Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First, if they are distortions, you can point to the facts to remedy it. It saves us the trouble of yet another accusatory claim that talks out of its arse.
Second, the bold is wrong. Completely wrong. UNLESS we are talking about subjective topics. You showed in the climate science thread that you use relativistic thinking with concern to objective topics, topics that can be quantified. This is wrong, no... there is no "what it means to me", this a fallacy, ignorant of all logical reason.
Germany contained many socialist elements. Its entire societies structure followed Marxism almost to the letter. Where it differed was with respect to internationalism. Propaganda is used in all forms of systems that are corrupt, even here in this country or does the constant claims of the Tea Party being a KKK group and consistent accusations (shown to be falsely created) simply "what it means to me" relativistic perceptions equally valid?
Is it embarrassing because of these stupid backwards hicks who don't know their head from their arse and are not as elite as the left is? Or are you speaking honestly with many claims on both sides in this forum?
You see, I don't respect your "view" because you do not respect proper logical positions, nor objectively measured ones. That approach to discussion when it concerns objective topics is propaganda or simply ignorance to support a bias. So if you can not delineate between that which is an objectively measured topic and that which is subjective, anything you say will simply be twisted opinion conjured up in your head.
That is what is really embarrassing and that is the problem with many in these topics. They can not distinguish between what is fact, and what is fiction they have created.
Facts are just facts and don't mean much unless they are seen in context and interpreted the right way, which is where people including scientists often disagree. For example when someone measures international wages even the poorest US-Americans earn many times what the average person in say Niger earns. But that alone is just a distorted fact, because a very poor US-American might still be worse off than a middle-class person in Niger. Thus I prefer common sense to naked facts. The context and interpretation of facts are usually the problem, as is the case in the GW discussion (I don't see no reason to carry that discussion on here in this thead).
I never said the Tea Party had anything to do with the KKK (though I dislike both), nor did I exclude other propaganda threads by the left side, either. I don't even open threads anymore with titles saying for instance that a porn star joins the Republican party, it can only be a nonsense thread in my view. 'Many claims on both sides'? Well, if you look at the threads the ones started by conservatives clearly outnumber those started by liberals, so naturally it is not a 50-50 thing, and I guess I know why. Whether you like it or not liberals are more associated with intellect than are conservatives, not just in the US, I read a study finding exactly the same for Germany.
This thread like many others is propaganda because it only serves to promote one simple view - in this case the conservative, anti-Obama position - at any price, namely by using a lie (the title and op). Why is it embarrassing? I guess you can't understand that because you are American and thus probably used to all those discussions. I found some of those threads funny at first, but after some time, when I realized people were quite serious about them, I found them embarrassing. And they distort the US because I am on another American board, where there are hardly any such threads, and it is even less international than CD. I am happy about the other board as it keeps me from despising US-Americans - after all I might be moving to the US in the not too distant future and want to feel at least somewhat OK there.
Russia gives up outdated missiles.....America gives up current missiles....America gives up what Reagan did, to bring Russia to the table.....Americans will now be fed at the Russian table....America will NO longer be the leader and be able to protect those that Russia wants to go after.....Decades of work is down the drain because Obama "thinks" super nations will leave countries alone.....Naive doesn't even begin to describe Obama. .
Yep....
Because we all know that we can trust Russia to DECREASE their stock pile of nukes can't we??
Fortunately, we know which nation to attack with nuclear weapons. Nuclear materials have small amounts of impurities which can be detected in the debries from a nuclear explosion. America has samples from Soviet, our own nuclear explosions, Britain, France, Pakistan, India, China and North Korea. You can get samples taken by IAEA when they inspect places like Iran which make fissile materials. The only nation that we don't have samples from is Israel which is not under the Non-Proliferation Treaty and has never tested one of its bombs in the open. What a lot of people don't realize is it takes a large industrial base to make bomb grade material. You don't do this in a hard scrabble camp in the Hindu Kush. It has to come from one of the nuclear powers or countries like Iran or Japan, Austrailia, Italy, Netherlands or etc. that can make reactor or bomb grade material. So if the sum of all fears happens we will who by design or accident supplied the material. Then the issue would be do you use nuclear weapons against a nuclear power that could respond in kind. Also use of nuclear weapons would not be contained to a single country, Take Iran for example, serious nuclear contamination from a US attack could affact the Saudis, Iraqs, the Turks, Russians, Indians, Pakistanis, Israel
and even Europe. They might be PO'ed.
In the event of an act of nuclear terrorism, my bet would be on the atomic material being old Soviet stuff. And then what do we do? Attack Russia?
Furthermore, the idea of getting attacked, taking samples, running that against available data to establish origin... and THEN nuking the crap out of some donor nation? It doesn't make any sense.
In the end, that's the reason for this big push for reduction with Russia: The nuclear material from the former USSR needs to be secured and dismantled. Because new nuclear material is so hard to develop, the biggest danger is existing material. If that means reducing the number of arms we have (so we could only blow up the earth twice over, rather than 10x over), so be it.
This entire nuke scenario is so outdated and ridiculous. Today the strength of a country is measured in GDP and patents, not in the number of nukes it has in its arsenal. Americans are the biggest threat to the US, their greed for cheap products, services, and profits, which gives them short-lived joy at the expense of their future.
Anyone mention that our domestic power reactors are being fueled with uranium and plutonium recovered from over age Rusian weapons cores? As case of beating the other guys weapons into killowatts.
Anyone mention that our domestic power reactors are being fueled with uranium and plutonium recovered from over age Rusian weapons cores? As case of beating the other guys weapons into killowatts.
Yes, uranium is quite scarce. And new uranium is mined in places like Niger - under horrible conditions endangering tens of thousands of people.
President Obama, fresh off the announcement of agreement with Russia to reduce nuclear arms stockpiles, plans to unveil a nuclear weapons strategy Tuesday that will limit the United States' potential uses of such weapons -- even in self defense.
Obama, in an interview Monday with the New York Times, said he would make an exception for "outliers like Iran and North Korea" in revamping the United States' nuclear strategy.
Sometimes it takes a while for these thread titles to really sink in.
The title would be more accurate if it said, "the USA won't use nukes to retaliate" since no one, except crazy people, are arguing for preemptive nuclear strikes which would be self-defense if there was the imminent threat of an attack. But that isn't what the op or anyone else is talking about.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.