USPOL Dec: The War on Christmas -- Just another example of the War on Coal

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL Dec: The War on Christmas -- Just another example of the War on Coal

«‹›305 »

Swan Oat: Oct 9, 2012; I was selected for my skill.

The Insect Court posted:

So you're basically taking the Trump supporter position that rights(like the right to privacy) are only for people you like? And the NSA spying on legislators is totally cool with you because they're the (in your opinion) crappy ones?

Do you just not care that much about civil liberties and separation of powers or do you just really, really hate Israel?

I really, really hate Israel mate.

# ? Dec 30, 2015 16:38

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 8, 2024 00:31

Submarine Sandpaper: May 27, 2007

hangedman1984 posted:

I know SOOO many people who this is literally the case. They have bought into the illusion of a just world that they literally can't comprehend that it is not the case for a lot of people. Privilege, its a hell of a drug.

"Everything happens for a reason [and that reason is god]" is the one that really irritates me. A just world fallacy without the religious justification can at least be argued, but it's sorta hard to refute without attacking faith and that never goes well. I'm not big into theology but iirc the only implication it may be true is omnipresence which isn't sound and that puts it in with abortion/gays when it comes to lovely Christianity.

# ? Dec 30, 2015 17:03

RuanGacho: Jun 20, 2002; "You're gunna break it!"

If there's a separation of powers concern with congress being spied on perhaps congress shouldn't be authorizing unrestricted spying on American citizens. Being a member of Congress shouldn't be a privileged class over other American citizens.

# ? Dec 30, 2015 17:05

Timmy Age 6: Jul 23, 2011; Lobster says "mrow?"; Ramrod XTreme

Somewhat related to the NSA picking up Israeli attempts at derailing the Iran deal, the WSJ also has a bit on McConnell and Boehner's invitation for Netanyahu to speak before Congress. Unsurprisingly, it was done as a deliberate "gently caress you" to the White House.

WSJ article posted:

It started off as a routine call between then-House Speaker John Boehner and the incoming Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, about ways Republicans in Congress could put the brakes on the nuclear pact President Barack Obama was negotiating with Iran. Then Messrs. Boehner and McConnell had a light-bulb moment: They could undercut Mr. Obama by extending an invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to deliver a speech to a joint session of Congress opposing the emerging deal.
...
On Jan. 21, as planned, Mr. Boehner�s office formally sent the invitation to Mr. Netanyahu. A few hours before Mr. Boehner�s office released the invitation letter to the press, Mr. Boehner�s chief of staff, Mr. Sommers, called Katie Fallon, Mr. Obama�s top congressional liaison, to inform her. The initial call was cordial. Mrs. Fallon said she appreciated the heads up. The White House had yet to digest the news.
At the White House National Security Council, then-coordinator for the Middle East, Philip Gordon, reacted with disbelief when told Mr. Netanyahu would address a joint session of Congress on the Iran deal. �No he�s not,� Mr. Gordon said in response. �I talk to Dermer all the time.� In those discussions, Mr. Dermer never mentioned an impending speech, Mr. Gordon said.
An hour after Mr. Sommers told the White House, Mrs. Fallon called Mr. Boehner�s chief of staff back. This time she was not as understanding and scolded Mr. Sommers for going around the Obama administration�s back.
Senior officials demanded answers from their Israeli counterparts. Administration officials thought the idea was cooked up by Messrs. Dermer and Netanyahu, and then proposed to the Republicans in Congress. In fact, it was the other way around, congressional officials said.

The full story of the NSA spying on Israel is definitely worth a read, incidentally. It's behind a paywall, but you can get around that by Googling the title of the piece. For your copy-pasting pleasure:

U.S. Spy Net on Israel Snares Congress

Couple more excerpts from that:

U.S. Spy Net on Israel Snares Congress posted:

When Mr. Obama took office, the NSA and its Israeli counterpart, Unit 8200, worked together against shared threats, including a campaign to sabotage centrifuges for Iran�s nuclear program. At the same time, the U.S. and Israeli intelligence agencies targeted one another, stoking tensions.
�Intelligence professionals have a saying: There are no friendly intelligence services,� said Mike Rogers, former Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
Early in the Obama presidency, for example, Unit 8200 gave the NSA a hacking tool the NSA later discovered also told Israel how the Americans used it. It wasn�t the only time the NSA caught Unit 8200 poking around restricted U.S. networks. Israel would say intrusions were accidental, one former U.S. official said, and the NSA would respond, �Don�t worry. We make mistakes, too.�
...
Convinced Mr. Netanyahu would attack Iran without warning the White House, U.S. spy agencies ramped up their surveillance, with the assent of Democratic and Republican lawmakers serving on congressional intelligence committees.
By 2013, U.S. intelligence agencies determined Mr. Netanyahu wasn�t going to strike Iran. But they had another reason to keep watch. The White House wanted to know if Israel had learned of the secret negotiations. U.S. officials feared Iran would bolt the talks and pursue an atomic bomb if news leaked.
...
NSA intelligence reports helped the White House figure out which Israeli government officials had leaked information from confidential U.S. briefings. When confronted by the U.S., Israel denied passing on the briefing materials.
The agency�s goal was �to give us an accurate illustrative picture of what [the Israelis] were doing,� a senior U.S. official said.
Just before Mr. Netanyahu�s address to Congress in March, the NSA swept up Israeli messages that raised alarms at the White House: Mr. Netanyahu�s office wanted details from Israeli intelligence officials about the latest U.S. positions in the Iran talks, U.S. officials said.
A day before the speech, Secretary of State John Kerry made an unusual disclosure. Speaking to reporters in Switzerland, Mr. Kerry said he was concerned Mr. Netanyahu would divulge �selective details of the ongoing negotiations.�
The State Department said Mr. Kerry was responding to Israeli media reports that Mr. Netanyahu wanted to use his speech to make sure U.S. lawmakers knew the terms of the Iran deal.
Intelligence officials said the media reports allowed the U.S. to put Mr. Netanyahu on notice without revealing they already knew his thinking. The prime minister mentioned no secrets during his speech to Congress.

Seriously, though, you should read the whole article.

# ? Dec 30, 2015 17:15

Rygar201: Jan 26, 2011; I AM A TERRIBLE PIECE OF SHIT.

Please Condescend to me like this again.

Oh yeah condescend to me ALL DAY condescend daddy.

RuanGacho posted:

If there's a separation of powers concern with congress being spied on perhaps congress shouldn't be authorizing unrestricted spying on American citizens. Being a member of Congress shouldn't be a privileged class over other American citizens.

This isn't even what happened though. The NSA was spying on foreign officials, it's literal purpose, and those officials happened to communicate with Congressmen. Like, it's literally the NSA working as intended.

# ? Dec 30, 2015 17:22

withak: Jan 15, 2003; Fun Shoe

On a lighter note, in 1986 Pres. Reagan apparently recommended that PM Thatcher read "Red Storm Rising" by Tom Clancy in order to gain some valuable insight on the USSR's intentions and strategy.

# ? Dec 30, 2015 17:24

Eggplant Squire: Aug 14, 2003

The stupidity of the Reagan administration continues to impress twenty years later.

# ? Dec 30, 2015 17:25

The Bloop: Jul 5, 2004; by Fluffdaddy

Radbot posted:

I'm sorry, but the kind of person that would vandalize a church over rhetorical confusion is, to me, just as dangerous as someone doing it explicitly for racial spite.

I am certain that no one was defending the vandals in any way

# ? Dec 30, 2015 17:28

RuanGacho: Jun 20, 2002; "You're gunna break it!"

Rygar201 posted:

This isn't even what happened though. The NSA was spying on foreign officials, it's literal purpose, and those officials happened to communicate with Congressmen. Like, it's literally the NSA working as intended.

I don't disagree, I am just exercising my rarely relevant egalitarian leaning that Congress deserves whatever nonsense they inflict on themselves since they usually insulate themselves from consequences.

I'm not convinced that the NSA should exist at all as an offensive agency however.

# ? Dec 30, 2015 17:29

Eggplant Squire: Aug 14, 2003

RuanGacho posted:

I don't disagree, I am just exercising my rarely relevant egalitarian leaning that Congress deserves whatever nonsense they inflict on themselves since they usually insulate themselves from consequences.

I'm not convinced that the NSA should exist at all as an offensive agency however.

Yeah it's reminiscent of the government shut down and when they figured out that it was going to affect their plane travel that specific part got fixed loving quick.

# ? Dec 30, 2015 17:31

Vienna Circlejerk: Jan 28, 2003; The great science sausage party!

Radbot posted:

I'm sorry, but the kind of person that would vandalize a church over rhetorical confusion is, to me, just as dangerous as someone doing it explicitly for racial spite.

Uh, I'm pretty sure we were talking about we'll-intentioned people who don't understand why "all lives matter" is problematic, not people who commit acts of vandalism over it. Conflating the two is part of the problem.

# ? Dec 30, 2015 17:41

Gin and Juche: Apr 3, 2008; The Highest Judge of Paradise
Shiki Eiki
YAMAXANADU

I wonder how many people upset over the NSA monitoring a foreign leader's dealings with Congress overlap with getting upset over the CIA's active attempts to undermine a Congressional investigation over the torture program.

# ? Dec 30, 2015 17:51

Raskolnikov38: Mar 3, 2007; We were somewhere around Manila when the drugs began to take hold

withak posted:

On a lighter note, in 1986 Pres. Reagan apparently recommended that PM Thatcher read "Red Storm Rising" by Tom Clancy in order to gain some valuable insight on the USSR's intentions and strategy.

It's a been a decade since I read it myself but how does 'American serviceman wanders around Iceland and finds a gently caress buddy for half the book' reveal anything about Soviet tactics.

# ? Dec 30, 2015 18:06

Goatse James Bond: Mar 28, 2010; If you see me posting please remind me that I have Charlie Work in the reports forum to do instead

FAUXTON posted:

friendly heads of state.

Netanyahu's been about as friendly as Ahmadinejad and I would say there's a conceivable interest in keeping tabs on possible attempts to derail a major peace accord with one of the main regional powers.

I would support Netanyahu being indicted for consorting with genies.

# ? Dec 30, 2015 18:23

Captain_Maclaine: Sep 30, 2001; Every moment that I'm alive, I pray for death!

Raskolnikov38 posted:

It's a been a decade since I read it myself but how does 'American serviceman wanders around Iceland and finds a gently caress buddy for half the book' reveal anything about Soviet tactics.

You might want to sit down because this may shock you: President Reagan wasn't the brightest fellow even before his brain turned to mush.

# ? Dec 30, 2015 18:28

Maarek: Jun 9, 2002; Your silence only incriminates you further.

Imagine being the head of a major NATO power and the 'leader of the free world' who has his finger on the button says "If you really want to understand ISIS you have to read Harry Potter". That must have been terrifying.

# ? Dec 30, 2015 18:38

Buffer: May 6, 2007; I sometimes turn down sex and blowjobs from my girlfriend because I'm too busy posting in D&D. PS: She used my credit card to pay for this.

I'm way more disturbed by members of congress being lobbied (particularly successfully) by a foreign government than that that interaction got caught.

Like it would be almost certainly called treason if it was Rouhani or Putin, but Bibi is cool?

# ? Dec 30, 2015 18:42

Mc Do Well: Aug 2, 2008; by FactsAreUseless

Buffer posted:

I'm way more disturbed by members of congress being lobbied (particularly successfully) by a foreign government than that that interaction got caught.

Like it would be almost certainly called treason if it was Rouhani or Putin, but Bibi is cool?

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

# ? Dec 30, 2015 18:45

Tender Bender: Sep 17, 2004

Buffer posted:

I'm way more disturbed by members of congress being lobbied (particularly successfully) by a foreign government than that that interaction got caught.

Like it would be almost certainly called treason if it was Rouhani or Putin, but Bibi is cool?

Yeah I mean without any leaks we still knew that the GOP brought a foreign leader over to convince our government to go against the wishes of our president and instead go to war on behalf of his country for his benefit.

# ? Dec 30, 2015 18:48

TeenageArchipelago: Jul 23, 2013

Mr. Wookums posted:

"Everything happens for a reason [and that reason is god]" is the one that really irritates me. A just world fallacy without the religious justification can at least be argued, but it's sorta hard to refute without attacking faith and that never goes well. I'm not big into theology but iirc the only implication it may be true is omnipresence which isn't sound and that puts it in with abortion/gays when it comes to lovely Christianity.

God should have never separated powers. The increased bureaucracy, mixed with partisan divides, has completely gridlocked the godhead since the end of the first century. Ever since the socialist Holy-Spirit and God-The-Son coalition collapsed, God-The-Father has been able to filibuster any progressive miracles, only allowing the occasional joint anti-sinner miracles between God-The-Father and the Holy-Spirit to make it through.

# ? Dec 30, 2015 18:52

Kitfox88: Aug 21, 2007; Anybody lose their glasses?

Raskolnikov38 posted:

It's a been a decade since I read it myself but how does 'American serviceman wanders around Iceland and finds a gently caress buddy for half the book' reveal anything about Soviet tactics.

Soviets (and all communists), like other animals, are controlled by their baser instincts. This means loving is v. important in Soviet military strategies.

# ? Dec 30, 2015 19:06

Gin and Juche: Apr 3, 2008; The Highest Judge of Paradise
Shiki Eiki
YAMAXANADU

Raskolnikov38 posted:

It's a been a decade since I read it myself but how does 'American serviceman wanders around Iceland and finds a gently caress buddy for half the book' reveal anything about Soviet tactics.

50 Shades of Red

# ? Dec 30, 2015 19:09

FairGame: Jul 24, 2001; Der Kommander

Maarek posted:

Imagine being the head of a major NATO power and the 'leader of the free world' who has his finger on the button says "If you really want to understand ISIS you have to read Harry Potter". That must have been terrifying.

Didn't GWB go to Chirac in the prelude to Iraq and tell him we totally needed to do this because the Biblical figures Gog and Magog were literally in Iraq doing nefarious poo poo?

# ? Dec 30, 2015 19:11

haveblue: Aug 15, 2005; Toilet Rascal

FairGame posted:

Didn't GWB go to Chirac in the prelude to Iraq and tell him we totally needed to do this because the Biblical figures Gog and Magog were literally in Iraq doing nefarious poo poo?

Yep, and Chirac had to go ask a religious history professor what the gently caress he was talking about.

# ? Dec 30, 2015 19:12

withak: Jan 15, 2003; Fun Shoe

Raskolnikov38 posted:

It's a been a decade since I read it myself but how does 'American serviceman wanders around Iceland and finds a gently caress buddy for half the book' reveal anything about Soviet tactics.

It doesn't. The post was a funny anecdote further illustrating that the leader of the free world was not able to tell the difference between fiction and reality.

# ? Dec 30, 2015 19:13

FairGame: Jul 24, 2001; Der Kommander

haveblue posted:

Yep, and Chirac had to go ask a religious history professor what the gently caress he was talking about.

I feel like this is the sort of thing one can point out when someone trots out the old "but both sides are equally bad" line. Christ, we are a shameful loving country.

# ? Dec 30, 2015 19:13

blue squares: Sep 28, 2007

Tender Bender posted:

Yeah I mean without any leaks we still knew that the GOP brought a foreign leader over to convince our government to go against the wishes of our president and instead go to war on behalf of his country for his benefit.

So? We do the same poo poo. Your post implies that we should just do whatever the president wants. What if someone from Iraq came to congress and tried to convince them not to invade? Leaders of countries can do diplomacy

# ? Dec 30, 2015 19:19

Captain_Maclaine: Sep 30, 2001; Every moment that I'm alive, I pray for death!

withak posted:

It doesn't. The post was a funny anecdote further illustrating that the leader of the free world was not able to tell the difference between fiction and reality.

And hardly for the first time. Reagan was, among other things, an early booster of the National League of Families of POW/MIA Families and strong advocate for the return of the non-existent live POWs supposedly left behind in Southeast Asia after Vietnam.

In large part, this derived from him having had a starring role in Prisoner of War in 1954, which he later mistook for real-life experience.

# ? Dec 30, 2015 19:31

McAlister: Nov 3, 2002; by exmarx

Radbot posted:

If I'm a Trump supporter, a Jeb! supporter may roll their eyes but still feel some sort of fellowship with me. If I'm a Hillary supporter, Bernie folks will salt my lawn and spray paint "SHILLARY" on my house and doxx my MLP fanart to my boss.

The reason Bernie supporters get a bad rap is because their vitriol is atypical of the left to a degree that people find them off putting. That sort of thing is hardly normal. And I've seen some epic trump/anti-trump arguments on Facebook among republican relatives.

quote:

If you are a white leftist you definitely self-hate to some degree.

Hrrrrmmmm. I've got some emo tendencies but I wouldn't call that self-hate.

# ? Dec 30, 2015 19:32

Harold Fjord: Jan 3, 2004; Can't post for 3 days!

blue squares posted:

So? We do the same poo poo. Your post implies that we should just do whatever the president wants. What if someone from Iraq came to congress and tried to convince them not to invade? Leaders of countries can do diplomacy

Well, firstly they should also be talking to the president, not congress. Secondly there is a huge difference between a diplomatic mission of peace from a country being targeted and a third party attempting to undermine negotiations between two nations.

# ? Dec 30, 2015 19:35

Rygar201: Jan 26, 2011; I AM A TERRIBLE PIECE OF SHIT.

Please Condescend to me like this again.

Oh yeah condescend to me ALL DAY condescend daddy.

blue squares posted:

So? We do the same poo poo. Your post implies that we should just do whatever the president wants. What if someone from Iraq came to congress and tried to convince them not to invade? Leaders of countries can do diplomacy

Nah bro, this isn't actually a thing. It's actually the first time a foreign Head of State spoke from the Well of the House to condemn the president. It was a big departure from the historical Politics Stops at the Water's Edge ideal and made us look like clowns.

I tasted bile when I saw Bibi warmongering from the Well on CNN at work.

# ? Dec 30, 2015 19:37

Acelerion: May 3, 2005

Has anyone ever taken a serious look at life imitating art?

It's easy to watch csi or James Bond and say that isn't how it works in the real world. It obviously isnt. But how many people at the CIA are living out their own personal spy fantasy. How many people in authoritative positions both public and private earnestly believe things work like their favorite cop and legal drama. Hell, how much of people's understanding of medicine comes from greys anatomy and house.

An honest to god present of America had at least some of his foreign policy influenced by a pop writer.

# ? Dec 30, 2015 19:57

Mc Do Well: Aug 2, 2008; by FactsAreUseless

Trump looks like he'll put Likud in their place. https://youtu.be/5sz_abUV2V0

Perception is reality. Media affects perception.

# ? Dec 30, 2015 19:58

Islam is the Lite Rock FM: Jul 27, 2007; by exmarx

Real life versions of, say, CSI would be boring as gently caress. Yeah! Let's watch the GC-MS run samples all day. The only excitement would be if the QC check failed and they had to rerun it all again.

Likewise, cop shows would be watching cops fill out reports followed by prosecutors trying to read their chicken scratch.

# ? Dec 30, 2015 20:01

Hollismason: Jun 30, 2007; An alright dude.

FairGame posted:

Didn't GWB go to Chirac in the prelude to Iraq and tell him we totally needed to do this because the Biblical figures Gog and Magog were literally in Iraq doing nefarious poo poo?

Wait someone is going to have to expound on this.

# ? Dec 30, 2015 20:02

Captain_Maclaine: Sep 30, 2001; Every moment that I'm alive, I pray for death!

Hollismason posted:

Wait someone is going to have to expound on this.

Oh are you in for a treat.

# ? Dec 30, 2015 20:04

Combed Thunderclap: Jan 4, 2011

Captain_Maclaine posted:

Oh are you in for a treat.

This link omits the even more fun excerpt from Kurt Eichenwald's 500 Days immediately before it:

quote:

Light from a chandelier of gilt bronze and crystal spilled across the hand-carved Louis XV desk where Jacques Chirac was working. His office, the Salon Dor�, was an opulent holdover from 18th Century France, its golden walls adorned with Gobelins tapestries that surrounded the most valuable antiques in all of �lys�e Palace. But on this day, the familiar grandeur barely registered with the French president as he waited for a phone call from Bush.

The topic, again, would be Iraq. Just weeks after the first U.N. resolution demanding that Saddam comply with his disarmament obligations, the Bush Administration was pushing the Security Council to take the next step, authorizing a U.N.-backed invasion. Chirac remained unconvinced that military action was necessary. He still considered the evidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction to be flimsy at best. Rushing into battle based on hunches and theories struck him as the height of folly.

Bush had been particularly unpersuasive in making the case, Chirac thought. Months before, Bush had leaned on him to support an authorization for military action as part of the first U.N. resolution. Chirac refused, arguing that it was too soon to be discussing the use of force before giving weapons inspectors a chance to do their work. Even now, the U.N. team had barely been given enough time to locate their hotel in Iraq, much less find hidden armaments. Yet here was Bush, tub-thumping about war again. Chirac would have none of it; authorizing military action at this stage would make the original resolution seem like a cynical cover for a premeditated attack.

The call came through and the two men traded diplomatic pleasantries.

�Jacques,� Bush said, �Saddam is digging in. He is lying to the world and he is lying to Blix. We can�t let him think that the U.N. is a paper tiger that won�t enforce its own resolutions.�

�I understand your concerns, George, but the inspectors need more time. War should be the last option, and it will be our admission of failure. I am not convinced that the situation is urgent, or even that the weapons are there. Before we take an irreversible step, we need to be certain of our beliefs.�

Delay would only serve to embolden Saddam, Bush replied. �He has to hear a unified message from us, a declaration that the world is allied against him,� he said. �We know he will not comply unless he feels the pressure.�

Bush wasn�t listening to him, Chirac thought. Instead, he was jumping all over the rhetorical map in search of the magic words that would win him over. Saddam was lying, the U.N. had to prove itself, the allies had to work together. Perhaps, but all beside the point if illegal armaments weren�t found. What if, in fact, Saddam was telling the truth? With the U.N. staring him down and inspectors roaming the country, Saddam couldn�t do anything with his arsenal, even if it existed. War would change that. If foreign forces cornered the Iraqi leader, and if he really did have such weapons at his disposal, they wouldn�t remain hidden anymore. Instead, they would be trained on American soldiers and anyone allied with them.

But before Chirac could elaborate on that point, Bush veered into another direction.

�Jacques,� he said, �You and I share a common faith. You�re Roman Catholic, I�m Methodist, but we are both Christians committed to the teachings of the Bible. We share one common Lord�

Chirac said nothing. He didn�t know where Bush was going with this.

�Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East,� Bush said. ��Biblical prophecies are being fulfilled.�

Gog and Magog? What was that?, thought Chirac.

�This confrontation,� Bush said, �is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people�s enemies before a new age begins.�

Chirac was bewildered. The American president, he thought, sounded dangerously fanatical.

After the call ended, Chirac called together his senior staff members and relayed the conversation.

�He said, �Gog and Magog.� Do any of you know what he is talking about?�

Blank faces and head shakes.

�Find out,� Chirac said.

# ? Dec 30, 2015 20:08

Radbot: Aug 12, 2009; Can't post for 3 years!

T. Bombastus posted:

This seems like a really common meme (among leftists, and especially left-moderates), but I really don't think it's true. Conservatives are just as likely to attack each other and demand purity tests as progressives-- the Tea Party's continued existence is predicated on the idea that the GOP Establishment is a pack of centrist fakers.

Leaders are one thing - I'm talking about your neighbors, friends, and coworkers. If I pull the lever for Republicans, even if we disagree on some things, other Republicans will still largely consider me part of the tribe.

On the other hand, Hillary-voting Dems will be treated like Nazi sympathizers by leftists if they, say, think issues women face are worthy of more attention than transgender issues if only because of the number of people affected.

# ? Dec 30, 2015 20:09

Acelerion: May 3, 2005

DemeaninDemon posted:

Real life versions of, say, CSI would be boring as gently caress. Yeah! Let's watch the GC-MS run samples all day. The only excitement would be if the QC check failed and they had to rerun it all again.

Likewise, cop shows would be watching cops fill out reports followed by prosecutors trying to read their chicken scratch.

I'm not saying they wouldent be, just wondering how people in and around the real life versions are influenced by the Hollywood version.

For example take the hypothesis: People in general are very lenient toward police abuse in part due to many cop drama plot lines focusing on "hero cop bending the rules" to catch the "obviously guilty guy" who's about to skate on a technicality.

I wonder how true stuff like that is.

# ? Dec 30, 2015 20:12

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 8, 2024 00:31

AShamefulDisplay: Jun 30, 2013

Mr. Wookums posted:

"Everything happens for a reason [and that reason is god]" is the one that really irritates me. A just world fallacy without the religious justification can at least be argued, but it's sorta hard to refute without attacking faith and that never goes well. I'm not big into theology but iirc the only implication it may be true is omnipresence which isn't sound and that puts it in with abortion/gays when it comes to lovely Christianity.

I've tried Ecclesiasts and Job but to no avail.

# ? Dec 30, 2015 20:13

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL Dec: The War on Christmas -- Just another example of the War on Coal

«‹›305 »