JSO - TROLL OR IDIOT?

[CAA Flagship]

LAWL I had forgotten about that

btw is it better to use a small dog or a large one? id be afraid a large one would actually chomp down on a nugget


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'd suggest the bigger question is creamy pb vs. crunchy...

Aren't we polarized enough?

[kalm]

I'd suggest the bigger question is creamy pb vs. crunchy...

Aren't we polarized enough?

Crunchy if for using to make peanut sauce for Thai pizza.

[CAA Flagship]

Aren't we polarized enough?

Crunchy if for using to make peanut sauce for Thai pizza.

Remind me to kick you in the nut later.

[andy7171]

Aren't we polarized enough?

Crunchy if for using to make peanut sauce for Thai pizza.

Holy shit!

[YoUDeeMan]

Depends on what you mean by "troll". If by that you mean someone with an unpopular opinion that can stir the pot then yes. Some of his unpopular opinions are right, though, and for some that might disqualify anyone as a "troll".

Examples:

1. It's BS to equate a 40-year-old dude banging a 16 year old girl to rape or to some Jerry Sandusky that molests prepubescent kids. Age-of-consent-laws are silly magic numbers with no real biological significance. That doesn't mean you have to legally allow any kind of sexual relationship, but age-of-consent laws are another form of banning sexual relationships that lawmakers and society deem "icky".

2. DUI laws don't keep us safer and might be making us less safe. The data speaks for itself. The criteria for assessing if someone is driving impaired needs to change.

3. Don't know if I agree on animal cruelty laws, but he's probably more consistent than a lot of people that want different standards for different animals depending on how cool or majestic or fluffy and cute they are.

4. Don't agree with him on race and IQ, but to me it seems hard to reconcile Godless physicalism with genetic equivalence of all races and nationalities with everything that's known about human genomics and the genetics of race.

5. Dogma probably has influenced research on homosexuality, but I don't think it's relevant to same-sex marriage or gay adoptions or anything like that.

He's the loquacious, message-board iconclast.

Yeah, yeah...that's all fascinating and stuff, and makes for good theater, but it doesn't explain his recent jumping of the shark.

I used to respect JSO because he'd lean on FACTS to support his arguments. With regards to Trump, JSO has gone all batshIt with his wife's complaints with little regard to facts. Sure, he tries to toss out Politifact, which is a laughable measure, but that is a pathetic attempt. He is reaching on all subjects and is so obsessive that he has lost containment on his emotions.

His love for the Constitution? Gone.
His hope for the Supreme Court? Gone.
His love for conservative, but supposedly not hard religious conservative, values? Gone.
His aversion to a big government? Gone.
Limit taxes spent on welfare? Gone.
Any sense of Libertarianism? Gone.
The old, "why should we help the black/underprivileged" argument? Gone.
The, "business owners should be able to serve who they want" argument? Gone.

Every single thing JSO has supported and ranted about, vehemently, on this forum...GONE.

No, JSO has gone full school girl drama on this election...and that throws out all of his hard work on any of the above subjects. His reputation is ruined...all for the love, and support, of his wife's silly establishment, religious based tantrum.


The above (and much more) is why JSO is either a troll or an idiot.

He either believes in what he wrote and is currently trolling us, or he fooled us all. Heck, maybe he even fooled himself.

Or, he is an idiot that simply cracked under pressure.

There is a third possibility: God is finally speaking to, and through, him. Of course, that would make God an idiot.

[CAA Flagship]

Crunchy if for using to make peanut sauce for Thai pizza.

Holy shit!

Ain't nothin' holy about it.

[YoUDeeMan]

Aren't we polarized enough?

Crunchy if for using to make peanut sauce for Thai pizza.

I thought you were against the TPP?

[JohnStOnge]

I do not troll. The points of the posts in question is that the Russians want Trump to win and that our military has identified Russia as the biggest threat to us right now. And nobody has offered an effective rebuttal to those points. There's been a lot of personal insults directed towards me. But no effective rebuttals.

Which is pretty typical. I experience that a lot.

[JohnStOnge]

I believe it was JSO who said "It's okay to put peanut butter on your balls and have your dog lick it off because it's YOUR dog"
Yeah, the guy may come off as intelligent at times, but he certainly comes off as an idiot at times as well by not keeping his mouth shut concerning his personal desires

I don't think I commented on that scenario. But if I did I would say that if someone wants to put peanut butter on their balls and have their dog lick it off it's none of our business and none of government's business.

I think it more likely that I said that if someone wants to torture and kill their dog it should be none of our business and none of government's business because dogs are property. They are not sentient beings. They should not be regarded as having any rights. They are property. At least that's the way it SHOULD be. The whole concept of "animal rights" is a bunch of foolishness.

[CID1990]

I do not troll. The points of the posts in question is that the Russians want Trump to win and that our military has identified Russia as the biggest threat to us right now. And nobody has offered an effective rebuttal to those points. There's been a lot of personal insults directed towards me. But no effective rebuttals.

Which is pretty typical. I experience that a lot.

You obviously haven't been reading if you think there haven't been effective rebuttals to what you are saying.

Unless you support meddlesome US adventurism around the globe, in which case Russia IS a foil to that, and Hillary is your girl.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

I do not troll. The points of the posts in question is that the Russians want Trump to win and that our military has identified Russia as the biggest threat to us right now. And nobody has offered an effective rebuttal to those points. There's been a lot of personal insults directed towards me. But no effective rebuttals.

Which is pretty typical. I experience that a lot.

Kimd of like your "there's no there, there" effective rebuttal in the oligarch thread?

[houndawg]

I believe it was JSO who said "It's okay to put peanut butter on your balls and have your dog lick it off because it's YOUR dog"
Yeah, the guy may come off as intelligent at times, but he certainly comes off as an idiot at times as well by not keeping his mouth shut concerning his personal desires

I don't think I commented on that scenario. But if I did I would say that if someone wants to put peanut butter on their balls and have their dog lick it off it's none of our business and none of government's business.

I think it more likely that I said that if someone wants to torture and kill their dog it should be none of our business and none of government's business because dogs are property. They are not sentient beings. They should not be regarded as having any rights. They are property. At least that's the way it SHOULD be. The whole concept of "animal rights" is a bunch of foolishness.

There's one for the idiot column.

[Grizalltheway]

I don't think I commented on that scenario. But if I did I would say that if someone wants to put peanut butter on their balls and have their dog lick it off it's none of our business and none of government's business.

I think it more likely that I said that if someone wants to torture and kill their dog it should be none of our business and none of government's business because dogs are property. They are not sentient beings. They should not be regarded as having any rights. They are property. At least that's the way it SHOULD be. The whole concept of "animal rights" is a bunch of foolishness.

There's one for the idiot column.

I've definitely met dogs that are more sentient than the JSO-bot.

[kalm]

There's one for the idiot column.

I've definitely met dogs that are more sentient than the JSO-bot.

Are you suggesting that JSO is incapable of perceiving or feeling things?

Don't tell JSO that there are actually doggie anti depressants now.

Dogs perceive emotions. I don't know if they are self aware though...I've never asked.

[andy7171]

I've definitely met dogs that are more sentient than the JSO-bot.

Are you suggesting that JSO is incapable of perceiving or feeling things?

Don't tell JSO that there are actually doggie anti depressants now.

Dogs perceive emotions. I don't know if they are self aware though...I've never asked.

I asked my dog in 1988. He just looked at me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Grizalltheway]

I've definitely met dogs that are more sentient than the JSO-bot.

Are you suggesting that JSO is incapable of perceiving or feeling things?

Don't tell JSO that there are actually doggie anti depressants now.

Dogs perceive emotions. I don't know if they are self aware though...I've never asked.

He does display a disconcerting lack of empathy.

[andy7171]

Are you suggesting that JSO is incapable of perceiving or feeling things?

Don't tell JSO that there are actually doggie anti depressants now.

Dogs perceive emotions. I don't know if they are self aware though...I've never asked.

He does display a disconcerting lack of empathy.

I know when I was "alone" in the house and cranking one out on the couch during the Madonnathon, Jake would leave the room.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

I do not troll. The points of the posts in question is that the Russians want Trump to win and that our military has identified Russia as the biggest threat to us right now. And nobody has offered an effective rebuttal to those points. There's been a lot of personal insults directed towards me. But no effective rebuttals.

Which is pretty typical. I experience that a lot.

You obviously haven't been reading if you think there haven't been effective rebuttals to what you are saying.

Unless you support meddlesome US adventurism around the globe, in which case Russia IS a foil to that, and Hillary is your girl.

That's not an effective rebutal.

What this thread spun off from is me saying in another one that our military pegged Russia as the #1 threat. And I'm objectively correct about that. I linked a number of articles referring to the determination. The articles contained some opinions by the authors questioning the Pentagon's determination. But it doesn't change the fact that that was the Pentagon's determination.

Cluck rights about but offers no effective rebuttals. He just says stuff. Like saying I don't offer facts. I do. Like the fact we're talking about now (Pentagon's determination). Or the fact that Trump said he got a letter from the NFL about the debates when he didn't. Or the fact that Trump now talks about how stupid people were for withdrawing from Iraq when he's on video saying a few years earlier that we should declare victory and leave. Or the fact that he does the same kind of thing about our facilitating Muammar Gaddafi's removal when he's on video from a few years earlier saying we should use our own military directly to take him out. Or the fact that he was sued for housing discrimination by the Justice Department and his defense was that he wasn't trying to discriminate against Blacks but was instead just trying to avoid renting to people on Welfare.

And of course there's the fact that Politifact now has a whopping 4% of his evaluated statements rated as while 53% are rated as False or Pants on Fire vs. Hillary Clinton having 22% rated True and 13% rated False or Pants on Fire.

On and on and on. Cluck just chooses to ignore or dismiss things that tell him what he doesn't want to hear. Like Politifact. Doesn't like the message so he attacks the messenger. Same with me.

Anyway, that our military publicly declared that Russia is the #1 threat to us is a widely reported fact.

[JohnStOnge]

Now on to the inference Cluck is railing about:

It is reasonable to believe that the Russians want Donald Trump to win our Presidential election and are involved in trying to influence the outcome. Notice I didn't say it is a fact. I said it's reasonable to believe. And the "facts" behind that are things like this:

The FBI was widely reported to believe the Russians are behind the DNC hack:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-c ... SKCN10E09H

Putin has rational motives for wanting Trump to win:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... b33b82e015

To review: It is a fact that our military has expressed the opinion that Russia is the number 1 threat to the United States and it is reasonable to believe that Russia wants Trump to win and is actively involved in trying to increase the probability of that happening.

[JohnStOnge]

I do not troll. The points of the posts in question is that the Russians want Trump to win and that our military has identified Russia as the biggest threat to us right now. And nobody has offered an effective rebuttal to those points. There's been a lot of personal insults directed towards me. But no effective rebuttals.

Which is pretty typical. I experience that a lot.

Kimd of like your "there's no there, there" effective rebuttal in the oligarch thread?

That was just an assertion. But, as you know, I went on to provide a rationale for saying that in a subsequent post. It went like this:

The Secretary of State's office undoubtably fields all sorts of inquires and contacts. You can't say there is any sort of association unless you consider all of them and their outcomes. For example: The State Department went to bat for Boeing to get business with the Russians. A couple of months later Boeing made a donation to the Clinton foundation. Well, did every entity the State Department went to bat for make a donation to the Clinton foundation? Did every entity that made a donation to the Clinton foundation have the State Department go to bat for it? We don't know the answer to either question because there's not enough data cited by the article to make that determination.Is there any evidence in the article to establish that making a donation to the Clinton foundation made the State Department more likely to go to bat for an entity?

The answer is "no." That sort of thing.

[kalm]

Kimd of like your "there's no there, there" effective rebuttal in the oligarch thread?

That was just an assertion. But, as you know, I went on to provide a rationale for saying that in a subsequent post. It went like this:

The Secretary of State's office undoubtably fields all sorts of inquires and contacts. You can't say there is any sort of association unless you consider all of them and their outcomes. For example: The State Department went to bat for Boeing to get business with the Russians. A couple of months later Boeing made a donation to the Clinton foundation. Well, did every entity the State Department went to bat for make a donation to the Clinton foundation? Did every entity that made a donation to the Clinton foundation have the State Department go to bat for it? We don't know the answer to either question because there's not enough data cited by the article to make that determination.Is there any evidence in the article to establish that making a donation to the Clinton foundation made the State Department more likely to go to bat for an entity?

The answer is "no." That sort of thing.

So because the Clinton Foundation didn't take donations from every business that benefited from State Department support means there's no quid pro quo?



Now you're sounding like the goofballs (Ivy, Gannon, and SCOTUS's) that supported Citizens United.

How about the clockwork nature of the donations? Saudi Arabia gets jets, CF gets $ right after? That happened a number of times.

Not to mention what those jets were used for...you know...to uphold "democracy" in Yemen.

How about the Clinton Foundation recognizes a conflict of interest and doesn't take the donations while she's in office?



Nah...no

[CID1990]

You obviously haven't been reading if you think there haven't been effective rebuttals to what you are saying.

Unless you support meddlesome US adventurism around the globe, in which case Russia IS a foil to that, and Hillary is your girl.

That's not an effective rebutal.

What this thread spun off from is me saying in another one that our military pegged Russia as the #1 threat. And I'm objectively correct about that. I linked a number of articles referring to the determination. The articles contained some opinions by the authors questioning the Pentagon's determination. But it doesn't change the fact that that was the Pentagon's determination.

Cluck rights about but offers no effective rebuttals. He just says stuff. Like saying I don't offer facts. I do. Like the fact we're talking about now (Pentagon's determination). Or the fact that Trump said he got a letter from the NFL about the debates when he didn't. Or the fact that Trump now talks about how stupid people were for withdrawing from Iraq when he's on video saying a few years earlier that we should declare victory and leave. Or the fact that he does the same kind of thing about our facilitating Muammar Gaddafi's removal when he's on video from a few years earlier saying we should use our own military directly to take him out. Or the fact that he was sued for housing discrimination by the Justice Department and his defense was that he wasn't trying to discriminate against Blacks but was instead just trying to avoid renting to people on Welfare.

And of course there's the fact that Politifact now has a whopping 4% of his evaluated statements rated as while 53% are rated as False or Pants on Fire vs. Hillary Clinton having 22% rated True and 13% rated False or Pants on Fire.

On and on and on. Cluck just chooses to ignore or dismiss things that tell him what he doesn't want to hear. Like Politifact. Doesn't like the message so he attacks the messenger. Same with me.

Anyway, that our military publicly declared that Russia is the #1 threat to us is a widely reported fact.

That's not the point I'm making. I apologize for overestimating your ability to get it.

Of course Russia is a significant geopolitical adversary.

OF COURSE DoD claims that .... as they have been doing since 1946.

The point is that in an election year, the woman you are touting was a significant part of an administration that INSISTED with great snark that this was actually NOT the case- for no other reason than that the opposition was claiming that Russia WAS a problem.

Why did your choice for president go along with that? Because she was (and still is) part of a foreign policy mindset that all we have to do with players like Russia is play nicely, give them a few things they want, blame Bush for the bad blood, and POOF all will be well.

You literally have to be mentally blocking out the last 8 years to think that Hillary Clinton knows a single constructive thing about foreign policy. You have to be TRYING to fuck up to do worse.

Your argument is that Trump would be worse. Trump would not be worse (he'd be precisely the same but with less global adventurism).

So your complaints about Russia policy are hollow and moot, and certainly no argument in favor of Clinton over Trump.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[93henfan]

That's not the point I'm making. I apologize for overestimating your ability to get it.

Of course Russia is a significant geopolitical adversary.

OF COURSE DoD claims that .... as they have been doing since 1946.

The point is that in an election year, the woman you are touting was a significant part of an administration that INSISTED with great snark that this was actually NOT the case- for no other reason than that the opposition was claiming that Russia WAS a problem.

Why did your choice for president go along with that? Because she was (and still is) part of a foreign policy mindset that all we have to do with players like Russia is play nicely, give them a few things they want, blame Bush for the bad blood, and POOF all will be well.

You literally have to be mentally blocking out the last 8 years to think that Hillary Clinton knows a single constructive thing about foreign policy. You have to be TRYING to fuck up to do worse.

Your argument is that Trump would be worse. Trump would not be worse (he'd be precisely the same but with less global adventurism).

So your complaints about Russia policy are hollow and moot, and certainly no argument in favor of Clinton over Trump.

[DSUrocks07]

That's not an effective rebutal.

What this thread spun off from is me saying in another one that our military pegged Russia as the #1 threat. And I'm objectively correct about that. I linked a number of articles referring to the determination. The articles contained some opinions by the authors questioning the Pentagon's determination. But it doesn't change the fact that that was the Pentagon's determination.

Cluck rights about but offers no effective rebuttals. He just says stuff. Like saying I don't offer facts. I do. Like the fact we're talking about now (Pentagon's determination). Or the fact that Trump said he got a letter from the NFL about the debates when he didn't. Or the fact that Trump now talks about how stupid people were for withdrawing from Iraq when he's on video saying a few years earlier that we should declare victory and leave. Or the fact that he does the same kind of thing about our facilitating Muammar Gaddafi's removal when he's on video from a few years earlier saying we should use our own military directly to take him out. Or the fact that he was sued for housing discrimination by the Justice Department and his defense was that he wasn't trying to discriminate against Blacks but was instead just trying to avoid renting to people on Welfare.

And of course there's the fact that Politifact now has a whopping 4% of his evaluated statements rated as while 53% are rated as False or Pants on Fire vs. Hillary Clinton having 22% rated True and 13% rated False or Pants on Fire.

On and on and on. Cluck just chooses to ignore or dismiss things that tell him what he doesn't want to hear. Like Politifact. Doesn't like the message so he attacks the messenger. Same with me.

Anyway, that our military publicly declared that Russia is the #1 threat to us is a widely reported fact.

That's not the point I'm making. I apologize for overestimating your ability to get it.

Of course Russia is a significant geopolitical adversary.

OF COURSE DoD claims that .... as they have been doing since 1946.

The point is that in an election year, the woman you are touting was a significant part of an administration that INSISTED with great snark that this was actually NOT the case- for no other reason than that the opposition was claiming that Russia WAS a problem.

Why did your choice for president go along with that? Because she was (and still is) part of a foreign policy mindset that all we have to do with players like Russia is play nicely, give them a few things they want, blame Bush for the bad blood, and POOF all will be well.

You literally have to be mentally blocking out the last 8 years to think that Hillary Clinton knows a single constructive thing about foreign policy. You have to be TRYING to **** up to do worse.

Your argument is that Trump would be worse. Trump would not be worse (he'd be precisely the same but with less global adventurism).

So your complaints about Russia policy are hollow and moot, and certainly no argument in favor of Clinton over Trump.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

That's not an effective rebutal.

What this thread spun off from is me saying in another one that our military pegged Russia as the #1 threat. And I'm objectively correct about that. I linked a number of articles referring to the determination. The articles contained some opinions by the authors questioning the Pentagon's determination. But it doesn't change the fact that that was the Pentagon's determination.

Cluck rights about but offers no effective rebuttals. He just says stuff. Like saying I don't offer facts. I do. Like the fact we're talking about now (Pentagon's determination). Or the fact that Trump said he got a letter from the NFL about the debates when he didn't. Or the fact that Trump now talks about how stupid people were for withdrawing from Iraq when he's on video saying a few years earlier that we should declare victory and leave. Or the fact that he does the same kind of thing about our facilitating Muammar Gaddafi's removal when he's on video from a few years earlier saying we should use our own military directly to take him out. Or the fact that he was sued for housing discrimination by the Justice Department and his defense was that he wasn't trying to discriminate against Blacks but was instead just trying to avoid renting to people on Welfare.

And of course there's the fact that Politifact now has a whopping 4% of his evaluated statements rated as while 53% are rated as False or Pants on Fire vs. Hillary Clinton having 22% rated True and 13% rated False or Pants on Fire.

On and on and on. Cluck just chooses to ignore or dismiss things that tell him what he doesn't want to hear. Like Politifact. Doesn't like the message so he attacks the messenger. Same with me.

Anyway, that our military publicly declared that Russia is the #1 threat to us is a widely reported fact.

That's not the point I'm making. I apologize for overestimating your ability to get it.

Of course Russia is a significant geopolitical adversary.

OF COURSE DoD claims that .... as they have been doing since 1946.

The point is that in an election year, the woman you are touting was a significant part of an administration that INSISTED with great snark that this was actually NOT the case- for no other reason than that the opposition was claiming that Russia WAS a problem.

Why did your choice for president go along with that? Because she was (and still is) part of a foreign policy mindset that all we have to do with players like Russia is play nicely, give them a few things they want, blame Bush for the bad blood, and POOF all will be well.

You literally have to be mentally blocking out the last 8 years to think that Hillary Clinton knows a single constructive thing about foreign policy. You have to be TRYING to **** up to do worse.

Your argument is that Trump would be worse. Trump would not be worse (he'd be precisely the same but with less global adventurism).

So your complaints about Russia policy are hollow and moot, and certainly no argument in favor of Clinton over Trump.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'll add one more thing-

It is precisely due to the foreign policy of the Obama administration that Russia is as belligerent as they are-

Bashar al Assad is Russia's proxy in the Middle East and he always has been, as was his father. The Ba'athist party is an Arab model Soviet apparatus and was designed as such.

Anyone with even an elementary grasp of geopolitcal history of the Levant would know that to challenge Assad or try to bring regime change there would force Putin to act. When we drew our silly red line that this administration was SO sure would give Assad pause, Putin immediately put a DDG in the harbor in Syria. When we started bombing targets inside Syria, Putin sent his own warplanes to ENSURE that we don't drop a bomb or two on Assad, or provide air support to Syrian rebels. Additionally, Putin has been bombing the same rebels we support.

Shift over to the Baltic States. When Putin occupied Crimea and aided ethnic Russian troublemakers in Ukraine, we beat the NATO drum in Estonia ostensibly to warn Putin that we might somehow come to the aid of a country with a GDP less than that of Colorado and a smaller population. In response, Putin became more belligerent and began buzzing and locking up our warships in the Baltic Sea.

US action - Russian reaction... as predictable as the tides. ALL precipitated by this administration. And for what? To prove a point over two regions that have absolutely no strategic significance for the US except what we have made up in our own minds.

100% precipitated by this administration painting itself into a corner with red lines and stern rebukes with no intention of backing them up. 100% Clinton/Obama foreign policy.

I do not believe Trump would challenge Russia in this way, and neither would Johnson, and Russia would be less onerous as a result. There in only one dog in this race that would continue the Obama/Clinton policy of empty, antagonizing challenges to Russia and that is Clinton. How do we know this? Because she has already done it.

You are correct- Putin wants Trump in office because he knows Trump will lay off Assad and will demand NATO take a dose of realism. And that would be good for BOTH the US and Russia, not to mention our relationship with each other.

Pretty much the opposite of the idiotic argument you are making for a continuance of the Obama policies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk