Today it was revealed that Elon has cut/refused access to Starlink for Ukraine in the Black Sea in order to intentionally hobble their major counter offensive in the Black Sea and cripple their communication ability and suddenly Elon is calling for an immediate truce (ostensibly with both sides (Russia) retaining any territory taken previously)…so his plan is handing Russia 1/3 of Ukraine and allowing them to keep Ukrainian Crimea…and quick before Ukraine retakes their country.
He has previously said he would not do any such thing ever after offering Ukraine open access to Starlink, but suddenly changed course in the middle of a major military offensive by Ukraine he said would be like Pearl Harbor (meaning the Ukrainians caught a huge number of Russian ships in port vulnerable to attack and could turn the tide of war in one action), but Elon wanted to stop the Ukrainians from achieving such a significant victory so he cut their communications to help Russia! He has admitted this publicly, it’s not supposition.

I hope sanctions are forthcoming…major multiple business ending sanctions.

If you still support Elon, you are the problem. He’s anti American and pro fascist.
Quit X, trade in your Tesla, and tell NASA to quit handing him billions in no bid, no competition, non performance based contracts using tax payer money for failures and global communication projects he capriciously withdraws from our allies when they’re needed most, and uses to prop up and control information for multiple fascist governments to the detriment of the populace but to the benefit of his pockets.

"Some damned fool thing in the Balkans."

Armenia, currently on the losing side of this idiotic pissing contest, is trying to negotiate a truce. Azerbaijan has absolutely NO reason to stop, however. Turkey's getting involved, Russia's trying to figure out how to work this to their advantage and Israel is trying to sell more arms after this current "download the demo" of their export munitions.

How the fuck Artsakh ended up in the middle of all this (not speaking geographically, obviously, as it is EXACTLY in the middle of all this) is somewhat beyond me.

"The approach makes sense. Lethal Protector reinvented the long-tongued symbiote for the '90s. It kicked off with a truce between Eddie Brock and Spider-Man, and saw Brock move to San Francisco. There, he began a career as an antihero rather than as a villain. Needless to say, trouble followed hot on Brock's heels, as the miniseries saw Venom hunted down by the Life Foundation. They sought to tap into the power of Brock's symbiote, and created five new symbiote spawn. We can assume the film will adapt this plot twist to introduce Carnage, rumored to be the main bad guy. He's one of Marvel's most brutal villains, created when a symbiote bonded with a psychopathic murderer. It's believed Riz Ahmed is playing Carnage's host, Cletus Kasady."

https://screenrant.com/venom-movie-lethal-protector-comics/

Here is a podcast that you might enjoy.

BBC documentary on the "The Christmas Truce" of World War One, with many first hand accounts of that day.

Police say a lot of things. What some gang members had to say.
http://www.wbaltv.com/news/gang-members-we-did-not-make-truce-to-harm-cops/32609810

All ads work by commodifying emotion. The product and brand are identified with the emotions produced by the ad content. At least that's the intention.

I'd like to hear what he thinks of the appallingly tasteless Sainsbury's ad that managed to commodify the emotional response to the Christmas truces in WW1.


“What is our ideology? Is it the worship of Christ or the worship of products?” - False dichotomy, Mr Brand.

kinda interesting regarding his speed
"The competition to create the fastest production motorcycle ended in a truce, after just over a century of one-upmanship by motorcycle manufacturers that began with the 1894–1897 Hildebrand & Wolfmüller and ended with the 1999–2000 Suzuki Hayabusa. A gentlemen's agreement was reached among the major motorcycle manufacturers to limit the speed of their machines to 300 km/h (186 mph), starting with some 2000 models, and becoming widespread by the 2001 model year" -wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fastest_production_motorcycles

>> ^ghark:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^NetRunner:
@bcglorf that is the state of play at present. The thing is, terrorists in Pakistan or Yemmen can't hurt us until they come here, unless we go there.
It seems like things like "Homeland Security" should be able to handle that, and should be able to do well enough within the traditional legal framework of jurisprudence.
And to toss out a touch of radicalism, if they can't, then they can't, and if some attacks get through, well, no one said freedom would be easy.
Now I'm not ruling out the possibility of ever taking the fight to the terrorists, but it seems like we should completely change the whole way we look at this. We don't want a declaration of war on terrorists, that gives the U.S. President all this crazy unilateral power.
I think if we'd have viewed this as some sort of International-scale law enforcement matter, we'd have been in much better shape. And yes, we'd probably still give ourselves the right to come in with special ops and "arrest" people inside sovereign countries on our say so, but it at least should be something that comes after evidence is presented to a judge who's issuing a warrant...
And that approach would've made it clear that toppling the governments of countries and rebuilding them is completely beyond the scope of what's warranted to deal with terrorist threats.

The real trouble was the terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The terrorists in Afghanistan were able to hurt us here, and many of our interests and allies abroad as well. The formal government of Afghanistan when asked to choose sides with or against these terrorists chose to back them. Outright war with them in that context doesn't seem particularly absurd, nor even aggressive. The argument for reactive self-defense is rather strong.
You may not recall because our media avoided covering or discussing it much then and since, but Pakistan's formal government was right on the fence as well which way they would side. They still have well represented parties within Pakistan more enraged over Bin Laden's death than Benazir Bhutto's, and it's not the method or origin that offends them, but the nature of those dead. Bhutto was a moderate muslim women who was a former Pakistani PM and front runner in the upcoming elections. Bin Laden however, was to some well represented political parties a muslim hero and political ally rather than opponent. Showing that America had the will to play it's hand very strongly against the militants and terrorists hiding in Pakistan's tribal areas bordering Afghanistan I deem necessary to having encouraged Musharraf and the military leadership to at least pay lip service to siding as they have. Even now though, that may not have been enough. The militants are killing so many of our moderate Pakistani allies that there is a lot of momentum to accept a truce out of fear with them and who cares if America is still nominally at war with these militants.

And what is the root of this terrorism?


IMHO, human nature. The same human nature that led a bunch of majority privileged whites in America to form groups like the KKK. The same human nature that sees common hatred unifying groups of people throughout history, and often the it starts from greed or envy. I certainly wouldn't posit that the formation of things like the Westboro Baptists as being the result of their members being unfairly treated or wronged in the past, but rather their own vices and faults.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^NetRunner:
@bcglorf that is the state of play at present. The thing is, terrorists in Pakistan or Yemmen can't hurt us until they come here, unless we go there.
It seems like things like "Homeland Security" should be able to handle that, and should be able to do well enough within the traditional legal framework of jurisprudence.
And to toss out a touch of radicalism, if they can't, then they can't, and if some attacks get through, well, no one said freedom would be easy.
Now I'm not ruling out the possibility of ever taking the fight to the terrorists, but it seems like we should completely change the whole way we look at this. We don't want a declaration of war on terrorists, that gives the U.S. President all this crazy unilateral power.
I think if we'd have viewed this as some sort of International-scale law enforcement matter, we'd have been in much better shape. And yes, we'd probably still give ourselves the right to come in with special ops and "arrest" people inside sovereign countries on our say so, but it at least should be something that comes after evidence is presented to a judge who's issuing a warrant...
And that approach would've made it clear that toppling the governments of countries and rebuilding them is completely beyond the scope of what's warranted to deal with terrorist threats.

The real trouble was the terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The terrorists in Afghanistan were able to hurt us here, and many of our interests and allies abroad as well. The formal government of Afghanistan when asked to choose sides with or against these terrorists chose to back them. Outright war with them in that context doesn't seem particularly absurd, nor even aggressive. The argument for reactive self-defense is rather strong.
You may not recall because our media avoided covering or discussing it much then and since, but Pakistan's formal government was right on the fence as well which way they would side. They still have well represented parties within Pakistan more enraged over Bin Laden's death than Benazir Bhutto's, and it's not the method or origin that offends them, but the nature of those dead. Bhutto was a moderate muslim women who was a former Pakistani PM and front runner in the upcoming elections. Bin Laden however, was to some well represented political parties a muslim hero and political ally rather than opponent. Showing that America had the will to play it's hand very strongly against the militants and terrorists hiding in Pakistan's tribal areas bordering Afghanistan I deem necessary to having encouraged Musharraf and the military leadership to at least pay lip service to siding as they have. Even now though, that may not have been enough. The militants are killing so many of our moderate Pakistani allies that there is a lot of momentum to accept a truce out of fear with them and who cares if America is still nominally at war with these militants.


And what is the root of this terrorism?

>> ^NetRunner:

@bcglorf that is the state of play at present. The thing is, terrorists in Pakistan or Yemmen can't hurt us until they come here, unless we go there.
It seems like things like "Homeland Security" should be able to handle that, and should be able to do well enough within the traditional legal framework of jurisprudence.
And to toss out a touch of radicalism, if they can't, then they can't, and if some attacks get through, well, no one said freedom would be easy.
Now I'm not ruling out the possibility of ever taking the fight to the terrorists, but it seems like we should completely change the whole way we look at this. We don't want a declaration of war on terrorists, that gives the U.S. President all this crazy unilateral power.
I think if we'd have viewed this as some sort of International-scale law enforcement matter, we'd have been in much better shape. And yes, we'd probably still give ourselves the right to come in with special ops and "arrest" people inside sovereign countries on our say so, but it at least should be something that comes after evidence is presented to a judge who's issuing a warrant...
And that approach would've made it clear that toppling the governments of countries and rebuilding them is completely beyond the scope of what's warranted to deal with terrorist threats.


The real trouble was the terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The terrorists in Afghanistan were able to hurt us here, and many of our interests and allies abroad as well. The formal government of Afghanistan when asked to choose sides with or against these terrorists chose to back them. Outright war with them in that context doesn't seem particularly absurd, nor even aggressive. The argument for reactive self-defense is rather strong.

You may not recall because our media avoided covering or discussing it much then and since, but Pakistan's formal government was right on the fence as well which way they would side. They still have well represented parties within Pakistan more enraged over Bin Laden's death than Benazir Bhutto's, and it's not the method or origin that offends them, but the nature of those dead. Bhutto was a moderate muslim women who was a former Pakistani PM and front runner in the upcoming elections. Bin Laden however, was to some well represented political parties a muslim hero and political ally rather than opponent. Showing that America had the will to play it's hand very strongly against the militants and terrorists hiding in Pakistan's tribal areas bordering Afghanistan I deem necessary to having encouraged Musharraf and the military leadership to at least pay lip service to siding as they have. Even now though, that may not have been enough. The militants are killing so many of our moderate Pakistani allies that there is a lot of momentum to accept a truce out of fear with them and who cares if America is still nominally at war with these militants.

>> ^razzyl:

>> ^bcglorf:
I'm afraid to add this also where I find some Hitchen's arguments to be the weakest. The Christian belief that believers will be sent to heaven and those who don't will go to hell is not some threat against non-belief. It is simply a different belief, and atheists shouldn't find it any more threatening than the shadows in their closet.

If only Christianity was so fluffy and benign. Not sure if the The American Christian Lobbyists Association got that memo. Or the AFA. Or Dominionists. Or Moral Majority Inc. Or The Social Contract - National Religious Lobbying group. Or the hundreds of other Christian based groups that have and will pump millions of dollars into lobbying and political campaigns until every citizen in the US and other countries bends to their beliefs.
Or maybe I'm just being a little cynical...


By that standard nobody is benign. People with a common interest lobbying the government to support their common interest. Shocking.

Christians are among those opposing any so-called christian groups wanting to limit religious freedoms or impose religious beliefs on the people though. Freedom of religion has it origins from christians themselves. Eventually minority protestants, catholics and other smaller sects got tired of being killed off by the other side and agreed that separation of church and state amounted to an appropriate and mutually beneficial 'truce'.

Making out as though all christians are X because some people calling themselves christians are X is a fundamental and very basic logical fallacy.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

@Lawdeedaw - Individual members of the legislative branch don't have anything approximating the power of a president. It is true that idealists such as Kucinich, Wellstone, Weiner, Paul and Obama have managed to find a place in the legislative branch, but never have these idealists held the numbers to ever be a credible threat against corporate domination. (What's even more disheartening is the current epidemic of moronic idealists like Santorum, Bachman and Palin, who have been empowered by a decade of Republican campaigning that targets the lowest common denominator.)
Once the idealists enter the Presidential ring, all bets are off. McCain is a great example of a highly principled republican who was basically forced to renounce everything he ever believed in (most prominently campaign finance reform) to get a shot at the golden ring. Obama also broke his promise to only except public funding because he realized it would put him at a severe disadvantage. As long as our current system is in place, no presidential candidate (not even Saint Paul) has a chance of subverting it. This is not an insult against this man, whom I respect despite the fact that he holds some extremely naive economic views. This is just a frank assessment of how fucked up our campaign finance system is.
If you don't think Ron Paul plays the game too, then ask him about Texas pork barrel spending. There is a video on the sift where he freely admits to playing the pork barrel game. I don't blame him for it - you do what you have to do in a fucked up system.
I'm not here to bash Paul. My point is that our current system will not allow him to be what you want him to be, just as the system won't allow Obama to be the President I want him to be.
Speaking as someone who has already suffered through hopey-changey delusions, I'm just trying to save you some grief. Been there. Done that. I guess maybe you have to experience it first hand before you can truly accept this cruel reality on your own terms.
Until this system works for the voters rather than the funders, we are all destined for disappointment. I'd love to see a conservative-liberal truce until we can throw these money changers out of the temple.


You think Keynesian economics got us out of the Great Depression yet Paul's the naive one? Paul's been saying to get rid of the money changers his whole political career. If we had actually been following the Austrian school of economics, none of this would've happen. You can't give a select group of people total control of your economy and then not expect them to take advantage of it.

And Paul always voted against pork spending. That's hardly playing the game.

Obama hasn't been neutered, he was a fraud from the beginning. He's not bombing civilians and waging wars to secure campaign donations. He's been a puppet and PR salesman for Wall Street and their war machine from day one. He's not prosecuting white-collar fraud, he's prosecuting government whistleblowers. He's arming drug cartels in Mexico. He's using flying robots to rain down hellfire missiles in sovereign countries on the other side of the world. He's a neocolonialist. Not because someone is twisting his arm, but because that's what he signed up to be.
Obama can't be the President you want him to be because he's not that guy and never was.

@Lawdeedaw - Individual members of the legislative branch don't have anything approximating the power of a president. It is true that idealists such as Kucinich, Wellstone, Weiner, Paul and Obama have managed to find a place in the legislative branch, but never have these idealists held the numbers to ever be a credible threat against corporate domination. (What's even more disheartening is the current epidemic of moronic idealists like Santorum, Bachman and Palin, who have been empowered by a decade of Republican campaigning that targets the lowest common denominator.)

Once the idealists enter the Presidential ring, all bets are off. McCain is a great example of a highly principled republican who was basically forced to renounce everything he ever believed in (most prominently campaign finance reform) to get a shot at the golden ring. Obama also broke his promise to only except public funding because he realized it would put him at a severe disadvantage. As long as our current system is in place, no presidential candidate (not even Saint Paul) has a chance of subverting it. This is not an insult against this man, whom I respect despite the fact that he holds some extremely naive economic views. This is just a frank assessment of how fucked up our campaign finance system is.

If you don't think Ron Paul plays the game too, then ask him about Texas pork barrel spending. There is a video on the sift where he freely admits to playing the pork barrel game. I don't blame him for it - you do what you have to do in a fucked up system.

I'm not here to bash Paul. My point is that our current system will not allow him to be what you want him to be, just as the system won't allow Obama to be the President I want him to be.

Speaking as someone who has already suffered through hopey-changey delusions, I'm just trying to save you some grief. Been there. Done that. I guess maybe you have to experience it first hand before you can truly accept this cruel reality on your own terms.

Until this system works for the voters rather than the funders, we are all destined for disappointment. I'd love to see a conservative-liberal truce until we can throw these money changers out of the temple.

^ LOL I'm done pissing. Evidently he's not though, He asks for a truce on my page then comes back to slam me again.

smoo I suggest you re-read the comments and check the upvote to downvote tally on those comments. Yes math is hard!