*edit, wait.. Ducky? That's what your problem was?
Holy crap.
Truly I am a monster. But you knew that already didn't you MrMastadonFather.
He did successfully pull a Trump and get the conversation away from the defence of plagiarism and attempts to justify no ethics in politics so in the end I'd say he nailed it.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ResAlien For This Useful Post:
Again, I didn't have a problem with it, skin is a wee bit thicker than that. I merely said he was resorting to personal jabs instead of debating the issue. He's the one who got all up in arms about the personal jab thing.
If I was actually offended I would have reported it (and demanded the mods close the thread, ghost the contents, and format the server's HDD).
It's not altruism. It's a decision made by your lawmakers to prioritize military spending over everything else.
Americans just elected a belligerent dickhead and he's bringing in a bunch of hawks. You can't pin your healthcare system's problems on anyone else.
Well, it's not as though there would have been any defence spending cuts under Clinton. One of the stranger new political configurations we're seeing is the emergence of an isolationist right that is more likely to cut down on U.S. overseas military commitments than the Democrats.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Well, it's not as though there would have been any defence spending cuts under Clinton. One of the stranger new political configurations we're seeing is the emergence of an isolationist right that is more likely to cut down on U.S. overseas military commitments than the Democrats.
The problem with that is the one area that Trump has pledged to increase military spending while cutting other areas. Clinton had hawkish rhetoric during her days as SOS, however military spending had started to decline under Obama during the last years of his presidency. Trump may play the role of the idiot well, but I doubt anyone in the GOP is stupid enough to ignore that military spending in the United States plays very well with the voters, in particular those in the more traditionally conservative areas.
Really? Demanding that people in power should not abuse their position, exactly like Trump has done his whole life, is somehow stoking the fire?
I'd say this wasn't exactly a conciliatory comment in the Culture Warz raging across America:
Quote:
Hollywood is crawling with outsiders and foreigners. If you kick 'em all out, you'll have nothing to watch but football and mixed martial arts, which are not the arts.
Yeah, nothing says highmindness like taking a swipe at all those muggles who enjoy low entertainment. How brave.
You know what's brave? Telling the people who are around you, your audience - your peers - things they don't want to hear. Things that challenge their worldview and their self-righteousness. Telling a bunch of people who love you that the people you all hate are wrong, and then basking in the entirely predictable and self-congratulatory adulation, is about the easiest thing in the world to do.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Well, it's not as though there would have been any defence spending cuts under Clinton. One of the stranger new political configurations we're seeing is the emergence of an isolationist right that is more likely to cut down on U.S. overseas military commitments than the Democrats.
There are two faces to this, those that are ideologically printed this way and those that actually get elected and are now, more than ever, beholden to the lobbyists that got them elected. They may say one thing at town halls to make the tea party element fall in line, but when the votes are counted, there they are..
Elected officials are also like any other club or union. When you're new you start at the bottom and vote as you are told.
Clinton isn't interested in cutting the defense budget and neither is anyone else at any elected position in government that matters.
Well, it's not as though there would have been any defence spending cuts under Clinton. One of the stranger new political configurations we're seeing is the emergence of an isolationist right that is more likely to cut down on U.S. overseas military commitments than the Democrats.
Sure, but I was responding to the suggestion that Americans could/would have a better healthcare system if they weren't spending so much loot defending Canada, Poland, South Korea et cetera.
Becoming more friendly with Russia is about the only thing that I welcome about Trump's presidency. I really did not like how it was turning back into the cold war again.
Some argue that somehow it is giving more power to Russia. I don't see it that way, but to each his own. I am still of the opinion that the world's largest exporter of terror is in fact the USA, and even under Obama this went on unabated. Every presidency I hope for something different, but every presidency (regardless of which party wins) it just seems to get worse.
Sounds like Trump is going to be friendlier with Russia (which I say is a good thing) but is going to make the USA more unfriendly with Iran (which is probably a bad thing) and then going to be more friendly with Israel (which is good and bad), but is definitely going to be much more unfriendly with every immigrant in the USA.
Well, I can't say how this will all turn out in the end. I hate both parties in the USA. I don't feel either party will do more good in the world than harm when they take power. All I know for sure - and this is unquestionable - is that Trump will make for better TV. That's about as sure as I can be about anything. Other than that, I have no clue what will happen.
Wait until Putin takes our north. Can't happen? Tell that to Ukraine.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Badgers Nose For This Useful Post:
Again, I didn't have a problem with it, skin is a wee bit thicker than that. I merely said he was resorting to personal jabs instead of debating the issue. He's the one who got all up in arms about the personal jab thing.
Congrats on having skin thick enough to weather the blistering attack of an auto-correct.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to MrMastodonFarm For This Useful Post:
This is a letter from a High School Classmate from Russia
Spoiler!
Dear.....,
I am Russian, yet my mother and sister are proud Americans.
For many years I was involved in anti-Putin protest in Moscow. Over time being involved in Russian protest one would get to know the techniques that the Kremlin is using while brainwashing their supporters:
- False information and news.
- Partially false information and news presented along with convenient for the Kremlin comments of some loyal expert.
- Millions of online trolls.
- Nationalistic agenda.
- Anti – western and anti – globalism narrative.
- Emphases on conservatism and in Russian case Orthodox Church values.
And so when I came to the USA six month ago I just couldn’t miss the resemblance, the touch of a master was just too obvious not to acknowledge the fact that pro-Trump propaganda is just too much the same with everything I see back home in Moscow relating to praising Putin and condemning decadent western civilization.
Years back I was a republican. I still am. Senator McCain is my hero. I will be honest with you – I strongly disapprove the fact that Obama administration refused to supply lethal weapons to Ukraine. I think that Russian sanctions were too late and too little. I think Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia need more support from the U.S. as Russia will not change just by herself, but Russia will only change only if she was forced to. And the only way to force Russia to change is to help those revolting countries and nations around Russia to integrate into healthy and democratic European community.
But when Trump appeared on republican list it alerted me.
I know how large companies in Russia are handling their HR matters. I know that most companies in Russia have former interior, intel or police officers at their HR* departments. And sure do I know how large Russian companies are handing their HR. That’s a Russian thing.
I have an idea what Gazprom in Russia is. It is NOT Russian Mobil nor Gazprom is similar to British Petroleum. Gasprom is Russian carbohydrate and financial militant forces in one part, and a wallet for special interests in the other. Gazprom has its own small army. Gazprom is used to loot Russia and to buy loyalists globe-wide.
And so I pretty much have an idea what kind of interviews, approvals and matching Carter Page had to go through and undertake to end-up with Gazprom.
We in Moscow and Russia are used to the fact that a cold civil war is occurring in the country. People are divided in two camps. I like to compare our Russian domestic standoff with the “Walking dead” series. Many of them. Few of us. They are like zombies. Once in a while they would turn one of us to be as they are, to be one of them: praising Putin, enjoying the fact that Russia illegally annexed Crimea, experiencing great joy because Russia can destroy the planet with her nuclear arsenal.
And so we are used to the fact that among us are agents. Different ones. Pretending to be as we are. Or thinking that they are with us, but in reality they are not.
Russain intel services don’t recruit people as it is regularly shown in the movies. They like to do everything secretly. For example: people that gave Anna Chapman the capital to run the business in the U.S. were affiliated with former Moscow mayor and didn’t know whom and why they were giving that money to. They were just asked by some third party people to assist one good start-up in the U.S.
One of the recruiting techniques designed many years ago by the KGB is called human programming.
They would first identify your so called psychological portrait.
Then they would surround you with the consequences that would lead you to the conclusions they need and most importantly they would surround you with specially picked and selected people that would say and do things to appeal to your psychological portrait on a core level. These specially picked people could be: 1) real agents or even undercover officers, 2) formally recruited people 3) unwilling agents planted based on their behaving habits 4) combination of all 4 types.
And so Mr. Trump that we know being an ego centrist with authoritarian habits was surrounded by Flynn, Manafort, and Page. All three are loyal to Putin for some unknown reasons…
I am sure there were more people influencing Mr. Trump that we don’t know about and additionally some other people were too influenced that are\were in return were influencing Mr. Trump including, I am sure, Reince Priebus was influenced because the Kremlin had to secure proper feedback from GOP side when Trump approached GOP with his friendly to Putin narrative. I suspect that Mr. Priebus was influenced by someone pretending to be Greek Orthodox priests. I suspect that. But I cannot prove that. Russian Orthodox Church is important institution within Putin regime. For example not long ago a person working at Moscow Patriarchate was changed with treason.
Some would say that I am having a paranoia. But, hey, I started blowing the whistle one year before Mr. Trump amended GOP platform amending the part that was related to assistance of Ukraine. Basically GOP platform amending by Mr. Trump was done purely favoring Putin.
Over these past 20 month I sent (I have record of some of them) about 140 letters to American politicians, journalists, to even Trump camp trying to raise an awareness in the USA.
But no one listened.
My sister even once told me that I see a hand of Putin everywhere where there is corruption and/or a crime.
Not everywhere. I know that Putin needs to:
- lift off sanctions
- spark a domestic dispute in Saudi Arabia so that oil prices will go high up
- achieve an agreement with the United States similar to the one was sighed in Yalta after WW2 where USSR and the West the USA mainly agreed to divide the spheres of influences in the globe.
- Divide and sabotage the American democracy and unity.
And you know what - if you look at former Mr. Trump’s agenda concerning NATO, Putin, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Globalizm, global trading, the role of the US in the world, you will see that those people that are influencing Mr. Trump were/are influencing Mr. Trump in the way Putin needs.
And so I would like to finish this email with a point:
Could it be that the United states totally misinterpreted and missed online information invasion by Russia? After all it is Dana Rohrabacher – Putin loyalist is now heading CIS committee in the Congress…
Or someone thinks it is a coincidence that alt -right leader Richard Spencer is married to a Russian propagandist?
Thanks,
*To be precise Russian companies do have security departments that also to the extend handle HR matters.
--
Sergei
__________________
"WHAT HAVE WE EVER DONE TO DESERVE THIS??? WHAT IS WRONG WITH US????" -Oiler Fan
"It was a debacle of monumental proportions." -MacT
Last edited by Fozzie_DeBear; 01-09-2017 at 09:40 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Fozzie_DeBear For This Useful Post:
I'd say this wasn't exactly a conciliatory comment in the Culture Warz raging across America:
Yeah, nothing says highmindness like taking a swipe at all those muggles who enjoy low entertainment. How brave.
I'd say you don't understand the culture war "raging" in the United States. If that's what you think is indicative of the culture war in America you've missed the boat again.
Quote:
You know what's brave? Telling the people who are around you, your audience - your peers - things they don't want to hear. Things that challenge their worldview and their self-righteousness. Telling a bunch of people who love you that the people you all hate are wrong, and then basking in the entirely predictable and self-congratulatory adulation, is about the easiest thing in the world to do.
You mean like Trump's Victory Tour?
I can see why you'd be pissed with Streep's speech. The way she called out the press and said they weren't doing their jobs, yeah that had to sting. But to sit there and say that Streep should be the one to reach out and extend the olive branch, that's like suggesting someone who is subject to sexual harassment should apologize to their harasser. If anyone in America should take the first conciliatory step toward anyone it is President Comacho. He can start by never signing into Twitter again and recognize that he is open to criticism because he is in the most greatest seat of power in the country, and arguably in the world. Everyone is subservient to him. He is in the position of power and he is the one who needs to apologize to those he offended.
Eh, it's not totally unreasonable to suggest that people leave university having been effectively indoctrinated by the brand of politics that's shared by the staggering majority of people there. It isn't "socialism", but you're certainly more likely to favour socialized medicine having gone to university, regardless of whether your studies would give you any insight on medicine or government whatsoever.
I do agree that my computer science degree probably swamped me with political ideas, and my Poli Sci class taught by Tom Flanagan made me into a raging socialist.
It's not the fact that I have grown up in a country with single payer Heath Care, have had 2 parents with cancer who didn't go bankrupt, and realize that my mom would be dead right now if she had to pay out of pocket for her treatment. It has nothing to do with my grandmother (without proper insurance) making a trip to the US last year that ended her so far in debt that her plan for paying it back is to die.
The US health care system is broken, and ACA is merely a bandaid.
__________________
"Wake up, Luigi! The only time plumbers sleep on the job is when we're working by the hour."
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Rathji For This Useful Post:
The US health care system is broken, and ACA is merely a bandaid.
Yes it is. How broken? I have friend undergoing surgery this week to try to correct an intrauterine growth restriction. Pregnant with twins but one twin isn't getting enough of the placenta and therefore nutrients. The attempt is to separate out blood vessels to get the second twin at least 15% of the placenta so it can grow and survive. If they can't, they may have to deliver the growing twin at 22-23 weeks (30-40% survival rate).
Insurance is not covering the procedures deeming the chances of saving both twins too low to pony up the cash.
Yay America.
Since the ACA, women have used preventative medical services far more than they did without it. That's a good thing for the health of the country as a whole but that will be flushed down the toilet by the GOP who feel that health care is a privilege that only the successful should truly be able to afford.
There are going to be a hell of a lot of people who realize that they have been using the benefits of the ACA for the betterment of themselves and their families that all of a sudden can't. And they are going to wonder why because they were only going to repeal obamacare and not the ACA!
The only thing that 100% protects against pregnancy is abstinence.
And that is the risk that one takes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattyC
Some women can't be on birth control.
Which is why I said that, under a basic health care plan, "I'd support free birth control, of all types."
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattyC
Sometimes people don't have a say in whether or not they have sex.
Which is why I agree that, under a basic health care plan, abortion would be an option available to those who did not "voluntarily engage in activities that lead to conception."
Quote:
Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos
The reason the US pays so much for defense is because that's what your government decides to spend your money on.
They don't have bases all over the world to be nice. They have bases all over the world -- and pay for bases all over the world -- because they want to project power all over the world.
That may be, but it is also because other nations aren't willing to put forth the effort or money to do so, while simultaneously reaping the benefit(s) of the protection and power that the US provides.
Here is a listing of "the principal defence forums, arrangements and agreements" that Canada has with the US:
How much do you think it would cost Canada to run even a portion of this stuff on their own? And do you think that Canada could realistically fund national health care for its citizens at the same level that it does now while also paying for its increased, go-it-alone, defense obligations?
Or perhaps we should just look at NATO spending. As noted in this article (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...ding-1.3664272), the funding benchmark for member countries is 2% of GDP. What does Canada contribute? 0.99% of GDP. Again, do you think that Canada could realistically fund national health care for its citizens at the same level that it does now while also making the expected 2% of GDP contribution to NATO?
And if it could, then why doesn't it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard
Your ideology merely serves to punish the poor who can't afford abortions, proper pre/perinatal nutrition, child care, educational opportunities or options in life.
No. What I'm proposing is to make people personally responsible for their voluntary choices.
