search results matching tag: Stalin

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (51)     Sift Talk (5)     Blogs (8)     Comments (348)   

Some Big Moments From The Jan 6 Hearings So Far

luxintenebris says...

personally, some of the 'big' moments in the series were...

- his daughter saying Joe won (Upset Catsup lost)
- Lady Rudy & kin telling their stories (damn Catsup Tosser)
- the Murtaugh/Wolking email (proof positive of the negative)
- the 'unhinged' meeting (Stalin's death was less surreal)
-'call us if there's an oil spill' line (outlaw AG's is a GOP thing)*

...overall, the Orange Stain is thoroughly shown to be one of the worst humans to serve in the office.

really should be confined. w/mercy: to some mental facility. get some therapy so at least he could have a few days of actual life. w/vengance: solitaire. he'd break inside a week.


*Nixon, Reagan, Saucer Tosser

DOPESICK Official Trailer (2021)

luxintenebris jokingly says...

looks like a great movie that might not want to see. having been exposed to this subject matter - hats off to John Oliver btw - it just might bring up the past seething rage again. at least, won't have to fear spoilers.

Pandora's box opened with direct-to-consumer marketing. held it a very bad idea then, and find this - and the Sackler family - a direct result of that bad idea. recall the "Cassandra's" at the time telling that this would - and did - happen. along the same lines when the S&Ls went down. faulty ideology, clear warnings ignored, and what was said to happen, happened. the same folks are still following the same playbook today.

the AMA says it leads to higher drugs prices, EU voted it down for the same reason - using the U.S. as the example, and the operation data of pharmas prove that it is more about sales than safety or R&D. The cost is too high. In currency and lives.

[unless you're in EMT services, sell PDs Narcan, produce black tar, or rehab services - then it's job security]

but hope it's a massive hit.

do for the Sackler name what Stalin, Dahmer, or Manson did for their surname.

Rand Paul spars with ABC host over election integrity

vil says...

So was it stolen or wasnt it?

Everyone is biased and untrustworthy. Hedge your bets. Listen to everyone and dont dwell on what you already "know". Break those bubbles. Listen to people with proven records and known motives. For gods sake I get how people got hooked on Trump or Stalin or Michael Jackson, but Rand Paul? Rudy Giuliani? Beats me.

Nephelimdream (Member Profile)

Marvel Studios' Black Widow - Official Teaser Trailer

Sagemind says...

For those who are interested:

The Red Guardian
"Alexi Shostakov was one of the Soviet Union's most acclaimed test pilots whose heroism caught the attention of the KGB. They arranged for Shostakov to wed Natasha Romanoff , a top agent of the secret Red Room Academy, later known as the Black Widow. Intending to manipulate Natasha years after the couple’s marriage the KGB arranged for a rocket Shostakov was supposedly piloting to exploded, giving the appearance of his apparent death.

Shostakov’s “death” drove Natasha deeper into the Red Room’s service, although, in reality Shostakov, was alive and recruited into the KGB. He was given the identity of the Red Guardian, a costumed heroic guise first assigned to Aleksey Lebedev (aka Volodymyr Fomin) during World War II by Soviet Premier Josef Stalin, but the costume had become the property of the Red Room. Through the Red Guardian, the Russians hoped to hone a national hero to represent them just as Captain America (Steve Rogers) represented the USA. During Shostakov’s training the Black Widow, who was again using her maiden name turned against her superiors, and defected to the USA, becoming romantically involved with Hawkeye (Clint Barton) of the Avengers."

Why Shell's Marketing is so Disgusting

bcglorf says...

@newtboy,

If North America is to adopt the Amish lifestyle, how many acres of land can the entire continent support? The typical Amish family farm is something like 80 acres is it not? I believe adopting this nationwide as a 'solution' requires massive population downsizing...

If you want to look at the poorest conditions of people in the world and advocate that the poverty stricken regions with no access to fossil fuel industry are the path forward, I would ask how you anticipate selling that to the people of California as being in their best interests to adopt as their new standard of living...

You mention overpopulation as a problem, then invent the argument that I think we should just ignore that and make it worse. Instead I only pointed out that immediately abandoning fossil fuels overnight would impact that overpopulation problem as well. It's like you do agree on one level, then don't like the implications or something?

The massive productivity of modern agriculture is dependent on fossil fuel usage. Similarly, our global population is also dependent upon that agricultural output. I find it hard to believe those are not clearly both fact. Please do tell me if you disagree. One inescapable conclusion to those facts is that reducing fossil fuel usage needs to at least be done with sufficient caution that we don't break the global food supply chain, because hungry people do very, very bad things.

Then you least catastrophic events that ARE NOT supported by the science and un-ironically claim that it's me who is ignoring the science.

You even have the audacity to ask if I appreciate the impacts of massive global food shortages, after having earlier belittled my concern about exactly that!

The IPCC shows that even in an absolute worst case scenario of accelerating emissions for the next century an estimated maximum sea level rise of 3ft, yet you talk about loss of 'most' farmland to the oceans...

Here's where I stand. If we can move off gas powered cars to electric, and onto a power grid that is either nuclear, hydro or renewable based in the next 50 years, our emissions before 2100 will drop significantly from today's levels. I firmly believe we are already on a very good course to expect that to occur very organically, with superior electric cars, and cheaper nuclear power and battery storage enabling renewables as economical alternatives to fossil fuels.

That future places us onto the IPCC's better scenarios where emissions peak and then actually decrease steadily through the rest of the century.

I'm hardly advocating lets sit back and do nothing, I'm advocating let's build the technology to make the population we have move into a reduced emissions future. We are getting close on major points for it and think that's great.

What I think is very damaging to that idea, is panicky advice demanding that we must all make massive economic sacrifices as fast as possible, because I firmly believe trying to enact reductions that way, fast enough to make a difference over natural progress, guarantees catastrophic wars now. Thankfully, that is also why nobody in sane leadership will give an ounce of consideration to such stupidity either. You need a Stalin or Mao type in charge to drive that kind change.

Why Shell's Marketing is so Disgusting

bcglorf says...

You asked at least 3 questions and all fo them very much leading questions.

To the first 2, my response is that it's only the extremely fortunate few that have the kind of financial security and freedom to make those adjustments, so lucky for them.

Your last question is:
do those companies get to continue to abdicate their responsibility, pawning it off on their customers?

Your question demands as part of it's base assumption that fossil fuels are inherently immoral or something and customers are clearly the victims. I reject that.

The entirety of the modern western world stands atop the usage of fossil fuels. If we cut ALL fossil fuel usage out tomorrow, mass global starvation would follow within a year, very nasty wars would rapidly follow that.

The massive gains in agricultural production we've seen over the last 100 years is extremely dependent on fossil fuels. Most importantly for efficiency in equipment run on fossil fuels, but also importantly on fertilizers produced by fossil fuels. Alternatives to that over the last 100 years did not exist. If you think Stalin and Mao's mass starvations were ugly, just know that the disruptions they made to agriculture were less severe than the gain/loss represented by fossil fuels.

All that is to state that simply saying don't use them because the future consequences are bad is extremely naive. The amount of future harm you must prove is coming is enormous, and the scientific community as represented by the IPCC hasn't even painted a worst case scenario so catastrophic.

newtboy said:

I think that, considering the long term massive if not apocalyptic damage done along with the temporary gains, it's undeniably a big negative for humanity and the rest of the planet. Groups like the Amish get along quite nicely without it.

Edit: Now will you please answer my question?

Roger Stone Yakety Sax

Drachen_Jager says...

He has a large tattoo of Nixon's face on his back.

He's like one of those Russians who idolizes Stalin. It shouldn't surprise anyone that he helped get Trump into power.

newtboy said:

Lock them up, lock them up, lock them up, lock them up.

Love the "I am not a crook" Nixon pose, like he doesn't know Nixon was crooked and guilty of the crimes he denied too, odd since they worked together. Perhaps that's a signal that he's expecting a presidential pardon too. (Side note: only guilty people can be pardoned)

Good thing Trump has all the best people, imagine if he filled his cabinet with feckless and feculent criminal ignoramuses too dumb to hide their crimes.

Trump to Give Primetime Address on the Shutdown

vil says...

Lovely how the cronies behind Trump totally cant tell if he is being serious or not. Better than Stalin or Chrushchev. Not as bloodcurdling as Saddam. But in the same general job description and persona.

The Statue of George W. Bush

oritteropo says...

Since he also repeats the lie about the Civil war, it seems history isn't his strong point.

Albanians have a special affection for the United States, which they credit with ending their country’s Cold War isolation and leading NATO’s 1999 bombing offensive that halted ethnic cleansing of Kosovo Albanians by Serbian troops.


source: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-albania-statue-bush-idUSTRE7655J520110706

Belarus isn't the only place which still honours Stalin, although Georgia has torn down some of them, https://qz.com/292901/historical-statues-illegal-stalin-statues-keep-popping-up-in-gori-georgia/

spawnflagger said:

That was a lot of words for never actually saying the reason Albania erected a statue of W... cause he visited there? cause they like USA? it's got to be more than that.

Not Your Usual Political Ad

visionep says...

What a self serving moron.

His idea of family is that everyone in his family needs to bend to his ideas instead of listening to them and working as a strong team.
He is the one that is abandoning his family for political ideology and yes likely Stalin would be proud of how twisted this guy's logic is.

Not Your Usual Political Ad

BSR says...

Twitter response from Paul Gosar:

Paul GosarVerified account
@DrPaulGosar

US House candidate, AZ-4
Official campaign twitter of U.S. Republican Congressman for Arizona's Fourth District. Husband,Father,Constitutional Conservative,Defender of the Rule of Law.

My siblings who chose to film ads against me are all liberal Democrats who hate President Trump. These disgruntled Hillary suppporters are related by blood to me but like leftists everywhere, they put political ideology before family. Stalin would be proud. #Az04 #MAGA2018

Just a playground in Russia

DrMaximan says...

Joseph Stalin must be spinning in his grave! Please realize that you would be put up against the wall and shot for this back in the day.....
Nice dancing & good luck, you Crazy Diamonds - you're my kind of people!! LOL (Don't let Putin see this!! I don't think he would approve!)

ayn rand and her stories of rapey heroes

heropsycho says...

I have the "gall" to admit it that she inspired me in high school. I know numerous people who were as well. None of them are antisocial assholes. I'm perhaps a bit anti-social in the respect that I'm very much an introvert, but people who know me generally don't describe me as an asshole.

It wasn't accidental. Advocating for reason, science, individual rights, critical thinking, trying to be good at what you do, being unafraid to think differently than others, none of that makes you automatically an asshole.

I don't think she was evil. I think her case is complicated as many philosophers were. There's good and bad to it. That's like saying Che Guevara is ipso facto being a fan or somehow on some plane similar or equivalent of being a fan of Stalin, and therefore it's offensive.

Just... no... that's just factually and logically not true.

vil said:

No no no, being inspired by her, by itself, is indeed less offensive than being inspired by Hitler, the consequences are less dire.

But having the gall to admit publicly that you are inspired by her unconditionally is equally as bad as .. substitute Adolf where applicable.

By doing either you admit to be a self-conscious antisocial asshole.

I understand that reading her book can accidentally shove you in a better direction than before, and that is very unlikely in the other scenario, I give you that.

I was inspired by Vladimir Mayakovsky and Che Guevara for what thats worth :-)

So a general all-encompassing nod to her is just like a general nod to any evil. And you dont get out of that by quantifying evil and making it relative.

the value of whataboutism

bcglorf says...

In a way Scahill is like a less educated\refined version of Noam Chomsky. He does good investigative work, and dedicates enormous energy into exposing and spotlighting the bad things that America does. That has a place, but without a similarly harsh and critical light being cast on America's targets/enemies it becomes propaganda.

Jeremy says he wouldn't work with Charles Manson to oppose trump, fair enough. What about kind of working with Stalin to defeat Hitler? Say, at least agreeing not to attack Stalin while you both deal with Hitler?

The world is incredibly complicated and the singular and lone focus on American mistakes paints a deceptive picture. Pointing out the problems with America's war in Iraq, like torture and Quantanamo and declaring these as so immoral we needn't even look at Saddam's past is propaganda. Saddam waged two campaigns of genocide against his own people. When America saw the abuses at Abu Ghraib, they shut it down and attempted to punish those responsible. When Saddam's brother used chemical weapons to exterminate Kurdish civilians Saddam commended him for it. Guantanamo is bad, but it doesn't mean we should fail to acknowledge the concentration camps that Saddam operated during his genocide of the Kurds. It doesn't mean it's unfair to observe that conditions in Saddam's prisons across the country were far more cruel during his entire reign.

There's a nuanced place here that Scahill and Chomsky and pundits like them just fail to acknowledge and encourages inaction at times were the lesser evil may well be for America to do something, even if aborting Gadafi's genocide doesn't make Libya a paradise after.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon