|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Aug 23, 2019 19:57:59 GMT -5
No, it's just racist. He's targetting people based on the color of their skin, and nothing else. For someone who claims to not support racism, you sure do defend it often. Sure. Okay. Glad you agree. Next step is to actually stop defending it, and maybe support those who oppose racism. (hint, it isn't republicans who are opposed to racism)
|
|
|
Post by Least censored on the planet! on Sept 12, 2019 19:00:24 GMT -5
Hey despic., remember when you asked me “If you don't believe your country is the best one on earth for everything, why don't you leave?”. Reading this (thread) made me think of you lol:
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Sept 12, 2019 20:14:57 GMT -5
Heh. Touche.
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Sept 14, 2019 10:23:28 GMT -5
Moving NotHBMC's post from UK/EU thread to here. You inferred that the they're similar in that there isn't much meaningful differences. Disagreement in how different they are ≠ disagreement on which differences are meaningful enough to have such a process make sense. Are you really going to react every time? I told you, it's your new name now. I did ask how. You just regurgitated the same boilerplate respons. What isn't convincing about those “boilerplate reasons”? How do you think the US political landscape would be affected in a similar situation? Progressive party strikes a deal that the conservative party is opposed to ideologically, make a lot of concession, and that deal turns out to be a catastrophic failure for some reasons that fall entirely in line with the conservative ideology, (i.e. here the US are a bunch of pigs and behave as such). How would that affect the political landscape? Or do you want me to link to news articles by experts on Iranian politics saying the same? Would that work better for you? I don't think Iranian regimes should get their own nukes as it'll lead to even more proliferation in the region. The Iran Deal doesn't prevent the mullahs from doing so for reasons I've already stated. - It does. The fact it is time-limited does change that it does prevent them until the deal is over. It also make them have way less pressure to get nukes. - The sanction doesn't! And that's something you never even tried to address. How are the current sanction supposed to stop them from getting nuke? It's just hurting the economy and the population. In a strictly "he said, she said" scenario, we need to be extremely careful and treat the alleged victim with grace and respect, while at the same time exhaust all due-diligence that the accusation is real. Do you feel like Dr Ford was treated with grace and respect? Because I sure don't. She had to flee her home and give up her teaching position. That's something that other rape victims who are still in the closet about it, and don't have massively more evidence, will notice. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you give the impression that you simply believe all women no matter what. Victims is the correct word here, not women. I believe Terry Crews. And no, not “no matter what”. But it sure takes a whole lot more for me to go from “I don't know and either could be right” to “The accuser is dirty liar” like you do. Case in point: You think I support the wealth/bankers/want to cut off welfare/ or whatever liberal trope that describes the GOP, simply because of my support. You sure don't seem to hate on Trump's tax cut, or to champion health insurance system more favorable to the poor and the unemployed. I mean, prove me different. But prove me, not just pay lip service and switch the moment it's about actual policy. This is not a bad faith dialogue, it's you *not* liking my (and founding father's) rationale. You saying the US states are more different than the Swiss state is, though.
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Sept 14, 2019 11:02:17 GMT -5
You inferred that the they're similar in that there isn't much meaningful differences. Disagreement in how different they are ≠ disagreement on which differences are meaningful enough to have such a process make sense. That doesn't even remotely make sense. Here's how the conversation went, paraphrasing... You: US states are not different enough as to be one of the good reasons to support the EC.Me: I disagree. The US is a large country with heterogeneous demographics/industries/politics that is represented by 50 semi-autonomous entities (states). You: It seems more like the swiss states. (inferring that they're not as different and thus the EC is antiquated). Me: I disagree on your point about the swiss. Differences between the states, thus voters, warrants a system like the EC. You: whem, you just told me that you knew nothing of the swiss, so how can you say that? Ergo, you're arguing in bad faith. Me: But, in the context of our discussions, you inferred that there were similarity between the swiss regions and US states. You: despic. bully.Me: Bitch. You: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Me: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Are you really going to react every time? I told you, it's your new name now. Only my parents get to name me. Links would be better, yes. That doesn't mean I don't believe the points you're presenting. But, telling the US (and much of the Western Nations) that their policies is unfairly causing harm to internal-Iranian politics is misguided. It's much more complicated than that. This is the first time you've admitted to me that the deal "prevents them until the deal is over". How is that even a deal? It's literally kicking the can down the road to force future leadership to deal with it then. Sure it does. It makes it harder for them to continue with their efforts. Initially? Yes. No, what other victims really notice is the amount of false accusations make it harder for them because it is THAT the increases these skeptical attitudes. Your are right. I also believe Terry Crews. Do you know what else he has that Dr. Ford didn't? Contemporaneous witnesses (he told his wife) and he can name the date/place (the party). Glad to see that. I'm saying Dr. Ford is a dirty liar with an obvious agenda. I benefited from that text cut. I've championed more targeted polices/programs to address that. I did NOT favor a complete government take over. How? What do you what to know specifically? But, you inferred that the swiss state are very similar. Did I misunderstand your intention? That is not in bad faith. . . . . . Bitch.
|
|
|
Post by Least censored on the planet! on Sept 14, 2019 18:37:52 GMT -5
Only my parents get to name me. Are you… are you really telling me that your parents decide to name you Whembly? Really? But, telling the US (and much of the Western Nations) that their policies is unfairly causing harm to internal-Iranian politics is misguided. It's much more complicated than that. What “much of the western nations”? The US is alone here. Entirely alone. You also fucked all the European investment there. And it may be complex, but no matter how you look at this complex thing, the US did harm internal-Iranian politics, all over the last century. This is the first time you've admitted to me that the deal "prevents them until the deal is over". How is that even a deal? It's literally kicking the can down the road to force future leadership to deal with it then. No it's not the first time, and “kicking the can down the road” seems much better than “forcefeeding the can to a baby” like what you are proposing instead. A temporary good solution is better than no solution at all. Not to mention that it would make no sense for Iran to accept a limitless deal. When the time to renew the deal, the conditions of the deal would be adapted to the new geopolitical realities. That, like, just normal. Sure it does. It makes it harder for them to continue with their efforts. You aren't saying how, and that's because it does not. What does that even mean? Is “initially” something like the first 2 seconds? Why so laconic, again? Waiting for me to ask questions about what you think rather than saying what you think directly? Contemporaneous witnesses (he told his wife) and he can name the date/place (the party). Yeah, less time had passed since the assault and Ford also had spoken about it. But as soon as politics are involved you will of course lack any kind of objectivity. That's something you accused me of too, but… when I was actually confronted with cases involving “my” political side I certainly didn't give them a pass like you do. I benefited from that text cut. So? What's the reasoning here? If you pay less taxes it means it's a good thing? Is that what you are saying? I'm pretty happy to pay taxes, I'd pay more taxes, if those go toward good programs, be it good universal healthcare, welfare, unemployment payments, help for homeless people, science funding, etc, etc. I don't even deduct my donations to charities from my taxes! How? What do you what to know specifically? That's for you to find ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. But, you inferred that the swiss state are very similar. Did I misunderstand your intention? Yes, you did. Swiss states are different from each other. My point wasn't if US states are very different from each other or not, because that's eminently relative. What's the baseline for difference between states? My point was that Switzerland do not need any similar system despite having various canton that are just as different from each other. Switzerland doesn't even have a language that is spoken everywhere!!!
|
|
|
Post by Least censored on the planet! on Sept 15, 2019 5:54:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Sept 16, 2019 17:53:45 GMT -5
Yes, saw that earlier today and spent time reading that...among other links. I still remain unpersuaded to your point of view.
|
|
|
Post by Least censored on the planet! on Sept 17, 2019 13:29:42 GMT -5
Woah, despic, really? You shat a brick cake over how we both had to make efforts to have constructive discussion and that's how you instantly show there is no meaningful discussion to be had with you? Unlike you, I really don't give a flying crap about whether or not you call me “bitch” in your messages. But that kind of shit, it destroys any goodwill I could have toward you. No argument, no depth, nothing. There is nothing to you despic. You just don't have anything to say. And you have nothing to say because you don't know anything on the topic. The only thing you can do is find a source that will align with what your president did and copy-paste it, likely without even reading it.
Oops, sorry, you wanted me to ask for clarifications! Let's go then. Do you believe that Rouhani's credibility wasn't harmed by the US pulling out of the deal? Really? Or maybe you don't believe that Rouhani is a progressive? Maybe you think he is one of the hardliners, is that it? Or maybe you think there are no hardliners? Or… what???
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Sept 18, 2019 11:55:20 GMT -5
Oops, sorry, you wanted me to ask for clarifications! Let's go then. Do you believe that Rouhani's credibility wasn't harmed by the US pulling out of the deal? Really? Or maybe you don't believe that Rouhani is a progressive? Maybe you think he is one of the hardliners, is that it? Or maybe you think there are no hardliners? Or… what??? Sure thing bitch (since you don't care). No, I don't believe Rouhani isn't a progressive in the same way you and I view what that means. That hardliner still has pull, irrespective of US pulling out of the deal or not, it still wouldn't matter because the deal wasn't going to be solution. It only kicked the can down the road while having incredibly weak monitoring provisions that simply sugar coat the deal. Rouhani is either incapable of shutting down the nuke program, or he simply refused. Either way, Rouhani/hardliners are not dumb people. They knew that deal is not the same as a treaty with the US, as it was only a 'hand shake' deal with the previous administation. The EU knew this too. And right now, the sanctions are biting really hard, so much so they WANT some sort of military conflict with either Saudi or the US (or both). That way, they can claim they're being bullied from the rest of the world to have the UN (world) pressure US to drop the sanctions. Hence, if the evidence bears out, why the launched cruise missles/drones from Iranian soil to destroy half of the oil refinery fields in Saudi Arabia. I find it hard to believe that the Houthies has the equipment/training for such precision strike. (because if that were the case, they'd be way more effective in the current civil war).
|
|
|
Post by Least censored on the planet! on Sept 18, 2019 16:15:39 GMT -5
No, I don't believe Rouhani isn't a progressive in the same way you and I view what that means. He is in the context of Iranian politics. He advocates policies that are much more progressive than those championed by other wings of the Iranian political class. Do you deny any of that? That hardliner still has pull, irrespective of US pulling out of the deal or not, it still wouldn't matter because the deal wasn't going to be solution. It only kicked the can down the road while having incredibly weak monitoring provisions that simply sugar coat the deal. How is the deal not a temporary solution? Why destroy a temporary solution when you don't have any definitive solution? That's, like, the epitome of stupid. Destroy something that is currently working because it won't work in the future, leaving yourself with nothing working now and nothing planned for the future. Rouhani is either incapable of shutting down the nuke program, or he simply refused. That's a bullshit affirmation based on nothing. Worldwide expert communities agree that they did stop the program. Why are you denying this established reality? And right now, the sanctions are biting really hard, so much so they WANT some sort of military conflict with either Saudi or the US (or both). That way, they can claim they're being bullied from the rest of the world to have the UN (world) pressure US to drop the sanctions. And that sounds pretty stupid too. If they get invaded, they won't get any help because, duh, the regime won't exist and the US will destroy the country like they do. Fucking pigs. Hence, if the evidence bears out, why the launched cruise missles/drones from Iranian soil to destroy half of the oil refinery fields in Saudi Arabia. I find it hard to believe that the Houthies has the equipment/training for such precision strike. (because if that were the case, they'd be way more effective in the current civil war). Sure, the Iranians supplied drones and missiles to the Houtis to fight back again Saudi strikes. Morally, what the Saudi do openly is several orders of magnitude worse morally than what the Iranian did. What's your point here exactly? That the US are, unsurprisingly, being incredibly hypocrite about the whole thing? Pigs.
|
|
|
Post by Least censored on the planet! on Sept 21, 2019 4:35:20 GMT -5
He is in the context of Iranian politics. He advocates policies that are much more progressive than those championed by other wings of the Iranian political class. Do you deny any of that? Well, I'll never get any answer on that. That hardliner still has pull, irrespective of US pulling out of the deal or not, it still wouldn't matter because the deal wasn't going to be solution. It only kicked the can down the road while having incredibly weak monitoring provisions that simply sugar coat the deal. How is the deal not a temporary solution? Why destroy a temporary solution when you don't have any definitive solution? Same. And right now, the sanctions are biting really hard, so much so they WANT some sort of military conflict with either Saudi or the US (or both). That way, they can claim they're being bullied from the rest of the world to have the UN (world) pressure US to drop the sanctions. And that sounds pretty stupid too. If they get invaded, they won't get any help because, duh, the regime won't exist and the US will destroy the country like they do. Forgot to mention how the UN doesn't care about countries being bullied, each country care about their self-interest and their allies first, and even if they did, which country has the power to put enough pressure on the US to make them drop the sanction? It's costing the UE a ton of money on lost investment that and that ain't enough to get them to put any real pressure on the fucking US.
|
|