The person you choose to bring stupid people into the future is an idiot, a hypocrite, and an inborn liar. — NOS4A2

While all politicians might be dishonorable cowards and liars. Only one has set the bar in the basement. and it was not Biden.

You, and others like you, obediently await your dear leaders for change. How has that worked out for you? — NOS4A2

It would work out fine if it weren't for all the stupid people on our backs, kicking, screaming and whining like petulant, obstinate little children. Maybe you are right. Maybe it's time we do again what we did in the Civil War and WWII. Only this time, finish the job.

Oh, and answer the question, commie.

Many understand the power of compounding interest on the way up. What they conveniently ignore is the power of compounding disadvantage on the way down. This ignorance is systemic and convenient. It takes more than leveling the playing field; you have to clear the score board back to zero.

I think that my own conception about this term involving "surfing around for opportunities" was influenced by the sense of "trolling" as a fishing term, wherein a line is dragged behind a moving boat in search of hungry fish. — Michael Zwingli

As a former fishermen, that too was my perception at the beginning. Then I remembered the troll that hid under bridges and fucked with people. But "baiting" people, like fish, brought me back around. So there is a little bit of both in the definition.

Says the guy who defended Trump for fours years, and is a vehement climate denier. :up: — Xtrix

Not only that, but he supports Communist China. I think he's a commie.

I don’t see anyone else driving around in an 85-car entourage. — NOS4A2

But you aren't familiar with what it takes to move a national leader around. Your lack of familiarity stems from your living in your fantasy world of "every man for himself."

To do so is both ineffective and hypocritical. — NOS4A2

It is effective so long as people who don't understand what hypocrisy is stop pretending to engage on things that are over their head. It's kind of like all the new epidemiologists in the Republican Party. The real epidemiologists would have whipped Covid by now if it weren't for all the stupid people. But smart people know that part of their burden is to drag all the stupid people along behind them. That's why it takes an entourage. If there were fewer stupid people, Biden wouldn't even have to go in the first place.

Those of us with experience in the real world know that a General simply cannot hump around with a haversack, along with the PFCs, just because it might endear himself to the troops. Sometimes he has a war to fight and that involves more than a haversack.

No one else could do it, let alone stop doing it. — NOS4A2

You are correct. No one else could. Well, unless they were elected POTUS and had to press the flesh instead of Zoom, all while dragging the stupid people, kicking and screaming, into the future. But you wouldn't know about such things.

It’s a stupid argument, James. Find a better angle. — NOS4A2

It's an un-rebutted argument. The angle just flies over your head.

P.S. By the way, you never answered my question about your support of Communism. Crickets.

Couldn’t you lecture others by other means, without the hypocrisy? — NOS4A2

Let me try this: It is not hypocrisy to do that which it would require all others to stop doing to be effective; especially when one is working to get everyone to stop.

I don't call you a hypocrite for using all that stuff made under a communist regime. But you do. Are you a hypocrite for doing that, NOS? If you think so, then you don't understand how capitalism works. :grin:

Your argument is a stupid one, James, a lesson in sophistry and obsequiousness. — NOS4A2

A stupid argument would be calling "hypocrisy" on one who fails to swim to Scotland from America. No less stupid would be the nit-picking of "Well, he doesn't have to swim, but he could use less gas while driving around, if he only used a Prius."

I have heard that term in the past, but never knew exactly what it referred to, simply inferring that it means something like "seeking out opportunities for belittlement or argumentation". Would that be about right? — Michael Zwingli

The way I always understood trolling is to say something you either don't really mean, or about which you don't really care, simply to get a rise out of someone. Others call it "stirring the pot." It's like the kid on the playground who foments discontent for his/her own amusement. The troll often thinks of their self as witty or smart for having done so. They pat themselves on the back, or, quite possibly, they "pat themselves" (if you know what I mean) rather than looking at porn like normal people do.

It's true that Biden is not hypocritical because by no measure does he gave a rats about the environment. — StreetlightX

With folks like you around, it wouldn't matter if he did.

So here is your chance: what is wrong with what I believe? — NOS4A2

Okay, for the umpteenth time: If I save a gallon of gas, I increase the supply, lowering the price, stimulating demand, so NOS can roll-coal for another mile with his muscle truck. I've defeated my purpose.

So it's illogical and a stupid argument to claim that I am a hypocrite for driving to a convention designed to deprive NOS of his right to roll coal and to take away his truck and force him to quit polluting. If I were to swim to Scotland, it wouldn't work out so well and NOS would continue to pollute, whilst laughing.

The other example I use is the Iraq war. All those 'Muricans who wrapped themselves in the flag, and charged opponents who "question a POTUS in time of war" of being traitors who failed to support the troops were not so fundamentally stupid as to get daddy's '06 out of the closet and fly to Bagdahd to try and kill Saddam themselves. And I was not so fundamentally stupid as to call them hypocrites for failing to do so. They, like Biden, were smart. They knew there are certain problems in life that you would be stupid to try and tackle on your own.

Now, since I've been over this with you, unrebutted, many times, please book mark it so the next time you "forget" the lesson that I have taught you, I can remind you, you can come back here and go "Oh, yeah, now I remember."

You haven’t taught me anything. — NOS4A2

Correction: I have taught you repeatedly. But you have not learned. So you answered my question: you actually believe this. When I think about it, it makes sense. After all, there is no one here for you to persuade with the argument. It's not like you are Tucker Carlson who got the vax and persuaded the stupid people not to. There are no stupid people here hanging on your every word. Thus, it must be you. Got it, thanks for clearing that up: You haven't learned anything that I've taught you.

our first mistake was believing you had wisdom to depart with. — NOS4A2

My first mistake was thinking you could be taught. I guess they are right when they say "You can't fix stupid."

If you want to defend Biden’s actions just do it. — NOS4A2

His actions, unlike Trump's, don't need defending. Like I said, I already taught you about how illogical and fundamentally stupid your false and lazy charge of hypocrisy is. Funny you don't see that. Hmmm.

Defending a politician’s hypocrisy should be beneath you, but you can’t help it. One of these days the dissonance will overwhelm you. — NOS4A2

Again, I taught you why that is the false and lazy charge of hypocrisy. The only thing up for debate is whether you know this, and only use it because you know it is effective with stupid people, or if you actually believe it yourself because you are stupid. Can you shed some light on that?

Biden cruised around Europe with his 85-car convoy and then lectured the proles about climate change. — NOS4A2

I've taught you, several times, why that is an illogical and fundamentally stupid argument. I guess it comes with being you.

I don't know if this has been shared before, but I just re-read this again and thought it was good:

There's apparently a lot of people with an America complex in the world. — frank

:100: It's understandable. Maybe someday they can have a China complex, and America can put her boots up on the railing, crack a beer and yell "Git off'n muh lawn, ya little bastards!" :grin:

The whole mentality of the American public, with few exceptions, is stupped in self-serving mythology. What a way to dumb down a population. The Empire is dying!! — boagie

I might agree with you 100% but it's strange to see those "few exceptions" get thrown under the bus with the rest. What is being done by anyone anywhere to provide strategic and logistical support to those few? Or are those who would otherwise champion the few just going to sit back and whine about how they can't do anything because they are chained by the same forces that chain the few?

I get it, JR, but as I haven't mentioned anything about a "breakdown" of the laws of physics or principles of logic I don't see how your satirical reply to that quote follows. — 180 Proof

That's just it: It follows whether any of us say anything or not. This whole thread is about what can or cannot be, and all responses have been couched in terms of what we say instead of that which follows.

Can a coin land on both heads or tails before I flip it? — 180 Proof

If some of the smartest people in the world can imagine a state where the laws of physics break down (singularity?), then I can imagine a state where the principles of logic break down. But there is something I don't like about the way the language of "break down" is used. To use those words lends an unwarranted air of normalcy, superiority, even, to that state where physics and logic apply. I think quite the opposite.

That state where the laws of physics and logic do not apply is the normal, superior state. When that breaks down into it's component parts, we end up stuck in a prison of rules and shit that really don't apply in the "real" world. God chuckles. So funny it is, that he creates it for the humor found in experiencing that part of himself. Talk about self-depreciating humor. "Look how stupid I can be! I created man! :rofl: "

But homo sap, as he is wont to do, has spun it all to make himself the center of the universe, the center of perspective. He is, because he thinks. LOL! He is the measure of all things. LOL! When we imagine anything else, then something must have broken down. LOL! Man, are we chumps, or what?

Why so? — Varde

What do you mean by "Why so"? All of my post, or a particular part?

There's a lot of what but no why, in your post. — Varde

Same question. I did not take the OP as looking for a "what" or a "why." I took it as asking for a "can" to which I replied, in essence, yes and no.

But let me be equally obtuse and just say, because All is, after all, All. That is why. It would be difficult for All to not be happening. And not.

The reason "why" is, there does not have to be a reason why. But there is, and only we can speak to the "why" that we want. We can pick any reason. But the "why" that All wants (or doesn't want) is beyond us. And not.

I think my point here is this: There is that which we cannot or will not comprehend, and until we humble ourselves before that fact, and quit looking at everything from our point of view, we will be frustrated in our search, as we have been. Here we are, you and I, pounding on our keyboards, bound to what we have to work with. It's kind of like that recent conundrum of "we don't know what we don't know." That's what I'm talking about: Something about which I know nothing and, for all practical purposes, never will; at least until I realize it. Sure, in another multiverse, here and now, I know. But All is not perceiving itself through me as far as I can tell. It's perceiving itself through me as far as I can't tell. But if it's All, it's doing it. And not. I'm apparently the "not" part. And not.

What is possible and impossible will not merely occur in the multiverse "eventually." It is actually occurring in the multiverse now, and in the past, and in the future, and not. And all of this, a priori and posteriori. Whether or not "we" comprehend it is irrelevant. It does not matter if All likes or dislikes it when All purposely or unintentionally steps on humans. :smile: It is only important (and not) that we proceed as if it does matter. And even then, it's only important to us if it is.

A more generic question is, to the extent any side does not get everything it wants, does the fault lie with that side, for insisting upon everything it wants, and not compromising? Or does the fault lie with those who stand in the way? And, to the extent the system itself mandates compromise (because it realizes the futility of one side getting everything it wants), is that system then worse than a system that rejects compromise?

I say worst of all is the individual who pretends to sit outside whilst throwing stones at any side and any system, "just because" they have a stone, a hand, and an arm. By their measure, all systems and all sides are stuck between a rock and a hard place, coming and going. There is no possibility of "yes" for an answer with these people. They will not be satisfied. They might even think that the answer for them is "no sides and no systems"; as a rebel without a cause, they are a good, in and of themselves. They might fancy themselves a gadfly. But then they'd bitch about anarchy. Especially when they are the victims of it.

Of all the people on the planet, they are the most reliant upon that which they pretend to criticize. Perhaps they hate that feeling of dependence, and strike out against it, like a teen who want to leave home, while bringing all of home's security with them when they leave. They lash out, until they come down to Earth, hard. Ouch! LOL!

In the meantime, the adults continue to search for answers and continue to learn that they can't please everyone. Especially those petulant little kids who can't be pleased under any circumstances.

:100: :up: :cheer:

Cite? No? Didn't think so.
— James Riley

Reposted without comment. — StreetlightX

In other words, no. Figures. Tens of millions. :roll:

The alterntive to murdering ten of millions of people worldwide is not murdering tens of millions of people worldwide. — StreetlightX

Cite? No? Didn't think so. Besides, even if it were true, what's to say that has anything to do with the aspirational side I referenced, and not the evil that controls it?

You live in a glass house? Just wondering.

Good rant rant tho. Somewhere, in the background, a tiny patriotic trumpet is playing. — StreetlightX

Oh, the jealously rings loudly in this one. Did you get the short end of the U.S. stick? Or did your country or something you love? If so, I'd like to know. Maybe I can justify it. Not to you, of course. You are beyond hope. But your words make it sound like you deserved what you got. LOL!

If one conflates the United States sovereign with those who own the politicians who fill the legal positions created by the sovereign's organic documents (which it is perfectly reasonable and understandable to do), then the answer is yes. The United States in an imperialist country.

However, if one considers only the aspirational intent laid out in those same documents, and looks only what the United States is supposed to be, then the answer is no. The Unites States is not an imperialist country.

An example might help. If Joe Schmo goes over seas and runs afoul of another sovereign's laws (or the chosen implementation of those laws by those acting under color of law), regardless of how far those laws or the implementation may stray from traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, Joe is fucked. He might get a token condolence, a tip of the hat, or a phone call from the U.S. Embassy; or his name might even come up at a wine-and-cheese-cocktail- party at some dignitaries house. Someone might even visit his family's home here in the U.S. and offer condolences and promises that everything under the sun is being done. But in the final analysis, the U.S. doesn't give a shit and he's fucked.

Compare: If large corporation X has a little problem in some foreign country (like some uppity peasant has actually persuaded the local U.S. proxy government to consider letting him have the land he has been on since Christ was a Corporal, and the oil under it) then gun-boat diplomacy is on the table. I know, I know; before all you historians try to correct me with your irrelevant BS, try considering the gist of what I am saying. Nothing but the names and the sophistication and nuanced methodologies have changed between 1905 and today.

If Americans were to ever themselves get uppity and back that peasant's (or his government's) hand, we would then learn the difference between what we aspire to be and what we really are. And we'd have to listen to a metric shit-ton of wailing and whining and crying about "socialism" and "communism" from a bunch of anti-intellectual, uneducated, conservative Republican stupid fucks who wouldn't know socialism, communism, or representative democracy if it hit them over their pointed little heads.

The fact that the media hasn't brought this up with him over the past several weeks is infuriating to say the least. — Mr Bee

Indeed. I get livid. I follow a FB group called "Iron Snowflake." Mostly tweets and memes and whatnot from the progressive perspective. Here and there I see some one-liners and other succinct points that are just cutting. I wonder why these points are not addressed by the MSM? Are they not true? I wonder if I'm just in some echo chamber like a conservative Q idiot listening to Joe Rogan and whatnot. Maybe I'm wrapped up in confirmation bias, etc. So I do a little research. I find things like you point out about Manchin. I want to grab the evening news fucks by the neck and shake their ass and ask "What about this, you stupid POS!" It makes me think they are so desirous of a fight that they keep the division at 50-50 because it's good for their ratings. If they told the truth, the division would be about 90-10.

End rant.

There's no reason to argue with him if he's going to accept fallacies. — Wheatley

That may be why no one argues with me. My definition of God (what I call All, or simply A) is so broad that it defies logic. A = A and -A at the same time. I honestly can't fathom a God that does not. Anything less is certainly no God as I define it.

:100:

More like:

Assume X,
Therefore, X — Shawn

Got it. Thanks.

That quote sounds pretty accurate to me. For instance, many folks add "good" to the definition of God. I never understood that. It certainly doesn't factor into my understanding of God. I'd also have to agree about the "lack of any coherent sense at all" when it comes to my own understanding God.

An assumed proposition is similar to question begging in asking for no doubt to be utilized in face of a suppository argument about X to be held as true. — Shawn

Like X = X?

it qualifies as a assumed proposition to assume — Shawn

I'd say an assumption is an assumed proposition.

I see lots of people throw the word "God" around when that term, that concept, has not first been defined in the discussion.

Why is it that neither science nor logic can disprove God? — Shawn

Well, if you define God as that which cannot be disproven by science or logic, then there you have it.

If science or logic say there is nothing they cannot disprove, then they have their work cut out for them.

Maybe insurrection isn't that bad after all. I think I get it now. — Xtrix

Yeah, but the left doesn't have what it takes, and they forfeited their right to compel compliance with their demands. Now they must pray that the rule of law actually rules. :rofl: But if the honorable men in law enforcement lack courage or ability, then the left has relegated itself to begging for scraps. There you go, Michelle, that's what happens when you "go high."

Or, we could ask ourselves: "What would the so-called "patriots" do if a Republican politician failed to tow the line?" and then we could do that. But then, all of a sudden, you'd see law enforcement go into action. Because we are a soft target.

I'm looking at you, FBI and Merrick Garland. Rule of law?????? Show me.

Joe Manchin is laughing all the way to the bank. Him and Mitch McConnel know a sucker when they see one.

As long as it's all about us, then I'm sure it will find a way.

I would love to give the Libertarian everything on their dream-sheet for one year. But no tweaking their way back to socialism during that year, as reality began to set in. Once their bed is made, they have to sleep in it for a year. :rofl:

:100:

Which you will now demonstrate by not keeping your promise. — tim wood

:fire: :smile:

She get something in her eye?

Sounds reasonable. Reminds me of the Aspen Tree, writ large. But I actually think it's writ even larger than you suggest.