War Room Lounge v93: I got a strep infection in my scrotum and I have no idea how

[Jack V Savage]

Of course being in favor of the nuclear agreement is a good thing. And, in that clip, Clinton does not say anything unreasonably hostile or chest-thumping. I assume that's why JVS chose that clip.

Look at the timeline. I chose that clip because I didn't know WTF you were talking about, and I searched for "Clinton on Iran in debates" and it was the first relevant and video hit (second overall).

Just lol @ "responding with your usual slime." You are once again seeking my posts out, confronting me any time even the most innocuous criticism of Clinton comes up, and issuing personal insults without provocation (" it's pretty clear that your perceptions of Clinton are and were grossly out of line with reality"), and then claiming that I am slimy?

By "seeking (your) posts out," you mean "reading the Lounge," yes? And I don't see anything out of line about saying that your perceptions of Clinton are grossly out of line with reality. I'd be surprised if you even denied having an irrational hatred for her and a pattern of smearing people who don't share it.

Because I don't have full video of the 2016 debates to cite to, regardless of Clinton's grotesquely and famously venomous longstanding posture on Iran? Just like literally every other poster, right or left, is slime when they disagree with, or even point out, your weird allegiance to and defenses of Clinton?

Dude, seriously, you're behaving more and more miserable, toxic, and vindictive as of late. And you're welcome to fuck off and not engage me.

I'm "miserable and toxic" because you are dishonestly smearing me and I'm pushing back. Interesting. And you will be able to cite no examples of "weird allegiance to and defenses of Clinton." It's just your dishonest tactic to avoid engaging criticism of your irrational hatred. Note that your links are to other leftist attacks on Clinton rather than to anything that would actually support your claims.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Also, again for the peanut gallery, in addition to lying about Iran being weeks away from nuclear capability (for the umpteenth time) and fearmongering about the need to be tough with them in the general debates, Clinton also flexed her anti-Iran muscle in the primary debates as well, making a point to mention that, regardless of Iran "coming to the table," she lobbied for increasing sanctions even after the deal.

She was trying to emphasize the accomplishment in cooling things down. You don't think it's dishonest to present that as pushing for war?

 

[Trotsky]

Look at the timeline. I chose that clip because I didn't know WTF you were talking about, and I searched for "Clinton on Iran in debates" and it was the first relevant and video hit (second overall).

Yeah, that's the only video that game up when I searched. I don't know what you want me to tell you: I don't have a video.

By "seeking (your) posts out," you mean "reading the Lounge," yes? And I don't see anything out of line about saying that your perceptions of Clinton are grossly out of line with reality. I'd be surprised if you even denied having an irrational hatred for her and a pattern of smearing people who don't share it.

Yes, I am all too aware of your mantra that petty and hateful remarks toward others by you are just expressions of objectivity and reasonability, but persons defending themselves against them or stating widely-asserted observations is slimy and dishonest. I don't care for it when I agree with you, and I particularly don't care for it when I don't and when it's leveled at me.

I'm "miserable and toxic" because you are dishonestly smearing me and I'm pushing back. Interesting. And you will be able to cite no examples of "weird allegiance to and defenses of Clinton." It's just your dishonest tactic to avoid engaging criticism of your irrational hatred. Note that your links are to other leftist attacks on Clinton rather than to anything that would actually support your claims.

Again, I did not seek you out or attempt to smear you.

You picked out an innocuous and not-particularly-controversial statement - that Trump reasonably appeared more doveish than Clinton to casual viewers during the 2016 campaign because of her rhetoric toward Iran and his making his opposition/her support for Iraq and Libya a central focus of foreign policy discussion - and responded by, without solicitation, saying that I am detached from reality and again trying to link me to a former account that I have said is not mine. Because you're hateful.

 

[Trotsky]

She was trying to emphasize the accomplishment in cooling things down. You don't think it's dishonest to present that as pushing for war?

I didn't say she was pushing for war. You are now very shamelessly making up positions. I said she reasonably appeared more hawkish to casual viewers. And I think it's strange, although not surprising, that you have no problem whatsoever with her blatantly lying about Iran's nuclear capabilities, even after the line was repeatedly disproved, in order to fear-monger about the imminent threat of a country that has never posed an actual threat to the United States. That it was en route to her defending her position on maintaining the Iran deal makes it less sleazy, not not sleazy.

 

[BarryDillon]

Clinton was objectively more hawkish in her stance during the election than Trump was. This really isn't even up for debate.

@Jack V Savage

 

[Sketch]

And just like that, the older, weaker lizard is eaten by the younger up and comers of the Pride.

@SIRGAY HARITONOB!

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yeah, that's the only video that game up when I searched. I don't know what you want me to tell you: I don't have a video.

Yes, just like you can't make up your claims against me. Convenient gaps in the record appear to be part of a pattern.

Yes, I am all too aware of your mantra that petty and hateful remarks toward others by you are just expressions of objectivity and reasonability, but persons defending themselves against them or stating widely-asserted observations is slimy and dishonest. I don't care for it when I agree with you, and I particularly don't care for it when I don't and when it's leveled at me.

I can back up what I say, while your attacks cannot be rationally defended. It's just an appeal to "well, Happy Man and Co. say the same thing so I must be right."

Again, I did not seek you out or attempt to smear you.

You did, and you have been for years. Your whole argument is based on the ad hominem fallacy ("I don't have to defend these claims because Jack is the person disagreeing with them, and his view on the issue is inherently worthless").

You picked out an innocuous and not-particularly-controversial statement - that Trump reasonably appeared more doveish than Clinton to casual viewers during the 2016 campaign because of her rhetoric toward Iran and his making his opposition/her support for Iraq and Libya a central focus of foreign policy discussion - and responded by, without solicitation, saying that I am detached from reality and again trying to link me to a former account that I have said is not mine. Because you're hateful.

I'd say that it's not particularly controversial that your assertion is false. But apparently a controversy is raging, and one side of it has provided evidence clearly demonstrating its correctness, while the other resorts to personal attacks to make the case.

Clinton was objectively more hawkish in her stance during the election than Trump was. This really isn't even up for debate.

@Jack V Savage

See above. Trump was talking about committing war crimes, engaging in wars of plunder, and eschewing diplomacy, while Clinton was knocking him for all of that. I get that far-left retards were trying to blur the lines, but focus on what the candidates themselves were saying.

 

[kpt018]

and I'm still offering bets that we're not going to be

no takers though

funny, that

What qualifies as war? Seems trivial and obviously a formal declaration counts but what about just bombing the shit out of them or limited strategic drone strikes?

Im not saying I’d take the bet (I have no fucking clue what the likelihood is). I think it’s reasonable to say it’s increased though.

 

[Sketch]

Clinton was objectively more hawkish in her stance during the election than Trump was. This really isn't even up for debate.

@Jack V Savage

I’m actually glad people on both sides can see this. Clinton would have probably gotten even more votes if she had not had been so hawkish. It in my opinion one of her major downfalls compared to everything else.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I didn't say she was pushing for war. You are now very shamelessly making up positions. I said she reasonably appeared more hawkish to casual viewers.

This is a distinction that is too fine to be visible.

 

[Sketch]

Jack has just compared Trotsky to happy man. Jack playing his whole hand too quickly here. Should have waited.

 

[Trotsky]

Clinton was objectively more hawkish in her stance during the election than Trump was. This really isn't even up for debate.

@Jack V Savage

It's hard to argue about stances, since Trump was all over the place, so I wouldn't even go that far. But Trump's rhetoric consistently receded back to shitting on US interventions and Clinton's rhetoric has always been exceptionally hawkish within the Democratic Party. Even on the Iran deal specifically, about which Clinton was right and Trump was wrong, it was Trump saying the deal was bad because Iran was weak at its inception and Clinton saying it was good because Iran was super scary and on the verge of launching nuclear missiles. Between those two characterizations of Iran itself, Trump is definitely more accurate. Obama had absolutely starved Iran with sanctions, and they were in no place to allocate resources to a war effort even if they were remotely close to nuclear capability, which they again were not.

 

[all caps]

Iran is tearing sherdog apart!

 

[Trotsky]

This is a distinction that is too fine to be visible.

That's because the distinction clarifies that you're looking for a fight, not that one is at all reasonable. You somehow think it exhibits some malicious and delusional anti-Clinton bias to say it was reasonable for casual viewers to think she appeared more hawkish than Trump during the campaign. Or, I guess more specifically, that her rhetoric on Iran specifically was more fear-mongering than Trump's.

I'm not going to respond bit-by-bit to your last reply because, frankly, I don't think I have anything to gain and I feel comfortable that anyone curious about the matter can look into my (and your) post history. I am likewise going to again decline your invitation to comb through your post history to find instances of you passionately defending Clinton because it serves no purpose. People here have seen it, and you picking out those sentences to start an argument in her defense here again, despite the overall point being that she was a better option and was in fact less hawkish to a more informed person, serves as another instance.

And you feeling the need to immediately go to personal insults in response to me saying this...

Yeah, I didn't know this was controversial. Lots of people commented on it at the time. Clinton's chest-thumping in re Iran during the debates was shameful. And much more overt than Trump ambiguous and dodgy answers. Between that and the fact that Trump made a big deal out of publicly trashing the interventions in Iraq/Libya, both of which Clinton publicly supported, it was completely excusable to think Trump was more doveish on the issue.

...serves as evidence that you're just a hateful guy. And, if you were objective on this topic, I think you would agree that getting angrily defensive of Clinton over that is not reasonable at all.

 

[Trotsky]

600k people liking Trump's tweeting of the American flag after Soleimani was assassinated makes me sick.

There are really people for whom killing some guy they've never heard of in the Middle East evokes the symbol of the American flag.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Iran is tearing sherdog apart!

A big part of the reason we're on the verge of war right now is that sleazy leftists tried to portray Clinton as the more-hawkish candidate or to suggest that didn't matter who won in 2016. It's particularly inexcusable because the exact same thing happened in 2000.

That's because the distinction clarifies that you're looking for a fight, not that one is at all reasonable.

No, you're acknowledging a view that is indistinguishable from the one you're calling a misrepresentation.

You somehow think it exhibits some malicious and delusional anti-Clinton bias to say it was reasonable for casual viewers to think she appeared more hawkish than Trump during the campaign. Or, I guess more specifically, that her rhetoric on Iran specifically was more fear-mongering than Trump's.

It exhibits delusion of some kind, unless you mean casual viewers who blindly accepted political propaganda (that is, whose views weren't based on the actions and comments of the two candidates).

I'm not going to respond bit-by-bit to your last reply because, frankly, I don't think I have anything to gain and I feel comfortable that anyone curious about the matter can look into my (and your) post history. I am likewise going to again decline your invitation to comb through your post history to find instances of you passionately defending Clinton because it serves no purpose. People here have seen it, and you picking out those sentences to start an argument in her defense here again, despite the overall point being that she was a better option and was in fact less hawkish to a more informed person, serves as another instance.

Your argument here is based on a demonstrated factual error (see the difference between your comments on the debate and the video of the debate) and a logic fallacy (whatever I say is inherently wrong because of your smear).

And you feeling the need to immediately go to personal insults in response to me saying this...

​

...serves as evidence that you're just a hateful guy. And, if you were objective on this topic, I think you would agree that getting angrily defensive of Clinton over that is not reasonable at all.

I'm hateful because I don't agree with your dishonest smear of me or your factually inaccurate claim, but you're not because some trolls agree with you.

 

[Jack V Savage]

600k people liking Trump's tweeting of the American flag after Soleimani was assassinated makes me sick.

There are really people for whom killing some guy they've never heard of in the Middle East evokes the symbol of the American flag.

Leftist propaganda of the type you've been promoting in this thread is exactly why we have that guy in the WH.

 

[luckyshot]

 

[Sketch]

Who bought the cookies?

 

[Higus]

Leftist propaganda of the type you've been promoting in this thread is exactly why we have that guy in the WH.

tbf, there's plenty of blame to go around before we start blaming Bernie Supporters for Clinton's loss.