|
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. |
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Hillary Clinton book review. Moderately long in length.
Keep in mind: by now you should all have a pretty good understanding for what I may or may not be likely to say, so if that's not your cup of tea then feel free not to read it.
|
Zurich15326 Posts
|
Sounds like a Bowie or Elton lyric from a psychedelic b-side.
|
You have to get through a bunch of memes and old retweets to get to an 2h old tweet on Trumps twitter.
Modern day presidential.
|
On September 17 2017 23:05 Garbels wrote:
You have to get through a bunch of memes and old retweets to get to an 2h old tweet on Trumps twitter.
Modern day presidential.
Wow you weren't kidding. Why is he retweeting bad quality jpgs and gifs and his own tweets from 2 days ago.
Not to mention the South Korea one zatic posted...
|
Had to Google around a bit. Apparently Trump likes to call Kim Jun un rocket man. Lmfao. I'm speechless. Early on in Trump's run, when I laughed at the idea of maybe voting for him, it was for shit like this. I am kind of stunned.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
It is of course the US's obsession with desiring to control the power dynamic in the Asia Pacific region that allowed this to continue for decades until NK finally got themselves nuclear weapons. And ironically the involvement in the Ukraine that helped lead to the North Koreans being able to get their hands on high-quality rocket engines. No sympathy, you reap what you sow, and now we all have to pay the price.
|
United States42654 Posts
On September 18 2017 01:04 LegalLord wrote:
It is of course the US's obsession with desiring to control the power dynamic in the Asia Pacific region that allowed this to continue for decades until NK finally got themselves nuclear weapons. And ironically the involvement in the Ukraine that helped lead to the North Koreans being able to get their hands on high-quality rocket engines. No sympathy, you reap what you sow, and now we all have to pay the price.
this is wrong
|
If the US had cared less about controlling the power dynamic in the Asian Pacific, how would that have caused NK to fall and/or not get nukes?
|
On September 18 2017 01:21 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2017 01:04 LegalLord wrote:
It is of course the US's obsession with desiring to control the power dynamic in the Asia Pacific region that allowed this to continue for decades until NK finally got themselves nuclear weapons. And ironically the involvement in the Ukraine that helped lead to the North Koreans being able to get their hands on high-quality rocket engines. No sympathy, you reap what you sow, and now we all have to pay the price. this is wrong
I'll say.
Although to his credit its probably the purest, most distilled form of Russian propaganda I've ever seen on this forum.
|
On September 17 2017 14:30 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2017 07:28 Danglars wrote:On September 17 2017 06:59 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 17 2017 06:43 Danglars wrote:On September 17 2017 05:44 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 17 2017 05:03 Danglars wrote:On September 17 2017 04:51 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On September 17 2017 04:48 Danglars wrote: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. ________ On September 16 2017 08:59 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
There's a certain pain involved when someone can't distinguish between what you have the right to do and what's a good idea in society. 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. 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. What? Danglars explain yourself. At least within recent memory, your sentences made sense, even if people disagreeed with them. 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. On September 16 2017 13:54 Sermokala wrote:On September 16 2017 12:30 IgnE wrote:
What would your Jefferson plaque say?
"Here is a man whose fortune was built on the backs of slaves.
He also wrote the Declaration of Independence." "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. ((Better cover it up, the man had slaves, we can't learn a damn thing from him now)) 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. 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. 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. Sorry, I glanced too quickly at two separate posts in the quote train and thought the edit had substantially changed your point. Apparently I need to rest my eyes. Sorry. On the other topic, I do feel like I explained myself well and the abundance of my posts on the subject explain my thinking very well. You cannot separate base rights and analysis of protests. It also appears you did not understand my post response to you: 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. I elaborated because you said: you must vehemently argue against because it is a slippery slope I didn't point out what I thought was the original slippery slope assertion and defense, so there you have 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 Yes. You mostly understand me. That's the conclusion I draw from arguments I advanced in the last dozen pages. The protesters made an ineffective and counterproductive comparison to past attempts to erase history. I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety than to ignore their accomplishments and flaws. This is separate from rights of assembly, speech, and bearing arms. It really isn't that complicated, Dangermousecatdog. If you're ejecting with "I don't understand your references or context" then I'm fine discontinuing. It really doesn't matter to me. If you have anything substantial to add besides shock at my position and pretend disbelief, I'm all ears. so how is a statue protest "ignoring their flaws?"
The protest covered up the statue in a shroud. The symbolism isn't very hard to grasp. What does "I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety" mean to you?
|
On September 18 2017 00:52 Mohdoo wrote:Had to Google around a bit. Apparently Trump likes to call Kim Jun un rocket man. Lmfao. I'm speechless. Early on in Trump's run, when I laughed at the idea of maybe voting for him, it was for shit like this. I am kind of stunned.
This is pretty awesome. If only DJT would stop at this kind of humor and not go into stupid and obnoxious areas.
He also retweeted:
Sometimes the media is just too predictable.
|
|
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 18 2017 01:24 ChristianS wrote:
If the US had cared less about controlling the power dynamic in the Asian Pacific, how would that have caused NK to fall and/or not get nukes?
Many of the agreements that could have been formed that would eliminate or reduce the NK threat would have required that the US give up on a few of its interests in the area. China wanting a buffer zone against a potential US enemy on its soil is definitely a genuine concern.
On September 18 2017 01:21 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2017 01:04 LegalLord wrote:
It is of course the US's obsession with desiring to control the power dynamic in the Asia Pacific region that allowed this to continue for decades until NK finally got themselves nuclear weapons. And ironically the involvement in the Ukraine that helped lead to the North Koreans being able to get their hands on high-quality rocket engines. No sympathy, you reap what you sow, and now we all have to pay the price. this is wrong
no
|
A single tweet by a "former labor reporter." Very compelling.
|
On September 18 2017 01:57 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2017 01:24 ChristianS wrote:
If the US had cared less about controlling the power dynamic in the Asian Pacific, how would that have caused NK to fall and/or not get nukes? Many of the agreements that could have been formed that would eliminate or reduce the NK threat would have required that the US give up on a few of its interests in the area. China wanting a buffer zone against a potential US enemy on its soil is definitely a genuine concern. Show nested quote +On September 18 2017 01:21 KwarK wrote:On September 18 2017 01:04 LegalLord wrote:
It is of course the US's obsession with desiring to control the power dynamic in the Asia Pacific region that allowed this to continue for decades until NK finally got themselves nuclear weapons. And ironically the involvement in the Ukraine that helped lead to the North Koreans being able to get their hands on high-quality rocket engines. No sympathy, you reap what you sow, and now we all have to pay the price. this is wrong no
You seem to conveniently ignore South Korea's situation with having a hostile militarized nation on its border and depending on the US for safety from said nation + its big 'friendly' brother.
|
On September 18 2017 01:57 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2017 01:24 ChristianS wrote:
If the US had cared less about controlling the power dynamic in the Asian Pacific, how would that have caused NK to fall and/or not get nukes? Many of the agreements that could have been formed that would eliminate or reduce the NK threat would have required that the US give up on a few of its interests in the area. China wanting a buffer zone against a potential US enemy on its soil is definitely a genuine concern. Show nested quote +On September 18 2017 01:21 KwarK wrote:On September 18 2017 01:04 LegalLord wrote:
It is of course the US's obsession with desiring to control the power dynamic in the Asia Pacific region that allowed this to continue for decades until NK finally got themselves nuclear weapons. And ironically the involvement in the Ukraine that helped lead to the North Koreans being able to get their hands on high-quality rocket engines. No sympathy, you reap what you sow, and now we all have to pay the price. this is wrong no
What interests are those? And what agreement could have been formed that wouls have eliminated NK without the total destruction of Seoul?
...or is that one of the "interests" the US was too stubborn to give up?
Edit: I'm relatively uninformed on this and most military issues, but my understanding was that as long as we weren't willing to sacrifice Seoul, nothing could be done about NK. China is friends with them sometimes, but even if they weren't they couldn't do anything about it because NK was always going to be ideologically committed to obtaining nukes and ICBMs. Where do you think this analysis fails?
|
|
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 18 2017 02:34 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2017 01:57 LegalLord wrote:On September 18 2017 01:24 ChristianS wrote:
If the US had cared less about controlling the power dynamic in the Asian Pacific, how would that have caused NK to fall and/or not get nukes? Many of the agreements that could have been formed that would eliminate or reduce the NK threat would have required that the US give up on a few of its interests in the area. China wanting a buffer zone against a potential US enemy on its soil is definitely a genuine concern. On September 18 2017 01:21 KwarK wrote:On September 18 2017 01:04 LegalLord wrote:
It is of course the US's obsession with desiring to control the power dynamic in the Asia Pacific region that allowed this to continue for decades until NK finally got themselves nuclear weapons. And ironically the involvement in the Ukraine that helped lead to the North Koreans being able to get their hands on high-quality rocket engines. No sympathy, you reap what you sow, and now we all have to pay the price. this is wrong no What interests are those? And what agreement could have been formed that wouls have eliminated NK without the total destruction of Seoul? ...or is that one of the "interests" the US was too stubborn to give up?
Interests being a foothold in the region. SK is an important part of that foothold, along with Japan and a number of outerlying nations. Developing a base of support in that region is rightfully seen as important to a US FP strategy that includes significant Asia interests. SK is a critical part of that strategy.
The two means for dealing with NK are military and diplomacy. The former was tried and led to a stalemate because China would have none of it; Seoul's destruction aside that would be ineffective. The latter depends on being able to put pressure on NK to relent, which is terribly difficult to do when the countries who are actually capable of extracting concessions from NK are rightfully more concerned that the US is trying to shore up their influence in the region than to dispose of a dangerous foe. Oh well, you reap what you sow.
On September 18 2017 02:34 ChristianS wrote:
Edit: I'm relatively uninformed on this and most military issues, but my understanding was that as long as we weren't willing to sacrifice Seoul, nothing could be done about NK. China is friends with them sometimes, but even if they weren't they couldn't do anything about it because NK was always going to be ideologically committed to obtaining nukes and ICBMs. Where do you think this analysis fails?
In assuming a military solution as the only option. Though NK is diplomatically troublesome even for countries with which it is on good terms, they are not so insane that they could not be brought to the negotiating table.
|
On September 18 2017 02:51 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2017 02:34 ChristianS wrote:On September 18 2017 01:57 LegalLord wrote:On September 18 2017 01:24 ChristianS wrote:
If the US had cared less about controlling the power dynamic in the Asian Pacific, how would that have caused NK to fall and/or not get nukes? Many of the agreements that could have been formed that would eliminate or reduce the NK threat would have required that the US give up on a few of its interests in the area. China wanting a buffer zone against a potential US enemy on its soil is definitely a genuine concern. On September 18 2017 01:21 KwarK wrote:On September 18 2017 01:04 LegalLord wrote:
It is of course the US's obsession with desiring to control the power dynamic in the Asia Pacific region that allowed this to continue for decades until NK finally got themselves nuclear weapons. And ironically the involvement in the Ukraine that helped lead to the North Koreans being able to get their hands on high-quality rocket engines. No sympathy, you reap what you sow, and now we all have to pay the price. this is wrong no What interests are those? And what agreement could have been formed that wouls have eliminated NK without the total destruction of Seoul? ...or is that one of the "interests" the US was too stubborn to give up? Interests being a foothold in the region. SK is an important part of that foothold, along with Japan and a number of outerlying nations. Developing a base of support in that region is rightfully seen as important to a US FP strategy that includes significant Asia interests. SK is a critical part of that strategy. The two means for dealing with NK are military and diplomacy. The former was tried and led to a stalemate because China would have none of it; Seoul's destruction aside that would be ineffective. The latter depends on being able to put pressure on NK to relent, which is terribly difficult to do when the countries who are actually capable of extracting concessions from NK are rightfully more concerned that the US is trying to shore up their influence in the region than to dispose of a dangerous foe. Oh well, you reap what you sow. Show nested quote +On September 18 2017 02:34 ChristianS wrote:
Edit: I'm relatively uninformed on this and most military issues, but my understanding was that as long as we weren't willing to sacrifice Seoul, nothing could be done about NK. China is friends with them sometimes, but even if they weren't they couldn't do anything about it because NK was always going to be ideologically committed to obtaining nukes and ICBMs. Where do you think this analysis fails? In assuming a military solution as the only option. Though NK is diplomatically troublesome even for countries with which it is on good terms, they are not so insane that they could not be brought to the negotiating table.
So your plan involves negotiating with NK to stop it. I'm gonna assume earlier when you said we could have gotten agreements to "eliminate or reduce" NK, you just meant "reduce," because obviously they wouldn't be negotiated into their own elimination.
So what stick do you threaten NK with? Or what carrot do you offer them? The leadership doesn't care about the economic hardship of its people, and they're ideologically committed to being strong enough to defend themselves, not depending on another country to defend them. And what concession do you think we would have been able to extract? A cessation of their nuclear program? Disarming their artillery pointed at Seoul?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
