The Evidens

POSTED BY: JO753
UPDATED: Monday, February 14, 2022 07:11
VIEWED: 159178
PAGE 17 of 121

PREV PAGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NEXT PAGE

JO753

Monday, June 5, 2017 3:06 PM

Sumwun new here reading this thred from the start woud probably think that Sig, KIKI and 6 are FSB operativez. They woud see how they defend Putin, distract with unrelated stuff and divert the conversation away from the orijinal topic.

Count how many posts there are about the election. Derailment seksesful!

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.7532020.com

JO753

Monday, June 5, 2017 3:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by G:

I worry for Al Franken's brain - he's slipping.

I'm not that familiar with him. He alwayz seemed like a typical not so funny SNL guy to me. He wuz on several showz I saw over the weekend saying exactly the same thing. Its wut youd expect from a stand up comedian doing the roundz.
Nothing inherently bad about that, but not particularly brilliant.

Duznt seem much different 21 yirz ago:

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.7532020.com

SECOND

Monday, June 5, 2017 5:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Quote:
If you start looking at the nuclear threat, you have to ask yourself a lot of questions that maybe are best kept under the rug. Like, for example, why did NATO expand to the East? In fact, why does NATO exist? NATO was supposed to be a defense against the Russians. No Russians after 1991, so why NATO? A lot of questions like that are quite serious, and of course, it’s not that they’re not discussed at all. There’s scholarship, but they’re not in part of the mainstream. The way we talk about it is demonizing Russia, and they’re doing plenty of rotten things, but there are other questions.

Quote:
You’re still on your Russian apologist kick. When the USSR vanished, its H-bombs and tanks stayed.
That wasn't me you quoted, SECOND, it was Chomsky. Is HE on a Russian apologist kick?

Ask Chomsky in an email. He probably will reply. He has an opinion on thousands of political subjects.
http://linguistics.mit.edu/user/chomsky/ His e-address, phone, and office location, but nothing about whether he will be in the office today.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

SECOND

Monday, June 5, 2017 5:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
Sumwun new here reading this thred from the start woud probably think that Sig, KIKI and 6 are FSB operativez. They woud see how they defend Putin, distract with unrelated stuff and divert the conversation away from the orijinal topic.

Count how many posts there are about the election. Derailment seksesful!

Here is a long editorial about Trump and Putin. I'm not trying to derail this discussion, just add a branch to it about the similarity of those two:

Trump’s Incompetence Won’t Save Our Democracy
by Masha Gessen JUNE 2, 2017
www.nytimes.com/2017/06/02/opinion/sunday/trumps-incompetence-wont-sav
e-our-democracy.html

Can an autocrat be ridiculous?
Can pure incompetence plunge the world into a catastrophic war?
We don’t like to think so.

We imagine the villains of history as cunning strategists, brilliant masterminds of horror. This happens because we learn about them from history books, which weave narratives that retrospectively imbue events with logic, making them seem predetermined. Historians and their readers bring an unavoidable perception bias to the story: If a historical event caused shocking destruction, then the person behind this event must have been a correspondingly giant monster. Terrifying as it is to contemplate the catastrophes of the 20th century, it would be even more frightening to imagine that humanity had stumbled unthinkingly into its darkest moments.

But a careful reading of contemporary accounts will show that both Hitler and Stalin struck many of their countrymen as men of limited ability, education and imagination — and, indeed, as being incompetent in government and military leadership. Contrary to popular wisdom, they are not political savants, possessed of one extraordinary talent that brings them to power. It is the blunt instrument of reassuring ignorance that propels their rise in a frighteningly complex world.

Modern strongmen are more obviously human. We have witnessed the greed and vanity of Silvio Berlusconi, who ran Italy’s economy into the ground. We recognize the desperate desire of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia to be admired or at least feared — usually literally at his country’s expense. Still, physical distance makes villains seem bigger than they are in real life. Many Americans imagine that Mr. Putin is a brilliant strategist, a skilled secret agent turned popular leader.

As someone who has spent years studying Mr. Putin — and as one of a handful of journalists who have had an unscripted conversation with him — I can vouch for the fact that he is a poorly educated, under-informed, incurious man whose ambition is vastly out of proportion to his understanding of the world. To the extent that he has any interest in the business of governing, it is his role — on the world stage or on Russian television — that concerns him. Whether he is attending a summit, piloting a plane or hang-gliding with Siberian cranes, it is the spectacle of power that interests him.

In the past few months, Americans too have grown familiar with the sight of a president who seems to think that politics consists of demonstrating that he is in charge. This similarity is not an accident (nor is it a result of Russian influence). The rejection of the complexity of modern politics — as well as modern business and modern life in general — lies at the core of populism’s appeal. The first American president with no record of political or military service, Donald Trump ran on a platform of denigrating expertise. His message was that anyone with experience in politics was a corrupt insider and, indeed, that a lack of experience was the best qualification.

Since taking office, he has been largely consistent, purging experienced staff from agencies like the State Department and appointing officials who have no relevant experience and often have nothing but disdain for the mission of their agencies. It’s hardly a coincidence that plagiarism has become a regular occurrence among the Trump team — from Melania Trump’s co

JO753

Monday, June 5, 2017 6:13 PM

Thanks. Very interesting.

Its more fun to think uv Putin az a diabolical mastermind, but really, I've alwayz figured he roze to power mainly frum being in the rite plase at the rite time. Ruthlessly taking advantaj uv opportunityz gets rezults. It can be difficult to differentiate that frum genius.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.7532020.com

6STRINGJOKER

Tuesday, June 6, 2017 1:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by G:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
That seems to be SECOND's main claim to fame: we should listen to her, not because she has anything intelligent to say or because she's an ethical person or because she's a hard worker but because she inherited a lot of wealth.

Wow - it's very telling how you use calling Second "she" "her" as an insult. Embarrassed by your sex?

==============================

Are you kidding me? Would you rather Second be referred to as "it".

How do you get that using female identifiers when they just happen to be used when insulting somebody means that the person being insulted is being insulted because they are female, or that the female identifiers themselves are being used as insults?

I think your SJW brain just broke.

1KIKI

Tuesday, June 6, 2017 2:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"If you start looking at the nuclear threat, you have to ask yourself a lot of questions that maybe are best kept under the rug. Like, for example, why did NATO expand to the East? In fact, why does NATO exist? NATO was supposed to be a defense against the Russians. No Russians after 1991, so why NATO? A lot of questions like that are quite serious, and of course, it’s not that they’re not discussed at all. There’s scholarship, but they’re not in part of the mainstream. The way we talk about it is demonizing Russia, and they’re doing plenty of rotten things, but there are other questions."

Quote:
Originally posted by SECOND:
You’re still on your Russian apologist kick. When the USSR vanished, its H-bombs and tanks stayed.

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
That wasn't me you quoted, SECOND, it was Chomsky. Is HE on a Russian apologist kick?

Quote:
Originally posted by SECOND:
Ask Chomsky in an email. He probably will reply. He has an opinion on thousands of political subjects.
http://linguistics.mit.edu/user/chomsky/ His e-address, phone, and office location, but nothing about whether he will be in the office today.

So, SECOND, you agree - NOT ME. I'm glad to see you got your head FINALLY screwed on straight about that one little fact, at least!

Originally posted by G: "I coined the slogan "We Suck!"© many years ago." G is an avowed Putin-loving, pro-Russian, anti-American troll.
You have a very treasonous view of how justice in the US should work, THUGGER. In fact, you have many other treasonous views as well. You hate the election process and want to void it.

SECOND

Tuesday, June 6, 2017 2:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
Quote:
Originally posted by G:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
That seems to be SECOND's main claim to fame: we should listen to her, not because she has anything intelligent to say or because she's an ethical person or because she's a hard worker but because she inherited a lot of wealth.

Wow - it's very telling how you use calling Second "she" "her" as an insult. Embarrassed by your sex?

==============================

Are you kidding me? Would you rather Second be referred to as "it".

How do you get that using female identifiers when they just happen to be used when insulting somebody means that the person being insulted is being insulted because they are female, or that the female identifiers themselves are being used as insults?

I think your SJW brain just broke.

I'll rewrite the comment to be neutral:

Quote:
That seems to be SECOND's main claim to fame: we should listen to 2nd, not because 2nd has anything intelligent to say or because 2nd's an ethical person or because 2nd's a hard worker but because 2nd inherited a lot of wealth.

I saw an article that explains how what you know about Democracy is probably wrong:

The mystery of the 2016 election was its normalcy
www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/5/15161442/2016-election-normal
cy-democracy-realists-identity

The article does have something worthwhile to say about Trump. It uses questionnaires and science to discover what was happening inside the brains of voters. Spoiler: what was happening was the same as what happened in the previous dozen Presidential elections.

Achen and Bartels present the main argument for democracy, the one we all learned in grade school, like this: “Ordinary people have preferences about what their government should do. They choose leaders who will do those things, or they enact their preferences directly in referendums. In either case, what the majority wants becomes government policy.” The authors call this the “folk theory” of democracy, and it is a persuasive, inspiring vision of how government should work.

But political scientists rejected that argument decades ago, and much of Democracy for Realists consists of Achen and Bartels running through the depressing studies that explain why. Voters hold weak and contradictory views about the government. They pay little attention to political news save in the months directly before an election. Their positions on key issues can be changed by small tweaks to how questions are worded, or ordered. They often assume the leaders they like share their views, or if they don’t, they change their views to accord with the politicians they support. Look no further than the sudden rise in Republican estimations of Vladimir Putin to see this phenomenon in action.

But if voters aren’t judging candidates based on their preferences about what government should do, then how are they making decisions? How, to put it bluntly, does democracy actually work? . . .

Take a 2014 study by psychologists Maureen Craig and Jennifer Richeson. They asked one group of white, political independents if they knew that California would soon have more nonwhite residents than white residents. Then they asked another group of white, political independents if they had heard another highly racialized, but less threatening (at least to white political power), fact — “that Hispanics had become roughly equal in number to Blacks nationally.” And then they compared the two group’s political opinions.

Even now, the results, as described by Achen and Bartels, stun. “The people who had been informed (or simply reminded) of the potentially threatening demographic shift in California were significantly more likely to lean Republican. This effect was twice as strong in the West as in the nation as a whole, producing a substantial 11-point increase in Republican leaning (and a 15-point decrease in Democratic leaning).”

In

1KIKI

Tuesday, June 6, 2017 2:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
Sumwun new here reading this thred from the start woud probably think that Sig, KIKI and 6 are FSB operativez.

Do you LIKE being an idiotic troll, Jo?

Quote:
They woud see how they defend Putin,

I haven't mentioned him once - either to defend or attack him. He's simply not on my radar.

Quote:
distract with unrelated stuff and divert the conversation away from the orijinal topic.

You mean because I keep asking you to define 'evidence' and you're utterly incapable of even copy/ pasting from the internet? Because not only have you declared your spelling to be superior, you're deluded enough to think that your meaning for words everyone else uses is superior as well? Are you insane? And by insane I mean "in a state of mind that prevents normal perception, behavior, or social interaction; seriously mentally ill."

Quote:
Count how many posts there are about the election. Derailment seksesful!

Hey JO - **I** didn't bring it up, **YOU** did.

Quote:
Wednesday, May 31, 2017 4:21 PM Originally posted by JO753:
Soooo.... Comey'z plot to bring down The Donald started with lozing the election for Hillary?

In case you missed it
Wednesday, May 31, 2017 4:21 PM Originally posted by JO753
Soooo.... Comey'z plot to bring down The Donald started with lozing the election for Hillary?

My god what a lying stupid sack of shit you are.

Originally posted by G: "I coined the slogan "We Suck!"© many years ago." G is an avowed Putin-loving, pro-Russian, anti-American troll.
You have a very treasonous view of how justice in the US should work, THUGGER. In fact, you have many other treasonous views as well. You hate the election process and want to void it.

6STRINGJOKER

Tuesday, June 6, 2017 3:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
Interesting story, 6. But it duznt match Hillaryz loss.

Why do you keep trying to pin it all on 1 cauze?

I think it matches almost perfectly with Hillary's loss.

Hillary herself isn't 1 cause. There are a ton of reasons why she lost that race, and most of them are her fault.

The illegal server.
Lying about the illegal server.
The Clinton Foundation.
Bill Clinton.
She's not a likable person, let alone candidate.
Her hubris.
Insulting half of America with her basket of deplorables comment.
Insulting women by her "I'm With Her" campaigning and then the media shitting on any woman who didn't fall in line and vote for her because she had a vagina.

I could name more... but I've made my point.

Pick a reason. Pick 3 reasons. Pick all of them.

She was a terrible candidate, and because of the Loud Left, she is still crying foul about losing fair and square and blaming it on everybody else except herself.

You are allowing her to do that.

PREV PAGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NEXT PAGE