I just don't understand you people who think personal attacks make you more intelligent or correct. It's such a Trump way to handle things, and part of why everyone thinks him and his entire party are such a joke. I really don't understand why you're still cheerleadering him.
I suppose that's one way to look at it.
Wikileaks recently did an AMA on reddit, and it was super disappointing. They basically just cherry picked questions they liked and ignored everyone asking them uncomfortable ones regarding their own transparency and neutrality and Assange's situation:
I was referring specifically to Dugin's Foundations of Geopolitics:
QuoteRussia should use its special forces within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism, for instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and rac
Also, completely unsurprised at renewed friction between wikileaks and Trump.
Isn't this almost textbook Dugin? Get right-wing nationalists elected, use them to divide/polarize the country further, and once they're elected you can attack their authority at every turn to make people trust the government less and sow more political chaos. The end goal being to destabilize western power
I'm not interested in arguing with retarded memes, I'm interested in discussing current events. What kind of rebuttal can I offer for this? What kind of points is he giving, what kind of position is he defending?
It's not that the rest of the world is full of smug assholes looking down on you, it's that you've got problems that you're just not willing to recognize. Take some personal responsibility for once.
Just man up and admit it: you like autistic memes, not facts and evidence-based decision making. You'll be a better person once you learn to recognize your own issues,
It's a lot of overworked bureaucrats and data analysts, not a lot of james bond explosions or evil supervillains. It really doesn't look as fun as the movies make it out to be.
Like, I agree with you, Lincoln did some shady shit too and overstepped his bounds more than once, but his opponents were literally defending one of the worst institutions known to all of mankind.
The fact that American soldiers have, in the past, been active participants in atrocity, makes his argument ("American soldiers would never do horrible things because we're good, nation-loving people!") ridiculously naive. They've massacred native americans, including women and children. The greater part of the US military actively chose to defend slavery. Etc and so forth.
The existing one is far from adequate.
The existing one (BCG - bacille Calmette-Guerin) is mostly for small kids and doesn't have a uniform effect across populations. It also doesn't help very much against the adult forms of Tuberculosis infection, which is a significant concern. And it also messes with the reactivity of the skin test people use to figure out whether you have tubercu
That reads almost word for word like a nazi propaganda poster.
Quote The American government, having recruited people that are patriotic, practical, and brave, and who have civilian families, and having reinforced those values throughout the training process
Replace America with Germania and I swear to god, there was a nazi recruitment poster I read that had almost these exact words on it.
QuoteLet us pretend for a moment that there is a defined 100 ways in which a government can be corrupt. Only 1 of these ways can be solved by citizens with guns. Do you think it is worth while to have the guns in this imagined scenario? I do.
Okay, that's fair enough. Personally, I don't think this possible perceived benefit in a few unlikely scenarios makes widespread gun ownership
The essence of modern propaganda in the information age:
Long story short, the internet has a LOT of information on it. This has allowed people to create a new form of propaganda never previously seen before.
The essence of modern propaganda is to get you to believe NOTHING.
If you believe nothing you see, then everything, both good and bad information is on the same level. Inane fore
But you don't have a *right* to own these things, and there are controls on these things as well (just cause you own a fighter jet doesn't mean the government's gonna let you buy GBU guided bombs for it.)
And no one's claiming they're being used as a "check against the government" either.
QuoteThere is a reason a bunch of ragheads with AK47s can be dangerous to even our military which is the most advanced ever in recorded history.
Yeah, its cause the US isn't interested in glassing them from the face of the earth with nukes (which has always been an option). The US has always had the power to utterly annihilate everyone in those ridiculous little proxy wars in Vietnam and A
QuoteAnd semi-automatic rifles/shotguns would be very effective vs the military. If some hostile force took residence in DC - do you really believe the president is going to bomb DC in order to kill the insurgents (ALONG WITH EVERYBODY ELSE??)
If I were a corrupt president running a corrupt government with a corrupt military, I sure would. Really remarkably strange to me that you can conceive o
It's perfect for shitty proxy wars like Vietnam and Iraq, but if the government is corrupt and ruthless enough to be a problem, I think its hilariously cute of you to think that the military won't be just as corrupt. There's never been a single truly corrupt government that's succeeded without military support.
Nobody in the military is gonna be afraid of a bunch of civilians with handguns and rifles. That may have been a good check on the military 300 years ago when America was founded and everybody used single shot muskets, but against a modern military with drones, gunships, mortars, and warheads, no amount of civilian-owned firearms are going to be a threat.
If we really wanted a check on the mil
As far as I can tell, it means that agencies will have to do less overlap collection - if the NSA already has access to some data, the CIA or the FBI doesn't need to waste its time gathering the data again, they can just submit a request to the NSA to obtain it. Will increase efficiency and free up resources for other things. It further means that the NSA can't censor or screen data
Personally I agree with Balrahd. It's quite sad when you have a huge portion of America willing to give credibility to anonymous trolls on the internet over professional data analysts who've spent decades working on stuff like this.
Personally, I think of it as the investment principle: after these people spent so much time, energy, and money pushing Trump, it becomes way harder to a
QuoteMcCain was almost killed on board Forrestal on July 29, 1967. While the air wing was preparing to launch attacks, a Zuni rocket from an F-4 Phantom accidentally fired across the carrier's deck.[85] The rocket struck either McCain's A-4E Skyhawk or one near it.[80] The impact ruptured the Skyhawk's fuel tank, which ignited the fuel and knocked two bombs loose.[86] McCain later