trump: oblivious moron or psychotically narcissistic oblivious moron?

ChlamydiaBear looked at an anatta rant, gave it a lot of thought, and came up with, "They do that." The fat, bald freak is a veritable fountain of independent insight.
 
DBacks take a 3-1 lead in the eighth. All-star Jake Lamb hit a home run to give them the lead and take over the RBI lead, followed by minor league call-up Ketel Marte hitting a mammoth shot nearly on top of the pavilion in left field. If I heard right, it was in the top five of home-run distance in the history of the stadium. Still batting.
 
Ha! Dodgers reliever balked in a run. 4-1. Made a move to third with nobody covering. I guess he was worried our slow-footed catcher was gonna steal home.
 
​AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
RickyTavy said:
19875625_1887932918196259_5192649472818495673_n.jpg

CAFE
Click to expand...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...qqa-what-happens-next/?utm_term=.9391636654cd

ISIS will lose Mosul and Raqqa. What happens next?

The jihadists of the Islamic State are finally being driven out of their two main bastions: The northern Iraqi city of Mosul and the eastern Syrian city of Raqqa. For some three years, their ability to control these two urban centers, particularly Mosul, served as warped validation of their ambitions to build a modern-day caliphate.

Now, after months of airstrikes and a prolonged U.S.-backed offensive, the jihadists are in retreat. Last week, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi hailed the recapture of Mosul's historic Great Mosque of al-Nuri, which had been tragically reduced to rubble by the militants, as the "end" of the jihadists' "state of falsehood." It was from that site in 2014 that the Islamic State declared the advent of its caliphate. Iraqi forces are in what seems the final stages of an intense house-by-house battle to reclaim the last streets of the city still occupied by the militants.
Click to expand...

The Golf seems to be working.

Greg
 
Darth Omar said:
Meh, I think Trump is just saying things that [he at least, thinks] need to be said. And in typical Trump fashion, he doesn't much care about the consequences. If one is seeking a reset [I hate that word] with Russia the prudent thing would be to steer away from contentious issues when speaking to the Poles.

Politicians are infamous for spouting platitudinous mumbo-jumbo in such speeches. Obama, for example, might go on about 'the arc of history favoring the good guys' or whatever. It sounds all high-minded but at the end of the day it doesn't budge the needle.

Trump was talking about practical things. Like encouraging them to be less dependent on The Bear for their energy needs. Or reassuring NATO countries we weren't abandoning them.

None of this would be particularly pleasing to Putin, and it could even jeopardize their talks. But I get the sense Trump just doesn't think that way.
Click to expand...

Obama may have sounded OK but he grated on my nerves big time; totally vacuous.

Greg
 
anatta said:
you are simply saying I am not writing my ideas.you are down to calling me a nutter, and using my editorializing as some reason I am not able to source my ideas.

I have no interest in proving to you those are my own ideas.
Because you don't dispute them, you are simply plcking them out to be argumentative without purpose except to bolster your made up name calling charaterizations.
Click to expand...

Look, it's easy enough to see what you are doing: That would be the effort to make sense of things in order to reduce uncertainty. That's generally not a bad thing. However, in your desperation you are neither very discerning as to your sources, and you don't question the validity of any "knowledge" you acquire once you've found it fits with what you are "thinking". Sorry to be so blunt.


anatta said:
your posts are devolving to "nya nya weiner weiner" type insults. good for you.
Click to expand...

I told you back then that we'll probably disagree about 90% of the time, and that you'll have plenty of opportunities to reverse your earlier judgment. Turns out, that didn't take long. I am, however, the very same poster, still insisting that we stick with what we know, be aware where the boundaries of our possible knowledge lie, and not jump to unwarranted conclusions to fill the vast, often unbridgeable gaps, no matter how uncomfortable or disturbing these gaps may be.

That would be, for instance, your repeated insistence on the "deep state's Russia-phobia", as if the "deep state" (provided such thing exists) were a homogeneous entity with a common mental disease. Or your repeated insistence on "Brennan's hostility to Trump", so as to "explain" why the IC would work against the Trumpy. That doesn't make any sense, not least because a misrepresented IC community would soon start to leak to point out Brennan's "distortions", and his "work" in pursuit of this hostility. That's all very easy to see.

Yeah, I am calling you "A Nutter", because it's phonetically close to your nick, and it is supposed to give you a hint where you are running off on a wild tangent, not scrutinizing what you think you "know", and losing grip. All that does have a purpose, and still I am not arguing about some wild-eyed idiot's illiterate blog-post, and neither about your repeated and false insistence on the IC's confidence in their findings. That's boring, not helpful to understand things, and a waste of time.


So, let's have a debate, or you throw yourself into the warm embrace of these two nutters:


The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to anatta For This Post:

Dropbear1 (Today), Milagro (Today)​


Your call, mate.
 
Owl'd You're Up! said:
Look, it's easy enough to see what you are doing: That would be the effort to make sense of things in order to reduce uncertainty. That's generally not a bad thing. However, in your desperation you are neither very discerning as to your sources, and you don't question the validity of any "knowledge" you acquire once you've found it fits with what you are "thinking". Sorry to be so blunt.




I told you back then that we'll probably disagree about 90% of the time, and that you'll have plenty of opportunities to reverse your earlier judgment. Turns out, that didn't take long. I am, however, the very same poster, still insisting that we stick with what we know, be aware where the boundaries of our possible knowledge lie, and not jump to unwarranted conclusions to fill the vast, often unbridgeable gaps, no matter how uncomfortable or disturbing these gaps may be.

That would be, for instance, your repeated insistence on the "deep state's Russia-phobia", as if the "deep state" (provided such thing exists) were a homogeneous entity with a common mental disease. Or your repeated insistence on "Brennan's hostility to Trump", so as to "explain" why the IC would work against the Trumpy. That doesn't make any sense, not least because a misrepresented IC community would soon start to leak to point out Brennan's "distortions", and his "work" in pursuit of this hostility. That's all very easy to see.

Yeah, I am calling you "A Nutter", because it's phonetically close to your nick, and it is supposed to give you a hint where you are running off on a wild tangent, not scrutinizing what you think you "know", and losing grip. All that does have a purpose, and still I am not arguing about some wild-eyed idiot's illiterate blog-post, and neither about your repeated and false insistence on the IC's confidence in their findings. That's boring, not helpful to understand things, and a waste of time.


So, let's have a debate, or you throw yourself into the warm embrace of these two nutters:


The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to anatta For This Post:

Dropbear1 (Today), Milagro (Today)​


Your call, mate.
Click to expand...

Not to be overly blunt, but the left has gone overboard with theorizing connections between Russia and Trump or Russia and the election---often based on little or no evidence. Parts of the media have gone to great lengths to prop it up with anonymous sources 'that fits the thinking', which later turn out to be fabrications. And they do it time and again.

Also, criticizing sources, instead of ideas, is one of the lowest forms of debate. It ranks right down there with calling people nutters. Again, not to be too blunt. Actually, I rather enjoy being blunt with you lol.

That said, 'making sense of things' is what we do. As an idea that makes sense of things, 'the Deep State' is not unassailable---but it easily, has more merit than the Russian collusion theory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top