Goings-on in North Korea

[Hermit]

You're sitting here trying to drum up some sort of case

The case is that you denied having sourced information from the Inforwars site. You denied it. Then you denied doing so any more than once. The trouble is that you were proven to have done so seven times. Now you go "Yabbut I quoted from Infowars several years ago, and anyway, the morsels I extracted from Infowars are all true." Talk about moving the goal posts.

Can you not simply say "Yes, I was wrong in claiming that I never sourced my information from Infowars. I was also wrong in claiming that I never sourced my information from Infowars more than once" and be done with it? doing so might just give some of us the impression that you possessed a trace of honesty.

Look, I don't remember denying that i ever cited InfoWars. I did. So have other people. I have never sourced it for any reason involving the weird conspiracy theories like birtherism, 9/11 truth, and other such nonsense.

I don't remember how many times I cited to a given source overall.

If I did say that I "never" cited infowars, obviously that's wrong. I did cite infowars, like twice in the last five years. What do you win from that? I don't recall making the categorical denial - I mean, I have been very clear about this for the last year or so, which is that I cite many sources, and the vast majority of them are mainstream. Sure, I've cited the odd breitbart or daily caller article here and there, so what?

If you wouldn't mind, I would appreciate it if you could bring to my attention - perhaps I forgot - where I categorically said that I "never" ever cited infowars. Thanks much.

Wow. Your ability to locate the search button has deserted you all of a sudden?

Here are some questions for anyone to answer.

Name four websites you visit daily

Drudgereport
Rationalia
Weather.com
google.com
yahoo.com

Not surprised you can't count either. And you forgot Foxnews.

Also Infowars, The Blaze and Infowars.

I don't actually care about where information comes from, but I do care about it being correct information and those three sites are notorious for not managing that.

I doubt I've linked to those sites any more than you have.

Considering that I had not ever linked to Infowars at the time that's good enough.

[Forty Two]

"those sites" -- that's a reference to multiple sites on a list. Not just Infowars.

Again, if I did say I "never" linked to infowars, that would be wrong. But, I don't think I ever said that.

So, it's plainly not "good enough." Saying "I doubt" I have linked to several sites more than you have, is not a statement that I've never linked to infowars. See, this is the problem, when someone won't take something at face value, they end up presuming or inferring a meaning that isn't there.

This is really a non-issue Hermit. I don't know what you're problem is with me now. I mean, you're not a pErvin - your posts tend to make sense and you often make points, take clear positions and make arguments. We may disagree, but a forum would be rather boring if people didn't disagree. I like disagreement. I prefer to talk to people with whom I disagree. Threads where everyone is in agreement tend to end quickly -- post about an issue - everybody in agreement - a few people post that sentiment - thread fizzles. The ones that last and the ones of value explore many aspects and varying opinions.

And, yes, involve citations from extreme, as well as moderate, sources. I've never complained about people citing to extreme left or right wing sources - the key is to see what is being said there, and address it. If it's really extreme and dopey, it's easily dispatched. If it's just reporting a factual item, there is nothing wrong with citing those sources - whether Daily Kos, InfoWars, Democracy Now or Breitbart, Occupy Democrats, Huffington Post, FoxNews, MSNBC, whatever.

I mean this carping on and on about a few citations over eight years is pointless. I'm done with it. The Forty Two citations are what they are. If you look at the actual posts, you'll see I'm not advocating any weird conspiracy theories with them - they were for rather neutral points and items to discuss. If that bothers you, I can't help that.

And for the record, even if someone came here to this forum and all they did was utilize extreme right or left wing sources, and addressed issues using those sources, their posts would still be valuable. Even if that person was a crazed alien abduction, moon hoax, astrology-believing, reincarnation accepting, Bush-did-911-and-Obama-was-born-both-in-Kenya-and-Indonesia conspiracy nutbag, he or she should be viewed as a valuable member of the forum.

All this wacky attack-mob stuff is the poison that the AtheismPlus-type cultural shift in the skeptic, freethought and atheist movement has infested us with over the last 5 years or so - since a year or so after Christopher Hitchens' death. Now, it's all "cause" based posting - it's as if some members - certain ones, think that part of their activism is badgering and attacking anyone they see as "Right Wing." OMG! You're alt right!!!!! That screetch comes out of the computer screen like a snatched body in Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Arm extended, mouth open, screetching, pointing at the infidel!

So fucking what if someone is right wing or alt right? Or cites to weird websites all the time? So what? If I were alt right, I'd proudly announce it. I don't know what people think they're proving by demanding that I admit that I'm right wing. If I were, I'd say it flat out. I have never been shy about expressing unpopular opinions. And, if I thought Infowars or whatever was a generally good cite, I'd say so. But I don't, so I don't say it. And, I rarely, link to it. Twice or whatever in like 5 or 6 years is hardly a fucking crime, Hermit. I'm not even going to address the ones you listed from 2012 and earlier, because that's just stupid and opens up a whole 'nother argument that I'm not going to have again.

So, keep carping if you want. I'd prefer to discuss and debate.

[Joe]

Well, if it's true, it's not the first time the North Koreans have done it.

North Korea has increased nuclear production at secret sites, say U.S. officials

U.S. intelligence agencies believe that North Korea has increased its production of fuel for nuclear weapons at multiple secret sites in recent months — and that Kim Jong Un may try to hide those facilities as he seeks more concessions in nuclear talks with the Trump administration, U.S. officials told NBC News.

The intelligence assessment, which has not previously been reported, seems to counter the sentiments expressed by President Donald Trump, who tweeted after his historic June 12 summit with Kim that "there was no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea."

Analysts at the CIA and other intelligence agencies don't see it that way, according to more than a dozen American officials who are familiar with their assessments and spoke on the condition of anonymity. They see a regime positioning itself to extract every concession it can from the Trump administration — while clinging to nuclear weapons it believes are essential to survival.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Or....it could be the Deep State trying to undermine the President.

[Forty Two]

Well, it's not clear from the articles what they're doing, who the "experts" are that are saying they have proof of the DPRK producing more fuel, etc. It wouldn't be surprising for the reports to be true, or for them to be untrue. This is one of those areas where I think we need to see some proof. What did the experts learn that made them sure there was this increased fuel production? Was it fuel production processes that had been planned and going on for some time, or is it somethign brand new? How do they know? Was it satellite observation of activities? Human intelligence? Both? The articles are short on detail.

I think we need more progress on the DPRK front. We had the Singapore meeting. Time to set up the next round. It could be as simple as the DPRK showing that they haven't agreed to any specifics, and they'll keep on producing fuel until the US does a deal with them. Even then, they may well cheat. But, certainly from a negotiating standpoint, I wouldn't expect them to stop activities until the US pays for the stoppage as part of a deal.

[Joe]

I'm sure they'd provide all the detail you could possibly want, if you asked.

But then they'd have to kill you.

[Forty Two]

Possibly. But since we have no way of knowing whether its information, disinformation or bullshit - and it's not out of the realm of reason for it to be one of those or a combination of them - then we just have to wait and see.

An unsourced article including no proof, referring to experts who say that North Korea is producing more fuel (at a time when they are under no commitment to refrain from doing so) is an interesting piece, but what are we supposed to do with it?

I already don't trust North Korea as far as I can throw that fat fuck Kim Jong Un. I know they cheat. You know they cheat. I know they lie. You know they like. Everybody lies. All countries cheat. This is Diplomacy.

"You want to know how two chemicals interact: Do you ask them? No. They're gonna lie through their lying little chemical teeth. Throw them in a beaker and apply heat." - Dr. House.

[Joe]

I already don't trust North Korea as far as I can throw that fat fuck Kim Jong Un. I know they cheat. You know they cheat. I know they lie. You know they like. Everybody lies. All countries cheat. This is Diplomacy.

You'd never guess it from the Cheerleader in Chief.

[Rum]

Reading up the story in some detail earlier today they aren't actually doing anything that the agreement so far says they should not be, including firing up their centrifuges and making mobile platforms for missiles. And being the people they are of course, they will go by the letter of the rules and get away with as much as they can right up to any ultimately agreed deadline.

They might of course also cheat.

[Forty Two]

Reading up the story in some detail earlier today they aren't actually doing anything that the agreement so far says they should not be, including firing up their centrifuges and making mobile platforms for missiles. And being the people they are of course, they will go by the letter of the rules and get away with as much as they can right up to any ultimately agreed deadline.

They might of course also cheat.

Indeed, and why would anyone expect them to do otherwise (referring to continuing to do that which they have not agreed to refrain from doing)? This is negotiation. You might give up easy stuff to "show good faith" if it affords some benefit to do so (bring someone to the table - good press coverage - whatever), but beyond that, one makes concessions in exchange for concessions, or when there is no better option.

[Forty Two]

I already don't trust North Korea as far as I can throw that fat fuck Kim Jong Un. I know they cheat. You know they cheat. I know they lie. You know they like. Everybody lies. All countries cheat. This is Diplomacy.

You'd never guess it from the Cheerleader in Chief.

What would be a better tactic? To declare North Korea known cheats who can't be trusted, and ominously note that the world is teetering on the brink of nuclear holocaust?

[Scot Dutchy]

Shoot Trump would be a good idea.

[Joe]

I already don't trust North Korea as far as I can throw that fat fuck Kim Jong Un. I know they cheat. You know they cheat. I know they lie. You know they like. Everybody lies. All countries cheat. This is Diplomacy.

You'd never guess it from the Cheerleader in Chief.

What would be a better tactic? To declare North Korea known cheats who can't be trusted, and ominously note that the world is teetering on the brink of nuclear holocaust?

To be quiet and possibly be thought a fool, rather than tweet nonsense and remove all doubt.

[pErvinalia]

Even if he wasn't quiet.. if he could just stop bullshitting for a moment. He's an utter bullshit machine!

[Joe]

That might hurt him.

[Sean Hayden]

Fox News is crazy. I caught a bit of their morning programming in a hotel and they're truly insane. But they are also everywhere! I'm so tired of it I've started ranting loudly to myself about why anyone would have Fox News on in the first place: 'blah, blah, blah' --'who here watches Fox News at home?'--'blah, blah'...