Airforceone

I can’t believe you even made a statement like that. Third largest military. So US China Russian, Europe, Germany Japan, India, North Korea, Pakistan, South Korea, actually Iran is number 8 on that list, Vietnam, Egypt, Turkey, Brazil, damm Colombia had a larger military than Iraq, Damm Mexico had a larger military than Iraq. Iraq was not even in the top 50. But Trump supporters live in a bubble of lies and foolishness. (THIS IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM WITH TRUMP SUPPORTERS THEY ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT THIS COUNTRY CAN JUST GO AND BOMB ANYBODY AND THE REST OF THE WORLD WILL JUST STANDBY AND WATC)

You just have no idea

America 1 Loc: South Miami

https://www.militaryfactory.com/modern-airpower/aircraft-islamic-republic-of-iran-air-force.asp
US military aircraft:
https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/index.html
It is the largest military branch, and in the fiscal year 2017, the projected end strength for the Regular Army (USA) was 476,000 soldiers; the Army National Guard (ARNG) had 343,000 soldiers and the United States Army Reserve (USAR) had 199,000 soldiers; the combined-component strength of the U.S. Army was 1,018,000 ...

maximus Loc: Chattanooga, Tennessee

When we stomped Iraq, their military was rated at number ({[ 3 ]}).

Common_Sense_Matters

Several have conducted studies in which they pit Wikipedia against Encyclopædia Britannica (which is written solely by the staff of EB). The findings of these studies is that each are nearly as accurate as the other.



http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2042333_2042334_2042491,00.html



https://www.wired.com/2005/12/wikipedia-britannica-a-toss-up/


And for those that love to complain about the "left leaning bias" of Wikipedia...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2015/01/20/wikipedia-or-encyclopaedia-britannica-which-has-more-bias/#181709177d4a

It would seem that if you compare word for word, an article with 100 words matched against same article also with 100 words, both Encyclopædia Britannica and Wikipedia show the same bias as one another even though one is written by a small paid group of experts and the other by a large group of volunteers. It is even said in the article, that the more a page is edited in Wikipedia by this large groups of volunteers, the less bias it shows.



I didn't see the study that I cited about a month to 2 months ago but then also didn't look very hard either. People really need to get off this Wikipedia h**e trip they are on and wake up to the fact that they are about as accurate as other sources, more so in many comparisons (erwnj and elwnj sites tend to be quite f**e) and any bias shown by Wikipedia is likewise negligible as well, as compared to other sources of information.

In a perfect world, there world be perfect sources with zero inaccuracies and zero bias, we do not live in such a perfect world and so therefore we must seek sources that are as accurate as we can hope to find and with the least bias as we can hope to find and Wikipedia suits that bill. We of course should mix it up, look to other sites too for confirmation as well.

Conclusion, Wikipedia IS a valid source.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Conclusion.... to me, due to the exact disclaimer on their site, Wikipedia is at best (as you made clear) cut and paste jobs from sites that promote the position of the potential lay person who presents the article. Ergo, I will research further anything presented on those pages. I think I made that clear in my remark "I would not take everything I read there as gospel if I were you." This remark clearly encourages people to conduct their own investigation into other sources.... as Russians say "Доверяй, но проверяй" Trust, but verify.

America 1 Loc: South Miami

Call him for his fantasy on sh** and pumpkins that is exactly what he does.
Snowflake wimp and wuss.

Common_Sense_Matters

I have always promoted verifying and have never suggested otherwise. My point is that contrary to what so many from the right believe, Wikipedia IS a valid source for information and JUST as valid as other sites suggested as "better" sources of information by these same "righties". One poster here said Wikipedia is totally unreliable as it is "biased" and that the information on Wikipedia is "unreliable" and they suggested that I should research instead from Encyclopædia Britannica. As my previous post shows, Wikipedia is roughly just as accurate and unbiased as the non-group sourced EB that this other poster recommended as much more "accurate" and "unbiased". Even you seem to have issues with Wikipedia.

The reason why Wikipedia makes a more reliable source than Encyclopædia Britannica is that Wikipedia covers more topics and specific subjects and tends to cover much more recent events than Encyclopædia Britannica. They also tend to go into greater detail than Encyclopædia Britannica.

But again I say, yes, one should always research multiple sources and find as much information as they can to support their position, but as some people get an attitude over breaking posts up into specific points or multiple sections related to multiple sources, people will have to just post the best, most informative source which will likely be Wikipedia as their information is usually the more indepth and recent information.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

It is your opinion that Wikipedia is a valid source. I do not accept everything they write as gospel.

BTW, it is also my opinion that you should turn on your spell checker or have someone proofread your comments before you hit send. "ENCYCLOPEDIA" not "Encyclopædia." And, you can make an “in-depth” study of a subject by studying it “in depth,” but never “indepth.”

Common_Sense_Matters

And your opinion would be wrong, it is Encyclopædia Britannica according to Encyclopædia Britannica themselves. What? they don't know what name they gave themselves? Get over yourself.


https://www.britannica.com





Edit: It would appear as though you have deep seated issues and I appear to be living "rent free in your mind". Go out and get a life, you shouldn't be so obsessed with me. I certainly am not obsessing over you.

moldyoldy

Cut and paste, would suggest that there are sources for the info on wiki. In fact they have long lists of references for their info.

Common_Sense_Matters

But it doesn't whitewash what Trump says or does so it is biased against him for that reason.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

I think you have it backward. You are the one that chases me from thread to thread to make comments that you are unable to support.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

I only said that I do not take everything they write as gospel. Indeed, there is no source I take as undeniable fact. I double check everything.

Common_Sense_Matters

Too full of yourself, I pay you no never mind to be honest. IOf you happen top be on a thread on post on, so be it, otherwise... Who cares? I know I don't.




Edit: Now I have to go and verify. I am ABSOLUTELY sure that I most likely have NOT posted on every thread you have posted on but I guess I will have to go confirm that to know for myself that you are too full of yourself.


Edit #2: These are the threads that you have posted in that I have NOT posted in nor did I care to and yes, I did see you post in them so IF I were stalking you, why didn't I post to them? Such an overly inflated ego with no merit.

https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-158250-1.html

https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-158225-1.html

https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-158222-1.html

https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-158133-1.html

https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-158138-1.html

https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-158141-1.html

https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-158141-1.html

https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-158127-1.html

Get over yourself, your ego is already way too large as it is.

America 1 Loc: South Miami

You are getting a bit sloppy, finished berating everybody?
Time to put away the booze and call it a night.