Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Russian Bounty on U.S. military in Afghanistan.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    I honestly don't give a flyin' flip what you think.



    Cool.

    "Welp, there's the door," he said.

    And at that he motioned at a large hole in the wall that he intended to build a door into as soon as he got some tools.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by DivineOb View Post

      "Welp, there's the door," he said.

      And at that he motioned at a large hole in the wall that he intended to build a door into as soon as he got some tools.
      Is this, perhaps, your goofy way of booting me from your thread? If so, you need to make that more clear.

      Meanwhile, you lost all credibility with me with that little pervert blasphemy incident, and the incredibly childish way you responded to it.

      It appears you're only here to spew forth hate, to cause contention, and to be a general pain in the butt*.

      I'd really be curious to know why you're such a bitter person.


      *are there ANY posts where you're not at war with a Christian or conservative?
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
        Is this, perhaps, your goofy way of booting me from your thread? If so, you need to make that more clear.
        It's not my thread.

        Meanwhile, you lost all credibility with me with that little pervert blasphemy incident, and the incredibly childish way you responded to it.
        Would it absolutely shock you to hear that I didn't realize anyone would see what I wrote? Is it *really* a stretch? That can't be the first time I gave a goofy deletion reason.

        It appears you're only here to spew forth hate, to cause contention, and to be a general pain in the butt.

        I'd really be curious to know why you're such a bitter person.
        I'm not half as bitter as you insist I am but the part of me which *is* bitter is that way because of this dawning realization over the past 4 years


        Dear America: You are waking up, as Germany once did, to the awareness that 1/3 of your people would kill another 1/3, while 1/3 watches.
        — Werner Twertzog (@WernerTwertzog) August 23, 2017

        Comment


        • Originally posted by DivineOb View Post
          It's not my thread.
          My mistake. So, that was just a nutty response.

          Would it absolutely shock you to hear that I didn't realize anyone would see what I wrote? Is it *really* a stretch? That can't be the first time I gave a goofy deletion reason.
          It doesn't matter - the very fact that your mind can produce such perversion is concerning enough. And it wasn't just "goofy", and you know it.

          I'm not half as bitter as you insist
          I'm not insisting anything -- just observing.

          I am but the part of me which *is* bitter is that way because of this dawning realization over the past 4 years


          Dear America: You are waking up, as Germany once did, to the awareness that 1/3 of your people would kill another 1/3, while 1/3 watches.
          — Werner Twertzog (@WernerTwertzog) August 23, 2017
          I think it'a more than just a "part" of you that's bitter. I think it is consuming you.

          Again, are there ANY threads or posts where you're not at war with Christians or conservatives?
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            My mistake. So, that was just a nutty response.
            It was me pointing out that if talking to me is such a chore there are remediation steps of which you might avail yourself.


            It doesn't matter - the very fact that your mind can produce such perversion is concerning enough. And it wasn't just "goofy", and you know it.
            I can't believe any of you well adjusted adults actually care about someone writing something so ridiculous. Just childish tantrum throwing.


            I'm not insisting anything -- just observing.

            I think it'a more than just a "part" of you that's bitter. I think it is consuming you.

            Again, are there ANY threads or posts where you're not at war with Christians or conservatives?
            I'm not sure what your definition of 'conservative' is but I can't think of a one on this board who comes close to fitting the conventional description.

            But to answer your question, yes, most of my posts were reasonable attempts at even handed communication as an attempt to bridge the gap with people who hold beliefs very differently from my own. It was only reluctantly that I started to realize that that was impossible with most who post on here (though MM / LPoE gets the prize for helping me in that direction the most). Edited by a Moderator

            For example when I posted the thread about Russia propaganda starting to broadcast from American radio stations I was *certain* we could find common ground. *Certain* we could agree that something like *that* had no place in this country. Nope. When I posted about the UKR WB's name being revealed I was *certain* that we'd agree that WBers are a vital component of keeping government honest. Nope. On and on.

            Moderated By: mossrose

            You were already edited for this information once, and even though we haven't yet come to a decision on how to handle it, one would think that you would have gotten the clue that you weren't to do it again. You are on mighty thin ice, DO.

            ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
            Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

            Last edited by mossrose; 07-06-2020, 09:40 AM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by DivineOb View Post
              It was me pointing out that if talking to me is such a chore there are remediation steps of which you might avail yourself.
              Quite honestly, I have very little desire to interact with you at all.

              I can't believe any of you well adjusted adults actually care about someone writing something so ridiculous. Just childish tantrum throwing.
              So, you're throwing a childish tantrum, and perverse blasphemy comes out. It can't come out if it isn't in you.

              I'm sure what your definition of 'conservative' is but I can't think of a one on this board who comes close to fitting that description.

              But to answer your question, yes, most of my posts were reasonable attempts at even handed communication as an attempt to bridge the gap with people who hold beliefs very differently from my own.
              [trying to hold back laughter]

              It was only reluctantly that I started to realize that that was impossible with most who post on here (though MM / LPoE gets the prize for helping me in that direction the most).
              And, once again, it can't come out if it isn't in you.

              For example when I posted the thread about Russia propaganda starting to broadcast from American radio stations I was *certain* we could find common ground. *Certain* we could agree that something like *that* had no place in this country. Nope. When I posted about the UKR WB's name being revealed I was *certain* that we'd agree that WBers are a vital component of keeping government honest. Nope. On and on.
              Personally, I think you've earned quite a reputation for yourself that does not support what you're claiming.
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                Quite honestly, I have very little desire to interact with you at all.
                That's your claim.


                So, you're throwing a childish tantrum, and perverse blasphemy comes out. It can't come out if it isn't in you.
                No *you guys* are the ones throwing the childish tantrum. I wrote something which made me laugh which I thought was screaming into the void.


                [trying to hold back laughter]
                Cool.


                And, once again, it can't come out if it isn't in you.
                In this context *what* is in me?


                Personally, I think you've earned quite a reputation for yourself that does not support what you're claiming.
                That's fine. I know the truth.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by DivineBoob View Post
                  Ratfink has acknowleged that the bounties exist in a memo.


                  The memo said that the C.I.A. and the National Counterterrorism Center had assessed with medium confidence — meaning credibly sourced and plausible, but falling short of near certainty — that a unit of the Russian military intelligence service, known as the G.R.U., offered the bounties, according to two of the officials briefed on its contents.
                  That's not what "medium confidence" means. Credibly sourced and plausible, yes, but what the Times euphemistically calls "falling short of near certainty" really means "uncorroborated", which I suppose technically does fall short of near certainty even if it would be more accurate to say "falling far short of certainty".

                  So even in its own deceptive way, the Times is admitting that the claims were uncorroborated, which is what named sources have been saying on the record from the beginning.
                  Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                  But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                  Than a fool in the eyes of God


                  From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    That's not what "medium confidence" means. Credibly sourced and plausible, yes, but what the Times euphemistically calls "falling short of near certainty" really means "uncorroborated", which I suppose technically does fall short of near certainty even if it would be more accurate to say "falling far short of certainty".

                    So even in its own deceptive way, the Times is admitting that the claims were uncorroborated, which is what named sources have been saying on the record from the beginning.
                    Uncorroborated means the below


                    not confirmed or supported by other evidence or information.


                    Stop speaking dishonestly, MM. Jesus sees you.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by DivineBoob View Post
                      Uncorroborated means the below


                      not confirmed or supported by other evidence or information.


                      Stop speaking dishonestly, MM. Jesus sees you.
                      Moderate confidence generally means credibly sourced and plausible information, but not of sufficient quality or corroboration to warrant a higher level of confidence.

                      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_confidence

                      It's not my fault you're too stupid to be skeptical of the New York Times.
                      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                      Than a fool in the eyes of God


                      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                        Moderate confidence generally means credibly sourced and plausible information, but not of sufficient quality or corroboration to warrant a higher level of confidence.

                        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_confidence

                        It's not my fault you're too stupid to be skeptical of the New York Times.
                        Just stop with the dishonestly MM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by DivineOb View Post
                          In this context *what* is in me?
                          Blasphemy and perversion. And anger. Hostility. Bitterness.
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                            That's not what "medium confidence" means. Credibly sourced and plausible, yes, but what the Times euphemistically calls "falling short of near certainty" really means "uncorroborated", which I suppose technically does fall short of near certainty even if it would be more accurate to say "falling far short of certainty".

                            So even in its own deceptive way, the Times is admitting that the claims were uncorroborated, which is what named sources have been saying on the record from the beginning.
                            Even trying as hard as they could, the best they could come up with was "with medium confidence" and "falling short of near certainty". In other words - 'back to the drawing board'.
                            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                              Even trying as hard as they could, the best they could come up with was "with medium confidence" and "falling short of near certainty". In other words - 'back to the drawing board'.
                              So, you don't think the President should have done anything at all with that intel other than to argue for Russias readmission to the G-7 and removing 10,000 troops from Germany? It's bad enough that the Commander and Chief not to do anything to protect the troops he is charged with protecting in light of the intel, it's another thing altogether to do Russia's bidding in the face of it. You blind Trumpsters should ask yourselves why it is that Trump is always defering to Putin wishes while neglecting the interests of the US and it's allies. Oh I forgot, you're just waiting for all the facts.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                                So, you don't think the President should have done anything at all with that intel other than to argue for Russias readmission to the G-7 and removing 10,000 troops from Germany?
                                That's a really bad assumption, Jim. First, he had to HAVE that intel, and believe it to be more than just "with medium confidence" and "falling short of near certainty".

                                It's bad enough that the Commander and Chief
                                It's "Commander in Chief" or "Commander-in-Chief"

                                not to do anything to protect the troops he is charged with protecting in light of the intel, it's another thing altogether to do Russia's bidding in the face of it.
                                Jim, the entire military structure is designed to protect the troops - they are not a bunch of dummies sitting out there oblivious to the fact that bad people want them dead.

                                You blind Trumpsters
                                Is it even POSSIBLE for you to be civil?

                                should ask yourselves why it is that Trump is always defering to Putin wishes while neglecting the interests of the US and it's allies. Oh I forgot, you're just waiting for all the facts.
                                Yes, Jim, facts - not irrational ravings or rumors or hateful accusations.

                                On the record: The U.S. administration’s actions on Russia
                                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                160 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                379 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X