Russian Politics Thread: Добро пожаловать!

[Shofercia]

You sure about that? http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/10/politics/ ... t-mistake/

Classic Shofistry

And that is our participation in the coalition that overthrew Qaddafi in Libya. I absolutely believed that it was the right thing to do. ... Had we not intervened, it’s likely that Libya would be Syria. ... And so there would be more death, more disruption, more destruction. But what is also true is that I think we [and] our European partners underestimated the need to come in full force if you’re going to do this. Then it’s the day after Qaddafi is gone, when everybody is feeling good and everybody is holding up posters saying, ‘Thank you, America.’ At that moment, there has to be a much more aggressive effort to rebuild societies that didn’t have any civic traditions. ... So that’s a lesson that I now apply every time I ask the question, ‘Should we intervene, militarily? Do we have an answer [for] the day after?

Do you even read your very own quotes?

So that’s a lesson that I now apply every time I ask the question, ‘Should we intervene, militarily? Do we have an answer [for] the day after?

So he's saying that he learned from his mistake, which, apparently according to Bork, wasn't a mistake. Borkism 2.0 is when you learn from a mistake that's not a mistake. Additionally, take a look at the grammar. He's using past tense. He's not saying "I still believe" he's saying "I believed" as in past tense. For example, I can say that "I believed X could've made good posts" - that's just an example. It has no indication as to my current state of belief regarding X's posts. Furthermore, my point was that I was against the intervention in Libya. The intervention didn't end with Khadaffi's death.

[Robert Bork]

Classic Shofistry

Do you even read your very own quotes?

So that’s a lesson that I now apply every time I ask the question, ‘Should we intervene, militarily? Do we have an answer [for] the day after?

So he's saying that he learned from his mistake, which, apparently according to Bork, wasn't a mistake. Borkism 2.0 is when you learn from a mistake that's not a mistake. Additionally, take a look at the grammar. He's using past tense. He's not saying "I still believe" he's saying "I believed" as in past tense. For example, I can say that "I believed X could've made good posts" - that's just an example. It has no indication as to my current state of belief regarding X's posts. Furthermore, my point was that I was against the intervention in Libya. The intervention didn't end with Khadaffi's death.

I'm referring to this portion: "Had we not intervened, it’s likely that Libya would be Syria. ... And so there would be more death, more disruption, more destruction". He's saying that, yeah, I made that mistake, I should have done more to establish a post-war government, but despite that, at least I prevented the country from turning into Syria,

[Shofercia]

Do you even read your very own quotes?

So that’s a lesson that I now apply every time I ask the question, ‘Should we intervene, militarily? Do we have an answer [for] the day after?

So he's saying that he learned from his mistake, which, apparently according to Bork, wasn't a mistake. Borkism 2.0 is when you learn from a mistake that's not a mistake. Additionally, take a look at the grammar. He's using past tense. He's not saying "I still believe" he's saying "I believed" as in past tense. For example, I can say that "I believed X could've made good posts" - that's just an example. It has no indication as to my current state of belief regarding X's posts. Furthermore, my point was that I was against the intervention in Libya. The intervention didn't end with Khadaffi's death.

I'm referring to this portion: "Had we not intervened, it’s likely that Libya would be Syria. ... And so there would be more death, more disruption, more destruction". He's saying that, yeah, I made that mistake, I should have done more to establish a post-war government, but despite that, at least I prevented the country from turning into Syria,

Except Obama's opinion is irrelevant to the facts on the ground. My point was that the intervention was a failure, and Obama admitted that the intervention, without a day after plan, which he didn't have for Libya, isn't something that he is willing to repeat. If it was a success, why would he not be willing to repeat it? Borkism 3.0 - presidents love to fail! Oh, and speaking of Libya not becoming Syria: http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/18/middleeas ... al-forces/

It is a tiny, remote aircraft hangar, carved in the Sicilian rock decades ago, but now home to a new and vital front for the United States against ISIS.

US Special Forces fighting ISIS? Hmmm, I wonder, where else is this taking place? Hint, it's a country that starts with "Sy" and ends with "ria" but I wonder, are there any other similarities?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/struggling- ... 1463093214

Days earlier, American warplanes had bombed an Islamic State training site at a nearby house. Then, Amu tells me, “we decided to cleanse our town.” In the raids that followed, fighters for the so-called caliphate struck back, assaulting a police station and cutting the throats of several officers. Scores of youths perished in gunbattles. Elsewhere across Libya, disparate factions are trying to hold the line against ISIS, often tenuously. The terrorist group is most entrenched in the central city of Sirte. Refugees fleeting Sirte tell me that ISIS extorts businesses and stops traffic to conduct executions. In late March, a new presidential council—formed under the auspices of a U.N.-brokered unity agreement—arrived with great fanfare in the capital of Tripoli. Washington and its allies had hoped this would provide a foundation for a military campaign against ISIS. But after an initial burst of public enthusiasm, the council is struggling to exert its authority.

Refugees? Hmm, where else are refugees coming from? Oh yeah, Syria. I'm guessing that in addition to giving me a bazillion dollars for my responses to you on NSG, Putin's also funding the Wall Street Journal.

Libya and Syria are fractured, have ISIS, had bombing by NATO member states, experienced a deterioration in HDI, and have refugees fleeing the country. But that aside, they're completely different!

[Robert Bork]

Except Obama's opinion is irrelevant to the facts on the ground.....

....My point was that the intervention was a failure, and Obama admitted that the intervention,

Oh....ok.

without a day after plan, which he didn't have for Libya, isn't something that he is willing to repeat.

If it was a success, why would he not be willing to repeat it? Borkism 3.0 - presidents love to fail! Oh, and speaking of Libya not becoming Syria: http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/18/middleeas ... al-forces/

Don't be silly. Saying you wouldn't repeat one specific mistake isn't the same thing as saying you wouldn't repeat the whole concept of an intervention altogether. The whole is not determined by a single part.

It is a tiny, remote aircraft hangar, carved in the Sicilian rock decades ago, but now home to a new and vital front for the United States against ISIS.

US Special Forces fighting ISIS? Hmmm, I wonder, where else is this taking place? Hint, it's a country that starts with "Sy" and ends with "ria" but I wonder, are there any other similarities?

Yes, because a tiny, remote aircraft hangar is totally equivalent to what's going on in Syria.

Wait, that's fucking stupid.

Refugees? Hmm, where else are refugees coming from? Oh yeah, Syria.

My history professor always told us to ask "To what extent?". You clearly would have failed his class.

I'm guessing that in addition to giving me a bazillion dollars for my responses to you on NSG, Putin's also funding the Wall Street Journal.

It's ridiculous to say you're getting a bazillion from Putin to post here. You're not close enough to his inner circle of kleptocrats to get that kind of payout.

[Robert Bork]

This recent conversation is another example of Shofistry in full effect. Obama stated that he didn't want Libya to devolve into a situation as bad as Syria. "As bad as" is a comparison: for Obama to be right, they can both be bad as long as Libya isn't equally bad as Syria. Silly Shofercia distorts the entire issue by pointing out that he thinks Libya has refugees and ISIS too. That's not even the issue. The issue is whether or not those aspects are as pronounced in Libya as they are in Syria. And they're obviously not. The refugees in Libya aren't as numerous as those in Syria, nor the number of ISIS fighters.

This is the insidious effect of Shofistry. It destroys all nuance surrounding issues in favor of a bombastic stream of nationalist sentiment, ,offering nothing but clownish theatrics designed to obfuscate the reality of any uncomfortable truths.

[Shofercia]

This recent conversation is another example of Shofistry in full effect. Obama stated that he didn't want Libya to devolve into a situation as bad as Syria. "As bad as" is a comparison: for Obama to be right, they can both be bad as long as Libya isn't equally bad as Syria. Silly Shofercia distorts the entire issue by pointing out that he thinks Libya has refugees and ISIS too. That's not even the issue. The issue is whether or not those aspects are as pronounced in Libya as they are in Syria. And they're obviously not. The refugees in Libya aren't as numerous as those in Syria, nor the number of ISIS fighters.

This is the insidious effect of Shofistry. It destroys all nuance surrounding issues in favor of a bombastic stream of nationalist sentiment, ,offering nothing but clownish theatrics designed to obfuscate the reality of any uncomfortable truths.

Not one, but two entire posts. Oh wow. And neither is a one liner. And such colorful language, such big words, I mean there's "clownish" and "obfuscate", that's amazing! As a Bork would say "very high energy" involved. Once again I ask: if Obama thought Libya was a success, why did he say that he had no wish to replicate it? Of course Bork would try to limit the scope of the debate to an idiotic equation that has nothing of substance. For instance, he wants to debate whether Libya is as bad as Syria, even though they're different countries with different population make ups, located in different regions. Nuance, Bork, nuance, the very same thing you're claiming is an insidious, blah, blah, effect of blah, is what you're heroically ignoring. Using the "as bad as" standard, Libya vs Syria can be argued ad nauseum.

We have a clear cut Obama quote, saying that he has no wish to replicate what happened in Libya, as a result of Libyan Intervention. The nuance of that completely flies over Bork's head, where he instead focuses on the "as bad as" quote, heroically trying to limit the debate to irrelevancy, just like so many one line posts that I've seen. Somewhere.

Except Obama's opinion is irrelevant to the facts on the ground.....

....My point was that the intervention was a failure, and Obama admitted that the intervention,

Oh....ok.

without a day after plan, which he didn't have for Libya, isn't something that he is willing to repeat.

If it was a success, why would he not be willing to repeat it? Borkism 3.0 - presidents love to fail! Oh, and speaking of Libya not becoming Syria: http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/18/middleeas ... al-forces/

Don't be silly. Saying you wouldn't repeat one specific mistake isn't the same thing as saying you wouldn't repeat the whole concept of an intervention altogether. The whole is not determined by a single part.

He says he wouldn't repeat the intervention without a specific "day after" plan. Rather directly: ‘Should we intervene, militarily? Do we have an answer [for] the day after?'

It doesn't get any clearer than that.

It is a tiny, remote aircraft hangar, carved in the Sicilian rock decades ago, but now home to a new and vital front for the United States against ISIS.

US Special Forces fighting ISIS? Hmmm, I wonder, where else is this taking place? Hint, it's a country that starts with "Sy" and ends with "ria" but I wonder, are there any other similarities?

Yes, because a tiny, remote aircraft hangar is totally equivalent to what's going on in Syria.

Wait, that's fucking stupid.

I was using that as a specific example, and you're deliberately claiming that's a general trend. Hmm, what's that? Oh yeah, to quote a Bork: that's fucking stupid. Since apparently Googling "ISIS in Libya" is too difficult: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... irte-libya

Crucifixions, executions, food shortages, forced prayer: These are features of life in the ISIS stronghold of Sirte, Libya, according to a new Human Rights Watch report. ISIS has controlled Sirte since last August. The central Mediterranean city is the hometown of Libya's former dictator Moammar Gadhafi and the site of some of the final battles of Libya's 2011 revolution. Human Rights Watch interviewed 45 residents of the city for its report, which paints a vivid picture of how ISIS controls every aspect of life, "down to the length of men's trousers, the breadth and color of women's gowns, and the instruction students receive in state schools."

Wow, that's like an entire city. That's probably more than a little hangar. Wait, Bork, you're absolutely right, the Intervention in Libya has been a success for ISIS.

Refugees? Hmm, where else are refugees coming from? Oh yeah, Syria.

My history professor always told us to ask "To what extent?". You clearly would have failed his class.

To what extent did he teach? Some classes are wroth dropping. His would be, since only the Sith deal in absolutes. Was he/she a Sith?

I'm guessing that in addition to giving me a bazillion dollars for my responses to you on NSG, Putin's also funding the Wall Street Journal.

It's ridiculous to say you're getting a bazillion from Putin to post here. You're not close enough to his inner circle of kleptocrats to get that kind of payout.

It's interesting that's the part of that quote that you find ridiculous. Really says something.

[Robert Bork]

Not one, but two entire posts. Oh wow. And neither is a one liner. And such colorful language, such big words, I mean there's "clownish" and "obfuscate", that's amazing! As a Bork would say "very high energy" involved.

Somebody had to keep our audience from falling asleep, and it wasn't going to be you. You should be grateful I've been stepping up.

Once again I ask: if Obama thought Libya was a success, why did he say that he had no wish to replicate it?

Shofistry: continue to repeat the same fundamentally misguided question ad nauseum in order to give the veneer of having an actual argument. If you look at your quote, and then you look at my quote, Obama has mixed feelings about the intervention. He was glad to have prevented Libya from turning into a situation as worse as Syria. But he was rueful about the lack of a strong post-war government. That's what he wouldn't have repeated. English comprehension matters here.

Of course Bork would try to limit the scope of the debate to an idiotic equation that has nothing of substance.

It's not my fault you didn't understand what Obama said.

For instance, he wants to debate whether Libya is as bad as Syria, even though they're different countries with different population make ups, located in different regions. Nuance, Bork, nuance, the very same thing you're claiming is an insidious, blah, blah, effect of blah, is what you're heroically ignoring. Using the "as bad as" standard, Libya vs Syria can be argued ad nauseum.

Good thing we have metrics to compare one country to another country despite their differences. They're called proportions. Soviet education is eh-eh, so I won't clown you for not knowing that.

For example: is the proportion of land owned by ISIS in Libya the same as Syria? No.
Is the proportion of fighters to the general population the same in Libya as it is in Syria? No.
Is the proportion of refugees to the general population the same in Libya as it is in Syria? No.

Obama was right: he prevented Libya from becoming as bad as Syria. You don't understand the important tool of comparison, so you mistakenly thought you could refute this claim by pointing out that Libya has these problems too. It's all about the extent, Silly Shofercia.

Wow, that's like an entire city. That's probably more than a little hangar. Wait, Bork, you're absolutely right, the Intervention in Libya has been a success for ISIS.

There you go again. It's all above the extent, Silly Shofercia.

To what extent did he teach? Some classes are wroth dropping. His would be, since only the Sith deal in absolutes. Was he/she a Sith?

Asking 'To what extent' is the opposite of dealing in absolutes. I reiterate my earlier claims about your ability to comprehend English, given that it's your third language.

It's interesting that's the part of that quote that you find ridiculous. Really says something.

Don't get me wrong, everything you say is ridiculous. I just don't get paid to be on here, so I don't put in the effort to point it out every time.

[Shofercia]

Not one, but two entire posts. Oh wow. And neither is a one liner. And such colorful language, such big words, I mean there's "clownish" and "obfuscate", that's amazing! As a Bork would say "very high energy" involved.

Somebody had to keep our audience from falling asleep, and it wasn't going to be you. You should be grateful I've been stepping up.

You admit that you're stepping up? It's good, admission is the first step, I think.

Once again I ask: if Obama thought Libya was a success, why did he say that he had no wish to replicate it?

Shofistry: continue to repeat the same fundamentally misguided question ad nauseum in order to give the veneer of having an actual argument. If you look at your quote, and then you look at my quote, Obama has mixed feelings about the intervention. He was glad to have prevented Libya from turning into a situation as worse as Syria. But he was rueful about the lack of a strong post-war government. That's what he wouldn't have repeated. English comprehension matters here.

As worse as? Is that even a part of English comprehension? #Englishcomprehensionmatters

Once again, the initial debate started off with me saying that Libya was a failed intervention. It wasn't about Obama's feelings. It wasn't about Obama's opinion. It was about the actual intervention. I then used Obama's quote that he wouldn't intervene again without a "Day After Plan" asking: if it was successful, why wouldn't he repeat the success? You brought in opinions and feelings. I'm sure those Libyans who were/are raped by ISIS have feelings too.

Of course Bork would try to limit the scope of the debate to an idiotic equation that has nothing of substance.

It's not my fault you didn't understand what Obama said.

It's not my fault you didn't understand what I quoted. I understood what Obama said. He said that after the Libyan Intervention, he will not intervene without a "Day After Plan" admitting that it was a mistake to not have a "Day After Plan" those are his words, not mine. The difference is that I require an Intervention to have a successful conclusion, whereas Obama's, (and yours,) definitions of success are "not as bad as Syria" and that is where the disagreement lies.

For instance, he wants to debate whether Libya is as bad as Syria, even though they're different countries with different population make ups, located in different regions. Nuance, Bork, nuance, the very same thing you're claiming is an insidious, blah, blah, effect of blah, is what you're heroically ignoring. Using the "as bad as" standard, Libya vs Syria can be argued ad nauseum.

Good thing we have metrics to compare one country to another country despite their differences. They're called proportions. Soviet education is eh-eh, so I won't clown you for not knowing that.

For example: is the proportion of land owned by ISIS in Libya the same as Syria? No.
Is the proportion of fighters to the general population the same in Libya as it is in Syria? No.
Is the proportion of refugees to the general population the same in Libya as it is in Syria? No.

Obama was right: he prevented Libya from becoming as bad as Syria. You don't understand the important tool of comparison, so you mistakenly thought you could refute this claim by pointing out that Libya has these problems too. It's all about the extent, Silly Shofercia.

Bork, you just posted utter bullshit. So I'm going to ask you to cite it, knowing that you cannot cite it. Specifically, cite this claim you boldly made: Is the proportion of fighters to the general population the same in Libya as it is in Syria? No.

Go ahead, provide the numbers for the fighters in Libya and the fighters in Syria. Not rough estimates, but actual numbers. Go ahead. Oh wait, you can't, can you? Soviet Education teaches people to not make claims that they cannot back up. I guess your teacher failed to teach you that to a proper extent, eh-eh. Should I clown you over it?

But sure, let's use one of your metrics, but with a slight adjustment. When talking about refugees fleeing war zones, one should probably use population ratios. Might be too complex for a teacher asking "to what extent?" but I prefer precision, so let's say to a precise extent. First Libya:

As of January 2013, there were 5,252 refugees originating from Libya alongside 59,425 internally displaced persons.[2] However the Le Monde article of May 14, 2014 stated that "Estimates of their numbers vary between 600,000 and one million by the Tunisian Ministry of Interior. If we add those, many also settled in Egypt, they would be nearly two million Libyans today outside the borders of a total population estimated at just over six million inhabitants."[3] According to journalist Barbara Slavin, reporting for Al Monitor on August 5, 2014, Tunisian President Moncef Marzouki stated that two million Libyans, or one third of the pre NATO intervention population of Libya, have taken refuge in Tunisia.[4]

So we're looking at a third of Libya's population as refugees, outside of Libya, or big success for Bork and Obama, since it's not as bad as Syria. But how fare the Syrian Refugees? Surely, both Bork and Obama say that it's not as bad as Syria. Erm, they're wrong, what a shocker. A seventh, which, Bork, is substantially less than a third, of Syria's Refugees fled Syria. Soviet education taught me that a third is more than a seventh, and a seventh is less than a third. Since you find everything I say ridiculous, you will probably find simple mathematical equations ridiculous, since I use them. And sure, there are twice as many IDPs within Syria, but how many IDPs are there within Libya? We don't know: http://syrianrefugees.eu/

So out of the three standards that Bork presented, one failed to take demographics into account, another is something I called for him to verify, and the third goes against his very own argument. That's zero out of three. To what extent?

Wow, that's like an entire city. That's probably more than a little hangar. Wait, Bork, you're absolutely right, the Intervention in Libya has been a success for ISIS.

There you go again. It's all above the extent, Silly Shofercia.

Yes, yes, it is, silly me, looking at the facts, not making ignorant claims. I guess that means silly to you.

To what extent did he teach? Some classes are wroth dropping. His would be, since only the Sith deal in absolutes. Was he/she a Sith?

Asking 'To what extent' is the opposite of dealing in absolutes. I reiterate my earlier claims about your ability to comprehend English, given that it's your third language.

It's actually not my third language, perhaps a handler misled you. The absolute that I was referring to was this:

My history professor always told us to ask "To what extent?". You clearly would have failed his class.

I italicized, underlined, and bolded it for you. I'm not sure if your English is "as worse as" mine, or not, so I ensured that now you know that I was referring to the word "always" when talking about absolutes.

It's interesting that's the part of that quote that you find ridiculous. Really says something.

Don't get me wrong, everything you say is ridiculous. I just don't get paid to be on here, so I don't put in the effort to point it out every time.

Everything I say is ridiculous? Then I guess you're debating a Sith

[Robert Bork]

Soviet Education teaches people to not make claims that they cannot back up.

You can't help but to howl with laughter reading this.

[Shofercia]

Soviet Education teaches people to not make claims that they cannot back up.

You can't help but to howl with laughter reading this.

Only if you assume that everyone learns what they're taught and that no child was ever left behind. But perhaps you can howl, perhaps with laughter, perhaps not.

[Robert Bork]

You can't help but to howl with laughter reading this.

Only if you assume that everyone learns what they're taught and that no child was ever left behind. But perhaps you can howl, perhaps with laughter, perhaps not.

You must still believe in Lysenkoism.

[Shofercia]

Only if you assume that everyone learns what they're taught and that no child was ever left behind. But perhaps you can howl, perhaps with laughter, perhaps not.

You must still believe in Lysenkoism.

Borkism #4: pointing out that not everyone who studied in the USSR learned what they were taught = Lysenkoism. BTW, nice use of the sig, is that what you do when you cannot win online debates? Call people silly names? I'm just asking because NS has a strict PG-13 rule.

[Allanea]

In Libya, we have a democratically elected government that controls most of the country, and is pushing ISIS back.

In Syria, we have an undemocratic, brutal dictator, that controls a small fraction of the country, where the rest is controlled by a bewildering array of groups. This dictator supports Jihadists (for example, Hezbollah, the Party of God), has released Jihadist from prison and deliberately committed atrocities to shift public support from moderates to yet other Jihadists.

Bur yeah, totally the same.

[Robert Bork]

You must still believe in Lysenkoism.

Borkism #4: pointing out that not everyone who studied in the USSR learned what they were taught = Lysenkoism.

In what is likely the biggest rhetorical fuckup I have ever witnessed, you portrayed one of the most propaganda filled education systems as an incubator for critical thinking. You took a massive L on this one.

[Robert Bork]

Silly Shofercia praises the pseudo-science of Soviet Education for teaching its students to "not make claims they can't back up", which is exactly why they were falsely taught that wheat can be turned into barely.

[Robert Bork]

In Libya, we have a democratically elected government that controls most of the country, and is pushing ISIS back.

In Syria, we have an undemocratic, brutal dictator, that controls a small fraction of the country, where the rest is controlled by a bewildering array of groups. This dictator supports Jihadists (for example, Hezbollah, the Party of God), has released Jihadist from prison and deliberately committed atrocities to shift public support from moderates to yet other Jihadists.

Bur yeah, totally the same.

#Shofistry

[Shofercia]

In Libya, we have a democratically elected government that controls most of the country, and is pushing ISIS back.

In Syria, we have an undemocratic, brutal dictator, that controls a small fraction of the country, where the rest is controlled by a bewildering array of groups. This dictator supports Jihadists (for example, Hezbollah, the Party of God), has released Jihadist from prison and deliberately committed atrocities to shift public support from moderates to yet other Jihadists.

Bur yeah, totally the same.

Not sure if I was ever arguing that they were the same, although, one has to wonder, if the Libyan Intervention was so successful, why are Republicans bringing it up to hurt Democrats?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/m ... eu-leaders

The war-torn country is currently claimed by four different factions: an elected parliament that has been forced out of Tripoli, the Libyan capital; a rebel outfit that now controls Tripoli; a UN-backed administration that was meant to unite the two warring factions but which has been rejected by both; and an Islamic State affiliate that has seized part of the central Libyan coastline, and has a presence in other areas.

Perhaps that's a success for you, Obama, and Bork, but I can understand why the Republicans are bringing it up to hurt Clinton.

[Robert Bork]

But guys, the Republicans said it was true, so it must be!

Shofistry knows no upper limit.

[Shofercia]

Borkism #4: pointing out that not everyone who studied in the USSR learned what they were taught = Lysenkoism.

In what is likely the biggest rhetorical fuckup I have ever witnessed, you portrayed one of the most propaganda filled education systems as an incubator for critical thinking. You took a massive L on this one.

I did not realize that having the ability to back up your points involved critical thinking; I thought that was blatantly obvious to anyone who's not oblivious.

Silly Shofercia praises the pseudo-science of Soviet Education for teaching its students to "not make claims they can't back up", which is exactly why they were falsely taught that wheat can be turned into barely.

So Soviet pseudo-science that put the first man in space? Or perhaps you think that was fake? I mean some people think that Moon landing was fake.

In Libya, we have a democratically elected government that controls most of the country, and is pushing ISIS back.

In Syria, we have an undemocratic, brutal dictator, that controls a small fraction of the country, where the rest is controlled by a bewildering array of groups. This dictator supports Jihadists (for example, Hezbollah, the Party of God), has released Jihadist from prison and deliberately committed atrocities to shift public support from moderates to yet other Jihadists.

Bur yeah, totally the same.

#Shofistry

Third post in a row, no actual contribution to the thread: #Borkism

[Shofercia]

But guys, the Republicans said it was true, so it must be!

Shofistry knows no upper limit.

I quoted the Guardian. It's not run by the Republicans. But Bork ignores facts yet again. Anything to post the term "Shofistry", with his imagined definition.

[Robert Bork]

Third post in a row, no actual contribution to the thread: #Borkism

I must have missed your contributions. Have you explained to us how weeds can spontaneously turn into food yet?

[Robert Bork]

But guys, the Republicans said it was true, so it must be!

Shofistry knows no upper limit.

I quoted the Guardian. It's not run by the Republicans. But Bork ignores facts yet again. Anything to post the term "Shofistry", with his imagined definition.

Your article is outdated. We've had a unity government in Libya since then. Stop watering down the truth.

[Robert Bork]

So Soviet pseudo-science that put the first man in space?

Our science put the first man on the moon Space-boy.

[Shofercia]

Third post in a row, no actual contribution to the thread: #Borkism

I must have missed your contributions. Have you explained to us how weeds can spontaneously turn into food yet?

Borkism #5: First you claim that someone believes in something. When they state otherwise/ignore you, ask them how it works. After all, it's in your mind, and therefore must be true!

Here's a contribution that you missed: viewtopic.php?p=28771757#p28771757

I quoted the Guardian. It's not run by the Republicans. But Bork ignores facts yet again. Anything to post the term "Shofistry", with his imagined definition.

Your article is outdated. We've had a unity government in Libya since then. Stop watering down the truth.

In your mind?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36283316

But the majority leaving Libya - itself wracked by fighting and human rights abuses - are migrants from sub-Saharan Africa.

That's BBC calling Libya "wrecked by fighting and human rights abuses" - May 13th

http://www.msnbc.com/specials/migrant-crisis/libya

To tell the story of Libya's escalating migration crisis, one must weave together the threads of instability left behind by a toppled dictator, Muammar Gaddafi, and the power vacuum filled by rivaling factions vying to take his place. The chaos allowed smuggling networks to thrive, suddenly opening up a lucrative market designed to profit off trading humans like other goods and commodities.

MSNBC admitting that the power vacuum is filled by rivaling factions. As in not united. Also very recent article.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/18/middleeas ... sis-sirte/

Public beheadings. Corpses hanging from scaffolding. Floggings for violating the law.

This is life in the ISIS-held city of Sirte, Libya -- a Mediterranean coastal city that's about 350 miles away from Malta -- according to a new report from Human Rights Watch. Many of the 45 former and current residents of Sirte Human Rights Watch spoke to say they live in a continued state of fear. "As if beheading and shooting perceived enemies isn't enough, ISIS is causing terrible suffering in Sirte even for Muslims who follow its rules," said Letta Tayler, a senior terrorism and counterterrorism researcher at Human Rights Watch. "While the world's attention is focused on atrocities in Syria and Iraq, ISIS is also getting away with murder in Libya."

That's CNN, from May 18th.

Or, as Robert Bork would say, "Silly Shofercia, stop giving me all these facts, you're such a liar for giving me facts, damn you, #Shofistry!"

[Shofercia]

So Soviet pseudo-science that put the first man in space?

Our science put the first man on the moon Space-boy.

Not sure why you'd think that would bug me. Also not a rebuttal, so would that be Borkism #6?

Bork: Soviet pseudo-science blah, blah
Me: Pseudo-science put a man in space?
Bork: Our science put a man on the Moon

As you can see, stellar debating skills.