• Last Seen: 6 yrs ago
  • Old Guild Username: mbl
  • Joined: 11 yrs ago
  • Posts: 3648 (0.92 / day)
  • VMs: 0
  • Username history
    1. mdk 11 yrs ago
  • Latest 10 profile visitors:

Status

Recent Statuses

9 yrs ago
new leg today. I AM TERMINATOR REBORN
3 likes

Bio

User has no bio, yet

Most Recent Posts

What makes the situation different today is that we only used to get non-credible threats from the DPRK. Suddenly (it only seems sudden, if we're being honest) the threats ARE credible. They're not, you know, catastrophic -- but the capabilities are there. They can kill a lot of people, well in excess of the "big deal" threshold (which is a rather arbitrary and personal line -- frankly killing ONE person is too much in my book). The threat has only grown larger ever since the DMZ went up, and now that the DPRK has its own nuclear deterrent, it's only going to grow faster. KJU needs to be brought to heel.

I don't mind if he stays in power (hell from an economic perspective, I much prefer it that way and you should too). But that nuke capability has got to fuckin' go. If it doesn't, you will see Japan re-militarize, you'll see posturing by the other regional players, and you'll see allegorical gasoline flung onto a whole slew of flashpoints (like Taiwan, the South China Sea, basically every scrap of ocean floor with mining rights attached). A weaponized-nuclear DPRK makes the world quantifiably more miserable, even if they never fire one for realzies. Hopefully our credible threats are registering -- I really don't want to have to topple the Kim dynasty, that would be really really super bad (for everyone NOT starving to death in the DPRK). BUT FOR THE RECORD, if they make us, we'll win very easily.
Her wrath will engulf the forum. All shall perish.


Somehow this reminds me of that Google business.
Don't tempt her.


or what?
Make a better choice Penny. You can do this.


Well now I'm super-curious.
North Korea has been threatening the United States every year since I can remember. Only this time we have a president who's ego cannot handle it and back down.


They haven't had nuclear ICBMs until recently. Gosh, I wonder if all that "backing down" might've helped them get doomsday weapons? It's probably a complete coinkydink.

edit: better link. Look it up on your own, Clinton actually gave them nuclear tech in exchange for a pinky-swear.
When making statements of one side having a smoking gun against it or another, I'd imagine links and concrete sources would be involved.

I've not seen any in this latest conversation for the claims of Clinton/Obama colluding with Russia any more than such has been presented for Trump.

Unless, perhaps, you mean the uranium deal?


There's some very smokey metal bits between Clinton and Ukraine. Gun? Idunno.
Ambergris
I know it looks like I'm arguing with you -- I'm only intending to argue near you. Right? Like, "Okay, I see how you're responding to this stuff you're talking about -- here's how I respond to that same stuff." I'm not going point-for-point or whatever, but let's clarify a few things all the same.

it's not to appease the left


It's a tactical retreat from a paper tiger. You don't have to do that, paper tigers don't bite.

"lol hilary did more" is a pretty ebin thing to say when I didn't disagree.


I don't know what "ebin" means. I'm not saying "lol hilary did more," I'm saying EVERYBODY does it all the time (thought I was clear on that). So who benefits from isolating Russia's existence and painting it as suddenly a new and disruptive force in the election? That's your spin doctor right there. Again -- not trying to set up a balance and see who had the most interference (though like you said, that would be a fun game for us) -- I'm only pointing out the intellectual dishonesty of the people putting the argument out there in the first place.

RT.


I don't know what "RT" means..... Rex Tillerson?
<Snipped quote>
Did I say I have one? I'm just saying that the Russians did influence the American elections, in some way. I mean, RT alone is proof of that. Maybe they didn't do it illicitly, maybe they did, but they did something; my point was that denying there was any involvement of Russians gives libtards ammunition.


I reject the notion that I must accept the vaguest of allegations in the absence of evidence in order to appease the Left. Show me specific, documented wrongdoing and I will condemn it. Until then, absolutely all of the Russia narrative is propaganda. That's not me being paranoid, that's how democratic politics (especially two-party politics) works -- it is all spin, all of it, all the time. Why are we talking about Russia instead of Saudi? Spin, and no other reason. Saudi's been "influencing" our elections, tangibly, directly, demonstrably, for decades -- and not just with memes, with hundreds of billions of actual real dollars. Why aren't we talking about that -- well, both parties are guilty as sin, so nobody can spin it to their favor. I mean Trump could, they were all in for Hilary, but the GOP itself takes their money all the time, so there's no calling-out.

Well that's starting to ramble. My point is -- no. I'm not playing a game with loaded dice. "Russian interference" is a meaningless term and I assign it no value whatsoever. Not. Playing. Along.

Speaking of actual demonstrable wrongdoing, wanna look into ineligible votes? Election fraud? No? Then y'all can shut the fuck up about imaginary russians.
So Comrade Detective just came out on Amazon. It's mildly political, and amusing.
© 2007-2024
BBCode Cheatsheet