Damn, bad day for Trump….internal memos from the weeks before the big press conference with all Trump’s lawyers accusing Dominion (and long dead Hugo Chavez, Smartmatic, and George Soros) of vote fraud prove they knew all the claims were false well before the November 19 press conference where they publicly accused them all of treason by vote fraud.

The more we know, the more we know they knew....and we now have proof they knew they lost fairly before knowingly making false accusations, but just refused to accept it.

Before the first press conference they knew it was all bullshit, Bob. Proven by their own investigations, verified by their legal memos…it was nonsense....baseless delusion divorced from reality.
When are you going to get it that they constantly lie to you for money, power, and fame? Why does that not bother you?

Without wanting to re-litigate the Damore case, I feel like there's a subtle but crucial difference in those two cases.

AFAIK, Damore was fired because he actively did something; he wrote an internal memo to Google.

If Google had required him to sign something supporting gender diversity or whatever, that would be more comparable.

>> ^blankfist:
The guy who is making the claim about the cartoon is actually the writer of the cartoon. He claims (with undeniable first hand knowledge being that he's the writer of the cartoon) that he was forced by special interests groups to write pro-social messages where the group is always right and the complainer was wrong.

Right, your evidence is one person's say so.

If he had said something like "special interest groups told me that they want to curtail individual thought", then we'd at least be able to say he was a witness of some unknown credibility. But he didn't say that, he just made an accusation.

Now, if the article you were linking was written by someone who was part of the supposed special interest group(s), and had a stack of internal memos about a secret plot to destroy independent thought, then you might have a pretty good case.

It's not that I think the guy isn't who he says he is, and it's not even that I necessarily think he's being intentionally dishonest, it's that he's speculating, and speculation isn't the same as proof.

The videos might be evidence of the existence of some scenes that might be interpreted as being "pro-social" in the cartoon this guy wrote for, but that's evidence that he did in fact put those messages in the cartoon, but not evidence that parental groups put him under some sort of duress to do it, and certainly not evidence that the parental groups wanted to indoctrinate children to never use their own judgment.

For that matter, the whole moral of this guy's story is that he too made the decision to bow to powers greater than him, rather than stand up for what he thought was right. If we needled him about why he didn't quit in protest, he probably would've talked about the damage to his career and livelihood, and that ultimately he didn't care that much about the effect his actions were having on kids relative to his own self-interest.

He's whining about it now, and trying to blame other people for what he himself did, and say "I couldn't stand up to the group, I mean they might have asked me politely to leave!" But that just seems like he's still trying to process the guilt, and wishes he could blame some scapegoat rather than face the (alleged) consequences of his actions.

They have an internal memo showing it was policy to torture! That's how!

>> ^deathcow:
> I'm sure these soldiers didnt live long and healthy lives after marching
> through that stuff.
I dont think they were exposed to fallout, or radiation. The radiation sick/kill zone around these small nukes is actually tiny. If you avoid the fallout, your OK.


Erm... except:
From This page about experiences with the Nevada tests shows the US military's horrendous treatment of their own populous during this:

After thousands of sheep died immediately after a radiation cloud passed over them, some southern Utah ranchers brought unsuccessful suits against the federal government in 1955. The government response in court was that “a combination of factors including malnutrition, poor management, and adverse weather conditions” led to the animals’ death. (Killing Our Own [36]) Internal memos to the contrary from AEC researchers were suppressed. Sworn statements by sheepherders, testifying such epidemics among their herds of livestock had never happened until the fallout clouds went over them, were discounted and the ranchers were ridiculed by government officials. Many of the communities in Southern Utah constantly dusted with fallout were predominantly Mormon. They didn’t drink or smoke, as their religion commanded, so cancer was not prevalent. However, in 1956 and 1957, many people were diagnosed with leukemia, lymphoma, other types of cancer or acute thyroid damage. Prior to this, cancer was rare. By 1960, there was an epidemic.

So... yeah, trying to suggest that these nukes were 'safe' is a little insane.

In fact read the rest of that page, with interviews with soldiers posted on during those tests... a calous disregard for the well being of people and animals was shown by the US Government during that time. And I'm sure those with the disregard explained it all away with the bullshit reasoning of 'It's for the safety of the nation'