Trump has ordered strikes against Syria
LOST said:
Both stories are "fake news" from the "failing New York Times".
but can BOTH stories be fake?
Back to NKO, regardless of whether talking to NKO is a good thing, does anyone believe, for a moment, that Trump is capable of negotiating anything useful out of this meeting?
I mean, he just discovered that the Korean War was never declared over.
And the odds are close to 100% that whatever comes out of the meeting, a large chunk of that will have to be walked back by whatever adults are left in his administration.
Back to Syria-
The question of the day is whether the Russian Embassy was told about the "no more new sanctions" policy before Nikki Haley. It kinda looks like it.
dave23 said:
BCC said:You demand so much of others that you refuse to give.
When I get around to it I will choose one and when you disagree, as you surely will, I will once again explain to you why you are wrong.
You decry MOL "choir" for opposing Trump for its own sake and insist they repeatedly list the things they might agree with him on. Yet when asked the same of you--after much hedging, circuitous writing and insults--you simply won't.
Throughout my life, like most people, there have been individuals to whom I have had to respond.
You are not one of them.
Further, I have compared the MOL bubble to the Trump base. If you deny that they are mirror images of each other then you need to prove it or ignore it.
From reading the comments of people who listed all the times they had agreed with him only to find out he had changed his mind I found out 2 things:
1 They had failed to take my advice not to believe anything he says, and
2 Too many of them don't understand how 'bargaining to get a deal' works.
Now I have to go see a horse.
BCC said:
Throughout my life, like most people, there have been individuals to whom I have had to respond.
I've gone through my life knowing I don't have to respond to anyone if I don't want to. I presume this is how most people, who aren't being physically threatened, function.
drummerboy said:
Back to NKO, regardless of whether talking to NKO is a good thing, does anyone believe, for a moment, that Trump is capable of negotiating anything useful out of this meeting?
I mean, he just discovered that the Korean War was never declared over.
And the odds are close to 100% that whatever comes out of the meeting, a large chunk of that will have to be walked back by whatever adults are left in his administration.
Back to Syria-
The question of the day is whether the Russian Embassy was told about the "no more new sanctions" policy before Nikki Haley. It kinda looks like it.
bilateral talks are probably not going to make anything worse. But as this article makes it clear, substantial progress is going to need to include at a minimum, both North and South Korea, China and the U.S.
Treaty to Formally End Korean War Is Being Discussed, South Confirms
ridski said:
BCC said:I've gone through my life knowing I don't have to respond to anyone if I don't want to. I presume this is how most people, who aren't being physically threatened, function.
Throughout my life, like most people, there have been individuals to whom I have had to respond.
Really?
Try not responding to any of a large # of Government institutions Try not responding to a boss and risk losing a job you need.
I for one, am now looking forward to the twenty-five posts devoted to an argument over what "responding" means.
BCC said:
dave23 said:Throughout my life, like most people, there have been individuals to whom I have had to respond.
You demand so much of others that you refuse to give.
You are not one of them.
Yes, you are allowed to respond selectively, as you are allowed to hypocritically demand from others what you refuse offer yourself. No harm done.
BCC said:Further, I have compared the MOL bubble to the Trump base. If you deny that they are mirror images of each other then you need to prove it or ignore it.
Instead of asking people to "prove a negative", could you provide specific evidence in support?
nohero said:
BCC said:Instead of asking people to "prove a negative", could you provide specific evidence in support?
Further, I have compared the MOL bubble to the Trump base. If you deny that they are mirror images of each other then you need to prove it or ignore it.
the onus is always on the person making an assertion to provide evidence. So until such time as we see evidence, we can conclude that the comparison is worthless.
Given the reflexive disagreement with the consensus and lack of substantive responses to questions, I'm not even sure we're dealing with a real person. A minimally competent high schooler would be able to create a bot to post such empty assertions. Maybe we need to conduct a Turing Test.
BCC said:Further, I have compared the MOL bubble to the Trump base. If you deny that they are mirror images of each other then you need to prove it or ignore it.
Yeah, and I've asked how you are any different from the "MOL bubble" by listing the things you support Trump on and you refused. When people request clarity from you, you shrink away.
ml1 said:
I for one, am now looking forward to the twenty-five posts devoted to an argument over what "responding" means.
I'll hold off on my response until the Turing test results are in.
If BCC weren’t a real person, the Columbia Cougars would’ve had a hole in their lineup last season.
[Edited to be less specific.]
oh. then it's just reflexive disagreement and an unwillingness to answer questions. 
BCC said:
ridski said:
BCC said:
Throughout my life, like most people, there have been individuals to whom I have had to respond.
I've gone through my life knowing I don't have to respond to anyone if I don't want to. I presume this is how most people, who aren't being physically threatened, function.
Really?
Try not responding to any of a large # of Government institutions Try not responding to a boss and risk losing a job you need.
Ah, Government institutions! Great example. What happens if I don't respond to those Government institutions?
BCC said:
dave23 said:
BCC said:You demand so much of others that you refuse to give.
When I get around to it I will choose one and when you disagree, as you surely will, I will once again explain to you why you are wrong.
You decry MOL "choir" for opposing Trump for its own sake and insist they repeatedly list the things they might agree with him on. Yet when asked the same of you--after much hedging, circuitous writing and insults--you simply won't.
Throughout my life, like most people, there have been individuals to whom I have had to respond.
You are not one of them.
Further, I have compared the MOL bubble to the Trump base. If you deny that they are mirror images of each other then you need to prove it or ignore it.
From reading the comments of people who listed all the times they had agreed with him only to find out he had changed his mind I found out 2 things:
1 They had failed to take my advice not to believe anything he says, and
2 Too many of them don't understand how 'bargaining to get a deal' works.
Now I have to go see a horse.
1. Nevertheless you responded.
2. The "Trump base" are either poorly educated or low information victims of a con artist. Those who post here on MOL are very educated and knowledgeable as to politics, domestic and foreign affairs.
3. You ask what positions of Trump, if any, we support. I told you his announced positions which I supported and which he changed. Now you say don't believe anything his says. If I cannot believe anything he says how can I take a position "pro" or "con"?
3a. Trump told Congress that they should agree on a DACA fix and he would sign whatever they brought him. He then undermined their attempts to come up with an acceptable compromise.Is that how "bargaining to get a deal" works?
As to your comment about a horse, I will not take the bait.
ml1 said:
nohero said:the onus is always on the person making an assertion to provide evidence. So until such time as we see evidence, we can conclude that the comparison is worthless.
BCC said:Instead of asking people to "prove a negative", could you provide specific evidence in support?
Further, I have compared the MOL bubble to the Trump base. If you deny that they are mirror images of each other then you need to prove it or ignore it.
Given the reflexive disagreement with the consensus and lack of substantive responses to questions, I'm not even sure we're dealing with a real person. A minimally competent high schooler would be able to create a bot to post such empty assertions. Maybe we need to conduct a Turing Test.
The evidence is overwhelming. When asked to provide evidence that they had at any time supported Trump, the consensus had very little to add.. All they could claim was that they had agreed with him but he always changed his mind. They never seem to have posted that agreement and I have addressed the change of mind maybe a half dozen times. I'm not responsible for your ignorance.
The only contact you have had with me has been an exchange of insults, started I believe when you were told by a third party you and the dogpile were acting like dicks and not to put words in my mouth.
I don't think you are the one to psychoanalyze me especially since you have never met me.
I believe people who do that are usually called bad names.
dave23 said:
BCC said:Yeah, and I've asked how you are any different from the "MOL bubble" by listing the things you support Trump on and you refused. When people request clarity from you, you shrink away.Further, I have compared the MOL bubble to the Trump base. If you deny that they are mirror images of each other then you need to prove it or ignore it.
I have a long history of being anti Hillary and I have continued to support his efforts to come to terms with NOKO. Those are major issues and unlike the Mirror I have held in abeyance my support for others because I don't know if he is bargaining or really means what he is currently saying.
Further, you can continue to beat this dead horse, I will say what I choose to say when I choose to do so.
BCC said:
The evidence is overwhelming.
no it isn't. Just saying so doesn't make it so. Bluster is no substitute for evidence and a well-reasoned argument.
BCC said:
When asked to provide evidence that they had at any time supported Trump, the consensus had very little to add..
Maybe we can argue over the meaning of irony. That shouldn't take long.
BCC said:
I have a long history of being anti Hillary and I have continued to support his efforts to come to terms with NOKO. Those are major issues and unlike the Mirror I have held in abeyance my support for others because I don't know if he is bargaining or really means what he is currently saying.
Further, you can continue to beat this dead horse, I will say what I choose to say when I choose to do so.
You have no idea if it's real but you support it anyway, is that correct?
BCC said:
I have a long history of being anti Hillary and I have continued to support his efforts to come to terms with NOKO. Those are major issues and unlike the Mirror I have held in abeyance my support for others because I don't know if he is bargaining or really means what he is currently saying.
Further, you can continue to beat this dead horse, I will say what I choose to say when I choose to do so.
Who has argued against his coming to terms with North Korea? (This is not the same as expressing skepticism about his ability to do so.)
LOST said:
BCC said:1. Nevertheless you responded.
dave23 said:
BCC said:You demand so much of others that you refuse to give.
When I get around to it I will choose one and when you disagree, as you surely will, I will once again explain to you why you are wrong.
You decry MOL "choir" for opposing Trump for its own sake and insist they repeatedly list the things they might agree with him on. Yet when asked the same of you--after much hedging, circuitous writing and insults--you simply won't.
Throughout my life, like most people, there have been individuals to whom I have had to respond.
You are not one of them.
Further, I have compared the MOL bubble to the Trump base. If you deny that they are mirror images of each other then you need to prove it or ignore it.
From reading the comments of people who listed all the times they had agreed with him only to find out he had changed his mind I found out 2 things:
1 They had failed to take my advice not to believe anything he says, and
2 Too many of them don't understand how 'bargaining to get a deal' works.
Now I have to go see a horse.
2. The "Trump base" are either poorly educated or low information victims of a con artist. Those who post here on MOL are very educated and knowledgeable as to politics, domestic and foreign affairs.
3. You ask what positions of Trump, if any, we support. I told you his announced positions which I supported and which he changed. Now you say don't believe anything his says. If I cannot believe anything he says how can I take a position "pro" or "con"?
3a. Trump told Congress that they should agree on a DACA fix and he would sign whatever they brought him. He then undermined their attempts to come up with an acceptable compromise.Is that how "bargaining to get a deal" works?
As to your comment about a horse, I will not take the bait.
2 You realize what you sound like. It's no wonder the two sides hate each other.
3 I told you abot10 times, you wait to see what he does and even then he may be in 'bargaining mode'
3a How many times have I told you he is often FOS
4 No bait. My wife and I actually went to see a horse.
BCC said:
nohero said:...
BCC said:Instead of asking people to "prove a negative", could you provide specific evidence in support?
Further, I have compared the MOL bubble to the Trump base. If you deny that they are mirror images of each other then you need to prove it or ignore it.
The evidence is overwhelming. When asked to provide evidence that they had at any time supported Trump, the consensus had very little to add.. All they could claim was that they had agreed with him but he always changed his mind. They never seem to have posted that agreement and I have addressed the change of mind maybe a half dozen times. I'm not responsible for your ignorance.
A simple "I have nothing specific" would have sufficed.
DaveSchmidt said:
If BCC weren’t a real person, the Columbia Cougars would’ve had a hole in their lineup last season.
[Edited to be less specific.]
The kid has a great arm doesn't he. As you know he's in Michigan where he recently got an A
in wine tasting. I was 70 years too early.
dave23 said:
BCC said:Who has argued against his coming to terms with North Korea? (This is not the same as expressing skepticism about his ability to do so.)
I have a long history of being anti Hillary and I have continued to support his efforts to come to terms with NOKO. Those are major issues and unlike the Mirror I have held in abeyance my support for others because I don't know if he is bargaining or really means what he is currently saying.
Further, you can continue to beat this dead horse, I will say what I choose to say when I choose to do so.
Personally, I've posted a couple of comments about preferring negotiations that involve other nations instead of or in addition to high-level bilateral talks between Trump and Kim Jong-un.
But not surprisingly, those posts have been ignored in favor of riding the merry-go-round on another pointless argument over who's "winning" the argument.
I think it might be interesting to hear what people think of Trump and Kim's idea of a bilateral meeting in place of Six Party talks. Or if people think Trump might eventually bring in other nations to the process. For my part, I'm skeptical that he would, because it would mean sharing credit if any real progress comes out of it.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
he'd ask why a person of your superior intellect didn't spot that redundancy.