 Gahlo wrote:

Isn't this just the same deal he backed out of, meaning he's done nothing?

On September 17 2017 06:59 Dangermousecatdog wrote:

The fuck is wrong with you Danglars? There is only so many times you can accuse people of editing their posts after the fact or misquoting you in a forum, where we can literally see that it isn't true.

You decided to quote me, then complain that I have changed my post. But the post you have quoted is the exact same quote that is there.

I edit my post to elaborate the argument, but not after it has already been quoted.

The bad faith is all you Danglars.

When people said that other statues would come other fire in the wake of the Charlottesville protests, they were dismissed by many mainstream journalism figures as cranks. They claimed it was the slippery slope fallacy. If you read what I said, I quoted Trump on it, and he was dead right. Next Francis Scott Key is covered up. Statues in eight major cities are vandalized. These were unrelated to civil war figures, but progressed from arguments tailored to the confederate states of America. One followed the other. The search function is open to you if you need my prior posts on the subject to give you necessary context.

you must vehemently argue against because it is a slippery slope

So marching with guns for white supremacy is a right that you vehemently argue for as an absolute right, but draping a statue in cloth is not a good idea in society

On September 17 2017 06:42 Gorsameth wrote:

Because he has no conviction aside from enriching himself. He doesn't give a shit about Republican or Democrat ideal so he will side with whatever makes him 'win'.