*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 15529
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1900 on: January 01, 2017, 09:55:07 AM »
That's what I got from the document when they listed all those handles and domains, that they knew they were russians from those.
It's very difficult to explain if you're not willing to listen. Perhaps an analogy will help.

What we know right now is that a criminal made a phone call using a burner phone. He purchased the phone in LA, from a shop clerk called Juan. The FBI decided to codename this phone "LADY LIBERTY THE FREE" while the CIA opted for the name "ABRAHAM LINCOLN: VAMPIRE SLAYER".

Now, one of these agencies published a report saying "this phone, known as LADY LIBERTY THE FREE or ABRAHAM LINCOLN: VAMPIRE SLAYER, is thought to have been purchased by Vladimir Putin". How do we know this? Why do we know this? Bah, don't bother me with details, after all they published a couple of names!!!
« Last Edit: January 01, 2017, 10:05:39 AM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

P.S.  All of us illiterate folks understood this the first time.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7184
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1901 on: January 01, 2017, 10:11:22 AM »
That's what I got from the document when they listed all those handles and domains, that they knew they were russians from those.
It's very difficult to explain if you're not willing to listen. Perhaps an analogy will help.

What we know right now is that a criminal made a phone call using a burner phone. He purchased the phone in LA, from a shop clerk called Juan. The FBI decided to codename this phone "LADY LIBERTY THE FREE" while the CIA opted for the name "ABRAHAM LINCOLN: VAMPIRE SLAYER".

Now, one of these agencies published a report saying "this phone, known as LADY LIBERTY THE FREE or ABRAHAM LINCOLN: VAMPIRE SLAYER, is thought to have been purchased by Vladimir Putin". How do we know this? Why do we know this? Bah, don't bother me with details, after all they published a couple of names!!!
No no, I got that.  There are certainly names the FBI made like APT28 and APT29 but I don't think all the names and domains on that list are made up by them.  (Plus the file names for some reason)

And reading it again, I realize there aren't any domain names on that list, just handles.

But they did have that YARA signature.  Which, while isn't exactly concrete, does help.  Assuming they found that anyway.

If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1902 on: January 01, 2017, 05:09:31 PM »
Aside from the suspicious level of confidence, the lack even a vague hint as to how they figured it out, and the aggrandised claims about the scale of the attacks, it's really not controversial. It's perfectly possible that the Russian government ordered their intelligence agencies to find dirt on Hillary to boost Trump. It's even less controversial since it looks like all they did was supply the press with correct and accurate information. But the US response suggests that there's either much more to it, or (as I chose to believe) much less to it.

why is it reasonable for you to speculate about obama's motives and behavior without direct evidence, but unreasonable for me to do the same regarding putin and russia?

ultimately i doubt we diverge much on this issue.  i completely agree that, to date, no direct evidence of russian involvement has been provided, and it would be shortsighted to assert that the intelligence community must be correct.  that said, i don't think it's fair to say there's no evidence; these events didn't occur in a context-less vacuum, so to speak.  i think we can make some reasonable inferences based on what we already know about russia's motivations and capabilities.  my guess is that the intelligence community's assessment is based, in part, on exactly that: prior knowledge of russia's clandestine operations.

maybe a more succinct way of putting it is this: if you'd asked me 18 months ago if i thought russia willing and able to use clandestine services, cyber or otherwise, to either try to affect the outcome of the general election, or at least stir the pot, then i would've said yes without equivocation.  it would genuinely surprise me if they didn't.  there are plenty of well-documented examples of the us doing precisely the same thing.  i mean shit there probably hasn't been a genuinely free election in south america in like...i dunno, forever.

fwiw i also just don't think any of it matters.  even if the cia were to produce a video recording of putin himself sitting at a laptop and sending phishing links, what difference would it make?  i don't think it discredits the results of the general election in any way, and i don't think it ultimately has much of an impact on us-russia relations.  it's too boilerplate.  sure, the democrats are pissed, but whatever, they'll get over it.

this was way too long-winded a way to say that i agree absolute confidence is wholly unwarranted, but i think moderate-to-high confidence is perfectly well-warranted based on what we already know about russia's intelligence community.

diplomatic conflicts with Russia, Israel (America's puppet state), and by extension the UK.

we'll probably have to agree to disagree, but i think everyone's making a mountain of a molehill.  expelling some diplomats is hardly an international incident, and presidential activism in the waning months of an administration is hardly unusual. 

as i understand it, the speculation among former members of the intelligence community is that these diplomats were already known affiliates of russian clandestine services, and expelling them was more about signaling than anything else.

i'm almost patently unwilling to believe the argument that obama is intentionally trying to sabotage america to fulfill some vendetta against trump.  i know a very wise person who once said something to the effect that there's no need to assert malice where incompetence suffices.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7184
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1903 on: January 01, 2017, 05:13:39 PM »
Well, looks like we'll get something more "Tuesday or Wednesday"

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/31/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-hacking.html?partner=msft_msn&_r=0

Quote
And I know a lot about hacking. And hacking is a very hard thing to prove. So it could be somebody else. And I also know things that other people don’t know, and so they cannot be sure of the situation.

The man doesn't even use e-mail, that's how careful he is.  And really, the only safe way to get something delivered is via courier.  He's right.  A courier is the safest way to ensure no one ever finds out what you've written. 

All sarcasm aside, he IS right that no computer is safe.  But really, can anyone name a single method of communication that is 100% safe?
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 15529
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1904 on: January 01, 2017, 09:21:25 PM »
why is it reasonable for you to speculate about obama's motives and behavior without direct evidence, but unreasonable for me to do the same regarding putin and russia?
I'm criticising the US government, not you (you're welcome to speculate about whatever you want). Here's why I'm holding Obama/FBI to a higher standard than you or me:

1. I'm posting on an online forum, not conducting international diplomacy. My posts here are of very little consequence, so being slightly careless in my actions is not as big of a deal. Obama might be acting with conviction (although I don't believe that), but even then he's dangerously careless, because his actions could have far reaching consequences on a global scale.

2. I explained my reasoning to the best of my ability. It may be flawed, but it's out there for everyone to see and judge. Some might agree, others won't. Obama's reasoning is currently not only unclear, but to make things worse, a document that pretends to be informative has been published. It successfully fooled... well, probably not much more than Occupy Democrats, but still.

ultimately i doubt we diverge much on this issue.  i completely agree that, to date, no direct evidence [...] prior knowledge of russia's clandestine operations.
Agreed. What we seem to disagree on is whether or not it's appropriate for Obama to take such drastic action based on educated guesses (or, indeed, whether this action is drastic to begin with). To me, he's had plenty of time to make this call - no new information has been released, and I doubt they've made a breakthrough that suddenly prompted him to act. So I have to wonder: why did the timing end up being what it is?

maybe a more succinct way of putting it is this [...]

fwiw i also just don't think any of it matters.  even if the cia were to produce a video [...]
No objections there.

i'm almost patently unwilling to believe the argument that obama is intentionally trying to sabotage america to fulfill some vendetta against trump.  i know a very wise person who once said something to the effect that there's no need to assert malice where incompetence suffices.
I'd be willing to entertain this if not for the report you've linked. It's being presented as proof that Russia did it, and a justification for Obama's actions. But it doesn't come even close to providing good evidence. Intuitively, this reeks of deception to me. I refuse to believe that the FBI got an unpaid intern (who blagged his way through his interview) to write this report, and I reckon that's what it would take to make it *this* incompetent.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2017, 09:39:52 PM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

P.S.  All of us illiterate folks understood this the first time.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7184
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1905 on: January 01, 2017, 11:00:13 PM »
Can't disagree, SW.




Honestly, Obama is probably just trying to fuck over Trump.  I don't blame him and doing things right hasn't helped his popularity so why not pull a Trump?
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1906 on: January 03, 2017, 01:55:13 AM »
I'm criticising the US government, not you (you're welcome to speculate about whatever you want).

ah, my mistake.  i get what you're saying now.

I'd be willing to entertain this if not for the report you've linked. It's being presented as proof that Russia did it, and a justification for Obama's actions. But it doesn't come even close to providing good evidence. Intuitively, this reeks of deception to me. I refuse to believe that the FBI got an unpaid intern (who blagged his way through his interview) to write this report, and I reckon that's what it would take to make it *this* incompetent.

probably our only real divergence at this point is that i'm taking the released document to be merely a schematic of what these agencies believe happened, but i don't think it's meant to describe the evidence or details of how they came to the conclusion.  it's just agitprop for public consumption.

if it is the case that this document represents the totality of the evidence obama used to justify his response, then i completely agree with you that obama's reaction was dangerously shortsighted.

it seems like one has to believe one of two assumptions to make sense of these events: either 1) obama is incompetent and/or absurdly petty; or, 2) obama has access to more evidence than this document represents.  i think 2 is the safer bet.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 15529
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1907 on: January 03, 2017, 09:15:37 AM »
As per usual, mainstream media are part of the problem. Multiple outlets claim that this report is "proof that Russia did it", and so many people are examining as such. And, since many people don't know where to even begin, they end up reaching a conclusion along the lines of "look at all these words, this must mean Russians did it!"

Perhaps I'm being idealistic, but if u were in charge of the organisations that released them and I was not interested in deceiving the masses, I would immediately get a spokesperson to clarify that the report can't be Interpreted in that way and that the media are retarted.

It is very likely that Obama has more information than us, of course. It's just that I'm not sure what information he possibly *could* have. As I said before, it's extremely difficult to attribute cyber attacks to organisations with the degree of confidence that the USA seems to exhibit. It usually doesn't happen, and thus I'm a bit conflicted about assuming that it did happen when no information has been released. And then there's the scale of the retaliation. Unless I'm missing something, it's unprecedented globally, so I'd be expecting extraordinarily good evidence... which makes it even rarer, which makes me even more sceptical

Side note: lol CNN
« Last Edit: January 03, 2017, 09:23:34 AM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

P.S.  All of us illiterate folks understood this the first time.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7184
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1908 on: January 04, 2017, 10:11:56 AM »
Just to follow up (a link from the trump thread)
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/03/us/politics/trump-russian-hacking.html?partner=msft_msn&_r=0

It sounds like the REAL report is yet to be released (or even compiled).
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Online xasop

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9448
  • Professional computer somebody
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1909 on: January 05, 2017, 08:17:05 PM »
http://www.infowars.com/obama-seized-enough-land-and-water-in-8-years-to-cover-texas-three-times/

Obama is acting like a toddler who didn't get the Christmas present he wanted.
when you try to mock anyone while also running the flat earth society. Lol

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7184
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1910 on: January 05, 2017, 09:05:18 PM »
http://www.infowars.com/obama-seized-enough-land-and-water-in-8-years-to-cover-texas-three-times/

Obama is acting like a toddler who didn't get the Christmas present he wanted.

No.
It's more like the last ditch effort to try and preserve nature.  He probably, very honestly believes that all that land, all that nature, will be destroyed in 4 years if he doesn't act. 

And really, is that bad?  It's like a toddler throwing a temper tantrum by going out and planting trees.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Online xasop

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9448
  • Professional computer somebody
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1911 on: January 05, 2017, 09:21:11 PM »
And really, is that bad?

Yes, it's bad. It's bad for two main reasons.

First, it's quite clear from the article that the Utah state legislature was in opposition to the move. The federal government should not steal land away from the states it is supposed to be representing.

Second, government-enforced "nature reserves" are harmful to everyone involved. By denying the potential of humans to live and work harmoniously with nature, they also deny them the opportunity to do so, instead contributing to overcrowding of already populated areas. In turn, the people who never see or appreciate the natural area (because they aren't allowed to go there) see no interest in helping to maintain it.

Far better would be to permit development of the area and provide tax incentives for land owners and farmers to do their part for sustainability. That has two major benefits: first, the strain on existing cities and towns is reduced as more land opens up for development, allowing those cities to become more sustainable; and second, the care for natural resources is left in the hands of people who see and work the land every day, not bureaucrats on the other side of the country.

This is just yet another example of statists unnecessarily and condescendingly enforcing their own notion of sustainability by fiat.
when you try to mock anyone while also running the flat earth society. Lol

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7184
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1912 on: January 05, 2017, 10:07:04 PM »
And really, is that bad?

Yes, it's bad. It's bad for two main reasons.

First, it's quite clear from the article that the Utah state legislature was in opposition to the move. The federal government should not steal land away from the states it is supposed to be representing.

Second, government-enforced "nature reserves" are harmful to everyone involved. By denying the potential of humans to live and work harmoniously with nature, they also deny them the opportunity to do so, instead contributing to overcrowding of already populated areas. In turn, the people who never see or appreciate the natural area (because they aren't allowed to go there) see no interest in helping to maintain it.

Far better would be to permit development of the area and provide tax incentives for land owners and farmers to do their part for sustainability. That has two major benefits: first, the strain on existing cities and towns is reduced as more land opens up for development, allowing those cities to become more sustainable; and second, the care for natural resources is left in the hands of people who see and work the land every day, not bureaucrats on the other side of the country.

This is just yet another example of statists unnecessarily and condescendingly enforcing their own notion of sustainability by fiat.
So... http://fox13now.com/2016/12/28/utah-republicans-critical-of-bears-ears-national-monument-designation/

Utah is basically saying that it takes away land from Utah and keeps Utah people from maintaining that land (which it doesn't) and that the government should help them build roads and schools, which isn't relevant anyway.  Also the people who used to own the land and consider it sacred (it's got cultural significance) are very happy with this.  I mean, it sounds like the argument is "We, the people who don't care about the Indian cultural relics, want to do whatever we want with the land."  which, in my opinion, is pretty bad.

Secondly, history has proven time and time again that humans and nature do not mix well when you add "development".  How many times have strip mining companies failed to clean up?  How many times do lumber companies just leave a forest cleared?  Fraking, for god's sake, is causing Earth Quakes in Oklahoma.  With the support of the Trump administration, that land could easily have been strip mined(or whatever) and all of those cultural heritage icons lost forever.    And it's not like we don't have an abundant amount of farm land. 

As for tax incentives... I don't think that ever works.  Hell, fines don't work either.  Just look at how much coal mines get away with for safety violations and they just pay the fine cause it's cheaper.  The tax incentives would, at the very least, need to be set to 0 and even then, it might not offset the cost.

Plus, why in god's name do you need to develop everything?  Cities aren't bulging because there's no place to live, cities are bulging because people have no financial ability or desire to leave. 
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Online xasop

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9448
  • Professional computer somebody
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1913 on: January 05, 2017, 10:55:38 PM »
So... http://fox13now.com/2016/12/28/utah-republicans-critical-of-bears-ears-national-monument-designation/

Utah is basically saying that it takes away land from Utah and keeps Utah people from maintaining that land (which it doesn't)

It very explicitly does:

(c) Relinquishment to Federal Government.— When an object is situated on a parcel covered by a bona fide unperfected claim or held in private ownership, the parcel, or so much of the parcel as may be necessary for the proper care and management of the object, may be relinquished to the Federal Government and the Secretary may accept the relinquishment of the parcel on behalf of the Federal Government.


and that the government should help them build roads and schools, which isn't relevant anyway.

It's relevant in that the federal government does not have infinite money, and they could be prioritising spending better than funding the maintenance of land needlessly stolen from states.


Also the people who used to own the land and consider it sacred (it's got cultural significance) are very happy with this.  I mean, it sounds like the argument is "We, the people who don't care about the Indian cultural relics, want to do whatever we want with the land."  which, in my opinion, is pretty bad.

From the article you linked:

Quote
Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes issued a statement threatening a lawsuit:
“The Antiquities Act was passed to protect archaeological sites from pillage by treasure hunters with narrow, focused designations of thousands of acres or only what was absolutely necessary. It has turned into a tool for the Executive Branch to bypass proper Congressional authority, to designate millions of acres at a time and far beyond what is necessary to preserve sacred sites.

This goes way beyond protecting sacred sites to reserving massive swathes of land that could otherwise be developed to improve the quality of life for Americans.

Besides, native Americans aren't the only ones with interests that matter. Obviously we should be protecting legitimate cultural relics, but America shouldn't hold itself hostage to the demands of a minority, regardless of how much they were wronged in the past.


Secondly, history has proven time and time again that humans and nature do not mix well when you add "development".  How many times have strip mining companies failed to clean up?  How many times do lumber companies just leave a forest cleared?  Fraking, for god's sake, is causing Earth Quakes in Oklahoma.

I could find plenty of examples of companies doing the right thing for sustainability. So what? It doesn't mean that development is necessarily good or bad. Should we just pack it in and not give ourselves the opportunity to learn from our collective mistakes because some people did a bad job?


With the support of the Trump administration, that land could easily have been strip mined(or whatever) and all of those cultural heritage icons lost forever.    And it's not like we don't have an abundant amount of farm land.

I don't know what you mean by "with the support of the Trump administration". Like, do you seriously think Trump is just going to get into office and steamroll the country?


As for tax incentives... I don't think that ever works.  Hell, fines don't work either.  Just look at how much coal mines get away with for safety violations and they just pay the fine cause it's cheaper.  The tax incentives would, at the very least, need to be set to 0 and even then, it might not offset the cost.

You seem to have a very low opinion of your fellow humans. Most people want to do the right thing; the tax incentive makes it financially viable to do so.

An example of a system like this working well is in the UK, where their national parks are largely composed of privately owned parcels of land, governed by a national park board.

National park authorities have staff who work closely with farmers. We help them apply for grants that pay money to farmers who farm in ways that help protect the countryside. We give advice and sometimes work with volunteers to do practical work like repairing dry stone walls or footpaths.


Plus, why in god's name do you need to develop everything?  Cities aren't bulging because there's no place to live, cities are bulging because people have no financial ability or desire to leave.

Irrelevant. By that logic, the federal government might as well ban Crocs. After all, nobody needs to wear them.

"You don't need it" is not a valid reason to prohibit something.
when you try to mock anyone while also running the flat earth society. Lol

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7184
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1914 on: January 06, 2017, 12:18:41 AM »
It very explicitly does:

(c) Relinquishment to Federal Government.— When an object is situated on a parcel covered by a bona fide unperfected claim or held in private ownership, the parcel, or so much of the parcel as may be necessary for the proper care and management of the object, may be relinquished to the Federal Government and the Secretary may accept the relinquishment of the parcel on behalf of the Federal Government.
And what part of that says that citizens of the state of Utah will not be hired by the federal government to assist in maintaining the land?

Quote
It's relevant in that the federal government does not have infinite money, and they could be prioritising spending better than funding the maintenance of land needlessly stolen from states.
Except the money the federal government uses to maintain the land frees up the money the STATE used to maintain the land.  So now the state has more money it can use to spend on whatever it thinks it needs. 

Quote

From the article you linked:

Quote
Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes issued a statement threatening a lawsuit:
“The Antiquities Act was passed to protect archaeological sites from pillage by treasure hunters with narrow, focused designations of thousands of acres or only what was absolutely necessary. It has turned into a tool for the Executive Branch to bypass proper Congressional authority, to designate millions of acres at a time and far beyond what is necessary to preserve sacred sites.

This goes way beyond protecting sacred sites to reserving massive swathes of land that could otherwise be developed to improve the quality of life for Americans.

Besides, native Americans aren't the only ones with interests that matter. Obviously we should be protecting legitimate cultural relics, but America shouldn't hold itself hostage to the demands of a minority, regardless of how much they were wronged in the past.
Improve the lives of Americans?   Ok, first off, it hasn't.  The state has had that land for I don't know how long and has yet to develop it.  It's possible it's value is insignificant compared to the political backlash of destroying the landmark.  But things have changed.  Anger is in.  Development is in.  And Obama chose those two spots so odds are, he knows something we don't.  Otherwise, why would he bother?  What would be the motivation?

Quote
I could find plenty of examples of companies doing the right thing for sustainability. So what? It doesn't mean that development is necessarily good or bad. Should we just pack it in and not give ourselves the opportunity to learn from our collective mistakes because some people did a bad job?
The problem isn't some people doing a bad job, it's that the system of punishing that bad job is inadequate so much so that it's is cheaper to pay the price of disaster than to do things correctly in alot of cases with regards to resource extraction.  And the businesses can't be shown to self regulate.  When they've gotten what they want, they leave.  The people affected are minor compared to the whole US and thus, the PR damage is simply listed as a cost of business.

Quote
I don't know what you mean by "with the support of the Trump administration". Like, do you seriously think Trump is just going to get into office and steamroll the country?
Think about the oil pipeline.  The Obama administration spent years blocking it.  A Trump administration plans to allow it to go through.  With the support of Trump, even a "Destroying these old buildings is good for business." could be enough to crush any opposition.  Hell, just look at the natives who have that oil pipeline going through their burial land.  Look how much they're being pushed aside and arrested.  And that's with a sympathetic president.  Now picture an unsympathetic one.

Quote
You seem to have a very low opinion of your fellow humans. Most people want to do the right thing; the tax incentive makes it financially viable to do so.
Most people do.  Most people, however, don't run development companies.  Or resource extraction companies.  Or deal with the financial burden of fixing what they destroyed to get said resources that may, in fact, make the whole thing financially burdensome.  The idea is to maximize profit and if you can do that by not replacing the rock you removed when you mined out the copper, then why would you?

Quote
An example of a system like this working well is in the UK, where their national parks are largely composed of privately owned parcels of land, governed by a national park board.

National park authorities have staff who work closely with farmers. We help them apply for grants that pay money to farmers who farm in ways that help protect the countryside. We give advice and sometimes work with volunteers to do practical work like repairing dry stone walls or footpaths.
Great!  How many requests to develop buildings, factories, or mining do they get?  Cause it seems to me that it operates as a park with people who live there and farm and not as development land.

Quote
Irrelevant. By that logic, the federal government might as well ban Crocs. After all, nobody needs to wear them.

"You don't need it" is not a valid reason to prohibit something.
How about "The damage to this area by development will not offset the social benefit gained." ?
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 15529
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1915 on: January 06, 2017, 08:37:39 AM »
Otherwise, why would he bother?  What would be the motivation?
The same reason he's been trying to wreck American diplomacy over the past couple weeks, presumably.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

P.S.  All of us illiterate folks understood this the first time.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7184
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1916 on: January 06, 2017, 09:43:19 AM »
Otherwise, why would he bother?  What would be the motivation?
The same reason he's been trying to wreck American diplomacy over the past couple weeks, presumably.
From what I've been reading the intelligence departments, Democrats, and Republicans in congress all agree that Russia tried to influence the election.  I'm not sure he's trying to wreck American diplomacy, just attack Russia.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 15529
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1917 on: January 06, 2017, 10:35:54 AM »
From what I've been reading the intelligence departments, Democrats, and Republicans in congress all agree that Russia tried to influence the election.  I'm not sure he's trying to wreck American diplomacy, just attack Russia.
There is also Israel. Openly denouncing your own puppet state for actions that took place throughout your entire presidency at the very end of it...
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

P.S.  All of us illiterate folks understood this the first time.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7184
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #1918 on: January 06, 2017, 01:33:26 PM »
From what I've been reading the intelligence departments, Democrats, and Republicans in congress all agree that Russia tried to influence the election.  I'm not sure he's trying to wreck American diplomacy, just attack Russia.
There is also Israel. Openly denouncing your own puppet state for actions that took place throughout your entire presidency at the very end of it...
True, it IS kinda unusual but like I said in the other thread, I don't blame him for doing it.  I think Obama saw the writing on the wall as "Fuck you, we don't care how nice you are we still hate you and your party".  So he did what he thought was right, not what was politically correct.  Which, ironically, is what America seems to want now.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7184
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.