• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US shoots down ‘high-altitude object’ over Alaska, White House says

Napoleon said:
There’s nothing predictable about the NSC spokesperson saying they’re shooting at unidentified objects.
Click to expand...
Cardinal said:
Don't pretend there's any principle attached to your arguments.
Click to expand...
Napoleon said:
So now you’re in favor of shooting something because you don’t know what it is? I’d expect that from rednecks.
Click to expand...
.
.
Napoleon said:
There’s nothing predictable about the NSC spokesperson saying they’re shooting at unidentified objects.
Click to expand...

Have you considered your possibility that he isn't taking your little game seriously because he's seen you play it too many times, and thus knows exactly where it is going to go, when it is going to go there, and the particular method it will use to do these things?

He covered this general sort of thing elsewhere:

Cardinal said:
Irrelevant. I'm not interested in what is and isn't distressful to the person reading the news, but whether those sources are consistently (and deliberately) misrepresentative of the facts...or even downright false.

Conservatives can't compel us to treat their sources with good faith after that good faith has been thoroughly burned through. If conservatives insist on using their terrible sources then they're just going to have to settle for being laughed at and dismissed.
Click to expand...

The same goes for posts from people who just make stupid-ass contrarian posts hoping that their targets might experience a negative emotion, aka, trolling posts.

Whether it's someone making troll posts, someone who always 'debates' in bad faith, or a crap source that has gotten busted lying about tons of things, you burn through good will. Do that and you'll find you aren't taken seriously. In your case, by people you're just trying to pester. In the other two cases, by the exact people that needs to get sucked into the bad faith alternate reality.

Making beds and laying in them, yadda yadda.

🤷

And this episode is just another one of many pieces of evidence that the right is almost entirely operating in bad faith these days. Portions have done it for decades, but more and more and more signed up. And now....why...one can count the self-identified conservatives who argue in good faith on their hand.

If someone attacks Biden for waiting for the balloon to get to a place where debris wouldn't land on citizens and kill them, then attacks him for knocking this next thing out of the sky before it gets deeper into the US, that person is making a bad faith argument.
 
Last edited:
MamboDervish said:
Yes ... like I said. No matter what or who you want to believe, the military doesn't broadcast everything it does, nor the reasons why. Period.
Click to expand...
And the NSC typically doesn’t hold a press conference to say they’ve shot down a UFO including commentary that they’d sent a fighter jet to look at the thing twice and they still don’t know what it is other than an “object” and will have to recover it to figure it out.
 
Napoleon said:
And the NSC typically doesn’t hold a press conference to say they’ve shot down a UFO including commentary that they’d sent a fighter jet to look at the thing twice and they still don’t know what it is other than an “object” and will have to recover it to figure it out.
Click to expand...
Notwithstanding, given the last two weeks of hysteria, they'd have their reasons for doing exactly that too.
 
medi said:
<<< truncated >>>

But weren't they stating that balloon thingy wasn't a threat to commercial flights at 40,000, no?

<<< truncated >>>
Click to expand...
Okay, I see that maybe I wasn't paying proper attention to news stories and may have gotten my 'feet' and 'meters' mixed up because I really wasn't paying that much attention to that balloon thingy story. That balloon stuff used to be so common 5 or so decades ago and isn't really such a big deal, in my view.
 
the good news is the "bill gates put a microchip in the vaccine" conspiracy theorists have a whole new thing to obsess about.
 
Napoleon said:
What the NSC spokesperson said is they don’t know what it is, who owns it, or what’s it’s purpose is.
Click to expand...
He said the pilots identified the object as unmanned, non-maneuverable, and incapable of transmitting data, and the decision was made to shoot it down. What exactly its purpose is and where it came from is still being "assessed."

My guess is they have a very good idea of what it was, but want to confirm this educated guess before they make an official statement. My guess is that it was some sort of weather balloon. But we'll see.
 
CaughtInThe said:
the good news is the "bill gates put a microchip in the vaccine" conspiracy theorists have a whole new thing to obsess about.
Click to expand...
This object was carrying a virus that would have turned all moose in Alaska into gay, trans moose that want to sneak into girls’ bathrooms. Fortunately Sarah Palin was on hand to shoot down the object herself.
 
The quick action on this object underscores they screwed up on the first one not shooting it down right away. The other thing I got out of the news is that the first balloon has equipment on board that could navigate the balloon. So it wasn't just a free roaming device meandering aimlessly over hill and valley.

Hopefully this will put a fire under the military's ass to prepare and train for war.
 
phoenix2020 said:
This object was carrying a virus that would have turned all moose in Alaska into gay, trans moose that want to sneak into girls’ bathrooms. Fortunately Sarah Palin was on hand to shoot down the object herself.
Click to expand...
see, i heard is was a gay, trans elk and the bathrooms were in christian schools.
 
Cardinal said:
So now conservatives are upset that we shot down the balloon right away, the thing they were demanding just last Saturday.

It's so predictable.
Click to expand...

The funny thing is that in actuality the hypocrisy is on the other side.

All that these "conservatives" would like is to know what we are shooting down... a spy balloon? A condor? Phileas Fogg?
 
jmotivator said:
The funny thing is that in actuality the hypocrisy is on the other side.

All that these "conservatives" would like is to know what we are shooting down... a spy balloon? A condor? Phileas Fogg?
Click to expand...

If it was Phileas Fogg's balloon then he apparently fell to his death before the fighters made contact since the pilots confirmed it was unmanned.

And yes, the right wing hypocrisy is not only very real, but performative. It's intentional.
 
Napoleon said:
So now the military is shooting things out of the sky without knowing what they are. Nice.
Click to expand...
they went up to check it out...it was in our airspace without permission and was endangering aircraft...doesn't matter what it is...it is foreign and in our territory without permission.
 
A description of the object published by abc is "cylindrical and silverish gray."
 
Cardinal said:
If it was Phileas Fogg's balloon then he apparently fell to his death before the fighters made contact since the pilots confirmed it was unmanned.
Click to expand...

They knew from the lack of bodies falling out of the explosion, apparently.

Cardinal said:
And yes, the right wing hypocrisy is not only very real, but performative. It's intentional.
Click to expand...

No, you seem to think the argument was that we should shot things down. But a critical element of that action is determining what we are shooting down.

The spy balloon was identified before it was shot down while this object wasn't. How is this hard for you to understand?
 
jmotivator said:
They knew from the lack of bodies falling out of the explosion, apparently.
Click to expand...

Are you contradicting the claim that it was unmanned?

jmotivator said:
No, you seem to think the argument was that we should shot things down. But a critical element of that action is determining what we are shooting down.

The spy balloon was identified before it was shot down while this object wasn't. How is this hard for you to understand?
Click to expand...

Conservative hypocrisy is the point. When you learn what it is you'll just change your argument to something else.
 
ClaraD said:
it was a danger to aircraft that belong in our airspace and it was over water...they shot it down...get over it.
Click to expand...
No.

1) I’m not in favor of shooting things for no reason other than you don’t know what they are.

2) How many flights are there at 40,000 feet in the arctic?

3) This wasn’t a concern with the balloon so what makes this different?
 
medi said:
Without going too far off-topic, my remembering is that most companies don't like to push an airframe up toward service ceilings because of maintenance cost increases when you do that. I seem to recall that 36,000 to about 39,000 was about right, depending on meteorological conditions. Other air traffic is also a determining factor, too. But 40,000 20 years ago just wasn't the normal cruising altitude that I remember.

But weren't they stating that balloon thingy wasn't a threat to commercial flights at 40,000, no?

By the way, most of my flight time was military choppers and we never got up there. I think that box car used to do altitude records off-and-on, but don't remember how high.
Click to expand...
they said it was a threat to air traffic...not necessarily commercial flights, but yes, they fly at around 39,000 ft so it would be an issue....if it dropped down it could collide with a plane and then there would be dead people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom