Truth Discussion Time - Page 84

On April 23 2018 17:42 Spitfiree wrote: B) Russia's influence in the western media is so strong it reaches the top levels and pushes its propaganda

Russia isn't trying to take over western media organizations, for the most part it knows that's impossible. Just spreading uncertainty and distrust is enough though. People thinking "Maybe the west is lying, maybe Russia is lying, I don't want to deal with this" is a huge win for them.

On April 23 2018 15:35 NMcNasty wrote: Show nested quote + On April 20 2018 21:06 Stroggoz wrote: It's kind of like me using donald trumps opinion that global warming is a hoax as a justification to do nothing about global warming, and calling it international support once i get a few other presidents from other countries that agree. You could not have used a worse example. Trump's views on global warming are indeed stupid and radical, but he's received no international support for them, exactly the opposite actually from every major ally. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_the_Paris_Agreement See the problem here is that we all have the ability to immediately dismiss Trump's blabbering as lies/idiocy but for some reason we aren't doing the same with Putin/Assad. When Trump says "Global warming is a Chinese hoax" we aren't sending teams of inspectors to China and awaiting results to see if he's right.

you ignored the content of what I said and focused on the example, which i obviously meant as a hypothetical and not a real world example.

Like i've said before it is more important to be critical of your own society than someone elses, since you are responsible for your governments actions, but not russia/putin. When i make political criticisms it is mostly of my own government and the capitalist structures that are dominant within the country, which imo cause the most injustice. I don't spend most of my time criticizing putin because i have no effect over putins actions. I am morally responsible for the predictable consequences of my own actions, which is why i focus on critizing my own country and ones which have the similar model-since they are all tied together really. If you spend most of your time criticizing other governments and not your own, this makes you a hypocrite.

the capitalist media is many times more critical of putin/assad than trump, you have it around backwards. And yeah trumps particular lie there can be exposed by reading a science journal and having some common sense, you dont need to send inspectors to china. If it were the case that russia wanted to bomb a weapons manufacturing plant in america, then im all for inspectors being sent to America to check it out. ( actually this would be unnecessary since america openly admits to most of the weapons it produces.) The bombimg would be an act of aggression though, so i would never support it anyway.

you may be thinking of responding by saying america is different since a dictator isn't in charge there. Yes america is different in it's government, but it's weapons plants are still responsible for many deaths and acts of aggression external to the country, just as assad is responsible for many deaths in his country, with the use of weapons.

On April 21 2018 13:41 Spitfiree wrote: Sounds legit, but those warheads need to be carried by a rocket that wont get blasted mid-air and we all know how Russian technology looks like compared to the USA :D

Russia has tested by biggest nuke by far (TSAR bomba) and the US nuclear weaopnry is in shambles, I think John Oliver had a segment about it and many of the missile silos use windows 95 and floppy disks, I think it would be normal to assume that the US is simply more advanced but the more you look into it the more it looks like the Russians won the nuclear arms race, I mean, they also arguably won the space race.

Not that any of it mattesr though, the point is that you can ask for others to disarm until you disarm yourself first or simultaneously.


lol @ mr pacifist claiming that asking for evidence about Assad gas attack equates being a climate change denier.

patrick cockburn is a reliable reporter who lives in the middle east, i doubt any of his content gets published in the american media:

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...ion-isis-foreign-office-a8314616.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/author/robert-fisk robert fisk, another good reporter.


Just showing you some alternative news sources mcnasty because it seem like what you read is largely the american elite media. Not at all a wide spectrum of debate going on there.

On April 23 2018 20:58 Stroggoz wrote: you ignored the content of what I said and focused on the example, which i obviously meant as a hypothetical and not a real world example.

I strongly disagree with the content of what you said, but you're really just making vague general statements, there wasn't much for me to respond to except your specific example.

If you spend most of your time criticizing other governments and not your own, this makes you a hypocrite.

No, again, you don't understand what a hypocrite is. A hypocrite is someone (or a govt perhaps) that engages in what they are speaking out against, you don't turn hypocrite by mere association. Also, if you check the tape, in both this and the politics thread I started out by trashing Trump. Syria and Russia were only ever brought up because, incredibly, some people thought Trump's comprehensive Syria policy was proof he wasn't a warmonger (like Obama/Clinton). Now the isolationist-Trump myth has been shattered, we're just attacking the US in general instead of specifically democrats. Normally I wouldn't have a problem with that but we're going back too through history and I'm finding the tie-in to current events to be weak, and we're rattling off conspiracy after conspiracy and its really just not worth responding to. And for the stuff that's somewhat credible (like the Fisk article) there just isn't much there. A journalist is not a forensic team and we don't know what kind of access he really has. Also, from the article there seems to be no evidence the attack was staged, and it seems a given that an attack did indeed occur, just not necessarily with chemicals. Although chemical attacks absolutely did occur on several occasions in the war, just the regular shelling of cities and killing of civilians is a catastrophic humanitarian disaster, arguably genocide, and warrants intervention.

On April 23 2018 20:59 Baalim wrote: lol @ mr pacifist claiming that asking for evidence about Assad gas attack equates being a climate change denier.

Its not "asking for evidence" its lazily tweeting stories about British plots. They don't even deserve to be called conspiracies, its really just the running of mouths. At least climate change deniers will build a website or something and put some effort into their bullshit.

On April 24 2018 15:50 NMcNasty wrote: Show nested quote + On April 23 2018 20:58 Stroggoz wrote: you ignored the content of what I said and focused on the example, which i obviously meant as a hypothetical and not a real world example. I strongly disagree with the content of what you said, but you're really just making vague general statements, there wasn't much for me to respond to except your specific example.   If you spend most of your time criticizing other governments and not your own, this makes you a hypocrite. No, again, you don't understand what a hypocrite is. A hypocrite is someone (or a govt perhaps) that engages in what they are speaking out against, you don't turn hypocrite by mere association. Also, if you check the tape, in both this and the politics thread I started out by trashing Trump. Syria and Russia were only ever brought up because, incredibly, some people thought Trump's comprehensive Syria policy was proof he wasn't a warmonger (like Obama/Clinton). Now the isolationist-Trump myth has been shattered, we're just attacking the US in general instead of specifically democrats. Normally I wouldn't have a problem with that but we're going back too through history and I'm finding the tie-in to current events to be weak, and we're rattling off conspiracy after conspiracy and its really just not worth responding to. And for the stuff that's somewhat credible (like the Fisk article) there just isn't much there. A journalist is not a forensic team and we don't know what kind of access he really has. Also, from the article there seems to be no evidence the attack was staged, and it seems a given that an attack did indeed occur, just not necessarily with chemicals. Although chemical attacks absolutely did occur on several occasions in the war, just the regular shelling of cities and killing of civilians is a catastrophic humanitarian disaster, arguably genocide, and warrants intervention.

there was nothing vague at all about what i said. I specifically said international support wasn't made up of governments and elite opinion, but popular opinion (You listed a minority of governments by the way). Elite opinion in countries is very different from the opinion of the populace. You are calling elite opinion international support, this is a very common propaganda term that has been used by the american government for a long time now. I suppose if you stick to your principles, then Putin can claim international support in their war when they have the agreement of their allied states.

and calling robert fisk, 'somewhat credible', is laughable. You probably don't know any of his work, but he is one of the most accomplished journalists living. The thing over the definition of hypocrisy is such a trivial criticism, if you look at the wiki page or how jesus used it in the bible, it can be interpreted that way.

On April 24 2018 21:16 Loco wrote:

I don't get it. Watched 10 minutes, will continue watching the rest tomorrow... although highly biased the video looks promising, but what I don't get is that.. isnt this the same point of view which Peterson is defending and you so strongly mocked?

edit: Ok got it, now it makes sense you post it.


P.S. I still dont understand.. where did Nasty say he's a pacifist?

I think it was established before that only a moron would believe that the left is some kind of long term jew conspiracy to undermine christian western values, however the SJW, anti-free speech and collectivist ideologies are very alive, not because of conspiring jews, but because as most atrocities, poorly thought through good intentions.

On April 24 2018 21:18 Stroggoz wrote: Elite opinion in countries is very different from the opinion of the populace. You are calling elite opinion international support, this is a very common propaganda term that has been used by the american government for a long time now.

“International support” is based on public statements by high ranking government officials and voting at the UN. Your idea that general public support is significantly different is based on nothing. Just your guess as to what the masses think. That’s why there’s nothing for me to respond to.

On April 24 2018 22:00 Spitfiree wrote: P.S. I still dont understand.. where did Nasty say he's a pacifist?

I was wondering this myself. Wasn’t going to challenge it though since this argument is a year and a half old, and it’s possible I said it somewhere.

On April 25 2018 02:22 NMcNasty wrote: Show nested quote + On April 24 2018 21:18 Stroggoz wrote: Elite opinion in countries is very different from the opinion of the populace. You are calling elite opinion international support, this is a very common propaganda term that has been used by the american government for a long time now. “International support” is based on public statements by high ranking government officials and voting at the UN.

Orwell would be proud. Not much more i can say with the doublethink there. you should seriously consider becoming a speechwriter for politicians or edit newspeak dictionaries for them

On April 25 2018 02:27 NMcNasty wrote: Show nested quote + On April 24 2018 22:00 Spitfiree wrote: P.S. I still dont understand.. where did Nasty say he's a pacifist? I was wondering this myself. Wasn’t going to challenge it though since this argument is a year and a half old, and it’s possible I said it somewhere.

You said something along the lines of I consider myself a pacifist but... then you proceeded to justify military action in Syria.

John Oliver's piece on USA/Iran deal is pretty good, if you haven't watched it, do so. As I've said the USA government is looking for a reason to go into Iran, thing is they've got zero arguments about it, so expect a wave of propaganda towards that in the upcoming years. If they try, I actually hope Iran gets to make a nuke before they get overrun.

what does isolationist mean, who started the myth that trump is one, and why does him not going into a country disprove that he is one, and why do you care if you want intervention

On April 25 2018 14:38 Santafairy wrote: what does isolationist mean, who started the myth that trump is one

Yeah keep acting like I'm making up words and concepts, here's the French president speaking to congress today:

We can choose isolationism, withdrawal and nationalism . . . but that will only inflame the fears of our citizens.

Wasn't going to respond to another one your garbage posts, but again, your timing is so comically bad I couldn't resist.

fighting over semantics? grow up

McNasty clearly meant that Trump broke his campaign position of non-intervention and he is right.


Trump hasn't lived to his promise, he didnt repeal the ACA or fought the welfare state, he just rebranded it with minimal budget cuts, he made big tax cuts which is great but he also increased the military budget.

I wanted Trump to win because there was a glimmer of hope that he could balance the sheet and operate the US economy in surplus but it seems that the ship is too big and heavy to be steered and it will have to run its course slowly circling the drain.



Honestly I think most people, even educated and smart people like the people in this forum are obliviouis to the impending economic doom, the monetary/keynesian machine is running out of steam, just like the dialectic materialits they didnt take humans-flaws into account in their theory and when the state finally defaults on its loans something very drastic will happen in the world, either an economic crisis that would make 1929 or the pre-emptive biggest redistribution of wealth in the history of mankind, whatever it is, its going to be apocalyptic.

On April 26 2018 08:24 Baalim wrote: Trump hasn't lived to his promise, he didnt repeal the ACA or fought the welfare state, he just rebranded it with minimal budget cuts, he made big tax cuts which is great but he also increased the military budget. .

Common sense certainly points to tax cuts being great, in reality the situation for the common man doesn't change though, its just the rich that got richer ... thats all. John Oliver covered that, apparently Bush had also tried cutting corporate taxes for a year in 2005, in order to allow corporations to move their cash in the USA instead of it being outside, with the hope that the cash will create new jobs. Instead around 91% of the cash was split between investors.Investors obviously would most likely spend their money in teh USA, so thats still beneficial, but I doubt anyone has gone through the length of measuring that. So yeah.... history shows that this is not the way to go.

Also I'm pretty sure crypto will eventually take over FIAT at some point ( might be 20, might be 120 years) because of a major economic crisis. It's just a matter of time

On April 25 2018 23:51 NMcNasty wrote: Show nested quote + On April 25 2018 14:38 Santafairy wrote: what does isolationist mean, who started the myth that trump is one Yeah keep acting like I'm making up words and concepts, here's the French president speaking to congress today:   We can choose isolationism, withdrawal and nationalism . . . but that will only inflame the fears of our citizens. Wasn't going to respond to another one your garbage posts, but again, your timing is so comically bad I couldn't resist.

I don't know how you've gotten where you are from my post except that maybe you're a high-functioning clod and didn't read it

I just wanted to understand what definition you were working from because it's hard for me to see how Donald "I'm gonna bomb the shit out of them" Trump (who works closely with John "Why do we have nuclear weapons if you can't use them?" Barron) has flip-flopped on something you've associated with him by bombing one airbase apparently

(And to reiterate I don't know why you'd be supposed to care or who this BTFOs when you keep advocating intervention in Syria to begin with)