All Activity

im not referencing him specifically. i'm saying generally. clearly there is big tech censorship. thats proven and not conspiracy. i'm saying if big tech will censor a person, why is it hard to believe massive investment banks wouldn't influence elections?

he has almost 3000 videos...doesn't really seem like censorship to me occam's razor says he said/did some stupid shit that violated the T&Cs. either that or the lizard people in Raven Rock called sundar pichai...tough call

if big tech censors individual facebook posts and youtube videos you don't think the most powerful and wealthy corporations in the world would put their finger on the scale of a presidential election for the most powerful office in human history? it's not a conspiracy theory. you're just incredibly naive and totally plugged into the system.

i would like to thank you for proving my point about post WWII foreign policy being a disaster. we constantly do what you just described above to "allies". i'm not sure why anyone is surprised we're doing it to ukraine. and yes, i do argue that we should stop feeding

I think the odds of a 64 year old being unnecessarily naked and not realizing his camera and mic are on is a pretty likely scenario.

I guess we can agree to disagree on this but one of the worse things is to suddenly find out a military prediction is wrong because by then it's usually too late. As an example, I admit Hamas hitting Israel like they did was something I would have never seen coming in a million years. I'm still dumfounded Israel could get caught that flat footed.

Right, you know, except for the whole invasion of Ukraine thing. I wonder if there are any other "historically Russian" parts of Europe... Definitely doesn't compare to Hitler targeting historically German parts of Europe for "reunification."

If you establish that you are going to feed someone, then stop feeding them without sufficient time or opportunity to feed themselves, then yes, you are starving them. You can argue whether you should have fed them in the first place, but once you establish a relationship, what you do in that relationship matters. We could have let them fend for themselves from the beginning, but we didn't. Maybe we should have, though I disagree. Doesn't matter, we did. And you now have to operate from that reality. For everyone calling for a negotiated settlement, that's not going to happen unless Russia has something to lose by refusing. And that's not going to happen without a re-armed Ukraine. I agree with all of the complaints about a feckless administration with no strategy and no goals. That's the hand we've been dealt. The North Vietnamese couldn't defeat us with unlimited weaponry. They didn't need to. This is unidimensional thinking.

Many would disagree. Judging by the damage inflicted with limited resources AND the semi-paper Tiger Russia appears to be, yes absolutely. In some ways they have defeated Russia, Ukraine remains as a country two years after being attacked by a Super-Power. But, as always in conflict, you have to define what defeat (victory), means. Our feckless politicians have let a very tired Ukrainian Army suffer in the field much like the Continental Army did at Valley Forge. If they had more resources earlier this would be a very different conflict. Russia has been rebuilding and without our help and equipment, the Spring offensive could be very bad for Ukraine.

FIFY

Sure they have. Artillery is how this war is being fought, and they are out of shells. We are the resupply. Obviously there's a debate over whether we should, but we made Ukraine our proxy in this war, and now we are withholding. I've said it many, many times before, I don't care what their odds are if they want to fight. And for now, they still do. So arm them up. I'm a big fan of the negotiated settlement, but neither Russia nor Ukraine seems interested at the moment. And Russia will not be interested until we resupply Ukraine, at which point they may find a newfound interest in peace. Actually that's another paradox in your reasoning. We should be negotiating a settlement, but not give any motivation to Russia to settle.

You guys are being bigots! We need more compassion for trans vampire freaks.

There’s a massive difference between Chamberlain telling Hitler that the UK is fine Germany taking additional territory in 1930s and the west condemning Russia for invading Ukraine but not wanting to give them an endless supply of resources. Appeasement is not the same as spending hundreds of billions of dollars we don’t have to support a country halfway around the world.

CH you're a reasonable poster on here. do you honestly think ukraine could defeat russia on the battlefield with unlimited weaponry?

im tired of the 1930 germany comparisons. putin has shown zero interest in conquering europe. all talk of russia marching to paris if we dont stop them at ukraine is total fear mongering.

Can someone please explain the EA-18 drops? Is that the Growler, or are they Navy dudes cross training, or is the USAF flying F-18’s now?

The you have to teach them how to fish...It is not like they know how to make the Javelin, ATACM, and M-1 Abrams...and maybe in the long run you don't want them to know how.

I would counter that was the thought in the 1930s with Germany. Hitler just wanted a little more territory and he would be good. I have little doubt had Putin been in power in the 1930s-40s he would have been just as bad. What line is too far? I'm still as pissed as many over the Charlie Foxtrot that was/is Afghanistan but at least Ukraine is willing to fight.

Easy—Israel is a much stronger ally than Ukraine, especially considering both regions. Also, we’re much more concerned about pissing Russia off (even more) than we are with Iran. Not to mention the politics here in the US involved with supporting Israel over the years. Oh and the regions are different as well in terms of US priorities, but I think I kind of mentioned that already. But to be fair, I don’t think we should actively get involved with either.

because ukraine has NEVER been a US national security concern. we have never and will never care about ukraine. it's apples to oranges.

Ukraine sees allies protect Israel from Iran attack and asks: What about us? (nbcnews.com) Actually makes a great point.

“Starved of the weaponry”? Is Ukraine trying to produce their own weapons that the rest of the world is keeping them from producing? Or is Ukraine trying to purchase weapons from the rest of the world, with the rest of the world saying they will not sell? This is the same argument I’ve heard that goes something like this: “If you stop giving welfare to X people then you’re starving them”.

they have not been starved of the weaponry. you could give ukraine 600b and it wouldn't matter. it's a numbers game. russia has far more men to fight ukraine. and the russian industrial base is ramping up to full speed. russian army is 15% larger now than when the war began. some of you guys need to brush up on your history about how the russian bear conducts war. let me repeat: there is ZERO chance ukraine will win this war. it's a losing proposition. what we SHOULD be doing is working towards a negotiated settlement.

...and that's why we need corporal punishment...

Oh, I know how I WANT us to respond. Respond with rational and reasoned thought and applying common sense while still holding out enemies accountable for their actions. But that's NOT how we've been acting. I'm curious about the most likely action our current leadership would actually take. It could get kinda interesting when you consider that those making recommendations to NCA are probably argyle wearing academics who have never had their lives placed in any form of peril. Put those people on the receiving end of a suspected nuclear launch and I'd be surprised if they make totally rational inputs. Beyond that, I highly doubt Joe Biden has the cognitive ability to make a good snap decision in such a case. Hence the question: What would we actually do?