trump: oblivious moron or psychotically narcissistic oblivious moron?

Darth Omar said:
But there's cherry picking intelligence data and cherry picking people who contribute to the intelligence assessment. And it's a distinction without a difference.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?

There was a lot of raw intelligence w/ Iraq. That's what those agencies do - they gather raw intel. The Bush admin cherry-picked it to rush us into a war.

It's not that complicated.
 
Milagro said:
Sesquipedalian is throwing long words into a sentence that are not needed. Usually employed by pompous arrogant people in a deliberate attempt to bamboozle and bullshit their opponents.

Sent from my iPhone 25S with cherries on top
Click to expand...

You're quite the resentful, hysterical little kunt, Millie.....

Just go away....
 
Darth Omar said:
So, there's no Smoking Gun in the link.

Did we have high confidence in the intelligence assessment that got us into Iraq?

But oh, this is different lol?
Click to expand...

The intelligence agencies footnoted their demurrals on the Iraq data, which were ignored by Fuckwit43's administration, you simpering idiot.
 
Owl'd You're Up! said:
Oh my, we're having the old "AGW is a hoax - just look at Al Gore's mansion - lol" debate again.
Click to expand...
Umm, not me....

Let's make it a principled one. I'd offer: "Any and all carbon-emitting behavior or lifestyle that, if all did it, would cook the system, is permitted to no one." Fairness, of course, requires no less. With that, Gore is doomed. Interestingly enough, so are we, under the exact same standard, living in the Western world under billowing clouds of smoke, as we do.

Let's in a next step get to what you hinted at in the third paragraph. The principle, loosely formulated, could take the form: "Any and all behavior resulting in carbon emissions in excess of what's allowed by principle 1 may be justified in case it results in overall net carbon emission reductions, or contributes to the cause for such reductions."

I'd say, clumsily put as it is, it looks pretty solid, at least if we may apply a fairly simple utilitarian approach to climate change. With that, Al Gore is probably off the hook, as is McKibben, while we, the carbon hogs, are not. And that is why the finger-pointing during that "AGW is a hoax - just look at Al Gore's mansion - lol" debate is so pathetic.
Click to expand...
Not to mention beside the point, as anyone who understands that tu quoque is a logical fallacy will know. But even so, we can ask, and even demand, that people like Gore and McKibben walk the walk--for purely practical reasons. Because most people are not familiar with the niceties of logical fallacies, or may not be aware that some minor infractions may be more than overbalanced by enormous positive contributions, and are more likely to take umbrage at hypocrisy, whether actual or only perceived.

Agreed, of course, even while helping to save the earth, the requirement they reduce their carbon emissions still is valid. Oh, and let's make sure the next G-20 summit is attended by holograms, okay?
Click to expand...
Could be good for PR purposes...seriously..... I am not second-guessing Cypress and BV here, I understand very well that, given present teleconferencing etc tech, some things simply have to be done face-to-face. But.

...we really are inventing a brand new world de novo here...a FF-free world...we are not going to get everything right on the first try..........

Now, we have agreed, years ago, that the rich are always going to enjoy a lifestyle more damaging than the rest, and that's not going to end, like, ever, and that it's egregious in its violation of the fairness principle. Their carbon hogging unjustly imposes on the rest the necessity to save more energy than we otherwise had to, just as their speedy transportation imposes slowness on the rest. All the more important is the imposition of a steadily rising carbon tax to make the biggest carbon hogs pay more, so as to reduce the inevitable unfairness.
Click to expand...

In a world in which use of FFs is either rigorously proscribed, or even becomes simply impossible, at least in any real quantities, it may be the case that there are many fewer perks and toys for the rich. Which is to say, being rich may no longer be so attractive, in many respects. And at the same time, when the severe harm resulting from profligate use of FFs finally (...finally!!!) becomes crystal-clear to all, it is reasonable to expect that severe social censure, at least, will be earned by anyone who persists in such behavior.

This is part--but only part--of the argument that has lately become popular, to the effect that when we reach environmental sanity and a sustainable society, we will ipso facto have achieved a much higher level of equality.

Mulling the likely verdicts that might be handed down by some hypothetical adjudicator of environmental sins is all well and good, but........
 
Thing1 said:
What are you talking about?

There was a lot of raw intelligence w/ Iraq. That's what those agencies do - they gather raw intel. The Bush admin cherry-picked it to rush us into a war.

It's not that complicated.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Cheney made a habit out of visiting Langley and breathing down the necks of CIA analysts.

The Bush admin had its thumb on the scale. Hell, that metaphor is inadequate. Seymour Hersh called it a tug-of-war.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2003/10/27/the-stovepipe

Whereas the Trumpies are of course trying to push the scale in the opposite direction.
 
Doesn't take much to get Darth running......

Maybe he had to rush off to another assassination......

What is it with these Rhetorical Warriors and their desperate need to compensate?
 
kflaux said:
Indeed. Cheney made a habit out of visiting Langley and breathing down the necks of CIA analysts.

The Bush admin had its thumb on the scale. Hell, that metaphor is inadequate. Seymour Hersh called it a tug-of-war.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2003/10/27/the-stovepipe

Whereas the Trumpies are of course trying to push the scale in the opposite direction.
Click to expand...

The worst was the flunky who took a few grand to enable the murder of hundreds of thousands....

http://www.wnd.com/2003/08/20239/


He should be skinned alive on ppv.
 
liberal critics are pointing out that Clapper, while serving as the head of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, helped assist the Bush administration lie that Iraq possessed illegal weapons of mass destruction. Speaking to reporters in October 2003, Clapper suggested that the illicit weapons had “unquestionably” been moved to Syria:

The official, James R. Clapper Jr., a retired lieutenant general, said satellite imagery showing a heavy flow of traffic from Iraq into Syria, just before the American invasion in March, led him to believe that illicit weapons material “unquestionably” had been moved out of Iraq. […]

He said he was providing a personal assessment. But he said “the obvious conclusion one draws” was that there “may have been people leaving the scene, fleeing Iraq, and unquestionably, I am sure, material.” A spokesman for General Clapper’s agency, David Burpee, said he could not provide further evidence to support the general’s statement.

Former Bush adviser Karl Rove cites Clapper’s theory in his book Courage and Consequence to defend claims by the Bush administration that it believed Iraq posed an imminent security threat to the United States.
https://thinkprogress.org/in-oct-20...rue-that-iraq-moved-wmd-to-syria-8fcc73cd1be7
 
Darth Omar said:
So, there's no Smoking Gun in the link.

Did we have high confidence in the intelligence assessment that got us into Iraq?

But oh, this is different lol?
Click to expand...

Oh my, Dearth. Of course there's no smoking gun, not least because, as the document details, the unclassified version doesn't contain the underlying evidence so as to avoid giving away the store.

Otherwise, the "intelligence" on Iraq was mostly correct. The Bush Junta based their thread assessment not on "intelligence" but on bullshit stove-piped from the INC and Ahmad Chalabi right up to the White House, because that crook gave them what they wanted to hear. Still, even an overly credulous Powell threw most of that bullshit out. That matter, too, has been litigated to death, just as the assessment you've been lying about earlier, but you are still entirely ignorant and stubbornly refuse to learn. You fell for the hoax in 2002, didn't you?

"Intelligence", my arse... Your useful idiocy back then is just as shameful as it is now, Dearth.
 
We now have Jared's THIRD undisclosed meeting with Russians. This one, according to trump junior, was held with the promise the Russians would be giving Hillary dirt to junior, Kushner, and campaign manager Manafort.

Nothing to see here, folks, move along.
 
Rex Tillerson says trump warned the Russians about sanctions over their meddling in our election. TWITter-in-chief says sanctions were never discussed. Does say he wanted to work with Putin electoral cyber-security. Guffaws of mocking laughter followed that, so the buffoon TWITtered he didn't think what he previously TWITtered could possibly work as if the TWITter-in-chief had not TWITtered the idea of doing it himself.

Move along, little dogies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top