Moonbox

You fully agree with what you've posted? Wow! No kidding! This isn't about interpretation. This is about you bullshitting. No only have your sources frequently not said what you claim they said, they often contradicted you. All of those maps you posted in this thread were from ISW, and it couldn't be any clearer that you haven't read their write-ups or what they were actually saying about them. When someone disputes what you claim a source or citation is saying, the intelligent way to clear that up is to show where it did. It's not like you weren't given plenty of opportunity to do so. The fact that you chose instead to ignorantly and persistently plow forward, trolling about how we just didn't like what your source was saying, or that we couldn't handle it/couldn't get over it, is deliberate garbage-posting . You don't get to pretend you were arguing in good faith when you do that. The worst thing I've said about you personally (after earlier defending you) is describing your tendency to settle on strong opinions before knowing anything about a topic. Your opinions are worth as much as wet farts if you can't reasonably support them, and that's some real snowflake thinking if you feel otherwise. This board is full of obnoxious, ignorant opinion-shouters who only see black-and-white. If that's what you're here for, you do you, I guess. Just don't expect any respect for it, because it's not deserved.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black... When I respond, I do you the courtesy of actually addressing specific points you're making. I don't just full-quote your entire post and then ramble off the exact same thing I've already said dozens of times before, not even acknowledging your arguments. How many times did you link us maps of Eastern Ukraine showing Russia "advancing", despite the fact that nobody ever argued they weren't? How many times did you claim I "didn't like your sources", that I somehow disputed them, or that I needed to "get over" what they were saying? How many times did I explain that I have no issue with them, but rather how you use them - your poor logic, your contradictions and bad conclusions, and how these sources don't share those with you? If this nonsense gets addressed a half dozen times, and you don't acknowledge that and persist with the behavior, how can we possibly believe you're interested in an honest, back-and-forth debate? Spare us the whining about marshmallow insults about other people trying to derail the conversation if you're going to troll us like that. Some of us have tried to debate with you here, but if you're not acknowledging our points then we may as well be talking to a brick wall.

I've nothing to get over. I know it's happening. I'm not disagreeing with that. This line of argument is as dopey as all your others on this topic. Such a thin skin. If you don't want people to mock your reasoning then don't argue yourself into a corner and make yourself look silly. If all that matters to Russia is the amount of territory they gain, and if their casualties and material losses don't matter, then the Kursk incursion is a catastrophic setback, isn't it? Ukraine has just cancelled out a year's worth of Russian "progress" in three weeks. I'm using your logic here, so if anyone needs to get over anything, it's you. Thanks for the talk. 🙄

Those sources argued that advancing is advancing, or that hundreds of thousands of dead and irreplaceable equipment losses were worth creeping forward ~20km in a year, in isolated sectors of a ~1000km front? 🤔 No, they did not. That was just you. As I said, it was a foolish argument to begin with, and it looks doubly foolish now that Russia's given up the equivalent of a year's worth of their grinding, wasteful offensive. Then losing an equivalent of one year's worth of creeping gains over a few weeks must be a catastrophe for them, right? 🤣 This is yet another foolish argument that even a moment's consideration would discard. That doesn't appear to be your strong suit though. The opinion always seems to come first. Any consideration of the facts or reasoning behind that opinion is a distant afterthought...

I think we should try to understand where some of the resentment against experts comes from, and also how they themselves are not always above politicizing issues. Doris Grinspun didn't just come out and say that safe injection sites save lives - an objective analysis she's qualified to offer. She went political and came out swinging with an accusation that this was a death sentence (by Conservatives). There's an implied maliciousness to the decision, with no acknowledgement or analysis of the costs or the repercussions these sites have on their communities (something she's probably not qualified to offer). It's definitely not helpful when you have dinks like Poilievre doing everything he can to undermine experts for cheap political points, but out-of-touch academics and biased/self-affirming public sector reps do a lot to undermine their own positions.

I don't really know what he thinks. The stuff he's saying here has been nonsense. Ceding ground, inflicting heavy casualties and stretching an attacker's supply lines and logistics is another time-tested strategy. I guess these sorts of concepts are taught only to the officers and planners in Canada's military...evidently not the enlisted.

Funny indeed, because all you "proved" was that you had to zoom in so far we were looking at individual villages and streets to see any progress at all. Your argument that "advancing is advancing" looks pretty foolish now, considering Ukraine's captured an amount of territory in Kursk in a few weeks equivalent to what Russia struggled to take in Eastern Ukraine over a whole year. It's almost like throwing away manpower and material on attritional frontal assaults that accomplish next to nothing is bad military strategy...🙄 Nothing like that. I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't actually want Vladimir Putin to win. I'm talking about the low-info brand of easily-shaped populist whose opinions are informed not by knowledge or even curiosity, but by whatever the talking heads are saying on TV or online. Knowing next to nothing about something doesn't seem to stop you from having a strong opinion on it.

He was caught red-handed posting the exact same posts on Australian and UK forums. The guy who discovered it quit the forum and deleted all of his posts, but those of us who saw it, remember. He's textbook troll-farm, and let's be honest...the people working there aren't the world's best and brightest.

athos doesn't warrant any actual response, beyond mockery. This is a paid Russian troll, and he sucks at his job. 🤣

Funny. Maybe we should talk more about Russia's phenomenal progress in eastern Ukraine .🙄 More and more over the last couple of years, your opinions seem to just fall in line with whatever the rest of the "brand" is saying.

For your absurdist interpretation of what he said, and for it to qualify as a "lie", he definitely does. You can prevent "all", "most", "some" or even "none" of something. You've assumed and now insisted on the absolute dumbest of these options. By your boolean logic, Ex Flyer is a liar if a single cookie or Tylenol tablet made it through the blockade. A rational human being would therefore toss that logic aside and quickly contextualize what was actually being said. Since nobody would seriously argue that literally no aid whatsoever was getting to Gaza, a rational human being would land on a more reasonable interpretation. Not so, for the blind idealogue.

No, he didn't. What he said was: "Israel has Gaza completely surrounded, no way in or out., Even prevents food and medical aid from getting in." Once again, you're so ideologically blind that you're left arguing absurdities. Unless Israel's blockade is not preventing any food or medical aid from entering Gaza, then the above statement is true and your accusations of lying are nothing but limp rhetoric.

An article from March… It’s amazing how reliably you’ll make a fool out of yourself when prompted. 🤡

One step closer to the Russians seizing Odessa, right? 😂

I don't suppose you have a citation for that, do you? The Chinese influence case we were talking about earlier this year, that certainly seems to be the case. Otherwise, I've not seen or found anything from CSIS saying anything remotely like that.

You don't understand why Warren Buffet pulled money out of the market, nor do you have any clue what he's actually saying, or what his strategies are. You like referencing him, but you're only regurgitating garbage-takes off social media that, rather than quoting him or having any understanding whatsoever about what's going on, make their own uninformed conclusions based on little/nothing. What's Michael Burry saying these days, by the way? 🙄

No, you've been vaguely warning the sky is falling for years, copy-pasting twitter garbage, and citing charlatans and crypto-bros. Nothing you predicted has come to pass. Recessions are inevitable, so eventually you'll get one, but the financial apocalypse you were hoping for has unsurprisingly not arrived. In a few years, the EV industry will be bigger than ever, hydrogen will have not yet taken off, and this will just be another feather in that wrong-headed cap of yours. Right now it's too expensive, and it will be fore some time. Things like Trudeau's 2030 targets are pipe-dreams especially in the context of Canada's overall affordability (housing, grocery etc). EV's are not going anywhere though. Yep.

No nerve. This is just useless copypasta. The only people falling for this sort of tripe are geniuses like you.

You're going to look really silly in a few years, lol.

Comrade, you aren't doing a very good job. Ask your masters for better material.

I'm not sure you even understand what conflict of interest really means in the first place. It's hard to understate how disingenuous you're being here. Characterizing Clarence Thomas' influence peddling as "going on vacation with rich friends" is comedy to begin with, but it also ignores the hundreds of thousands (at least) he's received in forgiven loans, free private school tuition for family members and buying his mom's house and letting her live there rent-free. As for ethical guidelines, you're right. Nobody isn't allowed to go on vacation with rich friends. It's just too bad nobody said that was the problem. The problem arises when your professional decisions affect the livelihoods and well-being of those "rich friends", and they're showering you with their largesse. Your worthless dissembling might work on fellow idealogues but "6 degrees of bacon" is a pretty goofy thing to say when you have Koch-employed lawyers arguing cases in front of a Supreme Court Judge who's been enjoying Charles Koch largesse for decades. 🙄

There was no logic. You should have stopped there. The conflict of interest is obvious, and the failure to report wasn't an oversight. That's pretty much the definition of below-board. There's not much of a conversation to have there. Clarence Thomas hilariously fails any professional code of conduct test out there. I've already said it, but bank tellers and data-entry clerks are held to a higher standard than he's held himself. In a lower Court, he'd have been brought up on disciplinary proceedings a long time ago, but the Founding Fathers likely didn't anticipate someone so cartoonishly self-interested and unscrupulous to end up as one of the Supreme Court Justices, and there aren't many mechanisms to deal with that after the fact.

The implication of this sort of "logic" is that a Supreme Court Justice is somehow subject to lower ethical standards of professional conduct than the meekest government pencil-pusher, who in many cases would be required to self-disclose gifts as low as $100 to avoid conflicts of interest (or appearances thereof). It's too bad Bob Menendez didn't get your treatment on his bribery scandal. What's a few gold bars and a bunch of money stashed in the walls between longtime friends? 🙄 He recently helped strike down the Chevron Deference, something that cost his buddy Koch billions over the years and that his network of businesses and non-profits have campaigned against heavily. What a pleasant coincidence their friendship has been.

No. I just posted a (not even comprehensive) list of other various gifts and handouts he's received from his billionaire buddies, amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars at least. If it was above-board then he would report it, and would recuse himself from decisions involving his "friends" or the causes they promote. Justice Thomas, sitting at the pinnacle of the US legal system, demonstrates a cartoonish lack of professional ethics, and holds himself to a lower standard than the average bank teller.

Yes, that's how I knew that it was nothing more than a low-brow opinion piece. What were the specific criticisms against Minister Joly? Go back to the article and post it here. 🙄