Thumpalumpacus
Lieutenant Colonel
They only thing that shocks me is when they do something decent for a change.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Agreed. I'm just implying that nothing shocks me anymore.
Food for thought. But its giving me indigestion and a sense of nausea.
Without wishing to diss it completely out of hand, your link is to a low readership online publication, with a paywall for many articles. The writers submit articles under pseudonyms - which is clearly designed to protect them from possible legal action. By its very nature, its a publication designed not to root out new information, so much as to generate clicks, engagement and advertising revenue which it does under the guise of 'free speech', but which is pretty transparently wanting to attract controversy and attention. The idea that its a reliable and fact-checkable source of objective information is flawed from the off. For example, the hyperlinked sections just veer off into speculation: The supposed justification of the censorship claim is German discussion about the banning of the AfD is but one example of hyperlink BS -not only has the AfD NOT been 'banned', its just won a substantial victory in the German elections. This is classic Orwellian double-speak. Naked misleading propaganda. There has been no 'suppression', even if there has been discussion of what constitutes a neo nazi organisation, something (unsurprisingly!) is banned under German law. Its the corollary of trying to argue that concern over where porn veers into paedophilia is 'censorship and suppression'. Adult consideration is a quite rational and fair consideration of German concern about the far right- given what nationalism brought to Germany twice in the 20th century.
The piece may reflect or reinforce your opinion - but what new insight is it actually bringing to the table? I mean, he's a $hit writer for starters: 'It is difficult to say what specifically most triggered the catatonic European breakdown'.
Catatonic means - "Appearing mentally stupefied, unresponsive, and motionless, or almost so; seemingly unaware of one's environment".
Whether you agree with it or not, European response was ANYTHING but catatonic.
There are also a lot of straw-man implications in the rest of what you say:
"IMO A government that suppresses or deems free speech as hate crimes, prohibits ANY peaceful assembly, imposes their will on their citizens, prohibits the right to keep and bear arms, trashes the right to privacy and the right to confront accusers in a criminal procedure - are either fascist or have tendencies toward totalitarian rule in my world view."...
I'm gobsmacked ...errr, an ACTUAL one, like Russia, the invader of Ukraine...?...
I've read much of the rest of the article. I mean, dear god, where even to start?!
The mischaracterisation of European democracy is laughable. Its also insulting as well as dangerously inaccurate. Why would anyone simply accept this steaming pile of dung as either true and therefore a justification boggles my mind. I find it genuinely terrifying. You're an eloquent guy and clearly not alone in giving this stuff uncritical bandwidth. Differing opinions I can handle, but how far in extremist denial can you be to give countenance to this kind of stuff? But then again, many of not most of the people to whom this content appeals, know most no little to nothing of the outside world, in reality, do they? How many gobbling this sewage down have even been to Europe, and of the few that have, how many spent time not sealed away on a base or on some whistle-stop 'do all the sights' week holiday?
I had an insight into this naïve (and casually arrogant) view of the outside world once, when I was asked to invite the head of European Marketing for a large American mobile phone company to a meeting in the UK to discuss raising the profile of his products in our market (which were dismally failing to attract custom). I got on the phone to his secretary. "Could I come to the US?" she asked. "Erm, that would be an amazing opportunity for me, and would require clearance from my management", I said, "But surely he'd like to come here, meet some of the key executives, get an understanding of the market and have a tour round - really get to see the diversity of the culture, potential customers, the local competition and the challenges and opportunities. We can then host a round table and make suggestions on how we might be able to help." "Ah, I'm sorry," she said, "He doesn't have a passport". The Head of European Marketing for a leading US phone manufacturer!
How do you think the half dozen or so Europeans who regularly post here not only feel about what you've said, but who's intelligence you're now insulting by reposting and endorsing this article? You see, we ARE diverse. We have no problem expressing fundamental disagreements between our nations. If this hit-piece had any accuracy, I'm sure we'd all be pointing at each other and sagely nodding. But I'd be astounded if anyone here recognises what's described in this appalling piece.
Lets look at the author. 'Tyler Durden'. This nom de plume 'to protect his amendment rights' is pure BS for starters. The site founder and one of the key writers is purported to use it - and his identity is long since established. So who is this 'journalist' and what is his CV? Aha. His daddy registered the domain - Krassimir Ivandjiiski of ABC Media Ltd.
Who he? - A former Soviet-era Bulgarian Ministry of Foreign Trade official. Let that sink in.
And the main writer-come-owner is his son - Daniel Ivandjiiski. And his 'qualifications'? He's a Bulgarian-born, U.S.-educated, former hedge-fund trader, who was barred from the securities industry in September 2008 for earning US$780 from an insider trade by FINRA .
This is the source 'that succinctly explains the last 45 days in office in context that I agree with'. And therein lies the problem. You agree with. But no one in their right mind would trust if they dug any deeper as to the objectivity, motivation or source, would they?
So why are you???
'Taking what you want and leaving the rest' means you're probably filtering out some otherwise unpleasant truth that contradicts the easier to swallow and more simplistic narrative. You're far from alone. But surely you and the USA is better than that? Don't we ALL owe a better democracy more than this?
Food for thought. But its giving me indigestion and a sense of nausea.
Without wishing to diss it completely out of hand, your link is to a low readership online publication, with a paywall for many articles. The writers submit articles under pseudonyms - which is clearly designed to protect them from possible legal action. By its very nature, its a publication designed not to root out new information, so much as to generate clicks, engagement and advertising revenue which it does under the guise of 'free speech', but which is pretty transparently wanting to attract controversy and attention. The idea that its a reliable and fact-checkable source of objective information is flawed from the off. For example, the hyperlinked sections just veer off into speculation: The supposed justification of the censorship claim is German discussion about the banning of the AfD is but one example of hyperlink BS -not only has the AfD NOT been 'banned', its just won a substantial victory in the German elections. This is classic Orwellian double-speak. Naked misleading propaganda. There has been no 'suppression', even if there has been discussion of what constitutes a neo nazi organisation, something (unsurprisingly!) is banned under German law. Its the corollary of trying to argue that concern over where porn veers into paedophilia is 'censorship and suppression'. Adult consideration is a quite rational and fair consideration of German concern about the far right- given what nationalism brought to Germany twice in the 20th century.
The piece may reflect or reinforce your opinion - but what new insight is it actually bringing to the table? I mean, he's a $hit writer for starters: 'It is difficult to say what specifically most triggered the catatonic European breakdown'.
Catatonic means - "Appearing mentally stupefied, unresponsive, and motionless, or almost so; seemingly unaware of one's environment".
Whether you agree with it or not, European response was ANYTHING but catatonic.
There are also a lot of straw-man implications in the rest of what you say:
"IMO A government that suppresses or deems free speech as hate crimes, prohibits ANY peaceful assembly, imposes their will on their citizens, prohibits the right to keep and bear arms, trashes the right to privacy and the right to confront accusers in a criminal procedure - are either fascist or have tendencies toward totalitarian rule in my world view."...
I'm gobsmacked ...errr, an ACTUAL one, like Russia, the invader of Ukraine...?...
I've read much of the rest of the article. I mean, dear god, where even to start?!
The mischaracterisation of European democracy is laughable. Its also insulting as well as dangerously inaccurate. Why would anyone simply accept this steaming pile of dung as either true and therefore a justification boggles my mind. I find it genuinely terrifying. You're an eloquent guy and clearly not alone in giving this stuff uncritical bandwidth. Differing opinions I can handle, but how far in extremist denial can you be to give countenance to this kind of stuff? But then again, many of not most of the people to whom this content appeals, know most no little to nothing of the outside world, in reality, do they? How many gobbling this sewage down have even been to Europe, and of the few that have, how many spent time not sealed away on a base or on some whistle-stop 'do all the sights' week holiday?
I had an insight into this naïve (and casually arrogant) view of the outside world once, when I was asked to invite the head of European Marketing for a large American mobile phone company to a meeting in the UK to discuss raising the profile of his products in our market (which were dismally failing to attract custom). I got on the phone to his secretary. "Could I come to the US?" she asked. "Erm, that would be an amazing opportunity for me, and would require clearance from my management", I said, "But surely he'd like to come here, meet some of the key executives, get an understanding of the market and have a tour round - really get to see the diversity of the culture, potential customers, the local competition and the challenges and opportunities. We can then host a round table and make suggestions on how we might be able to help." "Ah, I'm sorry," she said, "He doesn't have a passport". The Head of European Marketing for a leading US phone manufacturer!
How do you think the half dozen or so Europeans who regularly post here not only feel about what you've said, but who's intelligence you're now insulting by reposting and endorsing this article? You see, we ARE diverse. We have no problem expressing fundamental disagreements between our nations. If this hit-piece had any accuracy, I'm sure we'd all be pointing at each other and sagely nodding. But I'd be astounded if anyone here recognises what's described in this appalling piece.
Lets look at the author. 'Tyler Durden'. This nom de plume 'to protect his amendment rights' is pure BS for starters. The site founder and one of the key writers is purported to use it - and his identity is long since established. So who is this 'journalist' and what is his CV? Aha. His daddy registered the domain - Krassimir Ivandjiiski of ABC Media Ltd.
Who he? - A former Soviet-era Bulgarian Ministry of Foreign Trade official. Let that sink in.
And the main writer-come-owner is his son - Daniel Ivandjiiski. And his 'qualifications'? He's a Bulgarian-born, U.S.-educated, former hedge-fund trader, who was barred from the securities industry in September 2008 for earning US$780 from an insider trade by FINRA .
This is the source 'that succinctly explains the last 45 days in office in context that I agree with'. And therein lies the problem. You agree with. But no one in their right mind would trust if they dug any deeper as to the objectivity, motivation or source, would they?
So why are you???
'Taking what you want and leaving the rest' means you're probably filtering out some otherwise unpleasant truth that contradicts the easier to swallow and more simplistic narrative. You're far from alone. But surely you and the USA is better than that? Don't we ALL owe a better democracy more than this?
Is this on the "Unauthorized History of the Pacific War" Channel?A video I came across today from a cohost of a WWII channel I watch, discussing the leadup to current events in Ukraine. It's long, so pop open a beer and get some popcorn ready, but while I'm not done watching it, I agree with enough already 35 minutes in that I thought it belongs here:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyF7uMukW1A
Is this on the "Unauthorized History of the Pacific War" Channel?
And you can be sure that the absolute minimum will be spent in the USAEU leaders back new defence spending after U.S. threatens to cut off support | CBC News
European Union leaders on Thursday committed to working together to bolster the continent's defences and to free up hundreds of billions of euros for security after U.S. President Donald Trump's repeated warnings that he would cut them adrift to face the threat of Russia alone.www.cbc.ca
No, seems to be captain Toti personal Channel, with John Parshall, both in their usual rooms for the Unauthorized History of the Pacific War.Is this on the "Unauthorized History of the Pacific War" Channel?
And you can be sure that the absolute minimum will be spent in the USA
And you can be sure that the absolute minimum will be spent in the USA
You know I love yaActually, you are, because you're implying that anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant.
Furthermore, I don't see him upholding the Constitution, but upending it.
But hey, support who and what you want. Just don't expect a free pass on it. POTUS has sold out the Ukrainians. Maybe you're okay with that. I'm not. It harms American interest, it harms the free world which looks to us for leadership in a world that's pretty dangerous, and it harms innocent people who did nothing to merit death and destruction by invasion.
Awesome replyI found this to be an interesting remark. Living in a Constitutional monarchy myself, maybe I should try to clarify.
Actually there is not a significant difference between our constitutional monarchy and your constitutional republic. The basic difference is that head-of-state is also the executional head-of-state and politically elected. Here, our head-of-state is mostly ceremonial and used for PR. The prime-minister is the executional head-of-state, meaning that he is the one actively leading the government. Like your president, he is elected by the people. The King has no saying in the daily governing of the country, however he is sometimes used as an impartial mediator, being officially apolitical and above the parties.
This of course is the theory. But if you want to talk to the active head of the state, you talk to the prime-minister, not the king.
edit: changed some stupid mistake