jakee

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    24,925

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    74

  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by jakee

  1. jakee
    No kidding. And this is where reporting matters. I mean, is that headline really representative? I'd have thought that "Jordan bullies DOJ employees over refusal to investigate Youtube conspiracy theories" would give a better snapshot of the story.
  2. jakee
    All of Trump's boys were involved with his campaign, his business and his ongoing publicity machine. They were active and public participants in Trump's candidacy and presidency. Hunter Biden is none of those things.
  3. jakee
    Why is Hunter Biden one of the things they should be reporting on right now?
  4. jakee
    The news is wrong because they're not buying into your Hunter Biden derangement syndrome?
  5. jakee
    Balls. Wish I'd thought of that now.
  6. jakee
    The tactics don't make either speech good or bad, the speech itself does. Imagine a private school or university run by religious nutters who give their full approval to a valedictorian speech about how Jesus will cast the transgender abominations into the fiery pit of hell - would that speech be a good speech because it was given without subterfuge? Would it be qualitatively any different to the same speech given in a different school without the teacher's knowledge? I don't see it.
  7. jakee
    What social programs? You've stated that you support them, you've stated what they should not do (ie actually provide any form of free healthcare or other handout). What do you want them to do that is directly helpful to a person who's just been forced to have a baby they can't afford to adequately care for?
  8. jakee
    So how, specifically, do they have the strongest support for them? So again what, specifically, do conservatives advocate for and endorse? If you don't want a safety net that provides anything not paid for at point of supply then what do you want? Please try answering with details rather than platitudes.
  9. jakee
    I think you're right that John is looking at the Bush era with rose tinted glasses, but there's elements of both. On a personal level he genuinely does seem to be a decent man, but that doesn't take away from his horrendous political decisions. He may have convinced himself it was for the good of his country but 100's of thousands dead in Iraq and the surrounding area (never mind the rise of ISIS) from a war he started under false pretences and the full embrace of torture as a tool of the state alone were morally bankrupt choices he has to take responsibility for. I think the idea of him as just a convenient stooge for Cheney and Rumsfeld et al is both too charitable and an underestimation of his abilities.
  10. jakee
    I find whenever you visit a new DZ you can always tell the people who love gossiping and backbiting the most because they're the first people you'll hear moaning about 'all the drama'. Same with the last word online. The only people who care about having it are the ones who keep complaining that other people want it. So why did you start this conversation? are you just looking for an excuse to have an irrelevant argument that you can bitch about not getting the last word in? Whatever floats your boat, I guess.
  11. jakee
    Blatant 'whataboutism' isn't thread drift, it's intentional thread derailment.
  12. jakee
    Maybe you can discuss that in a new thread, since it has nothing to do with the subject of this one.
  13. jakee
    Yeah that one.
  14. jakee
    That's not how maths works. 6,800,000 in 331,449,281 is 2.05%, but that's not the ratio. It's just a random number you've invented by smooshing two other unconnected numbers together. The ratio is 1 in 6,800,000. 1 in 6,800,000 is 0.00000015% In other words, 1 in every 550 people in the USA have died of Covid. If 1 in every 6,800,000 people in the US died of the vaccine and every single person in the US was vaccinated then 50 people in total would die. So tell me again how close those percentages are?
  15. jakee
    No one’s arguing with that. When you went further and said he shouldn’t have any opinions on policy at all, that’s where you got lost. His job (however briefly) required him to help formulate the president’s opinions on policy.
  16. jakee
    Exactly. Why would he be trying to avoid a lawsuit if what he was doing was perfectly legal, and it’s a clear, constitutional and necessary BFOQ for his chaplains to be Christian? After all, now he’s taken this position he’s going to have to hire non-Christians for Christian jobs! How is his business going to function?
  17. jakee
    Yeah! Like when the cop had to shoot that woman trying to break into the house chamber where the representatives were hiding. Everyone knows a bullet in the neck is just a friendly invitation.
  18. jakee
    How is that relevant to the discussion if the thing he is being quoted as saying is correct? Do you think the Jade Helm conspiracy theories were credible? Do you think Russian misinformation wasn't involved?
  19. jakee
    Right, but in this case if you've lost track of the fact that Bigun is trying to focus purely omn whether one thing happened on one specific date in order to distract from the fact that his entire argument is bogus then you should pay more attention before you comment.
  20. jakee
    Your claim has already been addressed. It is not. Chaplains of any faith are expected to minister to inmates of any faith. Hell, the article linked in the OP fundamentally disproves your claim. First, the Islamic man in question is already a volunteer chaplain at the prison and has been for some time. How come he's qualified to do the job for free but not to do it for pay? Second, the owner of the company contracted to provide chaplain services to the prison is saying it's all a big misunderstanding and of course they would employ a Muslim. How is that possible if being a Christian is a BFOQ?
  21. jakee
    You may have forgotten he was also National Security Advisor, a role which very much requires his nose to be in policy. I think it’s sufficient to focus on the insanity of what he said rather than whether it’s appropriate for him to say anything. Generally I’d expect any other non-felonious and non-mental NSA to have viewpoints worth listening to on any number of issues.
  22. jakee
    Go back and read the thread. Joe used the date 2001. Bigun, with no prompting of any sort by anyone, said "That's exactly when it started." If you think I'm to blame for being too specific right now then quite frankly you're all fucking crazy. Furthermore, it doesn't matter a bit to me whether police militarisation accelerated in 2001, 2006 or 2013 or whenever Bigun is now saying it started in response to 9/11 - I'm saying it's been going on since way before any of that. Further than that, I'm also saying - which I've made very clear several times - that the entire discussion of changes in funding within the police don't touch the half of what has led to the 'defund the police' movement and what changes could be made for the better. So again, if you think that any of my main points here hang on whether something happened specifically in 2001 or not... then I refer you back to paragraph 1
  23. jakee
    It’s your exact specific date, not mine. And it started significantly earlier. The need to defund the police and fund other social programs also stems largely from funding decisions that have nothing to do with an internal shift from community policing to counter terror. The police have, over a very long time, become a de facto response agency for all sorts of things which should be outside the sphere of any form of law enforcement.
  24. jakee
    I'm not trying to prove you wrong, you just happen to be clearly wrong. You can't say that the militarisation of the police started in 2001 unless you're being both crazily specific and generally ignoring what most people would understand by the word militarisation.
  25. jakee
    That's absolutely not when it started. The US military's 1033 program specifically designed to distribute surplus equipment and weaponry to the police and other agencies has been running since the early '90s. If you look at the graph of gear per year on this page you'll see around 2001... pretty much nothing changed. Swat teams have been buying military assault rifles since the '70s, ex-military armored vehicles since the early '80s. And ok it's federal not local, but the ATF turned up to Waco in the early '90s with actual Main Battle Tanks. They could do that because of legislation passed in 1981 allowing the military to give domestic law enforcement access to pretty much whatever they wanted for special occasions, all because of the War On Drugs. It's tempting to forget the US was fighting domestic wars before the War On Terror, but it pretty much always has been.