TakeYouToTasker

#facts

Finds photos of Bea Arthur circa 1990 to be strangely erotic.

It may start there, though I'm hopeful I can change his mind. I'll let him be the arbiter of if I can or not. I think it's an issue that's too important to write people off without at least trying.

I suppose that's a good thing, because even though it's not a guarantee that the Bills will remain in Buffalo, it makes it difficult for the Pegula's to move the team to DPRK, which scratches one potential suitor off the list.

Making unfounded charges of racism is not OK. Don't make charges of racism if you can't leverage evidence to back up your claims. Also important to note that your feelings are not evidence. Again, explain why what he said is racist.

The context of the discussion was an article making the claim that "white women are keeping black women down". That's what brought race into it. Positing that black women are the ones keeping black women down as a response is not introducing race. It's responding to a race based claim.

I do, in fact, find that to be problematic; but it's not as systemically pervasive as weaponized charges of racism have become in our culture, so I'm content to let others fight that battle. You, for instance, have called out that particular canard. Just as I am asking you to provide a clear an coherent argument supporting your charges of racism. As to your final point, what do you believe is the point of having a political discussion if not to change someone's mind, or to have your mind changed?

His post didn't interest me. Yours did because I find charges of racism for the purpose of shutting down uncomfortable discussion to be incredibly problematic, and entirely counterproductive. I'm questioning you because I'm trying to engage you about an issue that is important to me. What he said may be incorrect, or it may be accurate. However what he said, does not appear to be, on it's face, racist. I'm challenging you to change my mind by presenting a coherent argument buttressing your position.

That's actually hilarious. The Kim dynasty, which owns, outright, the entire GDP of North Korea; along with countless (T) trillions of dollars worth of untapped mineral wealth and land resources, conducts their business for the purposes of peeling of a few hundred thowe indirectly paid by Novartis. That's how he thinks the world works. Really.

That's not evidence of racism; and no, saying something is racist "because it is racist" is not a valid argument. It's an example of circular reasoning, which is a logical fallacy. Again, please explain why saying "black women keep black women down" is racist. And again, I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm saying that you haven't sufficiently explained why it's racist.

"... the United States is not just the current ruling administration and there are many figures who have different views on international and regional issues," Foreign Ministry Spokesman Bahram Qassemi said." Apparently John Kerry agrees with Qassemi, with one important distinction. Constitutionally speaking, international diplomacy is conducted at the direction of our Executive branch, and while Qassemi is free to disagree, John Kerry is not. Kerry is not Constitutionally empowered to engage in shadow diplomacy against the wishes of the Executive, and presenting a differing policy agenda. We have one government, and Kerry, in attempting to represent it, is engaging in treason.

Can you demonstrate how/why it's racist? I'm not saying that it isn't, but on it's face it doesn't seem like it is. It reads simply as an observation, which may be either correct or incorrect, and requires further evidence to determine validity. I don't see the merits of simply dismissing uncomfortable ideas as racist without further discussion.

Important to note that he issued a denial of your presented evidence rather than a rebuttal driven by more complete evidence. That distinction is important, and should not be overlooked by the reader.

He's one I hope gets tripped up in the larger on-goings. That's a particularly reprehensible view point he's advancing.

It's desirable that he post it frequently. Greg has a unique ability to communicate and explain the depth of his ideas in an inviting and generally non-combative way, which lends him the ability to win the minds of the truly inquisitive and intellectually honest. I believe he's reaching people, and his mission is of vital importance.

She's soooooooo close to achieving a modicum of self-awareness, and yet soooooooo far away.

You wouldn't find it funny if you understood the differences between the two political systems, or how the oligarchs acquired their wealth. Instead you'd be grateful that you live in a free society, instead of one run like the mafia.

So, is this an argument in favor of using the Federal bureaucracy to punish private citizens, and their families, by exhausting their financial resources in lieu of actual criminal findings? Seems... like the antithesis of a free society.

Well, that didn't take very long.

Homo granolas

I'm not sure if this answers your question directly, but a good many of these sorts of meetings have translators present even if all participants are fluent in the same language. The reason being that high level meetings often times involve very nuanced topics, and even with a general fluency, meanings can be lost. It's better to have the resource on hand and not need it, then to need it and not have it.

He's setting up his pending dismissal of everything Greg has presented on the grounds that it isn't being editorialized about by the NY Times, and therefore isn't real.

Is there something about you that makes you unable to verify or examine what has been provided for you? The links have been posted in this thread an others, all on the first page of this forum; and there is tons of information out there. GG has explicitly told you what to look for. Why are you unable to do this?

For the life of me, I cannot reconcile OIG Horowitz's involvement in this with his role as an internal watchdog of a specific Federal Agency in DC... unless it was the nature of what was being used as blackmail leverage being directly tied to other, ongoing investigations which necessarily would have crossed his desk because of their ties to the ongoing palace coup attempt, and what those at the top were/are attempting to hide their involvement in. (think KSA, DPRK, NXIUM, Epstein) Other than that, I can't reason through what the OIG of DOJ is doing investigating a small potatoes fraud ring operating out of NY City. If anyone else have any theories on this, I'd love to hear them.

That is an absolutely savage, and brilliant metaphor.