Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 169: Check Your (Attorney-Client) Privilege

(+) Yeah! (+)

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Interesting how when Iran said "hey we're stopping our nuke program and agree to be inspected", Republicans were like "nah", but North Korea is saying the same thing and they're practically shaking with excitement.

I'd be ok with a world without nukes, but this dissonance is wild.

This came out like 30 minutes ago and you are already categorizing what people are saying in regards to it? 0.o
---

Corrik posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Interesting how when Iran said "hey we're stopping our nuke program and agree to be inspected", Republicans were like "nah", but North Korea is saying the same thing and they're practically shaking with excitement.

I'd be ok with a world without nukes, but this dissonance is wild.

This came out like 30 minutes ago and you are already categorizing what people are saying in regards to it? 0.o

I don't follow.

Everywhere I look, Republicans seem pretty happy about this.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Corrik posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Interesting how when Iran said "hey we're stopping our nuke program and agree to be inspected", Republicans were like "nah", but North Korea is saying the same thing and they're practically shaking with excitement.

I'd be ok with a world without nukes, but this dissonance is wild.

This came out like 30 minutes ago and you are already categorizing what people are saying in regards to it? 0.o

I don't follow.

Everywhere I look, Republicans seem pretty happy about this.

I think everyone is happy at the possibility of someone we felt we may be on the verge of war with and was threatening us with missiles may stop doing so.

That said, many people believe this is possibly a ruse or a lie to get some aid. Their past history is exactly why many are skeptical right now.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Interesting how when Iran said "hey we're stopping our nuke program and agree to be inspected", Republicans were like "nah", but North Korea is saying the same thing and they're practically shaking with excitement.

I'd be ok with a world without nukes, but this dissonance is wild.

It's also interesting to note that the actual TEXT of what Kim Jong-Un's statement said is that they aren't testing these things anymore....because they don't need to.

As in the program is complete. They have nuclear weapons and ICBMs to attach them to. They consider this to be the chip they needed to extract the concessions that they have long wanted from the US and South Korea and that's why we are having talks about an end to the Korean War.

But people who only pay attention intermittently like say MOST people a lot of this context is missing.
---

Eddv posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Interesting how when Iran said "hey we're stopping our nuke program and agree to be inspected", Republicans were like "nah", but North Korea is saying the same thing and they're practically shaking with excitement.

I'd be ok with a world without nukes, but this dissonance is wild.

It's also interesting to note that the actual TEXT of what Kim Jong-Un's statement said is that they aren't testing these things anymore....because they don't need to.

As in the program is complete. They have nuclear weapons and ICBMs to attach them to. They consider this to be the chip they needed to extract the concessions that they have long wanted from the US and South Korea and that's why we are having talks about an end to the Korean War.

But people who only pay attention intermittently like say MOST people a lot of this context is missing.

I highly doubt they have icbms that can carry nuclear warheads now. No one thinks they do.

That said, you are reading into it how you want to, and while maybe right, it is not certain.

"Kim has committed himself to the path of denuclearization and will now focus solely on economic growth and improving the national economy, the source said.
The North Korean leader has realized the best path forward is to normalize relations with other countries, the source added. "

Whether this is true or not remains to be seen.

Denuclearization does not mean I have nukes and am keeping them.

That said, I think this has more to do with the cave in at the mountain test site, personally.
---

We are going to find out very soon just how serious North Korea truly is.

https://edition-m.cnn.com/2018/04/19/asia/north-korea-us-forces-korean-peninsula-intl/index.html
---

http://abc7ny.com/3367237/

Lol
---

Corrik posted...

http://abc7ny.com/3367237/

Lol

Ok this is dumb as hell.

When I was 4, every one of my friends was my "best friend".
---

Corrik delivering Full Throttle quality content now
---

Apparently she is not done. Enjoying her moment of Fame.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/21/fresno-state-prof-blasts-farmers-as-stupid-trump-supporters-in-video-rife-with-f-bombs.html

I dare to even say at one point she implies a threat.
---

There are crazies on both sides. She shouldn't be given any attention.
---

Well if shes making threats then you kinda have to give her attention
---

Remember when NRA Board Member Ted Nugent said democrats should be 'shot on sight'.

I don't remember any outrage from Republicans then. Maybe I'm wrong though.
---

Dancedreamer posted...

Remember when NRA Board Member Ted Nugent said democrats should be 'shot on sight'.

I don't remember any outrage from Republicans then. Maybe I'm wrong though.

Are you trying to justify a position in which you should not be outraged if someone would threaten to shoot someone?
---

Corrik posted...

We are going to find out very soon just how serious North Korea truly is.

https://edition-m.cnn.com/2018/04/19/asia/north-korea-us-forces-korean-peninsula-intl/index.html

I see a couple possibilities here.

1) Trump read the situation correctly and North Korea is now willing to talk because they really, really don't want a U.S. invasion and are now not certain that continuing to push wouldn't result in said invasion.

2) North Korea has achieved the goals of their nuclear program - they have nuclear warheads and the missiles to deliver them to, say, Seoul and Tokyo - and have no further need for it, meaning they're free to throw in "we'll stop testing our missile program" as a bargaining chip.

3) A combination of internal and external factors has put so much pressure on the North Korean leadership that more than anything they just want things to calm down for a few years to help maintain the stability of their regime, and they're willing to give up some foreign policy concessions to get that stability.

Right now I'm leaning towards a combination of 2 and 3, though that's mostly because I have zero trust in Trump's judgment.
---

Not_an_Owl posted...

Corrik posted...

We are going to find out very soon just how serious North Korea truly is.

https://edition-m.cnn.com/2018/04/19/asia/north-korea-us-forces-korean-peninsula-intl/index.html

I see a couple possibilities here.

1) Trump read the situation correctly and North Korea is now willing to talk because they really, really don't want a U.S. invasion and are now not certain that continuing to push wouldn't result in said invasion.

2) North Korea has achieved the goals of their nuclear program - they have nuclear warheads and the missiles to deliver them to, say, Seoul and Tokyo - and have no further need for it, meaning they're free to throw in "we'll stop testing our missile program" as a bargaining chip.

3) A combination of internal and external factors has put so much pressure on the North Korean leadership that more than anything they just want things to calm down for a few years to help maintain the stability of their regime, and they're willing to give up some foreign policy concessions to get that stability.

Right now I'm leaning towards a combination of 2 and 3, though that's mostly because I have zero trust in Trump's judgment.

Well, I am positive it is not 2 in my opinion. They have never demonstrated a successful test of an icbm with a nuclear warhead on it. They also are talking about completely denuclearizing, which would be destroying any and all of their nuclear warheads and allowing inspectors in.

2 really doesn't make sense.

From what I have gathered from a few sources is that North Korea has been building a lot of new hotels, airports, and tourism things lately. That their economy is not as dire as it once was. They have not been starving for awhile.

That Korea's leader has been slowly paving the way for economic success, and to continue doing so, he needs to have sanctions removed and normalize relations with other countries to help continue this path towards economic boom.

North Korea is not asking for US troops to leave the Korean Peninsula, is offering to completelt denuclearize, and is asking for our guarranteed of protection.

While this can all be bullshit, if it is not I think it points back to their failed tests, that mountain collapsing after their test, and having decided to abandon the program and just declare it a success to the people while moving forward under a new path. They thought nukes could bring the world to recognize them. Trump was willing to call their bluff and was willing to go to war with them. They knew they weren't going to have the time to perfect the nukes, coupled with setbacks, before American intervention happened. So, they are dropping it.

That is assuming it isn't all bullshit which it could be.
---

Corrik posted...

Are you trying to justify a position in which you should not be outraged if someone would threaten to shoot someone?

You mean like Ted Nugent and Dana Loesch do all the time?

If you don't have to show outrage at them, I don't see why I should be expected to show outrage at this professor I've never heard of before today. Maybe I should just pull out the conservative playbook and say she's a false flag paid protester by the Koch Brothers. Or just shout FAKE NEWS. Or say it wasn't really a threat and the context was 'misunderstood'.

Or maybe you did show outrage, and I missed it. In which case you could have simply said "I was outraged at those too!" But you didn't, so I'm taking it on your implication that you didn't.
---

Dancedreamer posted...

Remember when NRA Board Member Ted Nugent said democrats should be 'shot on sight'.

I don't remember any outrage from Republicans then. Maybe I'm wrong though.

whataboutisms are bad for both sides. Really I think it's something where you say "That's terrible" and move on. Maybe if the threats seem legitimate having some extra scrutiny from the FBI to ensure nothing dangerous transpires but not really something worth discussing over and over.
---

Dancedreamer posted...

Corrik posted...

Are you trying to justify a position in which you should not be outraged if someone would threaten to shoot someone?

You mean like Ted Nugent and Dana Loesch do all the time?

If you don't have to show outrage at them, I don't see why I should be expected to show outrage at this professor I've never heard of before today. Maybe I should just pull out the conservative playbook and say she's a false flag paid protester by the Koch Brothers. Or just shout FAKE NEWS. Or say it wasn't really a threat and the context was 'misunderstood'.

Or maybe you did show outrage, and I missed it. In which case you could have simply said "I was outraged at those too!" But you didn't, so I'm taking it on your implication that you didn't.

Is this a lot of dancing around the issue to find a way to say you would support a threat to shoot someone?

I mean, you are all but saying you do, in a ton of words.
---

Corrik posted...

Is this a lot of dancing around the issue to find a way to say you would support a threat to shoot someone?

I mean, you are all but saying you do, in a ton of words.

Is this your round about way of saying it's okay to say "Democrats should be shot on sight"?

I mean, you are all but saying you do, except without outright stating it.

Instead of saying "Ted Nugent and Dana Loesch were wrong too!" you decide to dance around them. Why is that? I mean both of them are far more well known than some random professor that nobody who doesn't go to their university has heard of before today.

All I'm asking for is a little consistency. Either they're all wrong (which I think they are, but I find it hard to get outraged when Republicans won't denounce Nugent and Loesch for saying what they did) or they're all right.
---

The only reason this is even news is that its so rare on the left while it's just a casual common thing for the right. Desensitization.
---

Dancedreamer posted...

Corrik posted...

Is this a lot of dancing around the issue to find a way to say you would support a threat to shoot someone?

I mean, you are all but saying you do, in a ton of words.

Is this your round about way of saying it's okay to say "Democrats should be shot on sight"?

I mean, you are all but saying you do, except without outright stating it.

Instead of saying "Ted Nugent and Dana Loesch were wrong too!" you decide to dance around them. Why is that? I mean both of them are far more well known than some random professor that nobody who doesn't go to their university has heard of before today.

All I'm asking for is a little consistency. Either they're all wrong (which I think they are, but I find it hard to get outraged when Republicans won't denounce Nugent and Loesch for saying what they did) or they're all right.

I do not know who Dana Loesch even is. And, I am pretty much on the record as not caring at all for guns, so trust me I am not defending a NRA fucking boardman. You are just looking for a reason to justify it as being okay while trying to rationalize it.

That said, the woman here didn't even make a threat. She could have implied one based on how you read it. I doubt many are outraged at her "threat" due to the ambigious nature of it. I think many more are just appauled that someone who is responsible for education in a college and represents it is acting so ridiculous.

But, the fact you were looking to rationalize what is a possible threat of shooting people as okay because they were anti-republicans says enough about your politics.
---

LapisLazuli posted...

The only reason this is even news is that its so rare on the left while it's just a casual common thing for the right. Desensitization.

Yeah, I highly doubt it is a "casual common thing" for the right. *Rolls eyes*
---

Literally conservatives talking about blowing people away if they try to take their guns every single day. Literally not one day where this doesnt happen somewhere.

I mean for god's sake, talk about taking your guns to the street if Trump lost was a trending topic. Even politicians were bringing it up!
---

LapisLazuli posted...

Literally conservatives talking about blowing people away if they try to take their guns every single day. Literally not one day where this doesnt happen somewhere.

I mean for god's sake, talk about taking your guns to the street if Trump lost was a trending topic. Even politicians were bringing it up!

You need to get out of your shell sometime and see the real world.

The only thing you all even posted in regards to taking out guns if Trump lost was a joke post by I believe his last name was Walsh where he said if you Trump is cheated out of the election then we get our muskets.

Which was in response to an illegitimate result being jokingly responded to with revolution, in clear reference to the muskets of the American Revolution.

Not much different then if Darryl Dies We Riot.

That said, I do not doubt every day folk on both sides threaten to shoot people.

I kind of think we are referring to newsworthy events. What people are saying that actually have public jobs that could be at threat of being lost for their comments.

Just because the Right is more apt to own guns, would make you think it is likelier to happen more on that side. However, to act like it is some common casual thing is ridiculous also.
---

The crux of your argument is that if that teacher was a conservative this wouldn't even be news. And we both know that is not true.
---

Corrik posted...

The crux of your argument is that if that teacher was a conservative this wouldn't even be news. And we both know that is not true.

If she wasn't already in the news for the Bush stuff this would indeed not be news.
---

LapisLazuli posted...

Corrik posted...

The crux of your argument is that if that teacher was a conservative this wouldn't even be news. And we both know that is not true.

If she wasn't already in the news for the Bush stuff this would indeed not be news.

I highly disagree with that. There is a pretty good amount of examples of teachers saying controversial things being highlighted on both sides.

Though that does attack your own argument in that this is only news because she is a liberal where conservatives are desensitized to it from their own side that it no longer is news to them.
---

Corrik posted...

The only thing you all even posted in regards to taking out guns if Trump lost was a joke post by I believe his last name was Walsh where he said if you Trump is cheated out of the election then we get our muskets.

It was definitely not a joke post, but ok.
---

Samurai7 posted...

whataboutisms are bad for both sides. Really I think it's something where you say "That's terrible" and move on. Maybe if the threats seem legitimate having some extra scrutiny from the FBI to ensure nothing dangerous transpires but not really something worth discussing over and over.

QFT
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Corrik posted...

The only thing you all even posted in regards to taking out guns if Trump lost was a joke post by I believe his last name was Walsh where he said if you Trump is cheated out of the election then we get our muskets.

It was definitely not a joke post, but ok.

If you cannot differentiate between gathering muskets they do not own to revolt over a happening they do not like as a joke, then that is a shame. It was an obvious joke. We already discussed this. Not doing it again. I will remember the next time someone says they riot over something that you think that is serious also.
---

"Take your muskets to the street" is a reasonable joke to reasonable people.

But that same line to unstable people might make them jump to the wrong conclusion.

Just like how a racist will take "keeping criminals and other unsavory characters off our streets" to have very racially discriminating connotations.

That doesn't mean the original remark was made with that intent, but that's how it could be taken by some and then used as a rallying point to justify reprehensible actions.

.

And there is still the chance that messages like that are actually made with the intent to send the bad message under the guise of something politically correct. It can be difficult to sort one from the other. Its not as though someone will come out and say "well yeah i was using my remarks as a dog whistle for group X". Thats a judgement others have to make based on their previous statements and actions. This is also why extreme Trump supported can have a field day saying "well he had to say something nice because it was in his speech but you can tell what he really meant was....". And its hard to fault them on that assessment based on Trump sordid past.

.

Though it sounds like in this case NEITHER of you are defending the extremists on your respective sides so im not sure what the problem is.
---

Corrik posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Corrik posted...

The only thing you all even posted in regards to taking out guns if Trump lost was a joke post by I believe his last name was Walsh where he said if you Trump is cheated out of the election then we get our muskets.

It was definitely not a joke post, but ok.

If you cannot differentiate between gathering muskets they do not own to revolt over a happening they do not like as a joke, then that is a shame. It was an obvious joke. We already discussed this. Not doing it again. I will remember the next time someone says they riot over something that you think that is serious also.

He wasn't literally saying "I'm going to grab an actual musket", he was using it as a metaphor to actually say "hey I'm willing to fight the government if it becomes tyraniccal (and Hillary winning would qualify)", and he personally explained that after the tweet on multiple news shows.

You keep stripping things of nuance and then acting like everyone is being unreasonable, and it's ridiculous.
---

Hey I see you guys are still arguing with Corrik.

Sweet.
---

Eddv posted...

Corrik delivering Full Throttle quality content now

now?
---

It'd be better if you condemned the teacher that made the threat, and then casually name-drop all the conservatives that do it, too, to compare her to them.

Shows consistency and puts people in a tight spot without deflecting the issue.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Corrik posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Corrik posted...

The only thing you all even posted in regards to taking out guns if Trump lost was a joke post by I believe his last name was Walsh where he said if you Trump is cheated out of the election then we get our muskets.

It was definitely not a joke post, but ok.

If you cannot differentiate between gathering muskets they do not own to revolt over a happening they do not like as a joke, then that is a shame. It was an obvious joke. We already discussed this. Not doing it again. I will remember the next time someone says they riot over something that you think that is serious also.

He wasn't literally saying "I'm going to grab an actual musket", he was using it as a metaphor to actually say "hey I'm willing to fight the government if it becomes tyraniccal (and Hillary winning would qualify)", and he personally explained that after the tweet on multiple news shows.

You keep stripping things of nuance and then acting like everyone is being unreasonable, and it's ridiculous.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/26/politics/joe-walsh-donald-trump-protest-tweet/index.html

"Former Rep. Joe Walsh on Friday defended calling on Americans to grab their "musket" if Hillary Clinton is elected president, insisting it was not an incitement to armed revolution.
"When I said grab your musket, I meant, look, if Hillary Clinton wins, if she wins fair and square, then the anger that a lot of Americans have towards our political system -- and she's part of that -- we gotta double down and triple down and do whatever we can to defend our freedom," he told CNN's Chris Cuomo said on "New Day."
The former Illinois congressman said he's used the phrase "grab your musket" multiple times over the past several years but never meant that Donald Trump supporters should literally reach for their firearms.

"If I wanted people to take up arms, why would I recommend people take up an antique like a musket?" Walsh asked. "That's just silly."

*rolls eyes* okay
---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Samurai7 posted...

whataboutisms are bad for both sides. Really I think it's something where you say "That's terrible" and move on. Maybe if the threats seem legitimate having some extra scrutiny from the FBI to ensure nothing dangerous transpires but not really something worth discussing over and over.

QFT

---

https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2018/03/28/joe-walsh-im-going-grab-my-musket-and-im-going-do-whatever-i-have-do-defend-my-second-amendment/219761

Its audio before you try and deflect by the source:

We need to be at the ready. They're coming for it. They're coming for it. A growing segment in America is coming for the Second Amendment, and I'm not going to take it lying down. Are you?

[]

I'm going to grab my musket, and I'm going to do whatever I have to do to defend my Second Amendment rights. I'll do whatever I have to do to defend my Second Amendment rights. No government, no government in this country, no government in this country, is going to tell me that I cannot carry a firearm. That has got to be your attitude. That's got to be my attitude. Without that attitude, we will lose. We will lose<

Oh weird, Corrik.

Its almost like Joe Walsh is using a very specific dog whistle instead of uttering the exact words lets plot sedition in order to rile people up and avoid responsibility?
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2018/03/28/joe-walsh-im-going-grab-my-musket-and-im-going-do-whatever-i-have-do-defend-my-second-amendment/219761

Its audio before you try and deflect by the source:

We need to be at the ready. They're coming for it. They're coming for it. A growing segment in America is coming for the Second Amendment, and I'm not going to take it lying down. Are you?

[]

I'm going to grab my musket, and I'm going to do whatever I have to do to defend my Second Amendment rights. I'll do whatever I have to do to defend my Second Amendment rights. No government, no government in this country, no government in this country, is going to tell me that I cannot carry a firearm. That has got to be your attitude. That's got to be my attitude. Without that attitude, we will lose. We will lose<

Oh weird, Corrik.

Its almost like Joe Walsh is using a very specific dog whistle instead of uttering the exact words lets plot sedition in order to rile people up and avoid responsibility?

He does not mean to literally get a musket. He doesn't even have one. Like, really. If you can't figure it out...

"If I wanted people to take up arms, why would I recommend people take up an antique like a musket?" Walsh asked. "That's just silly."

I mean the guy is a piece of work, and I hate I even have to defend his comments because you cannot understand them. But he is talking about standing up to the government. Not shooting people. The musket reference should make it totally obvious. It is an obvious joke reference to the Revolutionary War.

The quote you are even referencing is in response to going out and voting and getting others to vote. Losing is in reference to the election.
---

And before you ask. Yes. If he said assault rifle or something instead of musket it would have went from an obvious joke to a threat. Absolutely.
---

Corrik posted...

He does not mean to literally get a musket. He doesn't even have one.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

He wasn't literally saying "I'm going to grab an actual musket", he was using it as a metaphor

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Its almost like Joe Walsh is using a very specific dog whistle

Corrik posted...

Like, really. If you can't figure it out...

---

I am at the point where I really wonder how intentionally Corrik has to show off his stripes for you people to stop engaging him.
---

redrocket posted...

Hey I see you guys are still arguing with Corrik.

Sweet.

---

I mean it's pretty much just Tony right now.

Of course that's always subject to change.
---

Feel free to talk about other things, guys.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Feel free to talk about other things, guys.

Feel free to not engage in utter idiocy.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Feel free to talk about other things, guys.

This is difficult when the entire topic is flooded by people responding to dumb shit. It drowns out all other discourse and is frankly obnoxious.
---

explaining dog whistles to corrick is like explaining shooting stars to a fish
---

Play Rimworld
---