quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: False claims, everything totally untrue. Biased reporting. Contrary to basic common sense and 99% of all news reports. These articles are so stupid they are not worthy of further comment. Do not confuse our allies' respect for America based on history, with respect for the present Obama administration.
This is the internet equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears, shouting, "lalalalalIdon'thearyoulalalalala", and claiming victory.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In fact, it wasn't even 10% of the reporting one gets when googling "Obama international approval ratings". The closest article to Ron's notion was an article reporting on how Gretchen Carlson is wrong when she claimed what Ron was claiming.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You could probably even do a more rigorous cross section survey of news reports that could more empirically declare that.
Additionally, Ron has helpfully included an absolute condition in his assertion — he said "Can you honestly say that Obama has not made all our allies in the world distrust us"
so technically all you would need is a collection of all the requisite polling in literally any allied country to show that the U.S. is viewed more favorably and trusted more under Obama than it was before. And apparently we're viewed better across the board in almost any country!
Gallup had an a-ok methodology in doing this rating, with, quote, respondents in 134 countries and Hong Kong giving the U.S. top marks, with 45 percent approval, followed by Germany (41 percent), the EU (39 percent), China (29 percent) and Russia (22 percent). The U.S. rating was four percentage points below its peak of 49 percent in 2009, after Barack Obama took office, but well above its low point of 34 percent in the last year of George W. Bush's administration, when U.S. leadership was outranked even by China.
This is not fundamentally contested by much of any reliable polling you can find.
Distrust of the U.S. abroad apparently peaked under George W. Bush.
REMEMBER, though, and this is for those of you in the cheap seats (you, Ron, I mean you) — Ron's absolute conditional means that he's wrong even if you find just one single, solitary allied country who likes us better under Obama, even though it looks like they literally all do.
quote:Can you honestly say that Obama is a "uniter"? Can you honestly deny that Obama has made the country more grievously divided, especially along racial lines, than it ever was before? Can you deny that Obama has given nothing but support for the "Black Lives Matter" movement, many of whose spokespersons have openly called for killing police and even killing any whites? Can you honestly deny that this potentially brings America to the brink of race war? Can you honestly say that Obamacare is a good thing? Can you honestly say that Obama has not made all our allies in the world distrust us, and all our enemies in the world laugh at us? Can you honestly deny that Obama has weakened our armed forces to a level not seen since the 1940s? Can you honestly say that the Iran deal was not a total disaster, and could only have been negotiated by total incompetents? Can you honestly say that anatomical males should be allowed into ladies' rest rooms, locker rooms, and showers?
So, yeah, I think we can safely conclude that Ron is just broken and delusional.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally blurdeburred by Ron Lambert: Can you honestly deny that Obama has made the country more grievously divided, especially along racial lines, than it ever was before?
guys obama made the united states more grievously divided, especially along racial lines than it ever was before
this includes
- the literal civil war - literally slavery
watch out for that race war everyone, it's totally coming
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
like ron that statement of yours alone is really bad that it should be called out. and yet it does not exist in a vacuum, and is in fact just one of a thousand such soundbites from you floating in a sea of absurd wrongness, so it's easy to miss because it's so like the rest of everything you produce.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also love the part about causing all of our allies to distrust us. I guess Ron forgot all about the Iraq War and the fact that Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize basically for just being Not Bush.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey Ron, I took some of your arguments to a History forum and they would be very interested in hearing your arguments; it costs 10$ to register and I wouldn't mind paying for your account; but you must absolutely repost your argument there.
e:Ron, is "RonLambert@wowway.com" still a valid/working Email address? Would you like your username to be "RonLambert" or "Ron Lambert"?
[ May 26, 2016, 06:30 PM: Message edited by: Elison R. Salazar ]
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
samp & boots are making great points. And being v. nice about it too.
I've been trying to be a voice for the middle of this discussion...but really I'm not sure how you can still think what you seem to think in the face of so much evidence to the contrary.
One of the hardest & best things I ever did was listen to these guys about some stuff I really REALLY believed. But it was wrong. And so was I. And so are you.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
What's wrong w/ the History Channel? I -love- the history channel.
2: What was the best early WWII tank? I was under a sumilar impression as Ron about the Tiger's effacacy.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As for the History Channel, it's simply bad history quite a lot. That and it's been misnamed for some years now. Do a google search on 'history channel shows' and see how many of them are significant historical documentaries. Of the first ten shows I saw, only two of them were even about history and one was Vikings!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess I kno what you mean. Ancient Aliens is fun & has lot of cool evidence that our current accepted views are wrong (Archeology's views on monolithic 1k ton stones are laughable!) , however their own conclusions are...memeable.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's been a long time since I watched the history channel, really. It was still neck deep in the phase of 'mostly the only bit wars, ever, were WWII and the American civil war and maybe Korea, sometimes'. I've tuned in a few times over the years, always to be disappointed, except when I watch Vikings. But what I remember is that the history shown on THC had an edge only on very entry level history, like high school history. Archaeology on the subject of ancient construction, for example, is hardly static and I would be surprised if THC scooped any actual historians.
Don't get me wrong, I loved it back then. My drifting away was as much due to the style of 'let's have crappy actors with crappy costumes on crappy sets reenact a given historical event' angle production.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Card & Clive & Ron & EVERYONE deserve common decency! And name calling is straight out. It's counter productive & immature.
No cavats.
I provide everyone common decency. if i met him in the street, i would not punch him. i would, in fact, be decent enough to not provide them a paper-thin veneer of politeness to them about their reprehensible views. people are not unfailingly owed politeness.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The History Channel used to be good but is now a cavalcade of mediocrity at best and misinformation and lies at worst. Literally I was listening the other day and it was about how aliens must've been influencing the Nazi's; it's nonsense.
Similarly the narrative of earlier shows always put a huge emphasis on how THIS WAS THE BATTLE THAT DECIDED IT ALL when in truth the result of the battle was basically predetermined due to the innumerable choices that led up to said battle or even if there was improbably circumstance and luck resulted in the opposite result (Midway) it would've been irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
Like, a lot of people on the internet talk about how Pearl Harbour the Japanese made a HUGE MISTAKE not sending out the third wave, or how Midway was the "turning point" but the truth is if you check out that link I gave earlier (the second one) it really doesn't matter; the US was going to have like 30 more carriers by 1946; the Japanese didn't stand a chance but you couldn't tell at all by the tone of OMG OMG OMG the HC constantly has.
As for best early war WWII tanks, in 1939 the T-34 was produced already in small numbers and was probably single handedly the best tank in terms of protection; the KV-1 was virtually invulnerable as were some of the French mediums.
The key thing to understand is that in 1939 in the invasion of Poland the vast majority of the German tank fleet was something like 80% light tanks like the Panzer II.
We've learned from our WWII experience and further experimentation further confirmed that the best tank carefully balances mobility, armament, and protection so it isn't so heavy as it'll be likely to break down or unable to cross bridges; armed enough to engage it's likely opponents and fast enough that it can do it's role as a breakthrough tank. This is the essence of a Main Battle Tank.
The BT-7/T-34, and the Panzer III were probably the 'best' but it isn't really the stats that matter; its whether you can have the tanks where you need them.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To an extent, but one can theorize about best equipment separate of best tactics separate of what actually happened.
The US Sherman is a very underwhelming individually, however en mass they kicked ass.
One of the things I like a lot (on the military channel, part of the discovery network ) is the ten best list show...they grade on 4 or 5 criteria...and some of theit conclusions are debatable, but enjoyable.
I watch science channel, left to my own devices (read as rarely)...but my life is a bit on its ear atm.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Card & Clive & Ron & EVERYONE deserve common decency! And name calling is straight out. It's counter productive & immature.
No cavats.
I provide everyone common decency. if i met him in the street, i would not punch him. i would, in fact, be decent enough to not provide them a paper-thin veneer of politeness to them about their reprehensible views. people are not unfailingly owed politeness.
We've talked this over more than once...and while you convinced me that, at times, brow beating bigots into silence is worthy, we disagreed on which unfailing traits represent you the speaker, vs what is owed.
It was a pretty good discussion if memory serves.
Reguardless...what Tom said was not okay...if simply for no other reason than it is against the TOS.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you, Stone_Wolf_, I appreciate your civility. The rest of these guys will just have to answer to God as their final Judge. None of them will ever be able to say I did not make every effort to get through to them about what is truth, with logically sound arguments and documented facts. It seems though that logic and facts alone are not enough to persuade some people, if they do not want to be persuaded. Hopefully God will find some other way to get through to them. As Jesus said to the Church of Laodicea, "As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten." (Revelation 3:19a)
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In this post, I detailed clearly that Ron is absolutely a bigot because he holds clearly bigoted views and is afraid of Obama as a president because he listened to a pastor 20 years ago who said that a black president would usher in the apocalypse. It was removed because I'm apparently supposed to say "Holding these views makes you bigoted" rather than being able to say "this person is a bigot for the following reasons"
posted
Thank you, Stone_Wolf_, it is very generous of you to want to make sure my fair and accurate statements are seen by a moderator who might otherwise miss it. I expect he will be along shortly to explain why it's okay for me to call someone a bigot when they act bigoted.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: None of them will ever be able to say I did not make every effort to get through to them about what is truth, with logically sound arguments and documented facts. It seems though that logic and facts alone are not enough to persuade some people, if they do not want to be persuaded.
Literally EVERYONE is saying that.
As much as I am standing up for you, I must point out your steadfast refusal to to acknowledge even basic factual truth, while projecting your own negative behaviors on to them is irksome.
And to be perfectly honest, these negative reactions you are encountering here are earned thru -years- of such hypocrisy & philosophical myopia.
I am starting to wonder, why you post here? Surely there are a plethora of boards which would welcome your particular brand of eccentricities with open arm...but you keep coming back...to folk that challenge you & your beliefs, why?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: Thank you, Stone_Wolf_, it is very generous of you to want to make sure my fair and accurate statements are seen by a moderator who might otherwise miss it. I expect he will be along shortly to explain why it's okay for me to call someone a bigot when they act bigoted.
The accuracy of your statements isn't the issue, and you are smart enough to kno that.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Ron: Obama is a liar who is an agent of evil who will help usher in the apocalypse, starting with race wars in this country.
Parkour: Ron is clearly a bigot. See: all of his crazy classic bigoted beliefs, such as 'Obama will start race wars', one of the classic cliches of the most die-hard racists when they talk politics.
Stone_Wolf: Whoa, whoa, you can't talk like that about Ron!
Gimme a ****in' break, man. What is necessary, to you, before it is acceptable to label someone a bigot? Does that person need to actually say outright, "I am a bigot!" (Said nobody, ever, including the most obvious bigots of history.) If someone says, "I hate ni%#*rs!" can you call them a bigot or will you wring your hands and I daresay clutch your pearls about using the dreaded word bigot? I mean that's obviously a palpably bigoted thing to say, but maybe that's where the line is drawn. If someone says, "I don't have a problem with coloreds except that they're lazy and tend more to crime and suck down government assistance," can you say it then? Or must the bush continue to be beaten around?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: To an extent, but one can theorize about best equipment separate of best tactics separate of what actually happened.
The US Sherman is a very underwhelming individually, however en mass they kicked ass.
One of the things I like a lot (on the military channel, part of the discovery network ) is the ten best list show...they grade on 4 or 5 criteria...and some of theit conclusions are debatable, but enjoyable.
I watch science channel, left to my own devices (read as rarely)...but my life is a bit on its ear atm.
This isn't true either, the Sherman had almost as much protection as the Tiger in the front because it utilized sloped armor; was considerably more reliable, had almost as good hill climbing performance as the Panther, was arguably the safest tank to survive the war in, and it's armament could pierce both the Tiger and the Panther from the front using HEAT rounds at 1km, and normal AP at 300.
The Soviets in particular LOVED the Sherman and used them in large number even in Manchuria; it had some of the best ergonomics of all WWII tanks except for maybe the F2 Panzer IV or the Tiger.
The Sherman with the 76 gun and expanded turret + "wet" ammo storage was pretty much operationally one of the best tanks of the war.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: Thank you, Stone_Wolf_, it is very generous of you to want to make sure my fair and accurate statements are seen by a moderator who might otherwise miss it. I expect he will be along shortly to explain why it's okay for me to call someone a bigot when they act bigoted.
The accuracy of your statements isn't the issue, and you are smart enough to kno that.
Oh, right. A very high-minded ideal you're pursuing here that couldn't have even the slightest relation to preexisting personal issues, nope. No hint of that. Because God knows the time to involve a moderator is when the word bigot is used to describe someone, and not the many, many, many instances prior to that where explicitly bigoted views were expressed.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: Thank you, Stone_Wolf_, it is very generous of you to want to make sure my fair and accurate statements are seen by a moderator who might otherwise miss it. I expect he will be along shortly to explain why it's okay for me to call someone a bigot when they act bigoted.
The accuracy of your statements isn't the issue, and you are smart enough to kno that.
wait, so
if the accuracy of his statements aren't at issue, then it's like, "of course he is those things, you just can't call him those things"
this is some bizarre civility policing, overall
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which of course is entirely divorced from any preexisting personal issues that have played out in the past.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do we really have to explain this again? I will get back to this when I'm done driving I'd appreciate it if the obvious TOS violations were removed before then.
If you need a hint try describing someone's opinion as bigotry instead of calling the person a bigot.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Elison...man...that was not the impression I got from the discovery network shows...which you also called into question...
Uh oh...research needed.
I bet you're right...tho
Rakeesh...you are right...it is a past issue that can't be seen thru...by you...about me.
I'm not stirring the pot, or beating a dead horse or whatever.
Resorting to name calling reflects poorly on the name caller...REGUARDLESS of if the title is warented or not.
This place has grown a culture of harshness that almost makes the -correctness- of the views espoused impossible to hear.
Ron comes back here for...a reason.
Maybe one day he will want to hear the wisdom we all here have to share with him, and maybe that day will never come.
But in the end, others will read our words.
Others who can hear you.
And they will turn away from your words because the words you pick are judgmental and unkind.
Does your labeling him a bigot make it so? If you held your tongue would his views be any less bigoted?
Your harsh words about Ron don't negativly reflect on him. HIS do. YOUR harsh words reflect negativly on YOU.
It takes almost NO effort to say EXACTLY the same thing but discuss Ron's (Card's too) VIEWS, instead of talking about HIM.
But instead of just using a micron of tact, people here seem to actually enjoy verbally roughing up on those who have it wrong.
They came here to talk .
And if you try and force a fist full of right down someone's throat via their teeth, THEY WON'T HEAR YOU.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh and it is HUGELY disrespectful to BlackBlade. Are y'all trying to get him fired? Or just enjoy effing w him?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Have you known a lot of old super religious people who changed their disgusting views because someone asked them to nicely?
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh. And if by talk you mean write words, then yes. He is here to talk. If you mean he is here to discuss and debate in good faith, then that is obviously bullshit.
I mean, really. Of all the people to white knight for...Ron Lambert?
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok. Ron, just about every damn thing you have to say about Obama is bigoted, superstitious tripe that makes him look better just by the virtue of your being the one to criticize him. One would be perfectly justified, by the large and repetitive sampling of statements by you, in concluding that you are a superstitious bigot. However, I won't say that, and instead just repeat that nearly everything you say on the subject is superstitious bigotry.
What a difference it makes. The world in general and the forum in particular is made just a little bit better by this tissue-thin prevarication that fools no one but sustains a lovely little fiction. That fiction being that something worth preserving is maintained by enforcing a rule 'don't call anyone a bigot', while also doing nothing (and indeed by the ToS nothing can be done) not only about someone who repeatedly makes racist and homophobic and transphobic statements (but should not be said to be racist, or homophobic, or transphobic, heavens no), but who also routinely refuses to respond to direct challenges to his positions not only on rhetorical grounds but on questions of the merest fact. And who then insults those who do.
The ToS has nothing to say about that, and neither do you really, aside from ineffectual lecturing about how maybe someday blah blah blah. But for heaven's sake don't let's let anyone say that a man who has made racist, homophobic, transphobic remarks for years for god's sake over a decade now, saying that man is racist and transphobic and homophobic that's just going too far! We have rules!
It's not about getting JB in trouble. He doesn't make the rules. Don't try to wrap that cloak of martyrdom around your shoulders, Stone_Wolf. Oh, and the assertion that 'name-calling' always diminishes the speaker is ridiculous. If I call Bull Connor or David Duke bigots, I haven't freaking diminished myself.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I accept that you disagree strongly, however, waving away my points and dismissing my opinion aren't the same as actually refuting them.
The really real point of labeling Ron (or anyone) a bigot is to dehumanize them so they may be neatly and cleanly catagorized and dismissed.
The really real point of separating discussions of people's views vs them is to give them the beginning the separation from their views for little perspective.
How can someone admit their views are wrong when their self identity are based on those views?
Eventually right fighters can get addicted to the fight...and the high of putting bigots in their place. Til their actions are only slightly better than that of those they are pressuring.
Honestly Rakeesh, why do you bother to get so uppity about Ron still? Why so outraged, still. For a decade you point out...he has been consistent. So why?
It isn't about a veneer of politeness...it's about honest politeness.
Ron shouldn't be hated, he should be pitied. And treated kindly, as if he were blind or deaf or mentally disabled.
BC he is NEVER going to change.
So refute his bigoty. Let him kno his views are unhealthy, but be a beacon of high ground clairity, don't muddy the waters about who the asshole is.
And our discussions being searchable and durable is not nothing to be waved off.
Words change worlds.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And no shit BB doesn't make the rules...his boss does. He is paid to enforce them.
So if you all keep breaking them...you are putting him in a place where he either has to yell at you...again...again...again...or get in trouble for not doing his job.
Like misbehaving for the sitter bc you are mad at Dad.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nevermind that Ron was likely raised deeply inbedded into a culture of hate, which is also wrapped up into his religion. Nevermind that he is a complex, multi faceted human being who has felt pain & loss & given love & shared joy...he can be summed up, encapsulated & disregarded as merely a bigot. Clearly the ONLY way HE could improve humanity is by dying! Heck, maybe we should help w that! You guys bring the torches...I've got my pitch fork!
To his children he is THE ONLY FATHER.
To his mother his is HER BABY.
To you he is...
You kno, I'm still unclear what you get out of this.
I mean if he -really- didn't matter, no one would bother replying & he wouldn't have come back for a decade.
If you believe him a troll...why not just ignore him?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, I don't have time to get to the rest of this now, but let me just highlights three things. One, your opinions haven't just been dismissed, specific objections have been raised against them. To claim that others are simply shrugging them aside as you did is misleading at best. Two, I put forward that it is not actually polite nor more embracing of anyone's humanity to treat them more nicely because they are 'blind, deaf, or mentally disabled'. (Goodness, the things to be said about this part alone, but time is short.) Third, no one has suggested responding to anything Ron has said with anything other than words, so your remarks about 'better off dead' and 'maybe we should help that happen' are, at best, completely misleading as well.
But since that was the second time you grossly misstated a stance I and others took, Stone_Wolf, it would be understandable if I called it a lie. Just to be very clear, wouldn't want to transgress, I am saying that those two remarks you made were false statements. I'm certainly not suggesting anything so impolite as to say you uttered words that were untrue.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
