One part hatred, one part mental illness, maybe. Who knows? — NOS4A2

Of course Musk/Trump have nothing to do with it, right?

Funny how every nutjob killing kids at a school shooting or if they go postal is a lone gun man. But these are terrorists. — Benkei

:100: :up:

The continued escalation of this brand of terrorism, now common to the fringes of the anti-Musk cult, will eventually come to murder or retaliation. — NOS4A2

And the cause of which is? Not to defend obvious crimes, but cause has a broader significance. Think of it as a kind of tea party - if not especially well-guided or thought out.

But what do you think will happen if Musk-Trump stop (US) social security?

e’s the same guy who lied about the suckers and losers hoax, the Iraq war, and Russiagate. In this particular story he lied about the CIA operative, when in fact it was Ratcliffe’s chief of staff. A real honest and honorable man. — NOS4A2

Same old same old. I heard him denigrate John McCain's military service - as a loser. I don't get your reference to the Iraq war. And Russiagate has never gone away; it's only a question of how much he's in bed with Putin. And what was his lie about the CIA operative? You deal in pronouncements, not facts; your mendacity is disgraceful. Try dealing in facts.

He was mistakenly invited and stayed, silently, eavesdropping, long past the time he realized he was not supposed to be there. — NOS4A2

What he thought and realized, and when, is more than I know, and more than you know. We do not know that he was mistakenly invited: how does that happen in a top-secret meeting? He was apparently identified as well as anyone else. I suppose he was silent. But how is he eavesdropping? Please make that clear? In a meeting so constituted, attendees are supposed to listen, and what is the expectation of privacy? (Ans.: zero.) And how is he to know that he is not supposed to be there? Maybe he was exactly and precisely supposed to be there.

But you use abusive language dismissing facts and ordinary sense. You're not stupid, so I infer troll, and your lying is all through your TPF posts.

I know nothing personal about the Atlantic editor, beyond what I have seen of him and read. But he appears to be an honest and honorable man in a job that requires both, but you calumnize him in favour of people we know are vicious, mean, and contemptible. Why?

Does this include straight news? I think I have posted Youtube news as reference. As an example, Susan Rice was interviewed about the so-called Signal-gate chat that was revealed in the Atlantic. In her interview she described at length what such "principals' meetings" are and should be, and who should participate and how, and where and under what circumstances, and to what purposes. Given the light of her presentation, one may fairly draw the conclusion that the Atlantic editor's participation is the least of the problems. But it would be arduous in the extreme to transcribe her remarks and retype into a thread - and then she would have to be cited anyway.

Perhaps I have misread: I do not see that reference to such material is banned. In other words while maybe I cannot provide the Youtube link itself (and that's a question), it appears I can describe it so that it could be easily found. Yes? No?

You know better! He was invited and accepted. Later when he referred to it, they attacked and insulted and abused him - they also said nothing was classified so he published. Your version not just spin, but an entire fiction. Why are you such a liar?

How had he "hung out"? How was his watching "prying"? How did he know it was a mistake - he at first thought it was a prank on him. And what was his obligation to inform? Presumably they knew who was in their very secret "principals only" meeting.

Until you clear up at least these discrepancies and inconsistencies in your accounting you're a troll and a liar. And so far you have failed.

He then published and spoke about his embellishments in public. He is the perpetrator of many hoaxes and him and his publication are rabid anti-Trump propagandists. That’s hostile. — NOS4A2

What embellishments? What hoaxes? In what way rabid? What propaganda?

As with many Trumpers, you appears to talk about yourself, and then project that on others.

1 applies, and that’s the sense in which I used it. — NOS4A2

No it doesn't; nothing either secretive or hostile. Or, tell us what was secretive or hostile that he did!

More to the point, you made a lying claim and now you got nothing. Or, tell us what you got!

2 : to catch sight of : SEE — NOS4A2

So anyone with eyes is a spy? Is that the substance of your claim? Notice that 1 & 2 don't apply. So you're just full of s**t, nos4. Why don't you try again. You claimed Jeff Goldberg was spying - is a spy. Make your case!

And you have evaded too often, too much. I'm not going to let this one go.

Hey nose4, above you said Jeff Goldberg was a spy. I said you were a liar, but asked you to make clear to us how he was a spy. No response yet. What's the matter, cat got your tongue?

Don't run away as you usually do when questioned directly. You made a claim, support it!

Goldberg was doing his job reporting it.

He was spying. — NOS4A2

It’s true, Waltz or his staffer screwed up. I don’t deny that. But in terms of fuck-ups, it’s a tiny one. Big deal. On to the next outrage. — NOS4A2

Maybe in Anti-Trumpistan. But outside it’s gossip and scandal-mongering, and worse, malicious sabotage. — NOS4A2

Fucking trollery, nos4. Deliberate misrepresentation of facts - which you likely know perfectly well. You are a liar. Goldberg spying? How? Make clear to us how he was spying. Inviting Goldberg a screw-up? No doubt, But that really isn't the big issue. For a clear statement of the issue(s), Susan Rice, here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7VoJJdXwW4&t=508s

And her view just one among the majority report. Everything wrong about it, and they just lie and lie and lie about it. Hmm, just like you, nos4.

Folks interacting with nos4 should understand he is a liar and a troll. He is a waste of time and effort.

NOS got it wrong.... — ssu

Maybe he did. Or he may have known the truth. I think the truth of the matter with nos4 is that truth does not matter to him. I've tried to call him on his lies, but when pressed he just disappears. We'll see how he does this time.

.

Schwarzkopf line “Going to war without the French is like going hunting without an accordion.”. — NOS4A2

Don't know the context. Usually the criticism of French militarism is based on WW2. But the problem with that is that the critics are either completely ignorant of realities of the time, or deliberately overlook it for vicious reasons.

IN 1940, France was basically a rural society of about 40M people. Against them was a highly industrialized, rearmed, and hostile Germany of almost 90M. In other words, no contest. During the war, French resistance was about as effective and courageous as it could be.

I was worried that Goldberg might not be lying this time, — NOS4A2

Ok, when did Goldberg ever lie? The neat thing about calling the lie is that categorically someone is lying. It's either you or him. Make your case!

Being pro-Israel automatically disqualifies anyone from having any opinion on anything whatsoever. — Benkei

Good thing in the lounge people can display the full spectrum of their stupidity. Actually, I'm obliged to think you both know better and think better.

If 1200 of your people were massacred a few years ago.... — BitconnectCarlos

This I get. But what does Trump have to do with it? As to Palestinians, what do you suppose - or maybe you know - what the average Palestinian thinks about the last few years?

:100: :up:

I don’t consider the words of Jeffry Goldberg to be evidence. — NOS4A2

You're obviously not paying attention to congressional hearings. Except I think you're just plain lying. I'm sure you know the truth of the matter, as well as any of us, but being a troll the truth is irrelevant to you.

You really know nothing about the man, do you. And clearly you know little or nothing about America, because only ignorance on that topic could ground any illusion that he is for America.

Because he deports those who come here on visas and spit in the face of the country that welcomes in them. — BitconnectCarlos

If only. He pays ample lip-service to the idea, but he is indiscriminate in his targets. And to be sure, the overwhelming record is that immigrants do not spit in the face of anything American.

like him because he's serious about cutting waste and challenges unaccountable corrupt organizations. — BitconnectCarlos

What a fool you are! He has made it clear that neither he nor his loyal enablers know what they're doing - and he has gone to great lengths to fire those that do!

I like that he's serious about border security, unlike the Democrats. — BitconnectCarlos

That's right! He wanted to build a wall, and did not. Which is just as well because walls don't work, and of course Mexico was never going to pay for it anyway. He doesn't know about border security; he does not even know what border security is! And remember it was he who got the Republicans to torpedo a bi-partisan border bill during Biden's term, because he did not want Biden to get any credit or to accomplish anything worthwhile.

He seems to correctly recognize that the main maladies of today's day and age are lawlessness, social and moral confusion, and Islamic fundamentalism. — BitconnectCarlos

Well, excepting Islamic fundamentalism, he's a poster example for lawlessness and social and moral chaos. Any pussies in your family anyone can grab? Btw, ask yourself why he acts as he does: who's agenda is he serving?

Like what you like, but understand that to be ignorantly foolish is just to be a fool! And wrt Trump and everything about him, you are that!

Edit: And bit-coin is a Ponzi scheme - a con, a grift. Of course he'd be for that!

Judging from the Bible, women were property falling under the protection of their owner, although by no means necessarily protected from him. From Herodotus stories of places where women were more independent. And of course the Amazons. Ancient American history suggests that women were not well-treated in ancient American civilizations. And the modern record is atrocious, with estimates of one quarter to one half of all women having been subject to some sexual assault. My own opinion is that figure is closer to 100%.

The EU has a soy meltdown because they have to fund their own defense. It’s like an unweaned child who never learns to take care of themselves, and when finally set free to stand on their own feet, they spin around and spite their parents. They say the US is untrustworthy, when they have been living off the efforts of the American taxpayer. — NOS4A2

There's so much wrong with this it tires me just to read it. It seems, nos4, you never met a lie you didn't like, or a fact you could abide, or a truth you can endure. There is in what you write certainly neither fact nor truth, and an impressive number of lies.

I'm pointing towards a political climate that has already resulted in two assassination attempts on Trump — Tzeentch

Ever occur to you that maybe Trump himself had something to do with that? I cannot think of any assassination or attempt that was the result of "political climate." They were all the result of the screwed-up thinking of the individual(s). But Trump has hurt and injured thousands of people, and there is zero doubt in my mind that he is directly responsible for deaths not otherwise happening. And if any of those victims assassinated Trump or tried to, who could say that was not justice itself!

You and nos4 defend Trump seemingly in favor of him and at the expense of everything else. Why? Where is your sense of proportion, reason, compassion, empathy, justice? If some person came to your house and acted like Trump, would you fete and favour and celebrate him? Of course not, one hopes! So why him?

The International System of Human Rights must not have a duty holder because the latter would be dangerous for the integrity of the State and its enforcement of law and its legislative capabilities. — Ludovico Lalli

And as necessary, should be.

When necessary, we hope so.

It's pretty clear that Trump is a disgusting, disturbed, and dangerous individual. As subject matter, most of us encounter Trump-like people in our lives. I myself do not know how to deal with them, other than to run away. Has anyone here had any sort of success, and what did they do and how did they do it?

our continued existence — TiredThinker

How about telling us what you mean by "our" - or "my" if you want to substitute - and as well "continued" and "existence." In this context, I think that work and effort needed. Or maybe more simply, if existence/ing as a being is the sum of us, and that ended, then what could be left of what isn't any more?

In a similar way to the way that Achilles cannot catch up to the tortoise, the tortoise also cannot actually reach the finish line. To reach the finish line, the tortoise must first cross half the distance to it, then half the remaining distance, then half of the remaining distance again, and onward infinitely. — Metaphysician Undercover

Not really a contribution to the discussion, but I think this expression of MU's is simple, elegant, and final.

If gentle reader buys Zeno's setup, he must then buy MU's conclusion. Of course Achilleus passes the tortoise and both achieve the finish line. MU, then, illuminating that the difficulty is not so much in the problem, as with some particular, but with the problem, as a whole.

I don't know about Switzerland, but I think you're referring to small-town small-d democracy. The US, of course, is representative government; we get to vote for most* of our representatives. As to any European medieval democracies, I cannot think of any, nor do I suppose there were any. I'll accept correction. I don't think I'm addressing your OP directly, but if the points are about democracies, it's nice to know if they are in fact democracies.

Edit. *Or depending on how you count it, maybe very, very few of our representatives.

So you see, I did discuss it, just not directly point to it... but fact is, there wasn't a wrong interpretation in that other than you thinking you had me on a wrong interpretation... — DifferentiatingEgg

Indeed you did, in your takedown of AS in the other thread. Afaik you were right, nor did I think you were wrong. Maybe read a little better?

Be good enough to give us your working definition of "democracy."

The very few times that Nietzsche declares "there are no facts" are indeed within Aphorisms that detail very specifically what Nietzsche is determining that there are no facts about... — DifferentiatingEgg

I don't know about N's use for the word "fact," but in another thread you produced a quote that was mistranslated with the word "fact" and that did not in fact contain that word. The point here being that "fact" and "true" are two different words referring to different things - notwithstanding that often they're used as if interchangeable. Facts are historical. And thus there is no such thing as a fact. And as such, absolutely a matter of interpretation. N appears to have been smart enough not to use the word "fact" inappropriately or in error.

I second. Some were saved when I thought I'd deleted them. Now to delete I erase and then type a period and return. The period is saved but at least the text is gone.

I would still be pro-Trump. — BitconnectCarlos

Why? How?

.

The Tokyo convention is about crimes committed in flight. — NOS4A2

And given the order, the flight itself was a crime. You, however, are somehow suggesting that absent a crime, the flight is not under any jurisdiction. And were that true, how could there be any crime on a flight - crime according to whom, what law, what jurisdiction?

according to the brilliant lawyer Tim Woods! — NOS4A2

More s**t from TPF's premier purveyor. Not "according" to me. But nos4 doesn't care about truth or facts.

“Defy a court order”. They were already out of the country, where no American judge has jurisdiction. — NOS4A2

"When a plane is over the ocean, it is generally under the jurisdiction of the country where the aircraft is registered, as per the Tokyo Convention, unless the crime is of such nature that a different country's jurisdiction applies." Nos4 full of s**t again, as usual.

It seems to me that the executive branch of the US government is (now, at the very least) a criminal enterprise, and all participants subject to RICO prosecution. That's interesting, and could become very interesting.

Sounds like hinge propositions, aka absolute presuppositions. As such approximately (at least) 100-year-old ideas from Wittgenstein and Collingwood respectively.

no. I'm not naming "the universe". I'm naming two categories of systems. One is named determinism. One is named indeterminism. — flannel jesus

The universe being indeterministic doesn't seem to give any more room for free will than if it were deterministic. — flannel jesus

Both the hard and soft determinists endorse determinism, which is the view that all events (including human choices) are causally determined (necessitated) by antecedent conditions.

These will do as support for what I think you said. But if you do not mean the U, what do you mean? (And as to quantum influences, I agree they do not appear relevant to this topic.)