Page 147 of 156 FirstFirst ... 4797137145146147148149 ... LastLast
Results 4,381 to 4,410 of 4652

Thread: TRUMP 2016

  1. #4381
    Local talking head LittleFuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,614
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Trump Doesn’t Understand the Difference Between Treason and Unpopularity
    https://www.redstate.com/sweetie15/2...-unpopularity/
    Well, of course he doesn't. That's because with all his autocrat buddies, it's expressing expressing dissatisfaction with the leader, him being unpopular, which is the act of treason. It's an act taken AGAINST people like him, not something they can commit.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  2. #4382
    That's no moon. EyeKhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,133
    I was tempted to give this it's own thread, but since it's so squarely about Trump supporters, and right wingers in general, I thought I'd put it here. Anyway, this research finds that people with lower cognitive ability and lower education are particularly vulnerable to Fake News in that even after they are given definitive information that the Fake News was false, they still believe it - sort of like what happens with Lewk every day in this forum.

    Cognitive Ability and Vulnerability to Fake News
    Researchers identify a major risk factor for pernicious effects of misinformation


    “Fake news” is Donald Trump’s favorite catchphrase. Since the election, it has appeared in some 180 tweets by the President, decrying everything from accusations of sexual assault against him to the Russian collusion investigation to reports that he watches up to eight hours of television a day. Trump may just use “fake news” as a rhetorical device to discredit stories he doesn’t like, but there is evidence that real fake news is a serious problem. As one alarming example, an analysis by the internet media company Buzzfeed revealed that during the final three months of the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, the 20 most popular false election stories generated around 1.3 million more Facebook engagements—shares, reactions, and comments—than did the 20 most popular legitimate stories. The most popular fake story was “Pope Francis Shocks World, Endorses Donald Trump for President.”

    Fake news can distort people’s beliefs even after being debunked. For example, repeated over and over, a story such as the one about the Pope endorsing Trump can create a glow around a political candidate that persists long after the story is exposed as fake. A study recently published in the journal Intelligence suggests that some people may have an especially difficult time rejecting misinformation. Asked to rate a fictitious person on a range of character traits, people who scored low on a test of cognitive ability continued to be influenced by damaging information about the person even after they were explicitly told the information was false. The study is significant because it identifies what may be a major risk factor for vulnerability to fake news.

    Ghent University researchers Jonas De keersmaecker and Arne Roets first had over 400 subjects take a personality test. They then randomly assigned each subject to one of two conditions. In the experimental condition, the subjects read a biographical description of a young woman named Nathalie. The bio explained that Nathalie, a nurse at a local hospital, “was arrested for stealing drugs from the hospital; she has been stealing drugs for 2 years and selling them on the street in order to buy designer clothes.” The subjects then rated Nathalie on traits such as trustworthiness and sincerity, after which they took a test of cognitive ability. Finally, the subjects saw a message on their computer screen explicitly stating that the information about Nathalie stealing drugs and getting arrested was not true, and then rated her again on the same traits. The control condition was identical, except that subjects were not given the paragraph with the false information and rated Nathalie only once.

    The subjects in the experimental condition initially rated Nathalie much more negatively than did the subjects in the control condition. This was not surprising, considering that they had just learned she was a thief and a drug dealer. The interesting question was whether cognitive ability would predict attitude adjustment—that is, the degree to which the subjects in the experimental condition would rate Nathalie more favorably after being told that this information was false. It did: subjects high in cognitive ability adjusted their ratings more than did those lower in cognitive ability. The subjects with lower cognitive ability had more trouble shaking their negative first impression of Nathalie. This was true even after the researchers statistically controlled for the subjects’ level of open-mindedness (their willingness to change their mind when wrong) and right-wing authoritarianism (their intolerance toward others), as assessed by the personality test. Thus, even if a person was open-minded and tolerant, a low level of cognitive ability put them at risk for being unjustifiably harsh in their second evaluation of Nathalie.

    One possible explanation for this finding is based on the theory that a person’s cognitive ability reflects how well they can regulate the contents of working memory—their “mental workspace” for processing information. First proposed by the cognitive psychologists Lynn Hasher and Rose Zacks, this theory holds that some people are more prone to “mental clutter” than other people. In other words, some people are less able to discard (or “inhibit”) information from their working memory that is no longer relevant to the task at hand—or, as in the case of Nathalie, information that has been discredited. Research on cognitive aging indicates that, in adulthood, this ability declines considerably with advancing age, suggesting that older adults may also be especially vulnerable to fake news. Another reason why cognitive ability may predict vulnerability to fake news is that it correlates highly with education. Through education, people may develop meta-cognitive skills—strategies for monitoring and regulating one’s own thinking—that can be used to combat the effects of misinformation.

    Meanwhile, other research is shedding light on the mechanisms underlying the effects of misinformation. Repeating a false claim increases its believability, giving it an air of what Stephen Colbert famously called “truthiness.” Known as the illusion of truth effect, this phenomenon was first demonstrated in the laboratory by Hasher and her colleagues. On each of three days, subjects listened to plausible-sounding statements and rated each on whether they thought it was true. Half of the statements were in fact true, such as Australia is approximately equal in area to the continental United States, whereas the other half were false, such as Zachary Taylor was the first president to die in office (it was William Henry Harrison). Some of the statements were repeated across days, whereas others were presented only once. The results showed that the average truth rating increased from day to day for the repeated statements, but remained constant for the non-repeated statements, indicating that subjects mistook familiarity for verity.

    More recent research reveals that even knowledge of the truth doesn’t necessarily protect against the illusion of truth. In a 2015 study published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Lisa Fazio and her colleagues asked subjects to rate a set of statements on how interesting they found them. Following Hasher and colleagues’ procedure, some of the statements were true, whereas others were false. The subjects then rated a second set of statements for truthfulness on a six-point scale, from definitely false to definitely true. Some of the statements were repeated from the first set, whereas others were new. Finally, the subjects took a knowledge test that included questions based on the statements. The results revealed that repetition increased the subjects’ perception of the truthfulness of false statements, even for statements they knew to be false. For example, even if a subject correctly answered Pacific Ocean to the question What is the largest ocean on Earth? on the knowledge test, they still tended to give the false statement The Atlantic Ocean is the largest ocean on Earth a higher truth rating if it was repeated. When a claim was made to feel familiar through repetition, subjects neglected to consult their own knowledge base in rating the claim’s truthfulness.

    These studies add to scientific understanding of the fake news problem, which is providing a foundation for an evidenced-based approach to addressing the problem. A recommendation that follows from research on the illusion of truth effect is to serve as your own fact checker. If you are convinced that some claim is true, ask yourself why. Is it because you have credible evidence that the claim is true, or is it just because you’ve encountered the claim over and over? Also ask yourself if you know of any evidence that refutes the claim. (You just might be surprised to find that you do.) This type of recommendation could be promoted through public service announcements, which have been shown to be effective for things like getting people to litter less and recycle more. For its part, research on individual differences in susceptibility to fake news, such as the study by De keersmaecker and Roets, can help to identify people who are particularly important to reach through this type of informational campaign.

    At a more general level, this research underscores the threat that fake news poses to democratic society. The aim of using fake news as propaganda is to make people think and behave in ways they wouldn’t otherwise—for example, hold a view that is contradicted by overwhelming scientific consensus. When this nefarious aim is achieved, citizens no longer have the ability to act in their own self-interest. In the logic of democracy, this isn’t just bad for that citizen—it’s bad for society.
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-to-fake-news/
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  3. #4383
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,612
    Quote Originally Posted by EyeKhan View Post
    I was tempted to give this it's own thread, but since it's so squarely about Trump supporters, and right wingers in general, I thought I'd put it here. Anyway, this research finds that people with lower cognitive ability and lower education are particularly vulnerable to Fake News in that even after they are given definitive information that the Fake News was false, they still believe it - sort of like what happens with Lewk every day in this forum.
    Fakes news. The persistent fear mongering over it and statements like: "underscores the threat that fake news poses to democratic society" are all about attempting to silence people.

    It starts with 'fake news' that is *clearly* wrong and then when it become accepted to banish it they then move into gray areas. We are already starting to see tech giants experiment with curtailing speech on their platform (something they are free to do) but we'll see what the end result will be. Ultimately the internet has made it so dissenting views will always be heard, nothing the liberal media can do about it but this is an exercise in seeing how far can they can get with censorship.

  4. #4384
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,612
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Oi, the "rule of law" party has exposed its soft belly of partisanship. Party first.
    That lesson was learned in the 90s when Democrats in the senate decided this in dramatic fashion. No one with any sensible brain believes Bill Clinton wasn't guilty of perjury, nonetheless they voted not guilty.

  5. #4385
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Fakes news.
    now that you've got your paranoid conservative talking points out of the way...

    what part of the research here is fake?
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  6. #4386
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,612
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    now that you've got your paranoid conservative talking points out of the way...

    what part of the research here is fake?
    Oh I haven't looked into that at all, more than likely there would be a relationship between hearing something regularly and believing it. The conclusions are what I have a beef with and why the focus exists.

    It isn't a new argument. When Fox News came about there was debates within Democratic circles about boycotting the network (IE if you were a Democrat don't appear on it) because they wanted to de-legitimatize it. The logic is fairly simple:

    1. Show the harm of hearing things that aren't true. Go with 'safe' things that everyone generally would say 'yeah that's fucked up' IE conspiracy theories like Lunar landing was a hoax, there is a pay gap between men and women and world is flat lunacy.

    2. Now that there is a problem, the government has to come fix it!

    3. The definition of 'fake news' grows broader to appeal to anything the left doesn't like.

    4. State Sponsored Censorship.

    Now just to be clear *I don't think we'll get there* if Democrats couldn't get the fairness doctrine back in place they aren't going to be able to curtail the internet. No way, no how. But the whole purpose of this anti-fake news movement is to control the flow of information and combat 'wrong think.'

  7. #4387
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Oh I haven't looked into that at all,
    you are a fucking moron.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  8. #4388
    All Worship Ragnarök Loki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    16,495
    The new "conservative" doesn't attack arguments because they are flawed; he attacks arguments because they have inconvenient solutions. A true definition of a snowflake.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  9. #4389
    Senior Member GGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,468
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post

    1. Show the harm of hearing things that aren't true. Go with 'safe' things that everyone generally would say 'yeah that's fucked up' IE conspiracy theories like Lunar landing was a hoax, there is a pay gap between men and women and world is flat lunacy.
    Reminds me of grade school multiple choice problems, where one statement makes the whole sentence false. (D) none of the above

    The rest of your post is so full of fucked up factoids it must be fed from Faux News. omg




    anecdote: I spent some time in the local Comcast office recently. They had a big screen for all those waiting, and I switched the channel from ESPN to the Weather Channel, then to CNN, then to a movie channel. Guy sitting next to me said thanks, he hated news and sports. We chatted a while, and he said you can never trust those news channels like CNN, because they lie. And that's why he watches Fox News. I asked how he knew they weren't lying? He paused, then laughed, and made a joke about incorrect weather forecasts....
    Last edited by GGT; 02-07-2018 at 03:55 AM.

  10. #4390
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    The new "conservative" doesn't attack arguments because they are flawed; he attacks arguments because they have inconvenient solutions. A true definition of a snowflake.
    Its mind boggling. We are starting to gather a pretty robust set of research connecting social media use, conservatives and cognitive ability in a non-pleasant light and instead of looking into the research the knee-jerk reaction is to deny it outright because their interpretation is an inevitable slippery slope of censorship He is defending the acceptance and spread of ignorance because an admission of the facts would mean...?
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  11. #4391
    That's no moon. EyeKhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,133
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Its mind boggling. We are starting to gather a pretty robust set of research connecting social media use, conservatives and cognitive ability in a non-pleasant light and instead of looking into the research the knee-jerk reaction is to deny it outright because their interpretation is an inevitable slippery slope of censorship He is defending the acceptance and spread of ignorance because an admission of the facts would mean...?
    Ironically, the article actually suggests some methods for addressing Fake News that don't include censorship.... If only he had read it.

    Except that even if he had read it, and read direct and verifiable contradictions of what he believes, he would continue to believe what is false.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  12. #4392
    That's no moon. EyeKhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,133
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post

    1. Show the harm of hearing things that aren't true. Go with 'safe' things that everyone generally would say 'yeah that's fucked up' IE conspiracy theories like Lunar landing was a hoax, there is a pay gap between men and women and world is flat lunacy.
    Wait, the "safe things" are those that are true? Are you actually mocking the desire to have true information underlying political decision making, as opposed to "risky" false information?

    I have always thought that true information, whether I like the facts or not, is the only information that should be informing politics. And barring the realistic ability to achieve that, at a minimum, when false information is identified it should be exposed and discarded. Do you disagree with this?
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  13. #4393
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,612
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Its mind boggling. We are starting to gather a pretty robust set of research connecting social media use, conservatives and cognitive ability in a non-pleasant light and instead of looking into the research the knee-jerk reaction is to deny it outright because their interpretation is an inevitable slippery slope of censorship He is defending the acceptance and spread of ignorance because an admission of the facts would mean...?
    I'm not denying anything, I just don't see it being relevant in public policy making for any country with freedom of speech.

  14. #4394
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,612
    Quote Originally Posted by EyeKhan View Post
    Wait, the "safe things" are those that are true? Are you actually mocking the desire to have true information underlying political decision making, as opposed to "risky" false information?

    I have always thought that true information, whether I like the facts or not, is the only information that should be informing politics. And barring the realistic ability to achieve that, at a minimum, when false information is identified it should be exposed and discarded. Do you disagree with this?
    'Safe things' being items that almost everyone with basic working knowledge of how the world works would agree with. The 'lunar landing was fake' is something that nearly 99% of the population think is ridiculous. The idea is that you start slow and gradually build it up. Another example would be "Hey saying Hitler did nothing wrong is racist and should be condemned." Almost no one will disagree. However the goal posts move to "I identify as an attack helicopter is a trans-phobic meme that should be treated just like saying Hitler did nothing wrong!" The example of slowly boiling a frog (yes I know the frog does jump).

    False information *should* be exposed however who makes the choice on what is false? The government? Hah you want Trump to decide what is true or not? Oh the media? Pfft. Ultimately people get to choose not some central authority on what they believe in. It is a shame when people don't understand basic facts (such as all things being equal if you increases the consequences of something people will be less likely to do an activity) but you still get people like Khen who exist. You can try to educate them using words but you can't try to re-educate them at the point of the gun. And that is the end game, liberals have a long history of attempting to silence dissent.

  15. #4395
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    13,519
    Quote Originally Posted by EyeKhan View Post
    Wait, the "safe things" are those that are true? Are you actually mocking the desire to have true information underlying political decision making, as opposed to "risky" false information?
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Reminds me of grade school multiple choice problems, where one statement makes the whole sentence false. (D) none of the above

    The rest of your post is so full of fucked up factoids it must be fed from Faux News.
    Guys, look. Whenever Lewk tries to troll you like this, it's helpful to remember that you're dealing with an adult who believes the earth was created 6000 years ago by an invisible beard on the sky and populated with humans and dinosaurs but the dinosaurs died because the beard made it rain a lot but elephants survived because they were on a boat. It's basically the dumbest belief held by anyone on this forum, the ultimate fake news. When a young Earth Creationist makes fun of flat-Earthers, he should be met with nothing but ridicule. We already know his position on absurdly false beliefs.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  16. #4396
    That's no moon. EyeKhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,133
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    Guys, look. Whenever Lewk tries to troll you like this, it's helpful to remember that you're dealing with an adult who believes the earth was created 6000 years ago by an invisible beard on the sky and populated with humans and dinosaurs but the dinosaurs died because the beard made it rain a lot but elephants survived because they were on a boat. It's basically the dumbest belief held by anyone on this forum, the ultimate fake news. When a young Earth Creationist makes fun of flat-Earthers, he should be met with nothing but ridicule. We already know his position on absurdly false beliefs.
    Yeah, okay. I forgot about that. And then there's the irony of holding hardcore Christian beliefs while simultaneously supporting such anti-Christian policy. If his beliefs are right, and his political devotions don't change, he's going to have a hard time at his post-life Judgement.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  17. #4397
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    I'm not denying anything, I just don't see it being relevant in public policy making for any country with freedom of speech.
    You're denying that ignorance is something that needs addressed from all levels.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  18. #4398
    ======== Timbuk2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,959
    Has Lewk every explicity stated a belief in YEC? I know he's a bit fundy in the whole silly sky-god thing, but has he taken that silliness right out to batshit YEC level? I don't recall him ever stating so.
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    It's actually the original French billion, which is bi-million, which is a million to the power of 2. We adopted the word, and then they changed it, presumably as revenge for Crecy and Agincourt, and then the treasonous Americans adopted the new French usage and spread it all over the world. And now we have to use it.

    And that's Why I'm Voting Leave.

  19. #4399
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    13,519
    Are you suggesting I may be peddling fake news? let the people decide! Let him plead the fifth! Don't believe a word he says--look through his texts.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  20. #4400
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,612
    Quote Originally Posted by Timbuk2 View Post
    Has Lewk every explicity stated a belief in YEC? I know he's a bit fundy in the whole silly sky-god thing, but has he taken that silliness right out to batshit YEC level? I don't recall him ever stating so.
    Old earth creationism is my stance on it. The idea that the genesis days are literal days is kinda silly unless you think Adam got all lonely and emo REAL fast.

  21. #4401
    Unencrypted Wraith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,460


    We are certainly in the weirdest timeline.

  22. #4402
    Senior Member GGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,468
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    ...You can try to educate them using words but you can't try to re-educate them at the point of the gun. And that is the end game, liberals have a long history of attempting to silence dissent.
    You're the one who brought up Hitler.

    I'm not denying anything, I just don't see it being relevant in public policy making for any country with freedom of speech.
    The US 1st Amendment isn't an absolute right. Besides, "other" countries, even democracies with various protections for free speech, continue to debate whether denying the Holocaust (or saying "Polish death camps") needs a public policy and/or law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    You're denying that ignorance is something that needs addressed from all levels.
    That's right. And Lewk should be reminded that journalism and factual news still exists. But it takes effort to seek, read, and check multiple sources, instead of being a passive sponge for whatever Fox or Facebook (or even church dogma) says. I don't care if he's trolling, it needs to be said.

  23. #4403
    No one is mentioning the Dems memo yet? Even our town clown backed releasing it.

    In other news, Captain Obvious wrote a piece.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/ampht...a19_story.html
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  24. #4404
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,612
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    No one is mentioning the Dems memo yet? Even our town clown backed releasing it.

    In other news, Captain Obvious wrote a piece.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/ampht...a19_story.html
    The Dems memo should be released. If there are things that are truly national security level problems redact those limited portions.

    To be honest anyone who wanted the Republican memo released but not the Democratic one is a hypocrite. Ditto for anyone who opposed the Republican memo being released and is now in favor of the Democratic one. The only non-hypocritical positions are neither memo should have been released or both memos should be released.

  25. #4405
    Local talking head LittleFuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,614
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    The Dems memo should be released. If there are things that are truly national security level problems redact those limited portions.

    To be honest anyone who wanted the Republican memo released but not the Democratic one is a hypocrite. Ditto for anyone who opposed the Republican memo being released and is now in favor of the Democratic one.
    I assume you meant to say that anyone who was opposed to the GOP memo but was in favor then (not now) of the Democratic one. Because you yourself are "now in favor of the Dem one" since the GOP one has already been released
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  26. #4406
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,612
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    I assume you meant to say that anyone who was opposed to the GOP memo but was in favor then (not now) of the Democratic one. Because you yourself are "now in favor of the Dem one" since the GOP one has already been released
    I'm making the point that if you didn't want the Republican memo released you shouldn't want the Democratic memo to now be released. You can either be in favor of both being released or neither. Any other combination is hypocritical.

  27. #4407
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    13,519
    No, that is asinine. Favoring the release of the second memo, which serves to clarify and limit the damage, can be conditional on the release of the first memo. You don't need the treatment unless you have something to treat. I don't think people should take antibiotics prophylactically, but, if you've gotten gonorrhea, you probably need some sort of antibiotic. Sometimes your bizarre black-and-white approach to the world leads you to say some really dumb things.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  28. #4408
    Lewk is only trying to distract from the fact that the GOP memo is horseshit. He wants to legitimize lies and bullshit as a valid response/attack on truth. It's a spin on the equal airtime stupidity he tried whining about during the election.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  29. #4409
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,612
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    No, that is asinine. Favoring the release of the second memo, which serves to clarify and limit the damage, can be conditional on the release of the first memo. You don't need the treatment unless you have something to treat. I don't think people should take antibiotics prophylactically, but, if you've gotten gonorrhea, you probably need some sort of antibiotic. Sometimes your bizarre black-and-white approach to the world leads you to say some really dumb things.
    Oh so the memo was damaging? I thought there was nothing to see there.

    Transparency is a good thing, which is why I'm in favor of body cams for police. Open and transparent government can limit abuses. It is amazing how people are quick to jump on police officers as members of law enforcement but get hyper offended by the idea of looking into the DOJ or the FBI.

  30. #4410
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    13,519
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Oh so the memo was damaging? I thought there was nothing to see there.
    Are you an actual idiot?

    Do you genuinely not realize that misleading or false propaganda and other forms of disinformation can be damaging? Do you not understand that disinformation can undermine the trust essential to the proper functioning of democratic institutions? Are you truly so thick that you believe disinformation is inconsequential? Do you not value the impartiality of important congressional oversight committees? Please, help me get a better idea of the full extent of your stupidity. I thought I knew, but it appears there are hidden reservoirs of ignorance you have so far hidden from us.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •