destruction of america

[datzenmike]

5 minutes ago, frankendat said:

The majority leftist media feigning concern for Trump, while pumping ill formed and irrelevant "facts". At least Fox News pumps counter ill informed and irrelevant facts...

 

 

 

YESSS!!!

 

There ya go.... equal and opposite 'facts' that are also true.

[difrangia]

Hot off the press; DJT's the nominee and J.D. Vance is VP.

 

Game's-On. Pop the corn.

[iceman510]

1 hour ago, datzenmike said:

YESSS!!!

 

There ya go.... equal and opposite 'facts' that are also true.

 

Nope.  Your imagination aside, objective facts cannot be opposing and both true.  Overlayed perception (bias, pre-supposition, lying) does not make an alternative "fact" reality.  Neither side in an argument may be presenting actual facts.  In politics, a much higher probability.

[frankendat]

1 hour ago, datzenmike said:

 

 

YESSS!!!

 

There ya go.... equal and opposite 'facts' that are also true.

The existence of "false" facts is a point of contention in both the literary and philosophical world. By definition a fact cannot be false. In regards to political/social events, the majority of the "facts" are uncontested. It is the intentional sensationalism and commentary of the events, carelessly labeled as fact, which (purposefully) creates ire. As well as, the promotion of irrelevant facts to suggest or further specific agendas.

 

Fact (as gleaned from headlines, not research, not current)

Gunman shot at President with rifle. More than one round was expended, one person killed, one injured (gunman also killed)

Rifle was semi automatic-fact but irrelevant used to incite fear and further semi-auto ban (GOSafe Act)

Gunman purchased ammunition on the day of the shooting-fact but irrelevant. There has never been an accepted study or theory that a waiting period to purchase ammunition would reduce violence in any manner whatsoever and to even suggest such is ridiculous. 

 

And the current biggest vomit of irrelevant information:

My wife listens to NPR and sometimes I catch an unfortunate earfull. There are reporters who are following criminal investigators as they interview hundreds of friends, family, neighbors, old high school classmates to "understand" the shooter and understand "why".

Worse than irrelevant this sensationalism promotes violence. Want to be heard? Shoot somebody famous! Not getting enough hits on your YouTube? Shoot a bunch of people! Your childhood, your parents, what made you do what you did, you, you, you. Don't get a regular job and a regular life, be special, shoot somebody famous or shoot a bunch of people.

I don't care who he is, why he shot at the President, what point he was trying to make. I am interested how he obtained the firearm. It was his father's, it was purchased legally. The shooter was not a felon or prohibited from owning a rifle. SO, this isn't about "ease of access" to firearms, this isn't about blackmarket or "Ghost guns" or the cash deals on the street, shown on every drama in American television (but I have never encountered in real life) The shooter was an American and Americans have the right to own firearms--end of story. To stop this particular event would require usurping the Constitution, there should be no debate. The only relevant information required regarding the shooter is that he is dead. 

 

It is easy to separate the weak from the strong when there is some mass publicized violent event. One group says, the world is violent, I need to check my guns, so I can protect myself and my family. One group says, the world is violent, I need to get a group together and take all the guns and then we will protect everyone and everyone's family. The strong believe in the freedom to be self reliant. The weak want to weaken the strong and make them dependent (while arming themselves). 

 

 

[john510]

1 hour ago, iceman510 said:

 

Nope.  Your imagination aside, objective facts cannot be opposing and both true.  Overlayed perception (bias, pre-supposition, lying) does not make an alternative "fact" reality.  Neither side in an argument may be presenting actual facts.  In politics, a much higher probability.

You know he's going to argue with this post right ? LMAO. He'll try.

[paradime]

20 hours ago, john510 said:

The fact checking thing is flawed. The link you provided is the perfect example of it. It's hard to believe most of it from anywhere. I don't really have one I trust. 

 

19 hours ago, paradime said:

Flawed because if you don't agree with someone else's viewpoint, he's the brainwashed moron? 

 

10 hours ago, john510 said:

I said the fact checking is flawed. I didn't say a viewpoint was flawed. There's a difference between the two. 

 

Dodged my question like a pro, and it's the perfect example of how you argue such things. I shouldn't have to explain this, because the wording doesn't change the meaning of my post. In it, I'm referring to the many occasions where you've characterized others with differing viewpoints as being "brainwashed morons", myself included here. In this context, I'm saying subjective political viewpoints often determine what is believed to be true, false, or flawed. In this case it happens to be a garbage in garbage out dismissal of The Guardian (identified as lib) fact checking. It's logical that someone (identified as con) would believe it's "flawed". l'lI admit that in the heat of battle I've fallen into this landfill with statistics... from time to time. 😁

 

In an ideological debate, if I insulting my opponent I dig myself into a deeper hole, and the validity of my point goes down with me. A little ancient wisdom that may apply here, 500 BC, Sun Tzu wrote in The Art Of War: "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."

[john510]

2 hours ago, difrangia said:

Hot off the press; DJT's the nominee and J.D. Vance is VP.

 

Game's-On. Pop the corn.

He seems like a reasonable choice. I'm not sure that helps him though. At least he's not going DEI about it. I give him credit for that.

[john510]

1 minute ago, paradime said:

 

 

 

Dodged my question like a pro, and it's the perfect example of how you argue such things. I shouldn't have to explain this, because the wording doesn't change the meaning of my post. In it, I'm referring to the many occasions where you've characterized others with differing viewpoints as being "brainwashed morons", myself included here. In this context, I'm saying subjective political viewpoints often determine what is believed to be true, false, or flawed. In this case it happens to be a garbage in garbage out dismissal of The Guardian (identified as lib) fact checking. It's logical that someone (identified as con) would believe it's "flawed". l'lI admit that in the heat of battle I've fallen into this landfill with statistics... from time to time. 😁

 

In an ideological debate, if I insulting my opponent I dig myself into a deeper hole, and the validity of my point goes down with me. A little ancient wisdom that may apply here, 500 BC, Sun Tzu wrote in The Art Of War: "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."

When did I call you a brainwashed moron ? We were talking about facts not viewpoints. At least I was. Yes if you're going to argue facts proven, with no disputable evidence you might be brainwashed and a moron. Speaking of dodging questions, were you ever going to tell us what Trump did to you personally that affected your life in a negative manner ? 

[Ooph!]

Conspiracy theory time.

https://nypost.com/2024/07/15/us-news/blackrock-pulls-ad-that-featured-trump-shooter-thomas-matthew-crooks/

[paradime]

28 minutes ago, john510 said:

When did I call you a brainwashed moron ? We were talking about facts not viewpoints. At least I was. Yes if you're going to argue facts proven, with no disputable evidence you might be brainwashed and a moron. Speaking of dodging questions, were you ever going to tell us what Trump did to you personally that affected your life in a negative manner ? 

 

You have hung that label on me many times, and we both know it. Using the criteria above, wouldn't your accusations about Brandon make a brainwashed moron?

 

I did gave my answer, and you disputed the fact this stuff did effect my life financially, personally, and professionally. 

 

On 7/6/2024 at 11:11 PM, paradime said:

My distaste for Trump stretches back 40+ yrs, you know, when he was a whiny ass rich democrat. I had hope when he came out against Citizens United, but came back to my senses as soon as he flip flopped on it. As for his admin's F'n batshit crazy chaos, Trump's dysfunctional leadership policies started by appointing a bunch of inexperienced friends and family to cabinet positions and used them like toilet paper. On the world stage, his adversarial foreign relations with our allies made me sick, but sucking Putin and Kim's dick sure kept them satisfied. He gave tax cuts to wealthy folk and corporations for the worst "greatest economy ever" and defunded the health and human services, education, and the Social Security that I paid for. His ill-informed botched handling of the pandemic gave no advisory or tech support for the overwhelmed healthcare system, or any help dealing with the subsequent economic fallout for hospitals. He definitely pandered to big oil interests though giving them the go-ahead for coastal drilling and frac fucking the environment. He signed laws protecting corporations while gutting workers rights and safety. He showed the same disrespect for US security agencies military leadership and intel services. His flaming rhetoric tore civility apart and put many people in physical danger. Hope my answer satisfies your educational needs.

 

[john510]

6 minutes ago, Ooph! said:

Conspiracy theory time.

https://nypost.com/2024/07/15/us-news/blackrock-pulls-ad-that-featured-trump-shooter-thomas-matthew-crooks/

Why conspiracy over removing that ad ? I think they should. I never really knew what Blackrock was until they bought out my IRA from Voya. I know who they are now. A company trying to own the planet. I'm not sure I'll keep my money there for much longer.

[datzenmike]

Whenever things like this happen people normally distance themselves from it.

 

 

[john510]

5 minutes ago, paradime said:

 

You have hung that label on me many times, and we both know it. Using the criteria above, wouldn't your accusations about Brandon make a brainwashed moron?

 

I did gave my answer, and you disputed the fact this stuff did effect my life financially, personally, and professionally. 

 

 

Got it. I never called you that, you attached that to yourself because of my viewpoints which aren't fact. 

[IZRL]

1 hour ago, Ooph! said:

Conspiracy theory time.

https://nypost.com/2024/07/15/us-news/blackrock-pulls-ad-that-featured-trump-shooter-thomas-matthew-crooks/

 

Nice...I wouldn't be surprised if Crooks turns out to be one of those masked Antifa nerds who walk around in full on tactical gear.

 

They need to dig deep into his finances. There's a belief out there that these Antifas are being funded by the left to harass the right and to stir shit up. It's exactly like the pro Palestine protestors and the fact that somehow, they managed to get unlimited quantities of Palestinian flags, keffiyehs(head dress), and matching tents. 

 

Antifa, for being mostly young leftist anti-gun nerds. Somehow they all sport some pretty impressive tactical gear and hardware. If this is the case. Those secret financiers are probably scrambling to erase all evidence, whether it be in document form or human form.

Edited July 16 by IZRL

[IZRL]

On 7/6/2024 at 11:11 PM, paradime said:

My distaste for Trump stretches back 40+ yrs, you know, when he was a whiny ass rich democrat. I had hope when he came out against Citizens United, but came back to my senses as soon as he flip flopped on it. As for his admin's F'n batshit crazy chaos, Trump's dysfunctional leadership policies started by appointing a bunch of inexperienced friends and family to cabinet positions and used them like toilet paper. On the world stage, his adversarial foreign relations with our allies made me sick, but sucking Putin and Kim's dick sure kept them satisfied. He gave tax cuts to wealthy folk and corporations for the worst "greatest economy ever" and defunded the health and human services, education, and the Social Security that I paid for. His ill-informed botched handling of the pandemic gave no advisory or tech support for the overwhelmed healthcare system, or any help dealing with the subsequent economic fallout for hospitals. He definitely pandered to big oil interests though giving them the go-ahead for coastal drilling and frac fucking the environment. He signed laws protecting corporations while gutting workers rights and safety. He showed the same disrespect for US security agencies military leadership and intel services. His flaming rhetoric tore civility apart and put many people in physical danger. Hope my answer satisfies your educational needs.

 

Yet America was a 1000Xs in better shape under Trump, than it is after this administration. 

 

By the way tax cuts for the rich is not all that bad. And raising their taxes, like some are pushing for, is just plain stupid. The rich hire the poor. If the rich get taxed more they are forced to cut jobs. It's the same as those who don't comprehend that raising the minimum wage is actually doing the opposite of helping people.  Nobody wins with these wage increases, infact everybody loses(rich, poor & middle class). 

 

As bad as you think those people Trump appointed were. 1. They did well enough to not fck shit up. 2. Look at what surrounds Biden. The who's who of America's shit stains. 

 

Covid... He did much better then this administration.

 

You call it sucking Putin's dick. I call it having good international relations. And not putting us the closest we've ever been to nuclear war like this admin has managed to do. They keep poking the bear too, as if they're in a hurry to blow this bitch up before they leave office.

 

"He definitely pandered to big oil interests though giving them the go-ahead for coastal drilling and frac fucking the environment."  1. Who hasn't. 2. Really? Oil drilling and mineral mining was green and planet friendly before Trump came in?

 

Not saying you're wrong for hating Trump. Just saying you're amplifying the crap out of some of your points. 

 

Edited July 16 by IZRL

[datzenmike]

The only use nuclear war has is it's use as a threat. If you really think about it, it's obvious you can't actually use it. You were never near a nuclear war, that's bullshit.

 

I heard The hermit king is to send 20k force to help Putin. Good luck integrating them into the Russian army even if all they do is clean dishes to free up manpower. They can never be allowed home again after seeing Paris. If you know what I mean.

[john510]

33 minutes ago, IZRL said:

 

Yet America was a 1000Xs in better shape under Trump, than it is after this administration. 

 

By the way tax cuts for the rich is not all that bad. And raising their taxes, like some are pushing for, is just plain stupid. The rich hire the poor. If the rich get taxed more they are forced to cut jobs. It's the same as those who don't comprehend that raising the minimum wage is actually doing the opposite of helping people.  Nobody wins with these wage increases, infact everybody loses(rich, poor & middle class). 

 

As bad as you think those people Trump appointed were. 1. They did well enough to not fck shit up. 2. Look at what surrounds Biden. The who's who of America's shit stains. 

 

Covid... He did much better then this administration.

 

You call it sucking Putin's dick. I call it having good international relations. And not putting us the closest we've ever been to nuclear war like this admin has managed to do. They keep poking the bear too, as if they're in a hurry to blow this bitch up before they leave office.

 

"He definitely pandered to big oil interests though giving them the go-ahead for coastal drilling and frac fucking the environment."  1. Who hasn't. 2. Really? Oil drilling and mineral mining was green and planet friendly before Trump came in?

 

Not saying you're wrong for hating Trump. Just saying you're amplifying the crap out of some of your points. 

 

Thank you. I'm too tired to even respond to some of this anymore. That's a fact and not my viewpoint.

[frankendat]

5 minutes ago, datzenmike said:

The only use nuclear war has is it's use as a threat. If you really think about it, it's obvious you can't actually use it. You were never near a nuclear war, that's bullshit.

 

I heard The hermit king is to send 20k force to help Putin. Good luck integrating them into the Russian army even if all they do is clean dishes to free up manpower. They can never be allowed home again after seeing Paris. If you know what I mean.

I can report with complete confidence that Russia views nuclear weapons as an option and not the end of the world. My confidence could be shaken if a game changing nuclear weapon or weapons have been created in the last say 15 years of which I am unaware. Russia detonated nuclear weapons on its own soil to determine the non theoretical effects of radiation on humans and methods of counteracting. Russia has vaults of seeds genetically engineered to grow in radiated soil. Some plants, grown in radioactive soil cause cancer or other problems when consumed. How do the Russians know this or know which ones are good to eat? The Russian government feed the food to their citizens to find out. There was a documentary less than ten years ago that visited the areas where nuclear warheads were tested. There are still people living there and a monster high birth defect rate remains.

Why spend the money and effort to maintain a nuclear arsenal never to use it? Google let me down, there was a high ranking Russian who made a statement similar to the former, maybe someone else knows where to look.

[datzenmike]

 Sorry If I think this in nonsense. I'd say you have been watching Russian propaganda. If say, five people? have guns and one pulls it out and said 'why have a gun if I'm not going to use it?' The other four pull theirs out also and point in his direction. With no other option but to be killed, he puts it away. 

[IZRL]

1 hour ago, frankendat said:

I can report with complete confidence that Russia views nuclear weapons as an option and not the end of the world. My confidence could be shaken if a game changing nuclear weapon or weapons have been created in the last say 15 years of which I am unaware. Russia detonated nuclear weapons on its own soil to determine the non theoretical effects of radiation on humans and methods of counteracting. Russia has vaults of seeds genetically engineered to grow in radiated soil. Some plants, grown in radioactive soil cause cancer or other problems when consumed. How do the Russians know this or know which ones are good to eat? The Russian government feed the food to their citizens to find out. There was a documentary less than ten years ago that visited the areas where nuclear warheads were tested. There are still people living there and a monster high birth defect rate remains.

Why spend the money and effort to maintain a nuclear arsenal never to use it? Google let me down, there was a high ranking Russian who made a statement similar to the former, maybe someone else knows where to look.

 

Yeah... I can't say how I know but the US military is also conducting some suspicious testing. Let's just say it "looks like" they're doing tests to make fallout shelters better/safer for the occupants (has to do with radiation). This was very recent (during this administration). 

 

They have also been upping their testing and improving on defense of  Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM) using interception missiles. 

 

You don't prepare for something you don't believe is a possibility.

 

Also I highly doubt those test to improve fallout shelters that tax payers are funding. Are meant to protect us, the average pawns, from a nuclear holocaust. They ain't building them shelters for us. 

 

 

Edited July 16 by IZRL

[IZRL]

21 minutes ago, datzenmike said:

 Sorry If I think this in nonsense. I'd say you have been watching Russian propaganda. If say, five people? have guns and one pulls it out and said 'why have a gun if I'm not going to use it?' The other four pull theirs out also and point in his direction. With no other option but to be killed, he puts it away. 

 

Yeah no....

 

Putin has already stated that he's thinking about changing Russia's "Nuclear Doctrine", from "we will only use nukes if a nuke is used against us". To:

"Putin said that nuclear weapons would only be used in , exceptional cases…when there is a threat to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country,” 

 

So in other words they're willing and able to push the button if they feel they're at the Alamo.

 

Edited July 16 by IZRL

[datzenmike]

We need a tin foil hat forum.

 

 

[IZRL]

10 minutes ago, datzenmike said:

We need a tin foil hat forum.

 

 

 

I think you're the only one who believes, thinking a nuclear war is possible. Is tin foil hat material. 

 

 

Edited July 16 by IZRL

[datzenmike]

I believe nuclear war is impossible. You two are on about special radiation plant seeds and how the Russians expect to survive a war with nukes. Course that's what they would want you to believe. It's horseshit. 

[frankendat]

1 minute ago, datzenmike said:

 Sorry If I think this in nonsense. I'd say you have been watching Russian propaganda. If say, five people? have guns and one pulls it out and said 'why have a gun if I'm not going to use it?' The other four pull theirs out also and point in his direction. With no other option but to be killed, he puts it away. 

The Internet is a house of liars, the the nuclear testing on the Russian satellite countries, the birth defects and problems continuing to this day is well documented now. I learned about the grains and plant laboratories from someone trusted who was there, but the Internet is a house of liars.

 Your 5 people scenario is a bit off, not all four are going to point their guns at you. One might join you and point at the guy your pointing at  (ally), one might put there gun away and not get involved. Now it is getting tricky, if someone shoots do you automatically shoot or do you wait and see who was shot, or do you wait to see why they were shot? In our current world, would you trust your life to your ally and fire as soon as they fired, or would you hesitate, even knowing any hesitation could mean you are killed?

Or another, the 5 guys with guns are pointing them and then number 2 shoots number 4. Do you shoot? Is it important if you liked 4 or if 4 was pointing at you?

A tough question that has been asked in many science fiction stories. If you were in charge of the launch and were told the other side launched and everyone you know, everything you knew was about to be destroyed. The only recourse available, launch against them and destroy everyone they know and everything they have. Would you do it? It won't bring yours back. Would you launch?

Russia is banking on the human survival instinct and the lack of will. 
The Russians understood that limited nuclear warfare was an option and began to prepare for it. The United States dismissed the viability of limited nuclear war and since has engaged in a number of limited conventional wars, confirming much of the Russian theory.  

 

In this I side with the Russians. I don't like it and believe it is philosophically the wrong course of action. It is weakness that infects and will ultimately rot the world. But, I am old now and have watched my country engage in half assed attempts at war without, remuneration, loyalty, or even good will returned. The people of the United States are born of murder yet now recoil at the sight of blood. 

 

What will prove me right. Putin detonates a small yield nuclear warhead in the Ukraine or anywhere. Think the United States will instantly empty the arsenals against Russia? If Russia and the United States fully launch then the world ends all 4 gunmen die. I am not exactly sure how it will play out and it could entail the death of Putin, maybe even a small nuke used against Russia from Britain, but Russia has been preparing for that and will survive.

Interestingly, if the United States is hit with a small nuke, our survival is much less certain and Canada is only safe in the cold parts. In fact, a very small nuke (think big dirty bomb) would very likely cause the United States to consume itself, but that will take too much time to lay out. 

The point is, limited nuclear war is becoming viable as the United States exposes more and more of its lily white soft underbelly. It is the threat of total world destruction i.e. the death of all gunman that prevents limited nuclear war and should prevent most war, but the unwillingness to destroy those who oppose us has made limited war and by extension limited nuclear war options. The stubborn refusal to accept that fact has created vulnerability, which might only find remedy through great suffering.