gearhog

Do you go around telling people they shouldn't be watching pro-wresting? I bet you do. If someone wants to watch it and find out for themselves, why not? Who made you the fact-check police? At least a dozens times I've said it might be false, it might not be. You might be right, you might be wrong. It's impossible to know 100% without first hand experience. No one here needs some little busy-body like yourself up in everyone's business telling them what they should and shouldn't be listening to because you don't like who their friends with. I've never met anyone else on BO.net whose behavior more resembles that of a teen girl.

Here's a simple logic test: So the reason you won't make any attempt to defy something someone says is because they have demonstrated a lack of integrity. But in order to know that they've lied, you would have to listen to what they lied about. You keep saying you're not willing to do that an no one else should, either. This brings us back to my earlier point that you don't have any original thoughts, you have to rely on what someone else thinks who did listen. How do you know that the stories are fabricated if you haven't listened? You keep bragging about how you're only willing to consider infomation that meets your personal standard for acceptability. That means you consume and process a fraction of the information I do, because I want to hear all perspectives and I'll do the sorting myself. You're intentionally being ignorant and trying to justify it to me. I don't think that's very smart.

Would you mind quoting where I have said either of those things? I never did. Do a keyword search, click more options, search by author, and type "gearhog" in the second search bar. You'll get a list of the things I have typed. That's how I found you brought up "Tucker" eight times in this thread when no one else mentioned him. When you find that I have said either of those two things, post it here and I'll be thoroughly humbled. Or you could just admit that your position has become so weak that you feel you now need to straight up lie to defend it.

Because I'm aggressively defending a position I believe in that happens to be contrary to yours, you continue to flail and search for a reason to dismiss, in this case, calling me a "troll." Real original. But I do thank you for recognizing that my position is sophisticated and nuanced. Keep working at it, and you, too, may have one one day as well. I had no idea that podcast existed until you started bitching about it. It isn't my favorite, but I do appreciate the introduction. I'll probably keep listening. Nothing piques my interest more than someone attempting to discourage me from watching, listening, reading something they disagree with. What is it with you and Tucker? You've brought him up a half dozen times when no one else has. It's weird. I haven't listened to Rogan in a couple week so I hadn't realized he was on. You realize what I'm going to do now, right? LOL For months you've been obsessing over him. My reply to you back in August:

That's what I've been trying to say. One bad podcast or bit of propaganda doesn't mean they're all bad. 😄 Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I've only listened to one. I'll listen to the other one you recommended in the morning. If it's decent, I may add it to my favorites. OAN? I don't think "watching the news" is still a thing anymore. At least among serious people. You seem like the kind of guy that watches AFN to stay informed, and maybe flirts with Rachael Maddow every now and then. How many times do I have to tell you that yeah... some of it might be bad info. Some of it might not be. Haven't you realized I'm impervious to bullshit. After all, I've been reading yours for a few pages now. So far, I've provoked responses from you consisting of several thousand words and you've had the courage to mention two, count them, two... incidents or examples of Russian propaganda. MH17 and Syrian chemical weapons or whatever. Even then, you don't seem to be able to articulate anything resembling an original thought. If we were to calculate the ratio of your original critical thinking assessments of actual events and news pertaining to the topic of this thread to the amount of words written, it would be exactly zero. For a guy that talks a lot, you don't have much to contribute. What's your pronouns?

I have the original SIG 365 as my go to CCW for it's, but I also really like the S&W 642 airweight for simplicity and reliability. I also have the PC charger with that brace. I think it may have been that exact YT review that convinced me. I have a Sig Romeo and ordered a Silencer Central Banish 30 can for it back in Jan. Hope it gets here soon. I'd like to swap out the forward grip stop for something more substantial, but not sure what I can get away with.

Hey! You can be taught. I think there's hope for you yet. Instead of a 10 year old event unrelated to the current conflict, you've somehow combed through over 1800 episodes and found a 4 year old podcast unrelated to the current conflict. It ain't much, but it's something. I'm sure it took a lot of effort, so I'll commend you for it. Side thought: Are you at work today? Hmmm. Remember that comment I made about you being the high school debate team's one trick pony? You'll will never abandon your ad-hominem tactic no matter how transparent it makes your unwillingness to address the actual facts or lies. Aren't you even a little bit ashamed that that is your only defense? It only gets you so far. Because the topic of this podcast is so far out of the realm of issues that are of importance in the context of the Rus-Ukr war, I am unfamiliar with this one. But I'm willing to give it a listen and report back to you with an original take using critical thinking that I didn't have to defer to Google for. Understand I have to withold judgement until I verify that the claims within are ridiculous, and I'll even concede there is a probability of bullshit given my commitment to truth and honesty. So I'm already going in with a bias that suits your fancy. Can I get a little appreciation? At first glance, however, I'm suddenly reminded of claimed chemical attacks and WMD that were used as a pretext for going to war. You may have been a child then, so you might not remember. Anyway, thanks for the link. It's in the lineup.

We here in the US just spent $60 Billion to counter Russia, and $8 Billion for Taiwan to counter China. Today, the US is drafting sanctions against China for helping Russia. Our leadership, in their divine wisdom, is effectively forcing two world superpowers into deeper levels of cooperation. If China is going to be sanctioned for providing military assistance to Russia anyway, why would they not go ahead and open up full bore production if the US is already threatening them over the Taiwan issue? I honestly wonder who has the larger industrial production capacity, US and allies, or the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

Intelligence source confidence is rated by assessing the accuracy and reliability information itself. How would you know what the information is if you refuse to look at it and discourage others from doing the same? For the third time, the only example you've given of anything that has a very high probability of being inaccurate is a random irrelevant event from 10 years ago. There's likely a vast amount of information out there from the Duran that has an even greater chance of being inaccurate, is more recent, and actually pertains to recent history. Do I have to go find it for you just to prove that you're lazy? You've spent more time googling dirt on the show hosts than listening to the Podcast. You could have just listened, shot down all their arguments, proved that it's all false Russian disinfo, and saved yourself an enormous amount of time, and we likely wouldn't be having this exchange. I actually listened to it, wrote it all down for you, and put it 6 inches in front of your face. Like a toddler, you scrunched up your face, shook your head, and still... still... elected not to confront the issues. If you believe someone should be forever discounted because you heard them say something idiotic once, you'd have been abandoned as a child. Perhaps you were. You most definitely would have been abandoned here on the forums multiple times over. But I and others are living proof that my approach works better. For pages now, I've been sifting through massive amount of your flawed logic and unsubstantiated assumptions. I can't remember where it is, but you did have a perspective I thought was useful on green energy or something recently. Even a broken clock is right twice per day. The rest of the information you present is mostly garbage, but I can still learn something about the methods and manner in which you deliver it. You operate on assumptions, I operate on first-hand knowledge. It's that simple. That's why you're stuck where you are in this debate and you keep talking in circles. If there is a debate about how to best find out the truth, a position that advocates for evaluating all information based on examining it's content is always, always, going to defeat an argument for dismissing information before it is heard because you don't like who delivered it. "There's not enough time to process all the bad information out there". That's a problem with you, not the method. Disinformation campaigns from Sweden and Finland? Uh, ok... Not sure how that's relevant to my aforementioned concerns about the USA, but I'd be happy to. I'm a voracious reader. Give me a link and I will thoroughly enjoy working through the details with you. That is, unless discussing details instead of broad generalizations and assumptions frightens you.

Oh, the mystery. I'll ask again, what's it like on the inside of a real-life squadron vault? Lots of old dusty scrolls and microfilms? Again, I'm super impressed by your NIPR/SIPRNet access where all the secrets of the universe are held, but claiming that you have super-dooper access to "highly-classified" intel so you can claim authority status without substantiating it is transparent. I did a year as an STS ADO working every day in the SCIF and another year TDY to the third floor vault at AMC/A3 Tactics. Both experiences were about as enlightening as watching you dodge hard questions. Your "access" is about as impressive as the Comm Sq's ability to keep the network running. What did I say "they" are "really doing"? I think it's funny that you know I'm prepared to the hilt to get into the weeds and write extensively on any of these issues, which is why you'll continue to make vague references yet never go anywhere near the specifics of any of them because you know I'll waylay your position. Real clever, and timid. I'll continue to point it out every single time.

No disclosed funding = RUSSIA! We didn't talk about the individuals... you did. I talk about information. You're the ad-hominem guy, not me. Can't you at least switch to another logical fallacy to make yourself seem slightly more interesting? You're the one-trick-pony of the high school debate team. So you're not even going to address the MIC after I've made a legitimate point and say... "Well.... uh... there were other things too!" Weak. I know you'll dodge the question for the 10th time but I'll ask anyway, what other "lines of commentary" are you whining about now? Apparently, you're easily astounded which doesn't surprise me. I have to live in this country. I simply do not care about Russians or Ukrainians. They're not the threat. Poor governmental leadership and the weak-minded sycophants who place a higher value on enforcing an acceptable narrative than the pursuing the truth are the real threat. Don't misunderstand.. I'm referring to you. I, on the other hand, will continue to critically analyze information from a variety of sources in order to have a more well-informed understanding of these events. If it hurts your feelings, you're just going to have to live with it. Neither your life, nor anyone else's is going to be endangered because someone suggested on a podcast that a corrupt corporatocracy is steering our nation away from the best interests of the American people.

But did you die? So anytime anyone mentions the flooding of the military industrial complex with cash, it's Russian Psyop to gain a battlefield advantage? Is this a new subject for you? Pretty sure the issue of war-profiteering has been around a lot longer than you have. These guys didn't invent that narrative. With that logic, you can link any dissent or criticism of US involvement in any conflict to enemy propaganda. You're only interested in stifling dissent. Are you telling me there are no critical narratives that can be had? If the truth hurts, maybe you have the problem. If it isn't the truth, show me. The military industrial complex last year (officially) spent around $12 million lobbying key pro-Ukraine war members of Congress and just received a $50 Billion windfall, in addition to the previous windfalls. https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus?ind=D There are no concerns there? You have to realize telling everyone "Don't look over there! Nothing to see here!" while implying anyone having a critical position is a Russian shill isn't giving you credibility. You're only shouting down the person, while not disputing the claims. You're only interested in one side of the argument. I want to hear all sides and draw my own conclusions. You don't want anyone doing that. It's becoming apparent that if you had your way, you'd ensure compliance with the Party rules and eliminate any unauthorized information while monitoring citizens for signs of dissent, and perhaps punish anyone who engages in thought crime or holds a belief contrary to the Party ideology. There's a term for that, but I can't remember it. Any ideas?

Good point. Invading a foreign country under false pretenses is the lowest.