The Ameяican Government Thread

1429430432434435642

Comments

  • po pimpuspo pimpus Beyond Anger... Ultra Rage Joined: Posts: 26,051
    Cyntalan wrote: »
    Pertho wrote: »
    Calling hot dogs tacos is like calling smash a fighting game.

    If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... :coffee:

    DUCKTALES! WHOO-HOO!
    "Capcom should listen to their fans... Mega Man is a cool character." -2048 President Elect Kevin at Age 10
  • PerthoPertho The Runed One Joined: Posts: 22,169 mod
    Cyntalan wrote: »
    Pertho wrote: »
    Calling hot dogs tacos is like calling smash a fighting game.

    If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... :coffee:

    Explain that to the swan.
    Ronin Chaos on Pertho:

    "Oh, Pertho. You complete me."
    jimmy1200 wrote: »
    pertho attacked me first, saying i get all my life tips from 106th and park.
  • InfernomanInfernoman Bro as Hell Joined: Posts: 9,567
    Preppy wrote: »
    Manx wrote: »
    Oh heeeeeellll nawl! Dis nigga just called a hot dog a taco!

    Messicans.... UNITE!

    :rofl:

    :tup:
    I quote Dr. O'Brien, 2017:
    Because the bread is connected, and forms a "hinge" if you will, it falls under the "taco" classification. Ergo, hotdogs and tacos are not sandwiches. The pita, however, takes us into strange territory and demands further study.

    So...you're saying is the hot dog can identify as a taco but a pita is a sort of trans-food.
    Who else in a movie wrestled an evil lesbian and by forcefully kissing her, turned her not only heterosexual but good as well? Exactly. That, my friend, is the power of Sean motherfucking Connery - Valaris
  • CyntalanCyntalan Joined: Posts: 8,341 ✭✭✭✭✭ OG
    Pertho wrote: »
    Cyntalan wrote: »
    Pertho wrote: »
    Calling hot dogs tacos is like calling smash a fighting game.

    If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... :coffee:

    Explain that to the swan.

    That'd definitely make them both birds. :coffee:
    ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ PRAISE HELIX ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ

    "NO! NOT LIKE THIS!" - Random audience member, Evo 2k9 SC4 finals. Go Hilde!
    "You are a weird, adorable little man, OZ." - Vynce
    "I violated marc but we definitely cool now." - dre37k
  • WallachWallach Joined: Posts: 209
    Carter Page's statement might be the dumbest one yet:

    aTGPJzn.png

    Way to not confirm that meeting bro. Nailed it.
  • CyntalanCyntalan Joined: Posts: 8,341 ✭✭✭✭✭ OG
    edited March 3
    Not movin' the goalposts so much as making the analogy more appropriate (as quite frankly, it was a poor analogy, even though the idiom fits). You're right a swan (platform fighter) isn't a duck (traditional fighter). They're both birds (fighters) though. Similarly, they're all animals (video games).

    Similarly, a swan (hot dog) isn't a duck (taco). They're both birds (folded food) though. Similarly, they're all animals (food).

    Besides, one could also argue that a swan doesn't quack: it honks. :coffee:
    ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ PRAISE HELIX ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ

    "NO! NOT LIKE THIS!" - Random audience member, Evo 2k9 SC4 finals. Go Hilde!
    "You are a weird, adorable little man, OZ." - Vynce
    "I violated marc but we definitely cool now." - dre37k
  • PoptechPoptech Joined: Posts: 10
    edited March 3
    Reticently wrote: »
    Poptech wrote: »
    I correct misinformation when it shows up. How are you affiliated with this site? Do you own this site? Does this site piggy back on the already established Street Fighter series without having to establish their own value?

    Wow, what an utterly transparent and clumsy way to dodge answering questions! Me, I'm just a long-time enthusiast of the material this site is broadly dedicated to, rather than a shill foisting my insipid pedantry on disinterested parties in a bald-faced attempt to make a buck. How about you?
    Trying to smear me as a shill does not help your argument. I am confused who exactly is trying to make money and how is this money being made?
    Reticently wrote: »
    Poptech wrote: »
    What exactly am I monetizing and how is this occuring? I play whatever video games I feel like but have no feelings towards pedantic video game issues.

    That's what I asked you, you haven't told us your answer. You are a brand new user to this site who registered under the name Poptech so you can repeatedly and almost exclusively inject mentions of a site called Popular Technology into a conversation where the site is almost entirely irrelevant. So either you have a monetary interest in the site, or are really passionate about doing charitable work on their behalf.
    It is not possible to give an answer to an illogical question. Why are you misrepresenting why I am here when it has already been clearly stated? I've already stated why I am here which has nothing to do with your conspiracy theories.
    Reticently wrote: »
    Poptech wrote: »
    That is not his main argument which is that the conclusions of Cook et al. (2013) are worthless and that scientific consensus is irrelevant to science.

    "Consensus is irrelevant in science. There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrong." - Dr. Richard Tol

    Consensus is worthless in science as the search for truth, but it's enormously important to policy as it is informed by science. Which I might point out is what the conversation here is actually about.
    Policy formed by misinformation is very dangerous and since all current presentations of "consensus" are inaccurate then the only policy that can be implemented is one that acknowledges this truth.
    Reticently wrote: »
    Poptech wrote: »
    Anecdotal evidence is not a scientific argument.

    Let me know when all of the world's scientists have been polled.

    The fact that you think all of the world's scientists need to be polled in order to say anything about their opinions with confidence sounds like a gross ignorance of the field of statistics or the scientific method as it is actually practiced.

    Anecdotal evidence isn't a scientific argument, but claims that are contrary to the evidence of our senses demand more extraordinary proof than do claims that comport to them. Claiming that the preponderance of the scientists in the fields concerned with climate accept anthropogenic change comports to our senses. To the best of my knowledge, no one at all is making reputable claims that a majority of relevant scientists reject anthropogenesis.
    You appear more concerned with your preconceived conclusions than the actual truth. Without polling all of the world's scientists it is not possible to remove ideological biases from any sampling. All of the attempts at determining "consensus" in this debate have been shown to be either biased, misleading or inaccurate.

    Please provide the objective criteria for determining who are the "scientists in the fields concerned with climate."

    Please provide the objective criteria for determining who are "relevant scientists."


    You keep confusing your anecdotes and subjective opinion with what is possible to be known.

    Poll all of the world's scientists with questions acceptable to both sides of the debate and let me know what the results are.
  • PoptechPoptech Joined: Posts: 10
    Preppy wrote: »
    Poptech wrote: »
    I received this bizarre private message from Preppy,
    You appear to have created an account on a fighting game website with the intent to confuse and mislead. Perhaps you know specific data that we do not know: if you would like to share the specifics of such uninteresting items such as "what percentage of climate papers endorse humans as a key factor in global warming", you're welcome to do so. It's an aside to an aside to an aside, but perhaps ensuring people have the exact number correct is important to you. If you're going to continue to troll, though, you are not welcome here. Your disingenuity is disgusting and unwelcome here.

    I mean, I hate to say it, but even a website for fighting games has basic standards.

    Peace,
    -Preppy
    Preppy misrepresents my intent and apparently likes to falsely accuse anyone who disagrees with his position on an issue a "troll". This is disappointing.
    Sorry dude, your reputation precedes you. Everybody, I'd like you to meet the word "disingenuous". PopTech has had problems with multiple sites for trolling (and I believe banned for such?), and has decided to come to SRK in the hopes that his deliberately misleading logic will be ignored here. Today is a blessed day.

    Given PopTech's history, I figured giving fair warning was fair.

    Here's two random links on the subject:
    * https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120903164637AAW3dxi
    * http://rabett.blogspot.com/2013/02/rtfr-pops.html

    Please enjoy with popcorn. :tup:

    hmd,
    -Preppy
    Spamming the first links you find using Google and clearly not understanding them is a mark of desperation.

    1. Here is a detailed response to the first nonsensical link you spammed:

    Rebuttal to "PopularTechnology...Expertise.... Seriously Delusional?"
    After being completely refuted and thoroughly humiliated for trying to post lies, misinformation and strawman arguments about my work, a poster who goes by the name of "Gringo" at Yahoo Answers deleted his previous two Yahoo Answers discussions so he could pretend his embarrassment did not happen ["As some of you may have noticed, I've decided to delete my 2 earlier 'questions' aimed at Poptech (owner of PopularTechnology.net)" - Gringo] and decided to launch into an unhinged ad hominem laced tirade against me using an almost ten-year old debate about Firefox. Since my refutation of this nonsense was voted down (at the bottom click on "3 Hidden Answers") and I ran out of space to respond there, I will do so here. Only emotionally irrational individuals would accept such baseless deranged nonsense as truth.

    2. The second link you spammed is about a simple reorganization of some historical papers on our list to prevent them from being cherry picked out of context.
  • PreppyPreppy act like you're used to it Joined: Posts: 14,296 admin
    edited March 3
    :lol:

    So you think you're practically perfect in every way. Gosh, that comes as a surprise. Any opinions on the important issues of our time, such as "are hot dogs a sandwich?" Or did you just show up here, as you've done to other sites, because you got butthurt that somebody would dare to challenge your know-nothing assertions?

    I hope for your sake that you have a life beyond getting mad at people on the internet. :lol:

    http://zachd.com/mvc2 : My giant archive of fighting game videos, centered around MvC2.
    "If you don't feel like killing yourself every time you lose you will never be good. Apologyman is going to be a monster someday as long as he keeps staying miserable." --Brightside6382
    "I'm sure you're very wicked people - but how dull it would be if everyone was good."

  • TyphlosionTyphlosion Russian Hacker Joined: Posts: 1,078
    edited March 3
    Wasted wrote: »
    Typhlosion wrote: »

    Difference between Pence and the inevitable Hillary comparison is that:

    A. He broke no law, as it is legal in Indiana to use private servers,
    B. He didn't put classified info onto an unsecured server. There were measures in place that got hacked, which is not the same as putting them out into the open like Hillary.
    C. He didn't destroy Government property to cover up a breach of law.

    Pence did absolutely nothing wrong.

    I can guarantee that Hilary's server was more secure than Pence's AOL account. Not really a Rebuttal just thought Barron might be able to help the Republicans with the cyber.

    2016-09-27-1474993013-4271490-Trump_The_Cyber.jpg
  • TyphlosionTyphlosion Russian Hacker Joined: Posts: 1,078
    i like Poptech's moxie. he'll fit in here nicely.


    Rowdy Gowdy about to wreck shop



    fast forward to 4:55

    Poptech needs more Alex Jones and out of context memes to really fit in.
  • dab00gdab00g Joined: Posts: 21,038
    So awaiting more relevations to roll down the hill

    Trump whitehouse is in a katamari damashii type of situation
  • WallachWallach Joined: Posts: 209
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/jeff-sessions-used-political-funds-for-republican-convention-expenses-1488509301

    Yeah, I knew as soon as he had that Foghorn Leghorn ass press conference people were going to dig and find something like this. He's probably proper fucked.
  • dab00gdab00g Joined: Posts: 21,038
    Well good. Too bad his racist ass already suspended all those investigations into police brutality
  • CyntalanCyntalan Joined: Posts: 8,341 ✭✭✭✭✭ OG
    Wallach wrote: »
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/jeff-sessions-used-political-funds-for-republican-convention-expenses-1488509301

    Yeah, I knew as soon as he had that Foghorn Leghorn ass press conference people were going to dig and find something like this. He's probably proper fucked.

    Mind quoting the article? Not about to subscribe to them just to read it. :bluu:
    ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ PRAISE HELIX ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ

    "NO! NOT LIKE THIS!" - Random audience member, Evo 2k9 SC4 finals. Go Hilde!
    "You are a weird, adorable little man, OZ." - Vynce
    "I violated marc but we definitely cool now." - dre37k
  • WallachWallach Joined: Posts: 209
    Cyntalan wrote: »
    Mind quoting the article? Not about to subscribe to them just to read it. :bluu:

    The relevant bit here is that Sessions paid for said trip in question where he met with Kislyak using his political re-election campaign funds. Ergo, he was not attending for Senate business, and did not use his legislative funds to make the trip (which is why his campaign finance records have this information). Pretty much his only vaguely waved at explanation for this meeting was that he was doing so on behalf of Senate business, even though no other Senators from his committee ever met with Kislyak for any Senate-related business in 2016.
  • PoptechPoptech Joined: Posts: 10
    edited March 3
    Preppy wrote: »
    Poptech wrote: »
    Preppy wrote: »
    Poptech wrote: »
    Preppy wrote: »
    Poptech wrote: »
    Preppy wrote: »
    tataki wrote: »
    8. If the facts are clearly on your side, then you don't need to resort to misleading. But in reality we get propaganda like "97% of climate scientists agree" based on a single research by John Cook et al. which misrepresented other scientists' opinions, and many of them have voiced their complaints about it.
    Why not talk to these scientists directly and get their opinions in full detail? Because the goal was political to begin with.
    But at least someone else has contacted some of them, and here they explain in short and simple terms about their findings:
    http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html
    One of researchers who were misrepresented also published an article in the Guardian about the many methodological problems in Cook's research, and also summarizes the current situation in climate science:
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming
    You should really give it a read.
    I have - it's pretty old, and got a bunch of previous responses. Cook et al had previously responded to those same articles.

    Not sure what the point is, though. Tol got pissy, Cook got pissy, we're maybe somewhere in the neighborhood, maybe not - this is knowable. If it matters to you, know the numbers. Denial that this is knowable is baffling. Being invested in not knowing answers is a weird place to be in.
    Those articles are only as old as the Cook et al. (2013) paper that generated the manufactured and long debunked 97% talking point. Cook et al. has never responded to the PopularTechnology.net article nor addressed why they falsely classified well known Skeptical scientists in their paper nor has the journal explained how such a flawed paper passed peer-review.

    Dr. Tol has refuted Cook et al. in multiple published papers and extensively online:

    Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis (PDF)
    (Energy Policy, Volume 73, pp. 701-705, October 2014)
    - Richard S. J. Tol

    Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: Rejoinder (PDF)
    (Energy Policy, Volume 73, pp. 709, October 2014)
    - Richard S. J. Tol

    Comment on 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature' (PDF)
    (Environmental Research Letters, Volume 11, Number 4, April 2016)
    - Richard S. J. Tol
    Everybody loves studies, but -- what's the point you're trying to make? Even the latest Tol seems to indicate "maybe we should pay attention to our impact upon the world." What number do you want to go with?
    Points I am making:

    1. Cook et al. has never responded to the PopularTechnology.net article.
    2. Cook et al. never addressed why they falsely classified well known Skeptical scientists in their paper.
    3. The journal Environmental Research Letters never explained how such a flawed paper passed peer-review.
    4. Dr. Tol has refuted Cook et al. (2013) in multiple published papers and extensively online.


    It is impossible to know an actual percentage since all of the world's scientists have never been polled as to their position on AGW.
    Are you deliberately being a weasel in #1? There's certainly been a back and forth.
    Are you illiterate? No there has not and you cannot provide a single piece of evidence to support your misinformation. Cook et al. has never responded to the PopularTechnology.net article.
    Yes, I'm functionally illiterate. Thank god for my text-to-pretty-pictures converter.

    Sure, I can believe that he never responded to the PopTech article. I don't know if anybody ever said he did that particular something that you need to quality into, but if so - point well made. Nobody is denying that you have a lot more interest in people knowing about and responding to your website. Lord knows that an unresponded-to web page is the definitive truth. On the same front, I have full confirmation that I'm The Man Now Dog, thanks to nobody having specifically responded to http://ytmnd.com . Because this is how science works. :confused:
    1. You made the false claim that, "Cook et al had previously responded to those same articles" which included the one from Popular Technology.
    2. I never made your strawman argument that "an unresponded-to web page is the definitive truth."
    Preppy wrote: »
    Preppy wrote: »
    Oh, but it's got to be a response to the article! Bravo on an irrelevant qualifier.
    Being accurate is not irrelevant, you should try it sometime.
    Weaseling the discussion into a very specific claim that means nothing is indeed perfect accuracy. It seems pretty intellectually disappointing, but then again - I'm on a fighting game website that has basic standards. :lol:
    A very specific claim you falsely made, " Cook et al had previously responded to those same articles."

    What is intellectually disappointing is when someone refuses to accept the irrefutable evidence that Cook et al. (2013) falsely classified well known skeptical scientists as part of their fabricated "97% consensus."
    Preppy wrote: »
    Preppy wrote: »
    The page you link to claims a low of 52%.
    Please stop presenting information out of context. The page I linked to makes no such claim, it does however clarify that the paper Stenhouse et al. (2014) which has been used to support the 97% talking point actually only demonstrates a 52% consensus.
    OK, so the thing that claims a low of 52% only claims a low of 52%. Thanks for clarifying.
    Again you have a reading comprehension problem. You falsely stated that the "page" I linked to claimed a low of 52% for consensus. The "page" I linked to makes no such argument, as it makes no argument that a consensus even exists.
    Preppy wrote: »
    Preppy wrote: »
    You use careful phrasing to indicate that "all the world's scientists" is the metric, but that's nothing that anybody here has cared about and to my knowledge not what Cook was ever speaking to. Bravo on excellent opportunistic phrasing in order to deceive.
    Anyone serious about "consensus" would only be interested in the real thing not some misleading abstraction. Cook was too busy misrepresenting the positions of scientists so he could manufacture a talking point.
    uh. I'm unaware that you could get beyond an abstraction, misleading or not. How do you get "to the real thing"? If this is interesting to you, go do that.

    I don't think these numbers are interesting, either in the concrete or the abstract. However, if this is important to you, you seem to be the one interested in this topic and can go do the work here.
    As I have stated, you poll all of the scientists in the world which has never been remotely done.
    Preppy wrote: »
    Preppy wrote: »
    Poptech wrote: »
    Preppy wrote: »
    Preppy wrote: »
    I love how Preppy is such a troll that the article he was discrediting made someone involved with writing it start an account just to rebut him. 4D CHESS
    What is there to discredit? Pick a number if it matters to you. Pretty much exactly what I was saying - Cook and Tol get pissy with each other, but it's a misdirection. Pick a number: it's knowable no matter how you want to slice it. Tol has a table of numbers to use. Are we Know-Nothings or something?
    Actually, I'm dumb. Cook already responded past everything our troll brought up last year:
    * http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

    Pick a number. Cook's happy at 97%.
    That is not a response to anything. That is another nonsensical paper published in blissful ignorance of all but one of the thirteen published papers refuting the 97% talking point.

    All "97% Consensus" Studies Refuted by Peer-Review

    Spamming papers that you have clearly never read is not an argument. Dr. Tol refuted this new paper easily...

    Nonsensus on nonsensus (Dr. Richard Tol)
    Consensus on consensus? (Dr. Richard Tol)
    Wait, you mean like you spammed a bunch of old links ignoring the newer items since then? Pot kettle black much?
    Are you even following this conversation? Both of those links directly refute Cook et al. (2016) and are dated within a month of that paper's publication.
    I'm going to point you to some excellent writing from my friend PopTech:
    * http://forums.shoryuken.com/discussion/comment/11202501#Comment_11202501

    In the immortal words of Dr Marshawn Lynch, "Hold my dick." :tup:
    Maybe someone can explain this conversation to you since you clearly not understanding it.
    Preppy wrote: »
    Preppy wrote: »
    I'm an idiot in this area. What the hell is your excuse? Are you deliberately or intentionally trying to mislead people?
    No, I am correcting your misinformation.
    *cough* Which part? The part where I don't know anything? Here's some guy called PopTech quoting some guy named Preppy:
    * http://forums.shoryuken.com/discussion/comment/11202501#Comment_11202501

    "Not sure what the point is, though. Tol got pissy, Cook got pissy, we're maybe somewhere in the neighborhood, maybe not - this is knowable. If it matters to you, know the numbers. Denial that this is knowable is baffling. Being invested in not knowing answers is a weird place to be in."

    Wow, good thing that got corrected. I'd hate for people to think that something like that was right! :coffee:
    Where you falsely claimed, "Cook et al had previously responded to those same articles."

    It is also important for people to know the ridiculous amount of work Dr. Tol had to go through to get his valid criticisms of Cook et al. (2013) published and that if this was reversed and a paper like this was published by a skeptic the rebuttals would have appeared in the same journal issue as the skeptic's original paper. It would not take two years to get their critiques published. That is all anyone needs to know about the current state of the climate science debate and the gatekeeping that goes on with certain scientific journals.
    Preppy wrote: »
    Preppy wrote: »
    It's a stupid argument. "There seems to be consensus..." is meaningful enough. If you want to challenge the numbers, provide your own. This "we can't know anything" bullshit is ridiculous, and I'm not going to put up with it from a grown man.
    It is not possible for me to provide a number because all of the world's scientists have not been polled.
    Ooooo, simply excellent moving of the goalposts! :tup: I mean, you did that as well with making sure you qualified into "this particular article hasn't been responded to", so it might be a trend, but it is so lovely to see intellectual dishonesty at work to try to delude people on a fighting game website.
    Sometimes the truth is not easy to obtain despite those who wish to present misleading talking points to push their political agenda. What is intellectually dishonest is misleading people about what meaningless phrases like "97% consensus" actually represent.

    Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?
    Preppy wrote: »
    :lol: Look, I get that this is a passionate subject for you, but dear fucking god if this is how low you need to sink... I'm dumbfounded. I never would have thought that someone would need to come on SRK to make bad faith arguments that we don't definitively know something that we can't definitively know. Just as a pro tip, that's a pretty easy argument to make and win. You don't need to deliberately make shitty arguments and misrepresent reality. We're all idiots in this space: just stick to the truth.

    "Not all of the world's scientists have been polled!" jfc. :lol:
    What arguments have I made that are in bad faith?
    What reality did I misrepresent?

    People who have no investment in this debate falsely believe that there is not only some way to measure the number of "climate scientists" but that they have all been polled about climate change and all support Al Gore's position on the issue. Even worse they believe the millions of scientists of all fields also hold this view. This is blatantly lying to people and anyone intellectually honest should be against this type of misinformation.
    Preppy wrote: »
    Man, good thing we got that out of the way. So you're saying that Cook and Tol have been pissy, we're maybe somewhere in the neighborhood, maybe not, and that this is probably knowable if you want to measure in some specific non-abstracted fashion? Good thing we sorted that out. :rolleyes:
    Incorrect, I am not agreeing with any of your mischaracterizations of this issue.
    Preppy wrote: »
    You seem to be the one invested in this - do you want to go figure out an answer here, or are you just invested in making sure that you rephrase questions so that all answers are wrong? This isn't the ultimate answer to life, the universe, and everything. It's, according to some scoped metric, "what % of (metric) are in general agreement on anthropogenic global warming?" I don't care what metric you want to use. I don't think the answer is of particularly high value. But if this actually matters to you, work that sexy science brain and go crunch numbers. :tup:
    Intellectually honest people invested in this debate know that this is a very nuanced issue. The phrasing of "anthropogenic global warming" can be very misleading depending on how it is defined.

    Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) as a human contribution in any form (including land use changes) at a ratio (+0%) to climate change - is very different from anthropogenic global warming (AGW) as human emitted CO2 is the primary (+50%) cause of climate change and we are all going to die.

    Skeptics largely agree with the former.
    Post edited by Poptech on
  • CyntalanCyntalan Joined: Posts: 8,341 ✭✭✭✭✭ OG
    Wallach wrote: »
    Cyntalan wrote: »
    Mind quoting the article? Not about to subscribe to them just to read it. :bluu:

    The relevant bit here is that Sessions paid for said trip in question where he met with Kislyak using his political re-election campaign funds. Ergo, he was not attending for Senate business, and did not use his legislative funds to make the trip (which is why his campaign finance records have this information). Pretty much his only vaguely waved at explanation for this meeting was that he was doing so on behalf of Senate business, even though no other Senators from his committee ever met with Kislyak for any Senate-related business in 2016.

    so... quote of the article?
    ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ PRAISE HELIX ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ

    "NO! NOT LIKE THIS!" - Random audience member, Evo 2k9 SC4 finals. Go Hilde!
    "You are a weird, adorable little man, OZ." - Vynce
    "I violated marc but we definitely cool now." - dre37k
  • Shaft AgentShaft Agent https://discord.gg/F4ZmxDu Joined: Posts: 9,272 ✭✭✭✭✭ OG
    Typhlosion wrote: »
    i like Poptech's moxie. he'll fit in here nicely.


    Rowdy Gowdy about to wreck shop



    fast forward to 4:55

    Poptech needs more Alex Jones and out of context memes to really fit in.

    that hate is unbecoming. always welcome new challengers.



    Forget trying to pass for normal. Follow your geekdom. Embrace nerditude. In the immortal words of Lafcadio Hearn, a geek of incredible obscurity whose work is still in print after a hundred years, “Woo the muse of the odd.” You may be a geek. You may have geek written all over you. You should aim to be one geek they’ll never forget. Don’t aim to be civilized. Don’t hope that straight people will keep you on as some sort of pet. To hell with them. You should fully realize what society has made of you and take a terrible revenge. Get weird. Get way weird. Get dangerously weird. Get sophisticatedly, thoroughly weird, and don’t do it halfway. Put every ounce of horsepower you have behind it. Don’t become a well-rounded person. Well-rounded people are smooth and dull. Become a thoroughly spiky person. Grow spikes from every angle. Stick in their throats like a pufferfish. -Bruce Sterling
  • WallachWallach Joined: Posts: 209
    Cyntalan wrote: »
    Wallach wrote: »
    Cyntalan wrote: »
    Mind quoting the article? Not about to subscribe to them just to read it. :bluu:

    The relevant bit here is that Sessions paid for said trip in question where he met with Kislyak using his political re-election campaign funds. Ergo, he was not attending for Senate business, and did not use his legislative funds to make the trip (which is why his campaign finance records have this information). Pretty much his only vaguely waved at explanation for this meeting was that he was doing so on behalf of Senate business, even though no other Senators from his committee ever met with Kislyak for any Senate-related business in 2016.

    so... quote of the article?

    Not sure which part you want me to quote besides the part you can read, but this is what I'm referring to:
    WSJ wrote:
    Campaign-finance-disclosure records show Mr. Sessions’ re-election campaign account was used for travel expenses in Cleveland at the same time the Republican National Convention was held in July, rather than using official funds that would pay for travel by him or other members of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

    On July 16, two days before the convention began, his campaign account made two payments of $1,395 to the Sheraton Cleveland Airport. A week later, the account made two payments to the Westin Hotel in Cleveland totaling $223. All payments were described as for “lodging.”

    No payments reimbursing Mr. Sessions appear in Mr. Trump’s campaign account, the records show.

    Sarah Isgur Flores, a spokeswoman for Mr. Sessions, said she was unable to comment on his convention expenses.

    Larry Noble, general counsel at the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan advocacy group, said Mr. Sessions likely used his campaign account, rather than official Senate funds, because as a senior adviser to the Trump campaign it would have been difficult to argue that he wasn’t attending the convention for any political purpose.

    “If he was truly there solely as a member of the Armed Services Committee, then he could’ve used his legislative account,” Mr. Noble said.

    One person at the Heritage event in Cleveland said Mr. Sessions left the impression he was there because of his role in the Trump campaign. This person said Mr. Sessions’ remarks in part were focused on Mr. Trump’s trade policy, saying the then-candidate would do away with multilateral trade deals.
  • CyntalanCyntalan Joined: Posts: 8,341 ✭✭✭✭✭ OG
    Wallach wrote: »
    Cyntalan wrote: »
    Wallach wrote: »
    Cyntalan wrote: »
    Mind quoting the article? Not about to subscribe to them just to read it. :bluu:

    The relevant bit here is that Sessions paid for said trip in question where he met with Kislyak using his political re-election campaign funds. Ergo, he was not attending for Senate business, and did not use his legislative funds to make the trip (which is why his campaign finance records have this information). Pretty much his only vaguely waved at explanation for this meeting was that he was doing so on behalf of Senate business, even though no other Senators from his committee ever met with Kislyak for any Senate-related business in 2016.

    so... quote of the article?

    Not sure which part you want me to quote besides the part you can read, but this is what I'm referring to:

    Ideally the whole article. Is that the whole thing?
    ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ PRAISE HELIX ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ

    "NO! NOT LIKE THIS!" - Random audience member, Evo 2k9 SC4 finals. Go Hilde!
    "You are a weird, adorable little man, OZ." - Vynce
    "I violated marc but we definitely cool now." - dre37k
  • WallachWallach Joined: Posts: 209
    edited March 3
    Cyntalan wrote: »
    Ideally the whole article. Is that the whole thing?

    Nah, some of it is just collective of events related to this today (the allegation, administration response, etc) for their article, that was the bit I had not seen reported elsewhere yet.

    Here's the rest of it if you're curious:
    WSJ wrote:
    The Trump administration says Attorney General Jeff Sessions was acting as a then-U.S. senator when he talked to Russia’s ambassador at an event during last year’s Republican National Convention in Cleveland, but Mr. Sessions paid for convention travel expenses out of his own political funds and he spoke about Donald Trump’s campaign at the event, according to a person at the event and campaign-finance records.

    Mr. Sessions made comments related to Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign at a Heritage Foundation event during the Republican convention in July, when he met with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak, according to a person at the event in Cleveland.

    Mr. Sessions on Thursday said he would recuse himself from involvement in any probe related to the 2016 presidential campaign, following disclosures that he met with the Russian ambassador during the convention, and later in his Senate office in Washington.

    Interactions between U.S. senators and foreign ambassadors are relatively common. But Mr. Sessions has come under fire for not disclosing his contacts with Mr. Kislyak during his Senate confirmation hearing to become attorney general. Democratic lawmakers have accused him of misleading Congress and called on him to resign.

    Mr. Sessions denied that he misled lawmakers during his confirmation hearing, calling the allegation “totally false” and saying his answers were “honest and correct” based on his understanding of the questions.

    At the time Mr. Sessions met the Russian ambassador at the convention, he had been serving as chairman of Mr. Trump’s National Security Advisory Committee for more than four months.

    “He was literally conducting himself as a United States senator,” White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Thursday. He said Mr. Sessions didn’t discuss matters related to Mr. Trump’s campaign.

    “This is what senators do in the course of conducting themselves in their jobs,” he said.

    A spokesman for the Russian embassy didn’t respond to a request for comment.

    A U.S. counterintelligence probe of alleged communications between Russians and members of Mr. Trump’s campaign team has looked at Mr. Sessions’ contacts, people familiar with the matter said. It’s unclear if the probe is still looking at those contacts. The investigation is overseen by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, along with several other agencies, officials have said. Counterintelligence probes seldom lead to public accusations or criminal charges.

    The Senate Intelligence Committee and the FBI are looking into any possible links between the Trump campaign and Russia after the U.S. intelligence community concluded Russia was behind hacking that interfered with the 2016 campaign. Mr. Trump has denied any connection between his campaign and Russia.

    Campaign-finance-disclosure records show Mr. Sessions’ re-election campaign account was used for travel expenses in Cleveland at the same time the Republican National Convention was held in July, rather than using official funds that would pay for travel by him or other members of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

    On July 16, two days before the convention began, his campaign account made two payments of $1,395 to the Sheraton Cleveland Airport. A week later, the account made two payments to the Westin Hotel in Cleveland totaling $223. All payments were described as for “lodging.”

    No payments reimbursing Mr. Sessions appear in Mr. Trump’s campaign account, the records show.

    Sarah Isgur Flores, a spokeswoman for Mr. Sessions, said she was unable to comment on his convention expenses.

    Larry Noble, general counsel at the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan advocacy group, said Mr. Sessions likely used his campaign account, rather than official Senate funds, because as a senior adviser to the Trump campaign it would have been difficult to argue that he wasn’t attending the convention for any political purpose.

    “If he was truly there solely as a member of the Armed Services Committee, then he could’ve used his legislative account,” Mr. Noble said.

    One person at the Heritage event in Cleveland said Mr. Sessions left the impression he was there because of his role in the Trump campaign. This person said Mr. Sessions’ remarks in part were focused on Mr. Trump’s trade policy, saying the then-candidate would do away with multilateral trade deals.

    Ms. Flores, Mr. Sessions’ spokeswoman, said the attorney general’s aides, who were at the Heritage Foundation event, don’t recall Mr. Sessions speaking about the election with Mr. Kislyak, though they couldn’t be sure, because the room was loud.

    Staffers who were with him during a second meeting with Mr. Kislyak, which took place Sept. 8 in his Senate office, also didn’t recall any discussion of the election, she said.

    Mr. Sessions didn’t definitively rule out the possibility that he had additional meetings.

    “I don’t recall having met him before those two meetings,” he said at a news conference Thursday. He also said he doesn’t think he met with any Russian officials besides Mr. Kislyak.

    Beside Mr. Sessions, the FBI inquiry has examined contacts between the Russian ambassador and Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser Mike Flynn, who resigned in February over his failure to accurately describe his conversations. Several other associates of Mr. Trump’s campaign also have come under federal scrutiny.

    Mr. Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, now a senior White House adviser, met in December with Mr. Kislyak, along with Mr. Flynn, the White House said Thursday. A senior administration official said it was “a brief courtesy meeting at Trump Tower” in New York.

    Another campaign aide, J.D. Gordon, met with Mr. Kislyak during the Republican convention, a White House spokeswoman said, adding to the number of known contacts between Trump campaign associates and Russian officials. Mr. Gordon couldn’t be reached for comment on Wednesday.

    Mr. Sessions was the first sitting senator to back Mr. Trump, formally endorsing the New Yorker in February 2016. Mr. Sessions went on to become one of Mr. Trump’s most high-profile surrogates, speaking for him on cable television and serving as an ambassador to Capitol Hill, where many Republicans were skittish about Mr. Trump’s candidacy. Mr. Sessions went on to deliver the formal nomination of Mr. Trump at the Republican National Convention.

    Edit - On a different note, I actually underestimated how dumb Carter Page is. He put himself on TV this evening apparently:

    http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/carter-page-i-don-t-deny-meeting-with-russian-ambassador-889043011736

    My god. Even the IC must be like "breh, what's wrong with you".
  • ReticentlyReticently Joined: Posts: 4,105
    Poptech wrote: »
    Reticently wrote: »
    Poptech wrote: »
    I correct misinformation when it shows up. How are you affiliated with this site? Do you own this site? Does this site piggy back on the already established Street Fighter series without having to establish their own value?

    Wow, what an utterly transparent and clumsy way to dodge answering questions! Me, I'm just a long-time enthusiast of the material this site is broadly dedicated to, rather than a shill foisting my insipid pedantry on disinterested parties in a bald-faced attempt to make a buck. How about you?
    Trying to smear me as a shill does not help your argument. I am confused who exactly is trying to make money and how is this money being made?
    Reticently wrote: »
    Poptech wrote: »
    What exactly am I monetizing and how is this occuring? I play whatever video games I feel like but have no feelings towards pedantic video game issues.

    That's what I asked you, you haven't told us your answer. You are a brand new user to this site who registered under the name Poptech so you can repeatedly and almost exclusively inject mentions of a site called Popular Technology into a conversation where the site is almost entirely irrelevant. So either you have a monetary interest in the site, or are really passionate about doing charitable work on their behalf.
    It is not possible to give an answer to an illogical question. Why are you misrepresenting why I am here when it has already been clearly stated? I've already stated why I am here which has nothing to do with your conspiracy theories.
    Reticently wrote: »
    Poptech wrote: »
    That is not his main argument which is that the conclusions of Cook et al. (2013) are worthless and that scientific consensus is irrelevant to science.

    "Consensus is irrelevant in science. There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrong." - Dr. Richard Tol

    Consensus is worthless in science as the search for truth, but it's enormously important to policy as it is informed by science. Which I might point out is what the conversation here is actually about.
    Policy formed by misinformation is very dangerous and since all current presentations of "consensus" are inaccurate then the only policy that can be implemented is one that acknowledges this truth.
    Reticently wrote: »
    Poptech wrote: »
    Anecdotal evidence is not a scientific argument.

    Let me know when all of the world's scientists have been polled.

    The fact that you think all of the world's scientists need to be polled in order to say anything about their opinions with confidence sounds like a gross ignorance of the field of statistics or the scientific method as it is actually practiced.

    Anecdotal evidence isn't a scientific argument, but claims that are contrary to the evidence of our senses demand more extraordinary proof than do claims that comport to them. Claiming that the preponderance of the scientists in the fields concerned with climate accept anthropogenic change comports to our senses. To the best of my knowledge, no one at all is making reputable claims that a majority of relevant scientists reject anthropogenesis.
    You appear more concerned with your preconceived conclusions than the actual truth. Without polling all of the world's scientists it is not possible to remove ideological biases from any sampling. All of the attempts at determining "consensus" in this debate have been shown to be either biased, misleading or inaccurate.

    Please provide the objective criteria for determining who are the "scientists in the fields concerned with climate."

    Please provide the objective criteria for determining who are "relevant scientists."


    You keep confusing your anecdotes and subjective opinion with what is possible to be known.

    Poll all of the world's scientists with questions acceptable to both sides of the debate and let me know what the results are.

    Your persistent prevarication in the face of questions asked to you leaves me bereft of interest in continuing to engage with you, so this will be my last effort addressing you directly. Someone else has spoiled us with the gist of those answers regardless. For the sake of completeness, and assuming you've discussed anything heretofore in good faith:

    Your arguments consist largely of obfuscation through spurious demands for arbitrary precision. Nirvana fallacy.

    If you poll all of the world's scientists what you have isn't a sample. It is a complete data set. Sampling it a methodology we use to make reasonable inferences from a representational subset when the complete set of data is unobtainable, as is the case for nearly any question in the real world worth addressing scientifically.

    It isn't my job to "provide the objective criteria for determining who are the 'scientists in the fields concerned with climate.'" I could make a pretty reasonable stab at it, but having a complete knowledge of the specific fields with comprehensive understanding of climate science isn't MY field. I'd guess you'd probably come up with a list fairly similar to the one I would come up with, were you to attempt it in good faith. Better though would be for you to ask a climatologist.

    You seem to think something I've said confuses anecdote for data, or the subjective for the objective. That would be a failure of comprehension on your part.
  • PreppyPreppy act like you're used to it Joined: Posts: 14,296 admin
    ^-- Yeah, this appears to be his standard mode of operation. Find somebody talking about something related to his website, get pissed off, make irrelevant points at length and hope somebody listens. :rolleyes: Notice he has no opinion on the taco debate, which clearly indicates that he is a godless Communist.
    It was an AOL email tho. That should be an impeachable offense in today's world.
    "You've got jail!"

    Can we just appoint a special council of neutrals to handle all this shit? It'd be tight if people didn't get murderized simply because the people evaluating them were on the opposite side of the aisle. I mean, maybe it'd be fun to hold everyone to the standard that Clinton got held to for a week, but then we kinda actually need to get shit done as a country. It'd be nice to be open to conversation and dialogue instead of knee-jerk apologetics and rabid attacks. Have an AOL email? Say three hail marys and work in the soup kitchens for a week. It'd be tight to not be so partisan.

    http://zachd.com/mvc2 : My giant archive of fighting game videos, centered around MvC2.
    "If you don't feel like killing yourself every time you lose you will never be good. Apologyman is going to be a monster someday as long as he keeps staying miserable." --Brightside6382
    "I'm sure you're very wicked people - but how dull it would be if everyone was good."

  • WastedWasted Verbal Diarrhetic Joined: Posts: 6,303
    Pence broke no law, though. Chaffetz sure as hell won't pursue him, since there's no crime.

    Holding him to the same standard as Hillary can be done in the blink of an eye:

    Pence acted within Indiana law. No reason to prosecute or impeach.

    Hillary was found to be suspected of at least three felonies. Every reason to prosecute her.

    Doesn't get simpler than that.
    SFV: Ken, with THAT ORANGE COSTUME

    I have nobody to play with, so I typically talk out of my ass.
  • PreppyPreppy act like you're used to it Joined: Posts: 14,296 admin
    Do you want me to respond? As you saw in the links, the guy will just keep talking about irrelevant short-bus shit. I figured it was boring to everybody else to continue to run the topic into the ground. We've seen pages now about how we can't possibly know something - is it interesting to discuss not being able to know something if you frame it in the exact wrong way? That seems inane to me, but hey maybe I'm weird.

    I did write up a response, but shelved it since his interest is in simply denying that there's anything to talk about. That doesn't go anywhere useful. That's exactly why I had asked him to contribute as opposed to his usual know-nothing style.

    http://zachd.com/mvc2 : My giant archive of fighting game videos, centered around MvC2.
    "If you don't feel like killing yourself every time you lose you will never be good. Apologyman is going to be a monster someday as long as he keeps staying miserable." --Brightside6382
    "I'm sure you're very wicked people - but how dull it would be if everyone was good."

  • PerthoPertho The Runed One Joined: Posts: 22,169 mod
    So, no comments on obama using the FISA courts to investigate an opposition party based on a hunch?

    Also apparently it is very common place for senators to meet with ambassadors. Seeing as there was a phone that was a direct line from the white house to moscow so they could sort shit out for decades, this new situation has me sorting out certain things internally. More specifically how mad can people really be at this if, one of the big perks for Trump was that the likelyness of going to war with russia was going to drastically reduce.

    Also does this mean that we should look at bernie as suspect as all fuck since he met with the vatican while still in the primaries?
    Ronin Chaos on Pertho:

    "Oh, Pertho. You complete me."
    jimmy1200 wrote: »
    pertho attacked me first, saying i get all my life tips from 106th and park.
  • po pimpuspo pimpus Beyond Anger... Ultra Rage Joined: Posts: 26,051
    Same question I asked in the Lounge?

    Why are we just now hearing about Russians being at the GOP convention?

    If the Russians are as big a threat to democracy as the media wants us to believe, then why didn't the government step in sooner?
    "Capcom should listen to their fans... Mega Man is a cool character." -2048 President Elect Kevin at Age 10