It makes discussion completely meaningless if you cite evidence in defense of a claim and it doesn't actually support it. Why even talk at all, if nothing we say is intended to stand up to even the smallest amount of scrutiny?

Especially if, as you claim, it's so easy to find. Just find a ****ing source that actually says what you say it does. This isn't the first time you've done this, although in the past it wasn't a big deal because you actually acknowledged your mistake instead of trying to pass it off as a non-mistake.

Don't worry, the stock market bubble burst will be terrific. For rich people, I mean. You're ****ed. Elites have the US government to protect them from economic hardship. You don't.

2007 was a trial run. It showed exactly how the US government responds to widespread hardship: billionaires get to sell their bonds at a huge profit, investment banks get negative interest loans, megacorporations get bail-outs (coming soon: bail-ins!). All of these programs are designed to flood the top level, the economic elites, and exclusively the economic elites, with as much liquidity as possible while capital is at its cheapest prices. The **** you think happens after that? What'll happen after a hundred years of this ****?

There is no "not bad" outcome here. It's violent revolution, or fascism, or the eventual decay of our countries into unabashed feudalism, where all progress, and art*, and everything special about the human experience, is strangled to death by the extractive excesses of the coddled children we today call "billionaires". Literally the best thing we can hope for is that nobody starts throwing Jewish people into ovens.

(* NOTE: The Dark Ages are called the Dark Ages because there is little recorded evidence of cultural output. This is already happening to us because of excessive copyright laws. We are, no joke, living in a new Dark Ages, starting from around 1920. So, yeah. Have fun with that fact.)

Maybe it would. But the article you cited doesn't say the US did anything like hack "all of France's political parties and [compiled] reports". (Did you actually read it?) It says they gained access to computers in the president's office. It doesn't say anything about the US monitoring the French presidential 2012 election using clandestine means. What the article described seems much more similar to the US spying on other world leaders, which was reported on widely a few years ago.



The phrase "hacked the election" is really ambiguous, as we've said in previous pages of this thread. Obviously, if they illegally stole information from the DNC and Podesta but didn't use it to try to influence the outcome of the election, it would mean they didn't interfere. So there's that. But furthermore, if they stole the data but didn't interfere, it'd then be difficult to understand why one would say they hacked "the election". If that happened, what would it even mean that the election was the thing they hacked? Very little. So I'm inclined to answer 'no' in response to your initial question: they wouldn't have hacked the election. They would have hacked the DNC and John Podesta's emails.



So then cite evidence that actually supports your claim. Have a little respect!

It's not that rare. For example, whenever Facebook buys a company, it usually buys the company by issuing new stock and exchanging those shares for ownership of the company.

Okay, since it really bothers you, I'll never link any supporting material unless it's a 100% factual source which explicitly supports my point.

I think the bailout spent the last of the American people's trust the in the establishment. This is why we are getting Trumps and Brexits and things like that. There is going to be blood in the water next time the economy crashes.

We need a guillotine forum gif.

Thanks.

Although it'd be better if instead you just didn't throw a hissy fit when I point out your arguments don't hold up.

If you said anything of substance and didn't condescend, nobody would have a reason to be upset.

Like yeah, I do bend facts for rhetorical effect. Sometimes I'm straight wrong. You're still missing the point I've been getting at, which is that there is absolutely no grounds on which the U.S. can criticize Russia for meddling in the election unhypocritically. Unless you have some actual moral argument, you're just ****flinging because you prefer U.S. hegemony and supremacy.

Not all of us can achieve the euphoric levels of Sam Harris.

No, I do know that has consistently been your point throughout our discussions. But I still disagree, and I've already registered my disagreement in earlier discussions we've had talking about Syria and other aspects of US foreign policy. If you expressed even a tiny ounce of care by putting effort into crafting your recent arguments, I'd go into it again. But because you haven't, I won't. That way, you can keep going through the inane exercise of spouting off conspiracy theories and rattling off claims that you know have no basis in fact at all, but for some reason you make them anyway.

And besides, I know how it'd turn out anyway. I'd argue that you'd be better off thinking in less moralistic terms, and more like a realist. And you wouldn't understand my point, and you'd keep pointing out moral failures in American foreign policy, all the while failing to see that my entire point is that that approach is useless for understanding America's response to Russia's interference in the election.

How do I know that's how the discussion would turn out? Because we've more or less already had it before, and that's exactly what happened.

So no thanks. I'll pass.

Putting little effort into arguments is a step up from ~having none~.

Or are you admittng that American foreign policy is immoral, but since you benefit that's alright?

It's hard to tell what someone thinks when they're too afraid to make a statement on a topic.

It's also hard to tell what someone thinks when they won't craft coherent arguments. One can only imagine it means they're not thinking at all.



Lol. Everything about this response indicates my prediction was spot on.

Anyway, I meant what I said about not going into this more. If you want to see my "statement" on this topic, go back to earlier pages in this thread.

Well, since you apparently need a better response, here goes:



The way your phrased this is vacuously true: for instance, the CIA director once pushed for employees to donate to charity. Clearly whether the CIA does any good ever is not the discussion. The discussion is whether it does more bad than good.

Let's look at the 9/11 report. The report claims:



The most official, public-faced commission on 9/11 possible says it directly. 9/11 was a result of American foreign policy and action in the Middle East. Or you can trust CIA analyst Michael Scheuer discussing Bin Laden's motivations:



Terrorism is a result of what we do in the Middle East. Let me ask then: what was gained by the American people at large? The CIA helped arm and train people in Afghanistan. What was the reason? Was it in response to the Soviets? No, it was preemptive, Brzezinski said so, "American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention," which was predicted by Brzezinski to "induce a Soviet military intervention." And when asked: "And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?"

His answer: "What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?"

Guess what. You're right when you say:



Russia was humiliated by the collapse. It was the single worst economically regressive shock to a developed nation in modern history. The United States did not play nicely, either, and did their best to open up Russia to foreign investment with little concern for the lives of Russians. Guess what? Putin never forgot about that. There seems to be a pattern here: when you get involved in other people's business in a self-interested and harsh way, they want revenge. As such, don't do ******* things to people, and they don't seek revenge.

But back to the Middle East. Many of the Mujahideen reformed into the Taliban and al-Qaeda. The United States subsequently invaded Afghanistan. That war has cost us a ****load of money. Many people have died there. One of my best friends still experiences symptoms of PTSD from his deployment. Tell me: what did American people benefit from that war?

So, 9/11 was a result of the CIA meddling in places in the world they shouldn't have been in, disregarding the results of these actions on the local people, and led to a series events which resulted in thousands dead from a terrorist attack and a long, expensive war that gained us nothing. Tell me again: what did American people benefit from that war?

Regardless of whatever you think the CIA's intentions were, they were supremely reckless and ignorant when going into Afghanistan back then. Here's an NBC article describing something, as well:



Reckless, ignorant, and in complete disregard for the lives of locals. And caused 9/11, and wasted tons of money and lives in a stupid war. That's the political consequence of an organization like the CIA.



So, as you suggest, I read the debate you linked. I did, I read everything Chomsky said, and it's not true that Chomsky insults Harris much at all. The worst I could find was, comments that his arguments were ludicrous or embarassing, hardly an insult, but sure, still far from "each email", so your source doesn't confirm your point. Of course, Sam has a problem with some phrases:





As well, coming from Sam Harris:



(All sane people should be able to comprehend the sarcasm).



The fact that you could be so blind to how obviously ****ty Sam Harris is being, and how patient Chomsky is, says quite a bit about your personal beliefs and how you probably feel "attacked" by the sorts of things Chomsky speaks of. I assume that means you're politically closer to Sam Harris than Noam Chomsky. Which wouldn't suprise me.

Furthermore, we have this sentence from Sam Harris:



Yeah, Sam Harris, surely nobody from Iraq is appalled by ISIS. Surely nobody in the Soviet Union was appalled by the Gulags. Surely you're right here.

So when I said:



Sam Harris's view is the exact sort of thing I'm talking about. I'm talking about your reply, which is, funnily enough, similar to Sam Harris's point about intentions in global political action:



My point is the entire American "ideal" is a fraud, and that we don't fight wars for altruism. It's rather the opposite, we do live up to our ideals, because if you speak to many actual Americans, they are on board with violence and bloodthirst against Middle Easterners.

Let's not forget that Sam "Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them." Harris recently did a podcast with the author of The Bell Curve, and defended him.

The fact that you would defend this scum on any grounds is enough.

Interestingly, thought, when you discuss yourself as a "realist", I presume you're sensitive to Chomsky saying:



Which could explain quite a bit about how you come to your views. Even if you think the CIA ever has good "intentions", Chomsky responds to that as well:



I, like Chomsky, do not take "moral intentions" seriously when death and violence are predictable.

Consider your statement as well about your hawklike approach to Syria:



Obama was speaking off the script here. Obama later minimized the statement. Nobody ever took it to mean a hardlined foreign policy choice but you. IDK, did you ever bother reading the articles about Obama's red line? Or maybe you would have preferred stepping toe to toe with a nuclear power? Who knows.



Or maybe it's not a situation of "getting away" with something, but securing a strategic port in a strategic location. Unlike Iraq, Russia had an actual strategic end to securing Crimea.



By this, do you mean, the 9/11 Commission, the CIA analyst I quoted, are wrong? I'd be curious to know how you reply to that. Or are you just repeating Sam Harris again? It's hard to tell.



Less morally impoverished? Maybe because it's not even a moral view. Nor is it coherent as any other view. I thought you were the one, as the last quote states, suggesting that the Middle East operates on it's own without being a proxy for superpowers, but you're suggesting here that superpowers do happen to control world stability? Not sure what your stance is on this, because you don't have a clear one.

In any case, when we get to:



Thinking like a "realist", yeah? Since when have you seen me try to use moral thinking to understand America's response? Because I don't, that's only in your own head. I give moral criticisms because I believe in morality. I know not all of us do, but let's not get confused.

But is that really your point? That thinking in moral terms is poor to understand why a country acts? Of course it is. Nobody disagreed.

Maybe, if you choose to reply, this time you could provide sources, instead of disagreeing and backing out.

On a semi-related note, if you should like to profit from the misadventures of the CIA, I found this website today that may assist someone who is into that:

https://marketvulture.com

9/11 was an inside job

I didn't have will to sit through and read that post by Reid, but I will say that Chomsky and Scheuer are hardly unbiased critics of the United States government. I mean the latter endorsed flippin Ron Paul and Donald Trump, for chrisake.

Also what is your thing about Sam Harris. I mean the guy's not a genius and probably overstates his case a lot of times, but I would hardly call him scum.

(I could be wrong)

I assume you are talking to Reid, but in my case, his combination of punchable face and his extreme insistence on 'just trying to find common ground' that is totally unnecessary for a discussion makes me not really care about anything he has to say. He also believes that there is a deus ex machina in the form of brain sensing science that will allow us to eventually resolve all moral questions that is just a laughable religious conviction given his supposed hyper rationality, and in the light of such a thing not existing or being close to existing.

Again, Joseph Smith (or something) for atheists.

We should add a poll to this thread to find out how many people read the posts.

When I first saw the thumbnail for this video I thought it was a parody. It isn't.

I can't believe I missed this post!

It's very important that everyone in the Amerikkkas purchase the bulk of the Lehman's catalog and learn how to make diddley bows.

I guess so. Atheism as a political movement certainly leaves a lot to be desired intellectually.

I would speculate that the source of their weak arguments is the fact that the movement's origins lie in having picked fights with weak opponents. The broad assault they unleash on religion is reminiscent of the conservative habit of railing against "liberals" ~ {not conservative like me}. It's sort of a catch-all.

Well, generative grammar is one of the most important ideas in history, so Chomsky is going to be remembered longer than all of us and anybody else mentioned in this thread (including Hitler), and he'll be remembered fondly, too. So you might as well join history's winning side here.

We don't have either of these things in Canada. This is my best translation: It's very important that everyone in the Americas adopt a low-tech, self-sufficient lifestyle, and learn how to play blues music.

If that is what you meant, then yes, I agree.

He makes Charles Murray out to be a hero who's career was destroyed by political correctness, and goes on to defend the contents of "The Bell Curve" in that podcast. The book filled with racist pseudoscience and misinterpreted statistics to claim everyone but whites and asians are intellectually inferior and so we should stop expecting other people to act like us.

As well, read this:



He's literally justifying torture of Muslims and apologizing for genocide of people who have certain belief systems. That's not just an interpretation of the quote, he does attempt to justify torture. He does say that Islam is culturally incompatible with the west. They don't make people any scummier.

Okay, maybe they do. Whether he recognizes it or not, he holds extremely racist, reprehensible views on Islam that nobody who should know takes seriously. Or you can just quote him:

It's a damn shame too, because there's a large amount of interesting atheist authors to read. I think it's half due to the revulsion Americans have to reading, especially anything that isn't: the Bible, cheap thrillers/romance, or self-help/motivational.

Putin sure knows how to not answer a question.

There is no such thing as an "unbiased critic of the United States government", if you do anything but basically repeat what's said by the media then you're called biased.

Atlas Shrugged is two of those, possibly all three with a stretch of the imagination. (I hear it is a popular book....)

Yeah, that sounds right. When I think about it, he is sort of an intellectual sloth, but still likes to repeat himself, which basically makes him a demagogue.

Not too much of a stretc tbh!

It's a shame though, Atlas Shrugged is a really cool title, it was wasted on that book.

Lol. That's kind of an arrogant implication for him to make, but if we take that quote uncharitably at face value as you suggest, it begins to sound amusingly true.

This sounds like some drivel written by a freshman in a philosophy survey course....

(And not a freshman that I'd particularly like to meet, although we all live and learn right?)

You found contradictions in what I said where there weren't contradictions. If you fix it, maybe I'll be generous and move forward. But unless you do, I'm not going to try to articulate any new points to you, because you've misunderstood and distorted the ones I already made, even though you have everything you need to understand my position correctly.

And while you're doing that, don't bother with the Sam Harris/Chomsky debate. That was a swing and a miss on your part on multiple levels, first and foremost because that was not the debate I was even alluding to in my last post, so it's completely irrelevant to the present discussion (aside from the fact that you brought it in). You really whiffed it on that one. Furthermore, you didn't even mention the post of mine where I compared the morality of their positions, despite the fact it was the most relevant to your argument. It completely undermines your laughable assertions that my views have much at all to do with Harris', or that I was more sympathetic to his position during the debate than I was to Chomsky's.

Some major speculation going on regarding this fellow Rosenstein. NYT editorial board wants him to appoint an independent prosecutor, even if it costs him his job. The guy is a Bush appointee who was kept on under Obama and is a well respected bureaucrat.

Also, the fact that that Twitter post has to be broken up into 140 character chunks because the website started out using SMS is just a sad testament to technology and society.