[Money and Finance]

The FDIC just published this document regarding its preparations for the failure of a Global Systemically Important Banking (GSIB) organization headquartered in the U.S. with complex global operations.

https://www.fdic.gov/sites/default/files/2024-04/spapr1024b_0.pdf

It basically outlines how the Sec of the Treasury, Federal Reserve, and President will transfer all the assets to a Bridge Financial Company. I thought it interesting that they mention they plan to put the company into FDIC receivership on a Friday evening so as to be able to mobilize the plan and prevent a contagion by Monday morning.

"The appointment as receiver late Friday afternoon would provide time, while most global financial markets are closed, to form a Bridge Financial Company, mobilize resources needed to conduct business beginning on Monday morning, and communicate with key constituencies (including employees, counterparties, and claimants) around the globe. The FDIC recognizes that a Friday night appointment may not be possible in all instances, and the timing will be highly dependent on the nature of the failing institution, how it fails, and market conditions at the time."

The plan says it ensures that only claimants (shareholders and creditors) would incur losses and that US taxpayers would incur no liability. Translation: they'll print the money.

"The ability of the FDIC and other regulatory authorities to manage the orderly resolution of large, complex financial institutions remains foundational to U.S. financial stability. While recognizing the progress that has been made toward enabling such a resolution and ending “too big to fail,” we also recognize that the resolution of a GSIB has not yet been undertaken. When it becomes necessary to do so, carrying out such a resolution will come with a unique set of challenges and risks."

Any bets on who it's gonna be?

[Social Unrest]

What to do about these University protests? These leftist students are demanding campuses "Divest from Israel" which apparently is code for "Get rid of the Jews".

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/cal-poly-humboldt-gaza-protest-closed-campus/

Here's a vid from the inside of "Intifada Hall" at California Polytechnic University at Humbolt.

https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1784282619481383342

 

[Russian Ukraine shenanigans]

"The finding is broadly accepted within the intelligence community and shared by several agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the State Department’s intelligence unit"

If you can't trust these agencies to prop up your narrative, who can you trust? 🤣

[Russian Ukraine shenanigans]

2 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Sounds like the dude is trying to get a juicy contract for an investigation no one wants.

The investigations have been done. Everyone who has a stake in knowing the answer already does. And all interested parties have decided to move on without public commentary.

Besides, his defense of the UN is a bit too rosy to take seriously. I get it, he's trying to get them to find him, but come on.

This dude clearly has his own bias and motivations. Everyone does and we all have narrow limited perspectives. My point being you have to allow yourself to step outside your own and hear an uncomfortable perspective in spite of it's subjective flaws to find an objective truth. In this case, the man has a history that is both credible and questionable. But he challenges the prevailing narrative. If the narrative is water tight, it should stand up to scrutiny.

I would argue that the public has largest moral claim to a stake in knowing the answer. Shouldn't we, as citizens of an American democracy know without a doubt that our leaders did not have a hand it this? I don't want my government sabotaging the infrastructure of not just an enemy we are technically not at war with, but that of citizens of allied countries as well, then lying about it... and doing so in the name of its people.

He is obviously sucking up to the UN to try an get a public investigation. Or perhaps he's knows an investigation is unlikely, and wanted to vocalize his grievances.

[Russian Ukraine shenanigans]

9 hours ago, Lawman said:

I didn’t tell you not to watch wrestling I told you it was fake.

You somehow seem to take that as “well I can’t know unless I watch it” which is an absolutely preposterous bit of logic you’ve committed yourself too.

Same is true for a bunch of Russian hacks with a long history of BS statements being presented by one of our more flamboyantly in the bag characters as “the real story on the ground.” Two of us knew how bogus that claim was, we provided you with easy verifiable examples of it… but you, like a child, need to stick the key in the wall socket to find out it will in fact be a negative experience for you.

You're presenting this analogy like you're smarter than everybody else because you've figured out something everyone has known since 1980. Are you going to argue Star Wars is fake? No one is pretending that it isn't. Pro-wrestling isn't presenting itself as a fair play competition regulated by a code of rules and ethics. It's entertainment. WWE.

Dumb analogy, but congrats, at least it doesn't involve consuming human waste. More progress. It's like raising a child, getting one to make good choices doesn't happen overnight, but if your patient and persistent, you can change their behavior, and it's very rewarding.

The second paragraph is almost unintelligible. What specific "on the ground" claim was bogus? You're dancing around the issue again but not articulating it. And who is this "we" that provided "what" examples?

You're like the dog that yips and yaps at everyone on the other side of the fence, but is afraid to go through an open gate.

Here's a fun one for you. I often watch/read UNSC testimonies just to see what's happening up there.  Found this one from yesterday. It's a former State Department and CIA official who also worked counter-terrorism until about 2016. Before you overload your Google search bar in a frantic search for an ad-hominem attack, try to read it and look for signs of factual information and signs of bias yourself. There are both. This guy clearly has a bone to pick, but is he a Russian agent? Is it a complete fabrication produced by a Russian Psyop? I don't know. Let's read it and see. Use your critical thinking skills.

Quote

 

" I'm here at my own expense without compensation for my time; all material and comments are my own. My goal in addressing you today is simple: I want to propose steps that I believe can help resolve the mystery of the source of the attack on the Nordstream pipeline and thus help resolve the tensions that resulted from that unprecedented attack.

Perhaps I bring a unique perspective to this issue because of my past experience with intelligence operations and analysis during my time with the Central Intelligence Agency, with counterterrorism policy and investigations while serving in the State Department Office of Counterterrorism, and with the scripting and execution of more than 200 counterterrorism training missions for US military Special Operations forces while working as a contractor, along with successful money laundering investigations carried out in my role as the managing partner of Berg Associates. One of these investigations included a successful case conducted on behalf of the European Union and the governors of Colombia.

One of the strongest reasons for this belief is our faith in the United Nations. The United Nations has three great roles to play in preventing wars: first, it provides a way for negotiation and the settlement of disputes among nations by peaceful means; second, it provides a way of utilizing the collective strength of member nations under the charter to prevent aggression; third, it provides a way through which, once the danger of aggression is reduced, the nations can be relieved of the burden of armaments. I believe it is not only the responsibility but the sacred duty of the Security Council to take the lead in bringing about a settlement of the means. I will not review the mountain of evidence that implicates my own country, the United States, in this act of war against the Russian Federation and the Federal Republic of Germany. There was no compelling national security interest to justify the destruction of the Nordstream pipeline, which has inflicted significant economic pain on the people of Germany. This attack accomplished nothing in terms of helping bring an end to the conflict between Russia and Ukraine and Ukraine's NATO facilitators; it made matters worse.

During my time at the CIA, I acquired an understanding of how covert action was planned and executed in places as diverse as Afghanistan and Central America. Such operations are not conducted spur of the moment; they are funded, planned, and rehearsed before being executed. Seymour Hersh's account of the US covert action against the Nordstream pipeline is consistent with the knowledge I acquired during my time at the agency. In the late 1980s, when I began working for Ambassador Morris Busby in the office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism at the US State Department, one of my first tasks was getting country clearances for the FBI as they investigated the terrorist bombing of PanAm 103, which crashed in Lockerby, Scotland, in December of 1988.

One of the most important lessons I drew from that experience, which I believe is relevant to the Nordstream matter, was the difference between a criminal investigation and intelligence activities. Great care was exercised to ensure that the evidence gathered by the FBI was neither tainted nor spoiled by intelligence activities. It was a fine line, but Ambassador Busby made sure that the FBI and the CIA stayed in their own lanes. And maybe that is the most important lesson of all: the leadership demonstrated by Ambassador Busby. Professional, mature leadership is essential to the successful investigation of complex international operations that result in attacks like PanAm 103 and the Nordstream pipeline.

Although the criminal indictments against the two men implicated in carrying out the bombing did not come until November of 1991, the evidence that cracked the case was in hand by March 1990. That's only 15 months after PanAm 103 fell from the skies and 20 months before the criminal indictments. Compare that investigation with the indifference and lack of curiosity demonstrated by the NATO countries with respect to Nordstream. It has been 19 months since the pipeline was destroyed, and the NATO countries appear to have adopted the posture of the three wise monkeys: see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

I have some insight into the logistics and execution of the attack on Nordstream, thanks to work I did on behalf of the US military Special Operations Forces. That work commenced in the spring of 1994 and ended in 2016. During those 22 years, I was part of a team that scripted multiple counterterrorism exercises. We would create scenarios such as a group threatening to use a biological weapon in a North African country and then replicate the diplomatic and intelligence traffic reporting the threat to stimulate a response by the particular military-diplomatic task force, both to analyze, contain, and defeat the threat. In the course of this work, we also had to think like saboteurs or terrorists, understand their motives, understand the capabilities required to carry out such an attack, and identify the kinds of resources and training that would underpin such a terrorist operation.

Four years after I started consulting with the US military, I, along with four others, started Berg Associates. Two of my partners previously worked with the Drug Enforcement Administration: one ended his career as the chief of international operations of DEA, the other ran storefront undercover money laundering operations here in New York City. One of our first jobs was the investigation of what is commonly known as the Bank of New York Russian money laundering case. We also organized investigation and collection of evidence that was used to file a civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, also known as RICO, against major tobacco companies which were laundering money for drug cartels. Two separate causes of actions were filed on behalf of the plaintiffs, the European Union, and the governors of Colombia.

My point in mentioning this history is to emphasize that even in complex international investigations, without access to classified material, we were able to gather massive quantities of evidence which would have been admissible and stood up in a US criminal court. In doing these investigations, I learned that Disneyland has it right: it is a small world after all. The nexus between criminal organizations, major international corporations, financial institutions, and intelligence organizations is not a fantasy; it is real and involves hundreds of billions of dollars. My experience convinces me that a properly funded investigation carried out by professionals will uncover documents, informants, that can prove beyond a reasonable doubt who carried out the Nordstream pipeline bombing. The nations assembled here have one advantage in an investigation that we as private investigators did not have: you have signals intelligence satellites, you have data stored, for example, that can provide intelligence ranging from the movements of ships to the movement of money. When you combine that data with conventional evidence, you have a powerful means for identifying who ordered and executed the bombing of the Nordstream pipeline. I can say this much with certainty about that operation: it was carried out with the financial and material support of at least one nation-state. There are written records, almost certainly highly classified and stored with very limited access, but there may be available evidence outside such classified records that can illuminate the act significantly, if not solve the mystery."

 

 

[Russian Ukraine shenanigans]

Just now, Lawman said:

Do you need to watch professional wrestling to know it’s fake, or has enough been demonstrated to meet the expected threshold to dismiss the idea it’s real?

At this point you just want to be contrarian to any evidence presented about these guys and their show and you’ve ignored all of it or dismissed it as “that doesn’t count because…”

Do you go around telling people they shouldn't be watching pro-wresting? I bet you do. If someone wants to watch it and find out for themselves, why not? Who made you the fact-check police?

At least a dozens times I've said it might be false, it might not be. You might be right, you might be wrong. It's impossible to know 100% without first hand experience. No one here needs some little busy-body like yourself up in everyone's business telling them what they should and shouldn't be listening to because you don't like who their friends with. I've never met anyone else on BO.net whose behavior more resembles that of a teen girl.

[Russian Ukraine shenanigans]

2 minutes ago, Lawman said:

I bring him up because no rational person would attempt to disprove his demonstrated lack of integrity (the the point of openly defending himself in court saying so) or defend the concept we need to listen to his content with any reasonable expectation of truth.

What an irrational person would do is take a similarly set of highly compromised individuals hosting a podcast which spends its content selling fabricated stories and negative narratives of the west and NATO as somehow worthy of the time to spend to mince through said content in search of any kind of truth.

You aren’t nuanced, you’re just obtuse.

Here's a simple logic test: So the reason you won't make any attempt to defy something someone says is because they have demonstrated a lack of integrity. But in order to know that they've lied, you would have to listen to what they lied about. You keep saying you're not willing to do that an no one else should, either. This brings us back to my earlier point that you don't have any original thoughts, you have to rely on what someone else thinks who did listen.

How do you know that the stories are fabricated if you haven't listened? You keep bragging about how you're only willing to consider infomation that meets your personal standard for acceptability. That means you consume and process a fraction of the information I do, because I want to hear all perspectives and I'll do the sorting myself. You're intentionally being ignorant and trying to justify it to me. I don't think that's very smart.

[Russian Ukraine shenanigans]

29 minutes ago, Lawman said:

It’s this or pay attention to Daniel Tiger.

Though I think that show would give as good a ground intelligence summary as two hacks telling us Ukraine is done for and all the worlds ills are the fault of the west and NATO.

Would you mind quoting where I have said either of those things? I never did. Do a keyword search, click more options, search by author, and type "gearhog" in the second search bar. You'll get a list of the things I have typed. That's how I found you brought up "Tucker" eight times in this thread when no one else mentioned him. When you find that I have said either of those two things, post it here and I'll be thoroughly humbled.

Or you could just admit that your position has become so weak that you feel you now need to straight up lie to defend it.

 

[Music]

5 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

I need some song suggestions for a morning alarm clock. I have an unnecessarily complicated morning automation to wake up our 14 month old, and it ends by playing a song randomly selected from a list. But I need more songs to add to the list.

 

And ideally something a little less... assertive than this, which is the alarm I use on my phone:

 

 

[Russian Ukraine shenanigans]

33 minutes ago, Lawman said:

No we all get it you’re a troll. You just like to be a more sophisticated one than our regular troll.

I just like pointing out the dubious guests and theories by your new favorite podcast to champion because anybody taking your advise to give service to them is gonna waste their time figuring that out first hand.

It’s like watching you defend Tucker as still being needed to be listened too seriously. That’s a Rogan episode you can definitely skip.

Because I'm aggressively defending a position I believe in that happens to be contrary to yours, you continue to flail and search for a reason to dismiss, in this case, calling me a "troll." Real original. But I do thank you for recognizing that my position is sophisticated and nuanced. Keep working at it, and you, too, may have one one day as well.

I had no idea that podcast existed until you started bitching about it. It isn't my favorite, but I do appreciate the introduction. I'll probably keep listening. Nothing piques my interest more than someone attempting to discourage me from watching, listening, reading something they disagree with.

What is it with you and Tucker? You've brought him up a half dozen times when no one else has. It's weird. I haven't listened to Rogan in a couple week so I hadn't realized he was on. You realize what I'm going to do now, right? LOL

For months you've been obsessing over him. My reply to you back in August:

On 8/19/2023 at 7:31 AM, gearhog said:

I've never mentioned or written about "Tucker". Why are you trying to inject him into the conversation? Is this a left vs right thing for you? You'll spend a thousand words decrying something being "from the Internet", "from Russia", "from Twitter", "from Tucker"....but you'll never address the content itself.

It's kinda like the rainbow hair people who scream into the camera when someone asks them a simple, logical question that defeats their position. I've been asking you specific detailed questions about your position and you ever-so consistently decline to approach them. Instead, you deflect with irrelevant nonsense about "Tucker", "Soros", "Nazis", "Illuminati," "Covid", etc. Interestingly, these are all leftist criticisms. Hmm.

[Russian Ukraine shenanigans]

58 minutes ago, Boomer6 said:

So if a pilot from "x" community crashes an airplane for something stupid, now all pilots from that community can't be trusted to fly?

Similarly, if you had a CC from community "x" who was a dirtbag, now all ppl from that community are considered trash?

That's what I've been trying to say. One bad podcast or bit of propaganda doesn't mean they're all bad. 😄 Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Russian Ukraine shenanigans]

17 minutes ago, Lawman said:

Man 1398 more podcasts before you can exercise any level of critical thinking on the nature of its content… how will you have time to keep up with all the breaking news on OAN.

I've only listened to one. I'll listen to the other one you recommended in the morning. If it's decent, I may add it to my favorites. OAN? I don't think "watching the news" is still a thing anymore. At least among serious people. You seem like the kind of guy that watches AFN to stay informed, and maybe flirts with Rachael Maddow every now and then.

How many times do I have to tell you that yeah... some of it might be bad info. Some of it might not be. Haven't you realized I'm impervious to bullshit. After all, I've been reading yours for a few pages now. So far, I've provoked responses from you consisting of several thousand words and you've had the courage to mention two, count them, two... incidents or examples of Russian propaganda. MH17 and Syrian chemical weapons or whatever. Even then, you don't seem to be able to articulate anything resembling an original thought. 

If we were to calculate the ratio of your original critical thinking assessments of actual events and news pertaining to the topic of this thread to the amount of words written, it would be exactly zero. For a guy that talks a lot, you don't have much to contribute. What's your pronouns?

[CCW Choice]

I have the original SIG 365 as my go to CCW for it's, but I also really like the S&W 642 airweight for simplicity and reliability.

4 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

I have been carrying the Hellcat for years, bought the P365X and put a Holosun on it.  I typically grab the Hellcat, feels more natural and easier to conceal than the 365.  I probably need a new holster for the 365.  Both are great, I have very large hands and both have slightly larger grips so I feel like I have better hand position.

Anyone carry a bigger weapons in their vehicle?  I have a bag on the back of the passenger seat with a Ruger PC Charger...love the gun.  Folding stock keeps it very small and maneuverable.  Accepts the Glock 30 round Mags, keep three in the bag which is a lot of firepower to beat down the zombies and get back to my bunker.

 

I also have the PC charger with that brace. I think it may have been that exact YT review that convinced me.  I have a Sig Romeo and ordered a Silencer Central Banish 30 can for it back in Jan. Hope it gets here soon. I'd like to swap out the forward grip stop for something more substantial, but not sure what I can get away with.

[Russian Ukraine shenanigans]

2 hours ago, Lawman said:

First hand knowledge from a guy that was disbarred for fabricating false testimony and evidence. Here since google is a foreign concept to you, just another easy example of them out championing a Russian narrative that the west is false flagging chemical weapons attacks in Syria.

Up next your defense of Andrey Stepanenko or Tucker Carlson. They simply must be given the benefit of the doubt for every broadcast.

Again, nobody is telling you to get all your information from some Ukrainian blogger, but what are telling you it’s it’s absolutely ludicrous that we need to ignore the obvious connections to what we know is an active IA campaign from a demonstrated group of face men in that campaign.

Hey! You can be taught. I think there's hope for you yet. Instead of a 10 year old event unrelated to the current conflict, you've somehow combed through over 1800 episodes and found a 4 year old podcast unrelated to the current conflict. It ain't much, but it's something. I'm sure it took a lot of effort, so I'll commend you for it. Side thought: Are you at work today? Hmmm.

Remember that comment I made about you being the high school debate team's one trick pony? You'll will never abandon your ad-hominem tactic no matter how transparent it makes your unwillingness to address the actual facts or lies. Aren't you even a little bit ashamed that that is your only defense? It only gets you so far.

Because the topic of this podcast is so far out of the realm of issues that are of importance in the context of the Rus-Ukr war, I am unfamiliar with this one. But I'm willing to give it a listen and report back to you with an original take using critical thinking that I didn't have to defer to Google for. Understand I have to withold judgement until I verify that the claims within are ridiculous, and I'll even concede there is a probability of bullshit given my commitment to truth and honesty. So I'm already going in with a bias that suits your fancy. Can I get a little appreciation? At first glance, however, I'm suddenly reminded of claimed chemical attacks and WMD that were used as a pretext for going to war. You may have been a child then, so you might not remember.

Anyway, thanks for the link. It's in the lineup.

 

[World War III Updates]

We here in the US just spent $60 Billion to counter Russia, and $8 Billion for Taiwan to counter China.

Today, the US is drafting sanctions against China for helping Russia.

Our leadership, in their divine wisdom, is effectively forcing two world superpowers into deeper levels of cooperation. If China is going to be sanctioned for providing military assistance to Russia anyway, why would they not go ahead and open up full bore production if the US is already threatening them over the Taiwan issue? I honestly wonder who has the larger industrial production capacity, US and allies, or the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

 

[Russian Ukraine shenanigans]

7 hours ago, Lawman said:

 

Listening to you have all this previous life and pretend or avoid discussion on intelligence source confidence is hysterical. You worked around the intel domain doing what exactly? Answering F’ing phones? What did you learn about confirmation bias when your just a post ago telling us all the things you find wrong with American actions and policy but ignoring a media source clearly linked with a foreign opponents state owned media? Dude goes on TV saying “if you accept the western advanced theory about MH17” and you somehow don’t know to immediately discount him as a source of untainted information. He’s a stooge, he’s demonstrated that. Somebody with unclassified access should have enough critical thinking to see a pattern of behavior, somebody with better access would know how stupid his defense of Russia really was.

But let’s not forget how many posts ago you playing stupid about psyops, like I said you’re not debating from a position of intellectual honestly, just contrarian hackery.

There is a literal mountain of declassified open source available intel from not only our intel but allied and more neutral nations talking about this for collective years. It gets even denser the closer to Russia you get, like go check out the active disinformation campaigns regarding Sweden and Finland. In all your cultivation of info form multiple sources (not just the ones stroking the narrative you like) you somehow missed those. No Russia totally isn’t using social media to do what all those things are saying it’s doing…. It’s all a western media lie. That British guy on Russian TV said so.

Intelligence source confidence is rated by assessing the accuracy and reliability information itself. How would you know what the information is if you refuse to look at it and discourage others from doing the same? For the third time, the only example you've given of anything that has a very high probability of being inaccurate is a random irrelevant event from 10 years ago. There's likely a vast amount of information out there from the Duran that has an even greater chance of being inaccurate, is more recent, and actually pertains to recent history. Do I have to go find it for you just to prove that you're lazy? You've spent more time googling dirt on the show hosts than listening to the Podcast. You could have just listened, shot down all their arguments, proved that it's all false Russian disinfo, and saved yourself an enormous amount of time, and we likely wouldn't be having this exchange. I actually listened to it, wrote it all down for you, and put it 6 inches in front of your face. Like a toddler, you scrunched up your face, shook your head, and still... still... elected not to confront the issues.

If you believe someone should be forever discounted because you heard them say something idiotic once, you'd have been abandoned as a child. Perhaps you were. You most definitely would have been abandoned here on the forums multiple times over.  But I and others are living proof that my approach works better. For pages now, I've been sifting through massive amount  of your flawed logic and unsubstantiated assumptions. I can't remember where it is,  but you did have a perspective I thought was useful on green energy or something recently. Even a broken clock is right twice per day. The rest of the information you present is mostly garbage, but I can still learn something about the methods and manner in which you deliver it.

You operate on assumptions, I operate on first-hand knowledge. It's that simple.

That's why you're stuck where you are in this debate and you keep talking in circles. If there is a debate about how to best find out the truth, a position that advocates for evaluating all information based on examining it's content is always, always, going to defeat an argument for dismissing information before it is heard because you don't like who delivered it. "There's not enough time to process all the bad information out there". That's a problem with you, not the method.

Disinformation campaigns from Sweden and Finland? Uh, ok... Not sure how that's relevant to my aforementioned concerns about the USA, but I'd be happy to.  I'm a voracious reader.  Give me a link and I will thoroughly enjoy working through the details with you.  That is, unless discussing details instead of broad generalizations and assumptions frightens you.

[Russian Ukraine shenanigans]

49 minutes ago, Lawman said:

Yeah no you’ve made it pretty clear you don’t understand or want to learn how the information domain of warfare/policy works.

You don’t need to keep pointing it out.

Again, some of us are privileged to access you don’t enjoy. Can’t trust any of the declassified examples of that stuff we and other Allie’s have put out painting those numbers for you. Gotta go seek out the point of view from Russian stooges on what “they” are “really doing.” But please go on telling us how sourcing information from a directly linked geopolitical foe is staying informed.

Oh, the mystery. I'll ask again, what's it like on the inside of a real-life squadron vault? Lots of old dusty scrolls and microfilms? Again, I'm super impressed by your NIPR/SIPRNet access where all the secrets of the universe are held, but claiming that you have super-dooper access to "highly-classified" intel so you can claim authority status without substantiating it is transparent. I did a year as an STS ADO working every day in the SCIF and another year TDY to the third floor vault at AMC/A3 Tactics. Both experiences were about as enlightening as watching you dodge hard questions. Your "access" is about as impressive as the Comm Sq's ability to keep the network running.

What did I say "they" are "really doing"? I think it's funny that you know I'm prepared to the hilt to get into the weeds and write extensively on any of these issues, which is why you'll continue to make vague references yet never go anywhere near the specifics of any of them because you know I'll waylay your position. Real clever, and timid. I'll continue to point it out every single time.

 

 

[Russian Ukraine shenanigans]

Just now, Lawman said:

No a podcast with no disclosed funding, hosted by and guested by the individuals we already talked about, which spends its head space in a constant churn of negative reinforcement to any western actions counter to Russia’s set goals would be a Psyop.

The military industrial fiscal policy of the US isn’t the sole lines of commentary produced by that podcast.

Again you’re desire to repeatedly highlight any example of what you perceive as any negative historical/political actions by our own country while just giving a blind pass to that opponent country’s media (which the Duran has an undeniable connection too) is astounding. Who/what do you think Russia is making and spending the effort of an English speaking news channel for?

No disclosed funding = RUSSIA! We didn't talk about the individuals... you did. I talk about information. You're the ad-hominem guy, not me. Can't you at least switch to another logical fallacy to make yourself seem slightly more interesting? You're the one-trick-pony of the high school debate team.

So you're not even going to address the MIC after I've made a legitimate point and say... "Well.... uh... there were other things too!" Weak. I know you'll dodge the question for the 10th time but I'll ask anyway, what other "lines of commentary" are you whining about now?

Apparently, you're easily astounded which doesn't surprise me. I have to live in this country. I simply do not care about Russians or Ukrainians. They're not the threat. Poor governmental leadership and the weak-minded sycophants who place a higher value on enforcing an acceptable narrative than the pursuing the truth are the real threat. Don't misunderstand.. I'm referring to you.  I, on the other hand, will continue to critically analyze information from a variety of sources in order to have a more well-informed understanding of these events. If it hurts your feelings, you're just going to have to live with it. Neither your life, nor anyone else's is going to be endangered because someone suggested on a podcast that a corrupt corporatocracy is steering our nation away from the best interests of the American people.

[Russian Ukraine shenanigans]

10 minutes ago, Lawman said:

Wow you watched the Russian Tucker Carlson and a disgraced lawyer talk about the military industrial complex and can’t figure out the link between that narrative - information domain of warfare - and its translation to effecting actual combat power on the battlefield.

Like I know multi-domain warfare is a relatively new doctrine, and you yourself aren’t in the military, but your inability to understand how this works and repeated denial of it going on is astounding.

Like you can acknowledge implicit bias present in whatever episode but can’t bridge the gap to understand strategic effect. You’d make an excellent Col.

But did you die?

So anytime anyone mentions the flooding of the military industrial complex with cash, it's Russian Psyop to gain a battlefield advantage? Is this a new subject for you? Pretty sure the issue of war-profiteering has been around a lot longer than you have. These guys didn't invent that narrative.

With that logic, you can link any dissent or criticism of US involvement in any conflict to enemy propaganda. You're only interested in stifling dissent. Are you telling me there are no critical narratives that can be had? If the truth hurts, maybe you have the problem. If it isn't the truth, show me.

The military industrial complex last year (officially) spent around $12 million lobbying key pro-Ukraine war members of Congress and just received a $50 Billion windfall, in addition to the previous windfalls. https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus?ind=D There are no concerns there?

You have to realize telling everyone "Don't look over there! Nothing to see here!" while implying anyone having a critical position is a Russian shill isn't giving you credibility. You're only shouting down the person, while not disputing the claims. You're only interested in one side of the argument. I want to hear all sides and draw my own conclusions. You don't want anyone doing that.

It's becoming apparent that if you had your way, you'd ensure compliance with the Party rules and eliminate any unauthorized information while monitoring citizens for signs of dissent, and perhaps punish anyone who engages in thought crime or holds a belief contrary to the Party ideology. There's a term for that, but I can't remember it. Any ideas?

 

[Russian Ukraine shenanigans]

7 minutes ago, raimius said:

You are missing out, man.

We certainly aren't perfect, as a nation...but at least we didn't justify an invasion by claiming a Jewish guy from a family of Holocaust survivors was a secret Nazi.

Good point. Invading a foreign country under false pretenses is the lowest.

[Russian Ukraine shenanigans]

7 hours ago, Lawman said:

-You were given multiple examples of the direct connections to state controlled Russian news

-You were given specific guests they have on and their dubious character issues

-You were shown a clear example of the host of the podcast defending a Russian falsehood that it didn’t shoot down MH17 and every insinuation is just a western lie (which he’s done for years)

No you can go listen to it you’ll just be an idiot for taking it seriously.

Good morning. Well, here we are. My apologies, for I'm about to put you in grave danger, but it's a risk I'm willing to take in pursuit of the truth. I have a full cup of Black Rifle Coffee, Spirit of '76 roast. It's very good. The packaging is awesome, even inspiring. Let's kick this pig.

The hosts are starting with the front lines. They report that Russia had broken through the Ukrainian front lines in and captured the town of Avdiivka. Did this really happen or is this false information? Fact check: True. The Russians are (were) advancing on a town called Ocheretyne, which is a small town, but lies on a hill and has a railway junction, making it strategically important. One commenter is saying this breakthough puts Russia in a strong position. He quotes a Ukrainian General that the situations at other places on the front lines are terrible. Apparently Russia is planning a large offensive, possibly to capture Kharkiv.

One of the Commenters mentioned former British Colonel Hamish De-Bretton Gordon who wrote this article for the Telegraph detailing how dire the situation is. He goes on to say that the media is full of these types of articles.

Now they're talking about the $61 Billion in aid. Some of the funds are for the Ukrainian economy itself, not for the war. The bulk of the money is going to the military industrial complex. He is claiming that only a small portion of the funds are going directly to Ukraine in the form of weapons, and the rest is going to defense contractors to replenish our own stockpiles. Now this is where some propaganda might be creeping in. I should check on this.

So he actually underestimated the amount that is being given to the U.S. defense industrial base. He is claiming that the amount being given directly to Ukraine will be used up at once, but the time it would take to DIB to complete the manufacturing process would take years. Debatable, but possible. They discuss the gap between the rate of weapons being used and the rate of weapons being replenished while quoting JD Vance "You can't provide more weapons than you have."

He quotes CIA director Williams Burns who said if Ukraine isn't given support it will collapse by the end of the year. Checks out. Their contention is that all of this is about preventing a Ukrainian collapse before the election. That's definitely a biased take, but is it possible?

They ask why Mike Johnson capitulated. They assert that key Republican committee chairs have been pressuring him on behalf of the military industrial complex and he ultimately conceded to their demands. He knew that same pressure was being exerted on House Republicans who would be forced to side with the Democrats and vote against him, which would likely pressure him to resign, so he acted out of self-preservation.

They again say that committee chairs are close to the defense manufacturers and that the want this appropriations bill passed. They also claim that this part of the Republican party and the MIC would rather see Biden than Trump elected.  Hmmm. They say the MIC always wins. They say Mike Johnson's political career is toast for passing this bill while completely giving up on the southern border aspect.

They go into what actual systems Ukraine will be getting. They were asking for 150-200 patriot systems and are only going to get a fraction. They make a biased assertion that Russia will simply knock them out with hypersonics and they'll be back to square one. The say this aid bill will slow the war down, produce and effect, the effect wears out, and then you need more.

They quote President Kennedy about sending aid to Vietnam: "It's like drinking a glass of water. For a short time you fee better, but then you need another." I can't find this quote. Might be BS.

They continue to reiterate that a Ukrainian collapse must be avoided by the election.  Anything that happens beyond that is not a concern.

And that's it.

 

How are feeling, @Lawman? Was it as bad as you thought it was going to be? I think you're going to be fine. It wasn't a great podcast. Nothing earth-shattering. I did learn a couple things about the front lines and got a new perspective on Mike Johnson's capitulation. There was clearly heavy bias throughout the podcast, but nothing that indicates Russian disinformation. It was simply an innocuous discussion. Some of it agreeable, some of it disagreeable.

Take some time to process your trauma, and if you want to comment on the specifics here or point out the false information I somehow missed, I'd be more than happy to listen. Have a good day.

 

 

 

 

 

[Russian Ukraine shenanigans]

12 minutes ago, Lawman said:

You know you can be critical of your government without seeking out and deliberately defending a foreign opponents propaganda right?

You don’t have to go full tit on backwards crazy and deny it’s propaganda demanding people show you examples of how some source you’ve been listening too is actually bullshit only to then claim that those examples don’t count or deny any proof of connection to that foreign power.

What propaganda have I defended? The single solitary example of foreign propaganda that you've brought to this discussion was from 10 years ago, MH17, has nothing to do with our involvement in Ukraine, and I didn't defend it. I have never listened to the Duran and I know I've said as much. However, I will tomorrow morning over coffee just to see what you're whining about and I'll summarize if for you. I want to see how scary this information is. I'm going to post the notes here and then I'll check back for your response. That's going to be the entertaining part. Are you going to have a meltdown? Are you going act all indignant and dick dance around the issues without ever addressing them?  Are you going to provide a rational, well-thought and honest rebuttle (Pffftt...LOL), or are you going to draw yet another weird analogy to eating shit and drinking piss? Three is a trend, isn't it? I guess we'll see.

[Russian Ukraine shenanigans]

1 minute ago, nsplayr said:

I have given lengthy, insanely lengthy, explanations and justifications for my views on numerous political and non political topics over literally 15+ years posting here. If this is what you take away, it’s more proof that it was all a massive waste of time! Thank you for confirming my belief that this is all a bad habit that we’d all be better off doing less of.

The truth is my beliefs have changed over time just like anyone else, but also that my values remain relatively stable and those values lead me to overwhelmingly support liberal, Democratic policies rather than ones proposed by the conservatives, libertarians, socialists, etc.

Believe it or not that’s a perfectly reasonable POV to have, just like it’s perfectly reasonable to be 69% consistently conservative GOP, libertarian, or grouchy contrarian and “politically homeless” like most of y’all here are.

Also believe it or not all of this type of conversation is much more effectively had in person. It works so much better when talking to my friends of all political stripes in person, over a late night shift or a beer. As you pointed out, too many people are miserable assholes online even more so than in real life. I try not to be too often, but hey, sometimes it’s hard (sts).

My resolution, although it hasn’t always been kept, is to stop typing political stuff here and to take those thoughts to places where they’re more productively heard and where I can better appreciate other peoples points of view - in person. Or just to STFU and talk about normal stuff like cars, airplanes, kids, sports, etc. Politics is a new national pastime 24/7/364 and honestly the whole country is worse off for it.

Back to step 1 on my BO.net AA journey, “I am powerless over my desire to talk politics with you miserable bastards here, and that waste of time and effort has become unmanageable.” 🤣

How many times are you tell everyone on BO.net about how bad posting on BO.net is? Give it a rest.

[Russian Ukraine shenanigans]

11 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

Good thing you’re not a mil officer then! You seem to genuinely not like America very much. No mention that Russians have no rights under Putin other than what he allows. The brazen murders around the globe. Invading neighboring countries, etc.

🇺🇸 I for one find is to be the good guys the vast majority of the time despite our faults and I have hope for an even better future. I plan to work toward that rather than wallow in our faults and apologize for enemies. To each his own I guess!

This dumb shit again? You guys are incapable of learning.

[Russian Ukraine shenanigans]

2 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

II only bring this up because I get the sense from gearhog that he is legitimately interested in honing his own beliefs and incorporating as much new data into them as possible. Even though I do not agree with a lot of his conclusions. That's the value I get from this board as well. I get the sense that you believe your positions are already perfected. At least that's how you communicate them. In that case, yeah you are definitely wasting your time.

That is how I feel about it. This forum could probably be a 20+ year record of my constantly shifting beliefs. What I posted back in 2002 with regard to how I felt about my career, US foreign policy, conflict was definitely much different than it is now. I've become less pragmatic and more of an idealist. I have a lot of scribbled notes on my desk, but one reads Wisdom and Knowledge, Courage, Humanity, Justice, Temperance, Transcendence. The six character traits of strength and virtue. I believe I suck at all of those things compared to where I think I should be. There are a lot of people I admire that exemplify those traits, but some of them actually worked and debated for years, often bitterly,  to create a framework for an entire nation based on those traits. Maybe seeing it dismantled is what raises my ire. Maybe I have a disdain for people who are willfully ignorant that we in the US don't get to stay awesome without addressing the greater threats to our way of life.

Russia hasn't tried to abridge my freedom of speech by working with media outlets to push one narrative while censoring others.

Russia hasn't shown up to American's homes to inquire about their social media posts.

Russia hasn't lately tried to curtail my right to bear arms.

Russia doesn't have a legal policy allowing for warrantless searches and monitoring of American citizens.

Russia didn't try to coerce me into taking a dangerous experimental vaccine.

Russia didn't threaten my job if I didn't

Russia didn't weaponize the US Justice system.

Russia didn't devalue my savings.

Russia didn't charge me more than twice the average American income in taxes.

Russia didn't send our earnings to foreign governments and defense corporations.

Russia didn't indebt my grandchildren with insane spending.

Russia isn't simultaneously funding the expansion of multiple large-scale conflicts that threatens to involve people I care about.

Russia didn't try to get me to comply with zero-emission climate change goals.

Russia didn't intentionally create an immigration crisis.

I could go on for days about what Russia didn't do, but I could easily summarize their share of the direct threat being posed to my way of life right now, where I sit: 1%. So hearing someone bitch about an unspecified bit of false information the Russian government may slipped into an obscure podcast could be making me a tad irritable. I should be better. 😄