Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Very

6 (50%)

Some

4 (33.3%)

Not sure

0 (0%)

Not really

1 (8.3%)

Not in the slightest

1 (8.3%)

Total Members Voted: 11

Voting closed: February 15, 2022, 10:51:36 AM

[LarryBnDC]

“That's pretty weak the said thing Larry is that probably is he best you can do.”

Um... yeah.

[facilitatorn]

…she told a truth.

But not the truth.

Fuck her.

The same exact thing is now being said about you. At least now you and Rep. Omar have that in common, along with your love for the United States and it’s constitution and adherence to fair elections and the rule of law.

[bankshot1]

…she told a truth.

But not the truth.

Fuck her.

The same exact thing is now being said about you. At least now you and Rep. Omar have that in common, along with your love for the United States and it’s constitution and adherence to fair elections and the rule of law.

Fac-I have no idea what you are babbling about in tonight's word salad cheap shot that you think you're good at.

Is the Council talking about me?

oops, better be careful.

Post whatever it is you object to, or don't understand, and I understand the list will be very long, and I'll explain what I wrote and I'll do it in single syllable words so you can try and keep up.

OKEY  DOKEY WOKEY?

LMAO

[bambu.]

America had the right idea in WW1 and WW2..."Europe's war", and stayed out of it.
Not dumb Australia...Europe's fields are awash with the blood of its sons and daughters
Short memories have the Europeans.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/the-west-is-not-coming-to-australia-s-rescue-we-need-new-alliances/ar-AAL56uP?ocid=AVRES000&OCID=AVRES000

The West is not coming to Australia's rescue. We need new alliances


The summits of the G7 group and the NATO alliance over the past few days have produced an avalanche of headlines about a growing anti-China mood among Western nations and an appetite to stand up to Beijing's assertiveness.

 Let's hope the Australian government is not taking these headlines too seriously, because the harsh truth is that there will be no Western alliance to contain China, and no united democratic front against Beijing's authoritarianism. The sooner we realise this and build it into our foreign and defence policies, the safer we will be.

It's important to stress that this is not an argument about Western "decline", which is a vastly overstated prospect. The European Union is a massive and vibrant economic actor, and NATO is one of the most successful alliances in modern history. The United States remains fantastically powerful, and that won't change in our lifetime. It has a resilient and growing economy, favourable demographics (lots of young people), tremendous capacity for innovation, a huge military, and it is surrounded by vast oceans to the east and west and friendly neighbours to the north and south.

But of course, China is huge too. Even if we accept all the pessimistic prognoses about China's economic future - ageing population, ballooning debt, environmental disasters - it is safe to assume that a country which already boasts the world's second-largest economy will hold on to that mantle, and might even ascend to first place.

That in turn raises the stakes of any geopolitical contest between China and the West, especially for Europe, which has no obvious reason to get involved. Why would NATO deal itself into such a high-stakes contest when China poses no conceivable military threat to Europe?
 You might argue that Europe has economic interests to protect, but European nations have not had a substantial military presence in Asia for decades, while their economic ties to Asia have grown.

#####

What Australia needs to do is get itself some nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, biological weapons, trade weapons, and get used to the idea that it basically has to fight China 'by itself' ...with ANZUS Alliance.

[LarryBnDC]

.America had the right idea in WW1 and WW2..."Europe's war", and stayed out of it.”

I guess this is ‘a truth’ but not ‘the truth.’

heh

[facilitatorn]

…she told a truth.

But not the truth.

Fuck her.

The same exact thing is now being said about you. At least now you and Rep. Omar have that in common, along with your love for the United States and it’s constitution and adherence to fair elections and the rule of law.

Fac-I have no idea what you are babbling about in tonight's word salad cheap shot that you think you're good at.

Is the Council talking about me?

oops, better be careful.

Post whatever it is you object to, or don't understand, and I understand the list will be very long, and I'll explain what I wrote and I'll do it in single syllable words so you can try and keep up.

OKEY  DOKEY WOKEY?

LMAO

I’m talking about the sad garment of half-truths you are trying to use to cover your visceral and irrational distain for the Congresswoman. She wasn’t arguing that you can’t prefer one side over the other in a conflict, allies over axis in your example, but rather that we should avoid and deplore atrocities from any quarter, as all atrocities tend to exacerbate conflicts more often than they serve to resolve them. Since you largely agree with this point in principle and practice, you didn’t want to address it. It did nothing to further grind your axe. With a hefty twist you tried to make it look like some other point you felt less embarrassed taking umbrage with. It didn’t go well for you, but based on past experiences here I don’t expect it will be something you are ready to move past.

Grind on, oh steadfast one. Maybe one day you’ll find some marrow somewhere deep inside that bone.

[josh]

…she told a truth.

But not the truth.

Fuck her.

The same exact thing is now being said about you. At least now you and Rep. Omar have that in common, along with your love for the United States and it’s constitution and adherence to fair elections and the rule of law.

Fac-I have no idea what you are babbling about in tonight's word salad cheap shot that you think you're good at.

Is the Council talking about me?

oops, better be careful.

Post whatever it is you object to, or don't understand, and I understand the list will be very long, and I'll explain what I wrote and I'll do it in single syllable words so you can try and keep up.

OKEY  DOKEY WOKEY?

LMAO

I’m talking about the sad garment of half-truths you are trying to use to cover your visceral and irrational distain for the Congresswoman. She wasn’t arguing that you can’t prefer one side over the other in a conflict, allies over axis in your example, but rather that we should avoid and deplore atrocities from any quarter, as all atrocities tend to exacerbate conflicts more often than they serve to resolve them. Since you largely agree with this point in principle and practice, you didn’t want to address it. It did nothing to further grind your axe. With a hefty twist you tried to make it look like some other point you felt less embarrassed taking umbrage with. It didn’t go well for you, but based on past experiences here I don’t expect it will be something you are ready to move past.

Grind on, oh steadfast one. Maybe one day you’ll find some marrow somewhere deep inside that bone.

Gnaw.

[facilitatorn]

Gnaw is better. I agree.

Is the Council talking about me?

As far as the Council is concerned, you are on Double Secret Probation.

Also, you laugh just like a horse having a coronary.

[bankshot1]

…she told a truth.

But not the truth.

Fuck her.

The same exact thing is now being said about you. At least now you and Rep. Omar have that in common, along with your love for the United States and it’s constitution and adherence to fair elections and the rule of law.

Fac-I have no idea what you are babbling about in tonight's word salad cheap shot that you think you're good at.

Is the Council talking about me?

oops, better be careful.

Post whatever it is you object to, or don't understand, and I understand the list will be very long, and I'll explain what I wrote and I'll do it in single syllable words so you can try and keep up.

OKEY  DOKEY WOKEY?

LMAO

I’m talking about the sad garment of half-truths you are trying to use to cover your visceral and irrational distain for the Congresswoman. She wasn’t arguing that you can’t prefer one side over the other in a conflict, allies over axis in your example, but rather that we should avoid and deplore atrocities from any quarter, as all atrocities tend to exacerbate conflicts more often than they serve to resolve them. Since you largely agree with this point in principle and practice, you didn’t want to address it. It did nothing to further grind your axe. With a hefty twist you tried to make it look like some other point you felt less embarrassed taking umbrage with. It didn’t go well for you, but based on past experiences here I don’t expect it will be something you are ready to move past.

Grind on, oh steadfast one. Maybe one day you’ll find some marrow somewhere deep inside that bone.

I suggest the half-truths belonged to Omar, which is part explains her clarification of her tweet.

Fac Re-read my response to OC. I focused on two issues, re Omar. Her message which many, myself included thought was a false equivalence, and her platform of delivery, which IMO was wholly inadequate for such a nuanced argument.

I've no axe to grind with Omar, I disagree with her on this. 

But if you have questions rather than baseless charges, I'd be happy to answer them as it seems your searching for substance, coming up empty, and equivocating out of your ass.

goodnight

[facilitatorn]

http://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/15/khan-confirm-ftc-494609

This is the kind of appointment that leads America to new heights of greatness never before seen on our shores.

[Hairy Lime]

Some similarities between the CRT troll and the Omar troll.

By the time Republicans and centrist Democrats had united late last week to scold Representative Ilhan Omar for a tweet—one of the few pastimes that still draw the two parties together, and something those selfsame chiders would doubtlessly decry, under different circumstances, as cancel culture or censorship—it no longer mattered what, exactly, Omar had said. They had already managed to make a news cycle out of it: mission accomplished.

Now, following Democratic outrage and Republican calls for a floor vote to strip Omar of her committee assignments, let me record the following for posterity: Omar demonstrably did not say what she’s been accused of having said; what she did say was true; and every politico using this opportunity to take a swing at her likely knows those two things—they just think you don’t...   

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/06/what-ilhan-omar-actually-said/619196/

I doubt any bashers here will read all of this article and concede any of its factual points,  but YNK.

OC

You would be wrong. I read the article.

and without parsing every argument made, it seems the author's point hinged on Omar telling the truth.

I think Omar told a truth, but not the truth.

Have atrocities  been committed in war, yes. Can we judge relativity or context?

We should.

Did Omar?

In my opinion she did not. If she did, she would have been more circumspect in her argument and approach.

Should I equate the atrocities committed by the Germans and Japanese in WW2 with those committed by the US?

Were the victims of US atrocities any less victimized?

that seems to be Omar's argument.

I will leave it to others far more pure than I to make that call.

Further, as already posted, Omar used a very limited platform in Twitter.

A nuanced and complicated matter as this is, would have been far better addressed in a speech or a multi-page press release. Not a 200 character post. And she knew better, and her press people knew better.

But she knowingly grabbed some publicity off the blood of victims by issuing a headline grabbing tweet that appealed to certain of her supporters. She now says that the obvious false equivalence of her tweet was not meant in the manner it was received.

Bullshit.


So I read the article, and agree she told a truth.

But not the truth.

Fuck her.


ymmv

So your problem is, in this era of social media, she tweeted? Really?

[bankshot1]

Some similarities between the CRT troll and the Omar troll.

By the time Republicans and centrist Democrats had united late last week to scold Representative Ilhan Omar for a tweet—one of the few pastimes that still draw the two parties together, and something those selfsame chiders would doubtlessly decry, under different circumstances, as cancel culture or censorship—it no longer mattered what, exactly, Omar had said. They had already managed to make a news cycle out of it: mission accomplished.

Now, following Democratic outrage and Republican calls for a floor vote to strip Omar of her committee assignments, let me record the following for posterity: Omar demonstrably did not say what she’s been accused of having said; what she did say was true; and every politico using this opportunity to take a swing at her likely knows those two things—they just think you don’t...   

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/06/what-ilhan-omar-actually-said/619196/

I doubt any bashers here will read all of this article and concede any of its factual points,  but YNK.

OC

You would be wrong. I read the article.

and without parsing every argument made, it seems the author's point hinged on Omar telling the truth.

I think Omar told a truth, but not the truth.

Have atrocities  been committed in war, yes. Can we judge relativity or context?

We should.

Did Omar?

In my opinion she did not. If she did, she would have been more circumspect in her argument and approach.

Should I equate the atrocities committed by the Germans and Japanese in WW2 with those committed by the US?

Were the victims of US atrocities any less victimized?

that seems to be Omar's argument.

I will leave it to others far more pure than I to make that call.

Further, as already posted, Omar used a very limited platform in Twitter.

A nuanced and complicated matter as this is, would have been far better addressed in a speech or a multi-page press release. Not a 200 character post. And she knew better, and her press people knew better.

But she knowingly grabbed some publicity off the blood of victims by issuing a headline grabbing tweet that appealed to certain of her supporters. She now says that the obvious false equivalence of her tweet was not meant in the manner it was received.

Bullshit.


So I read the article, and agree she told a truth.

But not the truth.

Fuck her.


ymmv

So your problem is, in this era of social media, she tweeted? Really?

When she used a Tweet to equate Israel and Hamas and then had to clarify and walk back, what she said on Twitter, when the shit hit the fan, it seems she understood she may have used a poor platform to deliver a very complicated message.

I'm surprised you don't understand that.

Pity.

 

[facilitatorn]

But if you have questions rather than baseless charges, I'd be happy to answer them

Can we “have the same level of accountability and justice for all victims of crimes against humanity” at the same time as we take into account and “judge relativity and context” of the victimization?

Should acts by Hegemonic nations or international bodies (those with the power to act) addressing crimes against humanity gauge their response more by the circumstance of the victims in effort to do right by them or more by where the perpetrators of the crimes against humanity (a clearly defined term agreed to via treaty that you can look up) fall on a scale of atrocity committers?

If the focus should be on perpetrators rather than victims, should the scale we judge perpetrators on be based on all-time crimes against humanity or just ones by regimes still in power or recent crimes against humanity or only those exactly concurrent?

Can there be justice for victims without punishment for perpetrators or are the two inextricably linked in a zero sum equation?

In terms of actions against perpetrators, is there a difference between punitive and preventive measures? Is one preferable to the other in crafting a response?

I’ll stop here. Hopefully in answering with nuance and substance, Banks, in however many characters that takes you, you can deliver something worth gnawing on that relates to the topic rather than the personalities discussing it.

 

[facilitatorn]

http://www.salon.com/2021/06/15/mike-pompeos-new-pac-shares-something-big-in-common-with-a-war-criminal-pardoned-by-trump/

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Pipe%20Hitters

Definitions #4 and #5 are the only ones that apply at all to malignant Mike and his miscast miscreant misfits.

“The girlies is free, but the crack costs money…”
-KRS1

[Hairy Lime]

Some similarities between the CRT troll and the Omar troll.

By the time Republicans and centrist Democrats had united late last week to scold Representative Ilhan Omar for a tweet—one of the few pastimes that still draw the two parties together, and something those selfsame chiders would doubtlessly decry, under different circumstances, as cancel culture or censorship—it no longer mattered what, exactly, Omar had said. They had already managed to make a news cycle out of it: mission accomplished.

Now, following Democratic outrage and Republican calls for a floor vote to strip Omar of her committee assignments, let me record the following for posterity: Omar demonstrably did not say what she’s been accused of having said; what she did say was true; and every politico using this opportunity to take a swing at her likely knows those two things—they just think you don’t...   

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/06/what-ilhan-omar-actually-said/619196/

I doubt any bashers here will read all of this article and concede any of its factual points,  but YNK.

OC

You would be wrong. I read the article.

and without parsing every argument made, it seems the author's point hinged on Omar telling the truth.

I think Omar told a truth, but not the truth.

Have atrocities  been committed in war, yes. Can we judge relativity or context?

We should.

Did Omar?

In my opinion she did not. If she did, she would have been more circumspect in her argument and approach.

Should I equate the atrocities committed by the Germans and Japanese in WW2 with those committed by the US?

Were the victims of US atrocities any less victimized?

that seems to be Omar's argument.

I will leave it to others far more pure than I to make that call.

Further, as already posted, Omar used a very limited platform in Twitter.

A nuanced and complicated matter as this is, would have been far better addressed in a speech or a multi-page press release. Not a 200 character post. And she knew better, and her press people knew better.

But she knowingly grabbed some publicity off the blood of victims by issuing a headline grabbing tweet that appealed to certain of her supporters. She now says that the obvious false equivalence of her tweet was not meant in the manner it was received.

Bullshit.


So I read the article, and agree she told a truth.

But not the truth.

Fuck her.


ymmv

So your problem is, in this era of social media, she tweeted? Really?

When she used a Tweet to equate Israel and Hamas and then had to clarify and walk back, what she said on Twitter, when the shit hit the fan, it seems she understood she may have used a poor platform to deliver a very complicated message.

I'm surprised you don't understand that.

Pity.

Politicians use social media on a myriad of issues, none of which are suitable for a 200 word burst if you want to pick at them. I think after a reasonable clarification - which you acknowledge as a truth - it becomes manufactured outrage. But then, I do not use Twitter because as far.as I can tell Twitter is only useful for two things: sharing pictures of your junk, and apologizing for sharing pictures of your junk.