trump: oblivious moron or psychotically narcissistic oblivious moron?

[anatta]

Ffs. A smoking gun gives proof positive, not high confidence.

it would depend on who's holding it

[anatta]

I prefer for people to shoot-up, OD, die, and not spend taxpayer money watching them do it.

love your compassion. I'd prefer they get on a long term methadone program,so they can function again.

[InstantOn]

The city of Seattle banned plastic bags and the paper bags come with a charge. So, yeah, next up is safe zones for junkies to shoot-up heroin while health professionals stand around watching...

Oh go buy a tote bag and stop with the non-sequiturs.

[Cancel 2020.1]

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.

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.

[blackvegetable]

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

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

Just go away....

[cnm]

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?

The intelligence agencies footnoted their demurrals on the Iraq data, which were ignored by Fuckwit43's administration, you simpering idiot.

[blackvegetable]

As Darth appears to be yet another jpp Snowflake, would someone ask him where he stood on the invasion of Iraqnam in 2002?

[Phantasmal]

As Darth appears to be yet another jpp Snowflake, would someone ask him where he stood on the invasion of Iraqnam in 2002?

Darth, where did you stand on the invasion of Iraq?

[Cancel 2020.1]

I've asked him before - don't think he ever answered though.

[kflaux]

Oh my, we're having the old "AGW is a hoax - just look at Al Gore's mansion - lol" debate again.

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.

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?

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.

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........

[blackvegetable]

I've asked him before - don't think he ever answered though.

As if it is some kind of mystery.....

Darth apparently believes that because he has proven a credulous imbecile that we should all be led by his spontaneously cultivated skepticism.

[kflaux]

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.

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/20.../the-stovepipe

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

[blackvegetable]

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?

[blackvegetable]

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/20.../the-stovepipe

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

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.

[X.O.]

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.

Trifectaboy had a lot of enablers. Makes me hope there IS a hell.