NationStates

The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:

Ansarre wrote:Gosh I wish I didn't have to imagine that, what a wonderful world it would've been!

Turning the planet into a nuclear wasteland would've made it a "wonderful world?"

Your Irony Compass has somehow lost it's magnetism.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:
I said the neocons we have now. Imagine John Bolton as president in 1980 and tell me you don't see the inevitable end of the world.

Imagine John Bolton as President ... any time.

I say, the radioactive desert that used to be North Korea sure is nice this time of year, eh?

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:Turning the planet into a nuclear wasteland would've made it a "wonderful world?"

Your Irony Compass has somehow lost it's magnetism.

Could very well be the case, my brain doesn't feel as sharp as it used to be.

Diopolis wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:I really dont know how to feel about this. On one hand it could be true and Trump may be like "I don't care," but on the other hand we've had many people in our government trying to go to war with Russia for years now (Hillary Clinton wanting to establish a no fly zone over Syria and suggesting we bomb the Russian navy), which is downright fucking stupid considering that they got nuclear arms.

Trump and Russia have a vested interest in denying it, although I can't imagine Trump keeping his mouth shut about it if he was briefed. It just seems too juicy for him to keep the secret.

You're unfamiliar with senile dementia. The most unpleasant things are the easiest to forget.

(It's rather enviable really, imagine if you could choose what to forget, it would be the unpleasant things right?)

The taliban also has denied this bounty thing, which adds to my priors that it's not actually a thing that happened.

The Taliban denied taking foreign money to sabotage a peace treaty which they later signed. Strong evidence there.

The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
Your Irony Compass has somehow lost it's magnetism.

Could very well be the case, my brain doesn't feel as sharp as it used to be.

You're fine, maybe a bit tired or distracted.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:Could very well be the case, my brain doesn't feel as sharp as it used to be.

You're fine, maybe a bit tired or distracted.

Possibly distracted cuz I'm also on Steam trying to figure out if some of these older games in my wishlist like Rainbow Six 3 and Ghost Recon & Desert Siege will run on Windows 10 without much trouble so that's probably it

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:Could very well be the case, my brain doesn't feel as sharp as it used to be.

You're fine, maybe a bit tired or distracted.

Actually I'm not being "ironic". Reagan wasn't the best president imo, Bolton would've been better.

Rojava Free State wrote:

Anthony Scaramucci Autonomous Zone wrote:Uhh have you heard of Ronald Reagan? Even if you don’t consider him a neocon, I mean it is a term of art, his administration was full of people we generally associate with the movement.

I said the neocons we have now. Imagine John Bolton as president in 1980 and tell me you don't see the inevitable end of the world.

John Bolton is considered by many not to be a real neocon because he isn’t that much into democracy promotion but the neocons of the 80’s were not really any less interventionist anyway.

I'm not one to believe something just because the globalists in American intelligence agencies claim it to be true, so for now as far as I'm concerned it didn't happen. But if it had happened it certainly seems like a smart move on Russia's part, both damaging to America's interests in the wider region with no real adverse consequences in return.

Panslavicland wrote:I'm not one to believe something just because the globalists in American intelligence agencies claim it to be true, so for now as far as I'm concerned it didn't happen. But if it had happened it certainly seems like a smart move on Russia's part, both damaging to America's interests in the wider region with no real adverse consequences in return.

>Globalists

Everybody drink.

Anthony Scaramucci Autonomous Zone wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:I really dont know how to feel about this. On one hand it could be true and Trump may be like "I don't care," but on the other hand we've had many people in our government trying to go to war with Russia for years now (Hillary Clinton wanting to establish a no fly zone over Syria and suggesting we bomb the Russian navy), which is downright fucking stupid considering that they got nuclear arms.

If many of the neocons we have now were running the government in 1980, I guarantee you the entire world would have been destroyed in a single day by a nuclear war. These loonies would have fired the damn WMDs.

Uhh have you heard of Ronald Reagan? Even if you don’t consider him a neocon, I mean it is a term of art, his administration was full of people we generally associate with the movement.

The reason that Ronald Reagan isn't considered a Neocon, is because he wasn't a Neocon. Heck, even in the early 1990s Dick Cheney argued against the Iraq War. Reagan's Policy was "Trust, but Verify" meaning that he wouldn't have gone to war on dubious WMD claims. The term Neocon, as understood in popular culture, is one of reckless foreign invasions, such as the War in Iraq.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:Turning the planet into a nuclear wasteland would've made it a "wonderful world?"

Your Irony Compass has somehow lost it's magnetism.

Nope, it hasn't. Ohio Valley's responding to Ansarre, who unironically argued that the War in Iraq was a good thing, even with the benefit of hindsight.

Anthony Scaramucci Autonomous Zone wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:
I said the neocons we have now. Imagine John Bolton as president in 1980 and tell me you don't see the inevitable end of the world.

John Bolton is considered by many not to be a real neocon because he isn’t that much into democracy promotion but the neocons of the 80’s were not really any less interventionist anyway.

And the No True Scotsman Fallacy makes an appearance.

Ansarre wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:I said the neocons we have now. Imagine John Bolton as president in 1980 and tell me you don't see the inevitable end of the world.

Gosh I wish I didn't have to imagine that, what a wonderful world it would've been!

This ISN'T irony?? Well how the hell is anyone supposed to know when you're serious?

Diopolis wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
Imagine John Bolton as President ... any time.

I say, the radioactive desert that used to be North Korea sure is nice this time of year, eh?

John Bolton is the ultimate American stereotype. He would fit far better in the "this is why I bomb people" meme.

Anthony Scaramucci Autonomous Zone wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:
I said the neocons we have now. Imagine John Bolton as president in 1980 and tell me you don't see the inevitable end of the world.

John Bolton is considered by many not to be a real neocon because he isn’t that much into democracy promotion but the neocons of the 80’s were not really any less interventionist anyway.

He's into using American weapons on people halfway around the world and lying to the american people every five seconds. Sounds pretty much like one to me.

Dude literally lied about WMDs in Iraq. He put the con in neocon.

Russia denies it, White House denies it, Taliban deny it... as if they needed any added incentive to kill US troops.

No evidence presented either way.

My advice for Ansarre is to stop watching CNN and start watching Russia Today. Not many neocons there but ...certainly more reliable than the NYT these days.

...That is the same NYT that came out to clarify that #DefundThePolice literally meant doing away with the police and not reforming it.
The same NYT that pushed Iraq WMD and Russiagate propaganda for years.
The same NYT that proudly employs anti-white racists.
The same NYT that publishes Paul Krugman after he has been wrong about everything for the past decade from anti-austerity to the coming economic crashes following Brexit and Trump.........

Of course, Ansarre would prefer to believe this report is true because Russia is the neocons public enemy #1.

But just like Russiagate, Ukrainegate, and all the other fake scandals, this is one more story that turns the NYT into a hackery rag without the slightest shred of credibility.
https://theintercept.com/2019/01/20/bey ... sia-story/

But hey, Hillary had a 95% chance of winning so ...what do I know?.......................

The Sovereign Realist State wrote:Russia denies it, White House denies it, Taliban deny it... as if they needed any added incentive to kill US troops.

Actually, the Taliban wanted a peace treaty with the US (which they ultimately signed this year), knowing that a peace treaty would be a significant step in getting the US out of "their" country.

So maybe yes, some of their rogue members would have attacked US troops despite what their leadership wanted. And without being paid by Russia. But to say the Taliban already had incentive to attack is actually wrong, and furthermore of course the top Taliban would deny having anything to do with it.

Russia denied it. Well we'd better just go with that shall we? It's not like the Russians ever lie about their black ops is it?

All that's left of your claim is that Trump denied it. You're seriously proposing that we should believe Donald J. Trump?

The Sovereign Realist State wrote:Russia denies it, White House denies it, Taliban deny it... as if they needed any added incentive to kill US troops.

No evidence presented either way.

My advice for Ansarre is to stop watching CNN and start watching Russia Today. Not many neocons there but ...certainly more reliable than the NYT these days.

...That is the same NYT that came out to clarify that #DefundThePolice literally meant doing away with the police and not reforming it.
The same NYT that pushed Iraq WMD and Russiagate propaganda for years.
The same NYT that proudly employs anti-white racists.
The same NYT that publishes Paul Krugman after he has been wrong about everything for the past decade from anti-austerity to the coming economic crashes following Brexit and Trump.........

Of course, Ansarre would prefer to believe this report is true because Russia is the neocons public enemy #1.

But just like Russiagate, Ukrainegate, and all the other fake scandals, this is one more story that turns the NYT into a hackery rag without the slightest shred of credibility.
https://theintercept.com/2019/01/20/bey ... sia-story/

But hey, Hillary had a 95% chance of winning so ...what do I know?.......................

...I read Washington Post.

Atheris wrote:

The Sovereign Realist State wrote:Russia denies it, White House denies it, Taliban deny it... as if they needed any added incentive to kill US troops.

No evidence presented either way.

My advice for Ansarre is to stop watching CNN and start watching Russia Today. Not many neocons there but ...certainly more reliable than the NYT these days.

...That is the same NYT that came out to clarify that #DefundThePolice literally meant doing away with the police and not reforming it.
The same NYT that pushed Iraq WMD and Russiagate propaganda for years.
The same NYT that proudly employs anti-white racists.
The same NYT that publishes Paul Krugman after he has been wrong about everything for the past decade from anti-austerity to the coming economic crashes following Brexit and Trump.........

Of course, Ansarre would prefer to believe this report is true because Russia is the neocons public enemy #1.

But just like Russiagate, Ukrainegate, and all the other fake scandals, this is one more story that turns the NYT into a hackery rag without the slightest shred of credibility.
https://theintercept.com/2019/01/20/bey ... sia-story/

But hey, Hillary had a 95% chance of winning so ...what do I know?.......................

...I read Washington Post.

Not 100% owned by Russia? That's fake news you're reading.

let's impeach him again skeet

Atheris wrote:...I read Washington Post.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:Not 100% owned by Russia? That's fake news you're reading.

It is: https://theintercept.com/2019/01/20/bey ... sia-story/

After so many hoaxes about Russia, and employing the ludicrous Jennifer Rubin,
After all the #fakenews about Trump such as the recent self-own,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... hey-arent/

After all the lies about police brutality and college campus rape....

Why would you pay money to buy propaganda?

Oh Russia does propaganda too but the problem is you leftists only read mainstream progressive sources. FOX News and Breitbart are mostly right-wing.

RT is actually quite balanced: they have pro-establishment, marxists, conservatives, etc. They are even anti-Israel, you should like that I guess.

At least watch Jimmy Dore or smth

The Sovereign Realist State wrote:

Atheris wrote:...I read Washington Post.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:Not 100% owned by Russia? That's fake news you're reading.

It is: https://theintercept.com/2019/01/20/bey ... sia-story/

After so many hoaxes about Russia, and employing the ludicrous Jennifer Rubin,
After all the #fakenews about Trump such as the recent self-own /?next_url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.washingtonpost.com%2fpolitics%2f2020%2f06%2f25%2ftrump-keeps-claiming-that-most-dangerous-cities-america-are-all-run-by-democrats-they-arent%2f

After all the lies about police brutality and college campus rape....

Why would you pay money to buy propaganda?

Oh Russia does propaganda too but the problem is you leftists only read mainstream progressive sources. FOX News and Breitbart are mostly right-wing.

RT is actually quite balanced: they have pro-establishment, marxists, conservatives, etc. They are even anti-Israel, you should like that I guess.

At least watch Jimmy Dore or smth

RT is not balanced at all. It exists simply to extol Russia and trash the west. Sure there is a horseshoe of left and far right willing to trash the west and extoll Russia, and RT will take ANYONE willing to trash the west and extoll Russia, regardless of their other positions. Without any real attempt at fact checking because that is irrelevant.
It merely exists to muddy the waters, and thus is not useful for clarification of what is actually happening.

The Sovereign Realist State wrote:

Atheris wrote:...I read Washington Post.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:Not 100% owned by Russia? That's fake news you're reading.

It is: https://theintercept.com/2019/01/20/bey ... sia-story/

After so many hoaxes about Russia, and employing the ludicrous Jennifer Rubin,
After all the #fakenews about Trump such as the recent self-own,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... hey-arent/

After all the lies about police brutality and college campus rape....

Why would you pay money to buy propaganda?

Oh Russia does propaganda too but the problem is you leftists only read mainstream progressive sources. FOX News and Breitbart are mostly right-wing.

RT is actually quite balanced: they have pro-establishment, marxists, conservatives, etc. They are even anti-Israel, you should like that I guess.

At least watch Jimmy Dore or smth

Nervermind the fact that RT's own journos quit their jobs while live on-air because there is a human limit to how much agitprop you can parrot with a straight face.

Baltenstein wrote:Nervermind the fact that RT's own journos quit their jobs while live on-air because there is a human limit to how much agitprop you can parrot with a straight face.

I know. If only it paid as much as MSNBC...

So, when will Baltenstein and Ansarre get together to found a neocon region?

May I suggest [Arsenal of Democracy]?

Novus America wrote:RT is not balanced at all.

It is ideologically... although it is anti-establishment

Novus America wrote:It exists simply to extol Russia and trash the west..

True it is biased and it has an agenda. But the same is true of other media such as al-jazeera. and when a republican is in power, also all the western media except for FOX news.

Novus America wrote: Sure there is a horseshoe of left and far right willing to trash the west and extoll Russia, and RT will take ANYONE willing to trash the west and extoll Russia, regardless of their other positions. Without any real attempt at fact checking because that is irrelevant. It merely exists to muddy the waters, and thus is not useful for clarification of what is actually happening.

I realize that but the problem is that CNN and the western media is the same regarding the DNC and the west's technocrats.

Just because a point of view is pro-Russia does not mean it is propaganda.

Someone like Ansarre could profit from alternative points of view.

trump just dances on the dead soldiers body