How is that an unknown? She's not going to be indicted for anything because it's a fake and made up scandal. You have more chance of going to jail because of what you did as Secretary of State then she does.
-
Features
Bernie Can't Win
- Thread starter SLD
- Start date
How is that an unknown? She's not going to be indicted for anything because it's a fake and made up scandal. You have more chance of going to jail because of what you did as Secretary of State then she does.
Oh just advertise our plans why don't you?
It seems to me that if one were a truly die hard Bernie supporter, the best (and obvious) option is to turn out in big numbers to vote for a Clinton/Sanders ticket, and once she is in office, simply assassinate her, to achieve their objective of having Sanders as President.
But maybe that's just because I have latent psychopathic tendencies.
SLD
Contributor
Amen. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/29/o...ng-government-documents.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
She's not going to have any serious repercussions - except of course she will be dragged before several more endless committees in Washington investigating this bullshit. Actually they may try to impeach her. Good fucking luck with that one too. Last time they tried to impeach a Clinton it didn't go over well with the general public. But hey, feel free to go ahead and try.
SLD
Who made it up? The intelligence agencies inspector general in cahoots with the FBI? Obama?
arkirk
Veteran Member
It seems to me that if one were a truly die hard Bernie supporter, the best (and obvious) option is to turn out in big numbers to vote for a Clinton/Sanders ticket, and once she is in office, simply assassinate her, to achieve their objective of having Sanders as President.
But maybe that's just because I have latent psychopathic tendencies.
So that explains your love of nuclear power, GMO's and strip mines, and industrial agriculture. Okay! Now I understand!
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 40,439
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
It seems to me that if one were a truly die hard Bernie supporter, the best (and obvious) option is to turn out in big numbers to vote for a Clinton/Sanders ticket, and once she is in office, simply assassinate her, to achieve their objective of having Sanders as President.
But maybe that's just because I have latent psychopathic tendencies.
So that explains your love of nuclear power, GMO's and strip mines, and industrial agriculture. Okay! Now I understand!
I'm sorry. If I had realised how badly being repeatedly proven wrong would affect your emotional state, perhaps I would have let you remain ignorant.
arkirk
Veteran Member
So that explains your love of nuclear power, GMO's and strip mines, and industrial agriculture. Okay! Now I understand!
I'm sorry. If I had realised how badly being repeatedly proven wrong would affect your emotional state, perhaps I would have let you remain ignorant.
It's okay, Bilby. Now I understand the reason behind the things your argue. Thank you for explaining it.
You have an obsession with progressives being always WRONG. That appears to be the psychosis you were referring to.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 40,439
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
It's okay, Bilby. Now I understand the reason behind the things your argue. Thank you for explaining it.
Except that I not only don't have any such obsession; I actually agree with most 'progressive' positions.
I disagree when they are wrong though. And you are incapable of grasping that someone could disagree with part of a political position. You live under the delusion that anyone who isn't completely with you must be completely against you, and that is one of the causes of your many errors.
You have an ideology; and you defend it as an ideological person always does - by casting any dissent as immoral and absolute.
I prefer to pick those positions that are supported by the facts. It leads to fewer stupid and harmful conclusions.
I don't think you are evil for holding the beliefs you espouse. Just stupid. That difference in our responses makes me better able to function in society, and less prone to gross error, than you.
I find it very sad when people stop thinking and start believing. But you know you don't have to think about GMOs, or nuclear power, because you already know in your heart that they are evil and beyond redemption. Knowing shit about them might change your mind, so you studiously avoid it, like a creationist avoids learning about evolution, lest he be tempted by its evil reality.
fromderinside
Mazzie Daius
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,945
- Basic Beliefs
- optimist
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 50,608
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Come on folks. Let's turn it back a couple notches, shall we?
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 40,439
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
And sometimes, if people make fucking stupid allegations, they get smacked down with a dose of harsh truth.
There is nothing evil here; unless by 'evil' you mean 'failing to show respect for someone who just made an unprovoked and factually incorrect direct insult'.
'Stupid' is not an insult in this context; it is an observable truth.
fromderinside
Mazzie Daius
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,945
- Basic Beliefs
- optimist
OK. Your post is still possibly rational. Its definitely not empirical. Saying or acting is a lot different from being 'stupid'.
No. I don't even accept that. Putting objective looking statements in a irrational bit is not even rational. Its irrational because its clothed in the appearance of objectivity which demonstrably isn't so.
Crazy Eddie
Veteran Member
These little threads blow by so quickly... I cannot remember for certain, but I believe I once attempted to introduce to you the possibility that two equally intelligent people can both look at the same information in the same context, examine that information objectively, and still come to completely different conclusions about that information. That IS a thing that actually happens, and it is not generally possible to select one conclusion or the other as automatically correct, nor assume the person who has the supposedly incorrect conclusion is less intelligent.
In that sense, fromder's point -- that a practical conclusion can sometimes be a morally or philosophical repugnant one -- stands. In the broader sense, your responses to Akirk contain a lot more butthurt and frustration than coherent reasoning. You don't APPEAR to be better able to function in society; you APPEAR to be making emotionally charged judgements, heaping vitriol on anyone who disagrees with you and then smugly patting yourself on the back for your superior intellect.
untermensche
Contributor
If they are not "informed" is it really information?
Or is it just data?
Crazy Eddie
Veteran Member
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 40,439
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
I think I recall reading that thread; I don't recall posting in it, but if I had, I presume I would have done so to agree with you - certainly I agree with you now.
I agree
True. But hardly surprising, surely? I don't claim to be able to ignore insults, particularly when they are based in direct falsehoods. I AM frustrated.
Not at all. I am making an emotionally charged response to an unreasoning and unreasonable judgement; and I am heaping vitriol on one specific person who doesn't disagree with me, but rather assumes that I MUST disagree with him on every topic, because I happen to disagree with him on a few particular issues.
Frankly, I am fucking sick of that kind of moronic tribalism; and I come here in part to get away from it. And I am completely comfortable with characterising people who act in that way as stupid. Being unintelligent is sad, but not worthy of abuse. Being intelligent, and then choosing not to use that intelligence in favour of dogma, is stupid. Very, very stupid.
Even more stupid is derailing a thread with a personal attack rooted in that dogmatic approach. Sure, I am being trolled. Sure, I could choose to ignore the bait. But I don't claim to be unemotional; and nor should I need to pretend to be. I reserve the right to defend myself against stupid attacks, even where ignoring them is an option.
Note that I don't think that arkirk is stupid because he disagrees with my positions on nuclear power, or GMOs. I think he is wrong on those subjects, but that's OK - he thinks I am wrong too.
No, I claim that he is observably stupid because he chooses to bring my thoughts on those topics to this unrelated thread; and because he thinks that it is OK to add to the list of my 'evil', things that I do NOT support, such as strip mining; and because he thinks it is OK to hijack self-deprecating humour to make a direct personal attack in that way. The reason he does this is because of stupidity and dogma, whichever way you look at it.
I don't mind that he disagrees with me. I do mind that he makes it personal, and that he continues his personal attacks into unrelated discussions. Both of which behaviours I characterise as stupid. Perhaps that's not quite the word I need. Hopefully this clarifies for you what I mean by it.
Crazy Eddie
Veteran Member
Fair enough.
repoman
Contributor
What is up with Bernie's comment about whites not understanding what is like to be poor like blacks?
I thought he was more skilled than that. Damn!
I thought he was more skilled than that. Damn!
Kevin Spacey explained it better in the latest season of House of Cards. That just came out this past weekend, though, so Sanders probably didn't get a chance to rip off the delivery of the line as well as he could have done.
Yeah, I cringed at that, too, but I think it's a no-brainer, if you've ever listened to Bernie Sanders speak at all before last night, to see that he meant rich, white people. The point of the comment in context is that people who enjoy any level of privilege don't easily see the plight of others who do not enjoy the same social status.
That kind of empathy requires a bit of work, a bit of self awareness, and a willingness to think critically about one's own world. A lot of people are not going to bother if there's nothing in their world to challenge them to even think about those differences in social status and privilege. It's these blind spots that create a prejudiced system, not racist individuals.
I expect he will clarify this soon enough.