1181
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
1182
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bernie 2020
« on: February 26, 2019, 02:30:02 PM »
It's obvious why a libertarian would support a socialist?
1183
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bernie 2020
« on: February 26, 2019, 01:31:33 PM »
Why would you support Bernie if you're a libertarian?
1184
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: February 26, 2019, 01:30:29 PM »So, are you telling me Russia bribed 11 people, some of which were not Democrats, as well as a bunch of people in Canada? All to get Uranium ore for Russia, who has some already?
No, apparently only Hillary!
1185
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bernie 2020
« on: February 25, 2019, 04:36:44 PM »
Bernie has done nothing of note in Congress. He is a meme candidate whose claim to fame is angrily yelling about the rich.
1186
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: February 25, 2019, 01:54:22 PM »
This all seems to be further corroboration of Giustra's contributions being his own, rather than him acting as some sort of Russian proxy.
1187
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bernie 2020
« on: February 25, 2019, 03:13:12 AM »
Jesus was a red-blooded capitalist who died for your right to bear arms.
1188
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: On the Origin of Species
« on: February 25, 2019, 03:12:32 AM »
Thork is right. White people actually evolved from polar bears.
1189
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: February 23, 2019, 03:21:11 AM »https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.htmlBut there is the little matter of contributions to the Clinton Foundation from Russia via Frank Giustra.
How do you know the contributions were "from Russia via Frank Giustra"? Is there any evidence of a connection between Giustra and Russia, something that would make it reasonable to suppose that the money supposedly coming from Giustra was really coming from Russia?
"As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.
And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock."
Is that a "no"? Because I asked you about Giustra, the man responsible for most of the money that was donated to the Clinton Foundation, and now you're talking about Uranium One. You can change your position if you want to, but you should be clear about it.
1190
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Police: Patriots owner Robert Kraft solicited prostitute
« on: February 22, 2019, 08:20:42 PM »
They hate us cause they ain't us.
1191
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: February 22, 2019, 05:25:56 AM »But there is the little matter of contributions to the Clinton Foundation from Russia via Frank Giustra.
How do you know the contributions were "from Russia via Frank Giustra"? Is there any evidence of a connection between Giustra and Russia, something that would make it reasonable to suppose that the money supposedly coming from Giustra was really coming from Russia?
1192
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: February 20, 2019, 04:56:13 PM »
Hillary didn't sell uranium to Russia.
https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fact-checks/statements/2018/dec/07/blog-posting/complex-tale-involving-hillary-clinton-uranium-rus/
https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fact-checks/statements/2018/dec/07/blog-posting/complex-tale-involving-hillary-clinton-uranium-rus/
1193
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Link’s Awakening 2019
« on: February 14, 2019, 04:42:47 PM »
THIEF's Awakening
This does look great.
This does look great.
1194
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: February 11, 2019, 02:53:29 AM »https://twitter.com/brithume/status/1094393097029595136
I love this argument. Trump is too ignorant for this to have been the nasty punchline it looks like! He's probably never even heard of the Trail of Tears! And it's actually somewhat convincing, given how often Trump has demonstrated his ignorance of basic historical details. The strongest argument in favor of it being deliberate is Trump's admiration of Andrew Jackson and newfound interest in his presidency.
1195
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: February 06, 2019, 07:37:38 AM »
Rushy is referring to the amusing conspiracy theories some conservatives are spreading about how Ruth Bader Ginsburg is dead or dying.
1196
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General
« on: February 03, 2019, 03:20:18 PM »
Batfleck is officially done, at least as far as the solo movie goes. He had some potential to be great, but between Snyder's shitty movies and WB's weird decision to introduce the character with a semi-adaptation of TDKR, I suppose recasting was inevitable. June 2021. I'll be thirty by the time this movie comes out. The movie will most likely be ready to go by fall of 2020, but then they'll sit on it for close to a year as they wait for the optimal release date. Oh, well. Can't wait to see the Waynes being killed again!
In other news, we appear to have further evidence that Snyder's plans for JL and the follow-up movies were going to be jumbled grimdark messes.
In other news, we appear to have further evidence that Snyder's plans for JL and the follow-up movies were going to be jumbled grimdark messes.
1198
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Build Wall
« on: February 01, 2019, 01:54:07 PM »
The fentanyl bust hardly makes a case for the wall, given how the smuggler was trying to take it through a legal checkpoint.
1199
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 31, 2019, 01:38:39 AM »I said IRS are the tax experts and then you went on to say experts don't analyze his taxes.
Who are you trying to fool here? Everybody can read this thread. Everybody can see that you're lying! The proof is right here:
Not only that, but I guarantee the "experts" you're referring to aren't experts at all, but in fact just journalists who speak with "people familiar with the matter".
Uh, you're kind of jumping the gun here. Trump's tax returns haven't been released, so there are no experts or fake experts analyzing them at all. Are you complaining about the media response to something that hasn't even happened yet?
We weren't talking about the IRS. We were talking about a hypothetical situation in which Trump's tax returns were released to the public and experts offered commentary on them. This is the equivalent of me saying on a rainy morning, "It's raining," following it with "It's not raining," ten minutes later when the rain has stopped, and you gleefully stringing the two quotes together to show that I don't know what I'm talking about. You are...Rushing me. I've been Rushed.
Quote
I already know it doesn't faze you because you have no respect for people's rights nor does the organization you work for. I'm not trying to appeal to your moral senses because you don't have any, I'm just pointing out the disgusting nature of your beliefs.
reals>feels
1200
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 30, 2019, 05:33:39 AM »I only ever judged Hillary by things she actually did, though. I never made judgements on stuff she's never released or said she's bad just because she's bad.
Trump refusing to release his tax returns or divest from his properties is also something he "actually did."
Quote
Uh, you're kind of jumping the gun here. Trump's tax returns haven't been released, so there are no experts or fake experts analyzing them at all.I never said that the IRS weren't experts or didn't know what they were doing.
Which is it, Saddam? You just said experts don't analyze his taxes, then you go on to say you never said the IRS aren't experts. Is the logical conclusion that you don't believe the IRS analyzes taxes? I'm really confused on what you mean, here.
No, you're not, because we both know that this is a blatant quote mine. The first quote was on the subject of experts offering public commentary and analysis in the hypothetical situation of Trump's tax returns being released. You rather nonsensically accused me of being taken in by fake experts, and so I gave the logical response that because the tax returns haven't been released, there are no real or fake experts for me to be taken in by. It makes perfect sense in context, as anyone who reads over our exchange can see. I'm not going to admit fault for not specifying within that exact same sentence that I was only referring to expert analysis in the sense of public commentary and media coverage, because I don't need to reassert within the same paragraph that the current subject under discussion remains the current subject under discussion. It's not how written language works.
Quote
I never said that the IRS weren't experts or didn't know what they were doing. Of course they do. But they're not political watchdogs. They don't have the authority to say to the public, "Wow, it looks like this guy is totally bought and paid for by shady Russians/Chinese. They have so much money invested in his businesses and left dangling over his head that he'll most likely do anything they say. We have grave doubts about the wisdom of electing this man to public office, much less the office of president." It's also kind of funny that you'd accuse me of being in thrall to the liberal media when you're the one who's refusing to think for himself and consider anything beyond the official actions of a government agency. Again, you didn't let the FBI tell you what to think about Hillary. You shouldn't need an indictment from the IRS to have an opinion on whether or not you think that potential or current investors in or clients of Trump's vast business empire might bear an inappropriate influence on his policies and positions.
Equating my disagreement with a couple of people at the FBI with the entire IRS is very disingenuous. You've basically just tried to make the argument "they're both government agencies, you can't disagree with one without the other!" The FBI and IRS are composed of people, some of those people are right, and some are not. When the media sources the FBI, what they're really doing is sourcing "an anonymous expert at the FBI" which is really amounting to "my friend Joe the junior analyst at FBI totally agrees with this article". There's a key difference between sourcing the FBI, the organization, and sourcing only one or two people, which of course will be biased.
The problem here is that your assertion requires the entire IRS to be blinded by Trump's apparently cleverly hidden bribery tactics (which only BuzzFeed can uncover!), while my assertions regarding FBI bias only ever required the FBI source to be wrong or lying. That's a big different in my assertions and it just goes to show that you understand very little about what I say or why I say it.
This is not at all a relevant response to what I said. I feel like you're just skimming my posts, looking for a few keywords, and then assuming you know what I'm arguing and writing a response. In this case, it looks like you assumed my position was "The IRS is wrong." But that isn't my position, and so there's little point in responding to the relevant counter-arguments. I will say, though, that your assumption that Trump's audit involved the entire IRS while Hillary's misadventures only involved "a couple of people at the FBI" is very amusing.
Quote
That's just your extremely ignorant opinion, though. You think people should have their rights stripped away running for public office because... well just because you think they should be? That's not a very good reason. Again, this boils down to "nothing to fear nothing to hide" logic. Do you agree with that? I'm guessing you agree with it only when it's convenient.
I would support the restricting of these particular rights in the case of presidential candidates (for disclosing tax returns) and presidents (for divesting from businesses) because I feel those rights are outweighed by the public's interest in ensuring they have a president with no major conflicts of interests or dubious financial activity distracting from their duty to the public. You dressing that up in hyperbolic terms about stripping away rights doesn't faze me. For example, I'd argue that being under the constant thumb of the Secret Service is a far greater violation of privacy than any mandatory disclosure laws we could think of.