Bad tidings seem to abound this
Christmas. Turmoil and uncertainty are the norm rather than the
exception. Here in the States we have just finished a rather painful
election, giving us an inexperienced and, some might say,
ill-conceived President-elect. Europe and Turkey have experienced a
number of terrorist related acts. The Russian ambassador to Turkey
was just assassinated. Where is there to go in search of the meaning
of Christmas?
Strange as it may seem I found it in
Aleppo. Aleppo is part of the conflict in Syria that has been raging
for years, leaving many dead, injured and displaced. I ran across
this OpEd piece with regard to the conflict.
With so many people intent on their own
agendas it was amazing to find some who were intent on something
else. They started out as simple neighbors helping neighbors. They
are the White Helmets of Syria.
60 Minutes did a piece on the White
Helmets recently, which is what this short video references.
There are others, of course, who
believe, or want others to believe, that the White Helmets are part
of a terrorist organization and the rescues we see are staged. It is
a war zone and there is much disinformation and propaganda. There is also extreme anger, which you saw from the one woman
interviewed at the end of that 60 Minutes clip.
Since these interviews Aleppo has fallen to the regime of Syrian President Assad and it is uncertain the fates of many of the people involved in these scenes.
But what I saw were people trying
desperately to save other people's lives at the risk of their own,
unlike terrorist propaganda videos which glorify killing. So for
those who genuinely tried to aid the civilians in this shattered
city I send out a Christmas wish that this year will bring peace.
For your self-sacrifice truly embodies the meaning of Christmas.
Wishing you all a peaceful Christmas!
71 comments:
I saw the 60 minutes piece (last part of it anyway). They were indeed inspiring. My God bless them in their time of need.
Hadn't took y'all for the prayin' kind.
Ahh, Petes, sometimes you see a situation and that's all you can do.
If those white hemets are what they claim, and I have no reason not to believe most of them are, they deserve all our praise.
I think of another thing though. How to bring down a dictatorship and not just make things worse.
Granted Assad ran a dictatorship. Maybe not the worst in the world, and he apparently tried to soften some stances his more hardline father took. But still a place where dissidents could and would get tossed into dark cells and submitted to henious torture.
But all in all folks could get by in Syria by just keeping out of politics. It wasn't a hellhole. Assad run Syria was better than many nations, Somalia, Yemen, Eritrea, and basically most of sub saharan africa when it came to living standards.
Iraq under Saddam might serve as a similar case. Sure Saddam was an authocrat ruler, sure he had a bloodstained Mukhabarat which tortured dissidents. But the country ran somewhat OK even under crippling sanctions and only after his downfall did it spiral into the mess it is today.
Ghadaffi, a strange ruler but alsso one with an iron fist in Libya and since he was offed there's tribal warfare across the country and Al Qaeda holds large spheres.
How to change such a system then? That's the crux. Because it seems like change imposed from the outside tend to make matters worse. I mean Iraqis can vote thse days but it's hardly a country any longer and Daesh still controls its second largest city. Syria? Will that ever become a whole nation again? I'm not so sure. Libya - total armageddon.
My opinion is that "we" in the west should have staid away from these nations and let them sort it out themselves.
It took about five hundred years in Europe to make the move from sovereign rulers and feudalism to the democracies we have today. Why presume we can to that in a decade in nations whose social fabric is still lingering where ours were them 500 years ago?
"no reason not to believe most of them are"
should read:
"no reason not to believe most of them are not"
Otherwise it reads kinda the opposite way.
Merry Christmas to all of ya'll by the way. Lynnette, PeteS, Lee C, Zeyad and any possible lurker. Have a good one! I hope you get nice presents. I got a stuffed leather hippopotomous and it was just what I wanted.
Thank you, Marcus. Merry Christmas to you too.
I haven't opened any presents yet, but hopefully I will find something just as cool as a stuffed leather hippopotomous. lol!
We are expecting freezing rain, so I am going to try to hibernate tomorrow. If Zeyad reads this he will no doubt find that rather amusing.
It was this one Lynnette:
http://royaldesign.se/viewitem.aspx?ID=162064
Isn't it great!?
And a happy New Year:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7aG-VQYGhA
2017 - the paradigm shifts.
Oh, those are cute, Marcus. I kind of like the owl or the beaver. :)
Hmmm...I can't view that video, Marcus. It gives me this message:
"This video contains content from UMPG Publishing, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds."
Great Recession II?
President-elect Donald Trump's transition team is discussing a proposal to impose tariffs as high as 10% on imports, according to multiple sources.
"My opinion is that ‘we’ in the west should have staid away from
these nations and let them sort it out themselves."
The Muslim Brotherhood got its start in the 1920's. The Islamic world has been growing more and more radical for nigh on to 100 years now. The pace has been accelerating. Specifically, the pace accelerated noticeably around the late 1960's. We got hit on 09/11 after we had substantially withdrawn from the Islamic world, ‘stayed away from those nations’ to let them sort it out themselves as you suggest is the answer; turns out that was not the answer. (A brief intrusion in the early 90's to protect Europe's oil supply (so you wouldn't try to bid up the price of our oil supply) was followed by a full withdrawal.) And yet, the fanatics were constantly gaining ground. Staying away didn't stop the Islamists from gaining ground. Staying away didn't stop them from targeting The West after trying to topple their local governments proved to be too quickly suicidal for them to build up their suicide cult. (Like any disease, killing the host too quickly actually stops the spread of the disease and is self-defeating from the standpoint of spreading the disease; they needed a way to kill off their followers more slowly; attacking The West rather than the local Muslim governments turned out to be that way.)
It wasn't going in to screw with them that got them started on attacking us. But, we have done the ‘going in’ part rather poorly, and we can perhaps blame that for our continued inability to stop the progression of Islamic radicalism that they'd already started on anyway.
But, we went in because they were already on this road. Our failure to stop it is not what got it started. They'd already started down this road.
I seem to recall someone trying to assure us that The Donald was gonna be for free trade and also for restricted immigration. Turns out there's not gonna be a wall after all, but there very well may be import tariffs launching a 21st Century trade war. Whoda thunk it?
Oh…. And, Merry Christmas everybody (still Christmas here, gettin’ on towards late in the day, but still Christmas here)
Yeah we need more of this shit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-n9vaeBx6Y
I've been reading a slew of conservative pundits (well, Republican pundits, most of them formerly conservatives) writting stories ‘bout the genius that is Donald Trump.
Were it not for a fluke, for an excessive application of the archaic advantage given the formerly slave-holding states, they'd be writing ‘bout how they knew from the beginning that Trump was never gonna pull it off and how the Republican Party now had to make sure their ‘base’ didn't go rogue on them again and again nominate such a loser--how they'd have taken out Hillary if only the base hadn't gone off on the Trump train. One thirtieth of one percent of the vote; that's how close Trump came to losing the Presidency along with losing the vote, just about enough people to fill a stadium for a big-time college football game on any given Saturday.
But, now he's a political genius and they're all on the Trump train trying to convince the rest of us he's not just staggerin’ ‘round in the dark. (Or, maybe they're trying to convince themselves.)
I ain't buyin’ it. He is indeed just staggerin’ ‘round in the dark. They're afraid to admit that. They're more afraid of him than I am. And that makes some sense. He cleaned the clock of all their challengers for the nomination. He lost to Hillary by almost 3 million votes. And I didn't even like Hillary much. So, they have good reason to fear him more than I do. He's a much bigger danger to the Republican Party than he is to the nation itself.
One thing to remember though, and to fear, for all of us to fear: Trump has been around long enough to have noticed the one last go-to move for any fascist facing an unhappy domestic audience; war. Even stumblin’ ‘round in the dark, he can manage to stumble into that one. And, if he gets pressured enough over his performance on domestic issues, there's a good chance he'll go for it.
And, with that I'm probably down for the day.
Trump has been around long enough to have noticed the one last go-to move for any fascist facing an unhappy domestic audience; war. Even stumblin’ ‘round in the dark, he can manage to stumble into that one.
It was definitely a concern of mine. That, and totally wrecking the economy and/or the last shreds of a health care system we have. I am afraid I have little faith in Mr. Trump to actually be a good President. I was going to wait, but after seeing his picks for government positions(most of them anyway), his ill-judged tweets (no matter what anyone says to the contrary), and his lack of interaction with the public (via the traditional press conference) whatever patience I have is waning. I can't help but wonder if his...er...shyness has more to do with the fact that he is unable to intelligently answer any question in depth. His sole response seems to be he'll get it done and make American great again. *sigh*
"American" should be "America"
"That, and totally wrecking the economy and/or the last shreds of a
health care system we have."
The economy can be recovered. Lot of citizens injured along the way might never recover fully, but the economy and the nation can recover.
The health care system needs a major overhaul; it's needed a major overhaul since the very first day when they were obliged to accept the draft version that had already passed the Senate (but which was even then considered a negotiating version, a first draft that needed much more work), this after Obama lost his Democratic majority in the Senate.
But, I think the deal's gone too far for Trump or the Republicans to throw out ObamaCare entirely. For one thing, the majority of its beneficiaries are Trump voters who're suffering from some weird delusions about Trump's interest in their well-being. Taking away their health insurance is gonna bring on a big chunk of that disillusionment you mentioned in the last thread. Trump doesn't want that, not this quick, not over something that isn't gonna make him money.
But, his Republican cohorts don't want ObamaCare. They have themselves an impasse here. It'll be interesting to see how they resolve it. I expect fireworks.
"I can't help but wonder if his...er...shyness has more to do with the
fact that he is unable to intelligently answer any question in depth."
I'm pretty sure that's a major contributer to his avoidance of the traditional press.
They have themselves an impasse here. It'll be interesting to see how they resolve it. I expect fireworks.
I must admit that this whole process, the election of Trump and its aftermath, has made me much more aware of the goings on within the halls of government than I have been in the past. I will find it interesting, yes, to follow the machinations more closely. It would be highly amusing if what the Republicans come up with, if they do come up with anything, were to resemble anything at all what Hillary Clinton has proposed. I have not looked at what her plans were, if she had something planned in depth, that is.
Lot of citizens injured along the way might never recover fully, but the economy and the nation can recover.
In all honesty I do have more faith in our country than what my more pessimistic ramblings may have implied. That was the main reason for that Amistad post. I do think that our underlying system is sound. We have weathered a lot of troubles in the past and gotten past them. But I do worry about the citizens who are going to be run roughshod over in whatever transpires.
On another subject, I see there was a Russian plane that went down, killing all on board. My condolences to their family and friends. Like the Ambassador before them, not that I assume this was a terrorist act, I feel sorry for those who lose their lives through no fault of their own.
But I do speculate on why the plane crashed. It was good weather, so that shouldn't have been an issue. Mechanical failure? Possibly so. And if so I would think the Russians would be double checking all planes that have been maintained by the same facility. And while it seems rather unlikely, given Russian security, I do have to wonder about some kind of sabotage. But I suppose the black box will be able to tell them more when it is found.
"But I do speculate on why the plane crashed."
I'm given to understand that mechanical problems and pilot error are high on the suspect causes list, and that sabotage is low on the list.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
This fella claims that Da‘esh is marking Europe for terrorist strikes at least partly to turn the Christians and Muslims there against one another. Marcus is cooperating with that plan quite enthusiastically.
Netanyahu is pissed enough at the Obama administration that he's threatening to continue his attacks on Obama after Obama leaves office. (Guardian) Not sure when the last time was I heard of the leader of Israel pursuing such a vendetta against an American ex-President, if ever; but, what the hell…. This is the age of Trump after all.
If I were Netanyahu, or anyone else for that matter, I would think long and hard before I hitched my wagon to Trump's star.
He may become President, but he may end up being the most unpopular President in history.
Terror attacks in Europe are intended to generate internal strife and societal tension in the hope of encouraging more young Muslim men (and more than a few women) to join the jihadist cause in Syria and Iraq.
It appears to be a race between who will outlast who. Will Europe's social fabric stay strong enough to weather the Daesh storm? Or will it fray, leaving Europe weaker and more vulnerable.
"… he may end up being the most unpopular President in history."
He's certainly starting out as the most unpopular, at least the most unpopular since public polling on such things became the norm. I'd say Abraham Lincoln would certainly have given him a run for that honor though. The southern states started seceding even before Lincoln could be sworn in. Trump, unfortunately, is not a worthy successor to Lincoln.
@ Lynnette:
PBS's Frontline tonight, two hours; title ‘Exodus’; description:
"New, 12/27/2016, Investigative, Documentary, Politics, Public
Affairs, Social Topic
"Refugees and migrants reveal their harrowing stories of escape and
survival through cell phone camera footage, which they record as they
flee from their oppressive, war-torn countries for the safety and
security of Europe."
Marcus would not be pleased.
Huh! You beat me to it. I just stopped in to leave a comment about that Frontline special tonight. We'll see if I can stay awake...*sigh* It sounds good.
RIP Carrie Fisher, the force will miss you.
I stayed awake for all of it. Very sad. I suspect that Marcus and the rest of Europe have not seen the last of this migration, especially from Africa.
"…not seen the last of this migration…"
Probably not.
Lee: "This fella claims that Da‘esh is marking Europe for terrorist strikes at least partly to turn the Christians and Muslims there against one another. Marcus is cooperating with that plan quite enthusiastically."
I've been more and more proven right in that we can't peacefully co-exist, so yeah it's way better the conflict comes while we Europeans hold the upper hand (we have about a 20 year window for that) than later when we might be even in sthength, and certainly before the Islamic hordes should gain the upper hand (until which we have about a 30-40 year window).
Lynnette: "I stayed awake for all of it. Very sad. I suspect that Marcus and the rest of Europe have not seen the last of this migration, especially from Africa."
Yeah, yeah it's all sad as hell. And then they come to Europe and behave like this:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/outrage-after-seven-young-refugees-9523175
I cry real hard for them. Just gallons of tears. Daily. I want to give them teddy bears and wellfare checks and free housing and allowances. For sure I do.
"I've been more and more proven right in that we can't peacefully co-exist…"
We've been able to do it, so, provably, it can be done. Your assertion that you can't do it should probably be read as an assertion (admission?) that you don't want to do it. Don't reckon I'm in a position to tell you what you do and don't want. But, I may have some quibble ‘bout your verb choice there.
Sprint, the mobile phone company, and OneWeb an American internet provider have both allowed Trump to make their announcements of the additions of up to 8,000 new jobs in the coming years, unspecified number of years, but that's what they're anticipating. (CNBC) Trump gets to announce their optimistic employment news; that's unusual; they take it to him for the announcement instead of the company CEO making the announcement.
I haven't figured out what they're getting from Trump in return. I'll be keeping an eye open for whatever it is he's promised them--it'll come out eventually.
"We've been able to do it, so, provably, it can be done."
We've been able to do it because, except for the slaves of Africa, most of our forbears came here desiring to work for a better life and they wanted to participate in what we had to offer. Plus, we used to have plenty of space. Plus, we had oceans separating us from most of the rest of the world.
Europe has none of the above. The wretches swarming out of the middle east are not looking to share Sweden's culture and values, they just don't want to be slaughtered at home. They are not going to assimilate. They don't want to. They have no conception of Swedish culture, no appreciation for it. It's oil and water.
Deplorable Bridget
"They are not going to assimilate. They don't want to."
You probably should have caught that 2 hour PBS special last night. You can probably still find it running repeats for the next day or so. It'll probably do you some good.
Marcus, don't listen to the treehuggers and this pretentious cuck. Stand proud and get some like minded fellows. Burn down a mosque or a refugee center. Fight back!
As long as the subject's come up…. Admittedly, Zeyad isn't one of our most notable assimilation success stories.
Somebody's done their homework and discovered that the ‘new’ jobs Trump has recently announced are, in fact, repeats of earlier job news, stuff that predated Trump's election. ( Politico.com) But, Trumpkins can take heart. These jobs will no doubt be reannounced as new news at least a couple more times in the coming four years. (Be kinda like European international charitable donations, they announce the same pledge of funds over and over and then total up all the repeated announcements and come up with a truly outstanding total, which may never materialize in any event, so there's no point in bitchin’ ‘bout the double and triple counting.)
Bridget makes some sense here. Good to see you lurking around Bridget. And I hope you had a Merry Christmas and I wish you a happy new year!
Zeyad - no that's not the way I envision going about handling our muslim infestation problem. Too low scale by a mile and a half. Gotta work the propaganda angle until we're collectively ready to get industrial about it. Get it sorted for good in one fell swoop.
After this whole Arab Spring thing turned into a disaster in almost every nation it took place in one country stands out as a "success story", namely Tunisia. We are told.
Still, 45% on young Tunisians say they want to go to Europe:
http://www.webdo.tn/2016/12/27/45-jeunes-veulent-quitter-tunisie-leurope/
So yeah, no, we're not gonna put up with them "refugees" any longer. They are for the most part only economic migrants out to get a better deal for themselves backed by the hard labour and progress that OTHER people have made. And obviously, if you replace the people in say Scandinavia with people from say Tunisia you'll end up with the same fucking dysfunction and mayhem as in North Africa but only in a colder climate.
We should lock our borders and send them comdoms, and nothing else.
Obama lets in 25K+ muslim immigrants into the US in 2016:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/28/obama-admin-rushes-to-resettle-refugees-during-last-days-in-office/
Sweden took in 28K. So we'll do soma math here and come to the conclusion that America should have taken in 1.120.000 muslim refugees in 2016 to matck Sweden.
And in 2015 Sweden took in 168.000 muslim refugees which per capita would make 6 million for the USA. But the USA took in less than the 25K it took in in 2016.
So, Lee and Lynnette who always critisise me for being coldhearted about muslin refugees: ya´ll owe us roughly 7 million towelheads in your direct neighborhoods. Might I suggest 3.5 million to Minnesota and 3.5 Million to that hill in Appalachia Lee resides on? How does that sound?
"Bridget makes some sense here."
Not so much. I'm a firm believer in not taking in refugees in the first place. I'm a firm believer in cherry-picking only the best applicants. I think ya'll made a major mistake in accepting immigrants en masse.
However, ya'll passing up the opportunity to cherry-pick the applicants Sweden might want to accept as permanent doesn't magically convert the rest en masse into cretins who have no concept of civilization and who ‘don't want to’ integrate or assimilate and don't appreciate the opportunity. That's just a propaganda point intended to justify a vicious backlash based on the idea of tarring the bunch with the most extreme violations of a few. That's an exaggeration to justify 'getting industrial about it' as you yourself observe just a little lower down. Bridget knows what she's doing there; you know what she's doing there; thing is, so do I.
It makes much less actual sense than the two of you hope to credit to it.
And, we've averaged a little over a million immigrants a year for over a decade now. When ya'll get caught up you let me know--‘til then, you're whinin’ don't get ya no sympathy.
Lee: "And, we've averaged a little over a million immigrants a year for over a decade now. When ya'll get caught up you let me know--‘til then, you're whinin’ don't get ya no sympathy."
In a 400 million nation, we're a 10 million nation. So YOU do the catching up. Take in them 7 million muslims to begin with, and we'll throw in anyone from the Balkans who might want to make the US their home, and then we'll talk again.
At 7 million, you're still several million migrants short. We've got over 11 million here just counting the illegals, and over the last 10 years you can easily double that, maybe triple it; I'd have to check the numbers to be more accurate than that. Ya'll ain't nowhere near caught up. When ya get to like the equivalent to 20 million or so, you let me know and I'll remind ya that ya'll been actin’ as fools and explain that we ain't under any obligations to be fools too. ‘Til then your fuzzy numbers don't getcha no sympathy.
Leave it to a faggot Jew to tell the truth as it is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5nMseqC9QE
Oy vey!
I've been watching the response of Trump and his Trumpkins to the revelations of Russian cyber support for his campaign, and I must admit to being somewhat at a loss. I do not understand Trump's pretense that the Russians weren't ‘on his side’, as it were, in the Presidential elections.
Hillary is known to have had her fill of Putin's machinations. Putin is known to dislike Hillary on both a personal and a professional level (suspecting, rightly, that she doesn't trust him anymore, along with more fully paraniod imaginings of his) Trump openly admires Putin's firm dictatorial hand and has said he wants to be friendly with Putin.
Who the hell do ya think Putin's gonna support? How can this be a questionable matter? It's not like we didn't know all this before the election. The Trumpkins willingly voted for Putin's favorite in this election. Being told once again that he was Putin's favorite is not going to come as a surprise to them, and it's not going to make them wish they'd voted for Hillary. They voted for Putin's man on purpose. They intended to do that. How hard is this for people to understand?
More importantly, why don't Trump get it? This is not something he has to worry about. This all boils down to ‘so what’?
Hmm...that video didn't last long. *sigh* Well, I'll wait, maybe something will be posted again. Someone already posted the entire 60 Minutes episode, but the sound is lousy. Hopefully anyone who wanted to watch already has.
I do not understand Trump's pretense that the Russians weren't ‘on his side’, as it were, in the Presidential elections.
To admit that would be to admit that he needed help to win. Or perhaps to admit that would be to give the impression that he is Putin's stooge.
Perhaps that second is enough to prevent him from trying to reverse the sanctions Obama has placed on Russia for meddling. But who knows? He seems not to care that Russia's actions are a gross interference in our internal affairs that should not be allowed to stand, because they have been an advantage to him.
Oy vey!
I couldn't have said it better.
I understand your anger about the situation in Sweden, but Breitbart news or using offensive terms for someone's sexual orientation will not further your argument, Marcus. At least not with me.
"To admit that would be to admit that he needed help to win. Or
perhaps to admit that would be to give the impression that he is Putin's
stooge."
Trump has no problem denying that which is patently obvious and unquestionably true. These things are at least arguable. He should have no problem denying they are true.
All he has to do is say, ‘So what, I was winning anyway, it made no difference; I owe Putin nothing,’ and his supporters have a line they could defend with a straight face.
Consumer optimism is up since Trump's election. The Trumpkins are fairly certain that Trump's economic policies are going to bring them renewed prosperity. They're entirely clueless as to what those economic policies might be; not a clue, but they're somehow yet convinced he's gonna bring in a wave of new, high-paying jobs. (NationalJournal) Apparently the details just don't interest them.
Word's going around about the Trump team having hit an unexpected ‘roadblock’ in their plan to deport millions of criminal illegal aliens (being here illegally is not, in and of itself, a criminal offense, a point that will surprise most Trumpkins and may have surprised Trump--criminal illegal aliens are those who have committed actual crimes while here illegally).
It seems that criminals, even criminal illegal aliens, often do not cooperate with law enforcement. This point does not appear to have been considered when Team Trump originally hashed out their plan to deport said criminal illegal aliens. Now they're trying to figure out how they're gonna implement their plan without spending way more money than they'd figured on and having it take years and years more time than they'd figured on. Turns out the Obama administration was already working that angle about as hard as it can be worked at current manpower and facilities levels (talking prosecutors and judges and defense counsel and their support staff and the like as well as more ICE agents and more jails and more courtrooms and,…the list goes on).
All this merely because the damn criminals are now not expected to cooperate fully. They are apparently not nearly as interested as they should be in making their contributions towards the political success of Donald Trump. Team Trump is now trying to figure out how to declare this problem solved without having to actually solve the problem.
Lynnette: "I understand your anger about the situation in Sweden, but Breitbart news or using offensive terms for someone's sexual orientation will not further your argument, Marcus. At least not with me."
I think Breitbart is entirely quotable. Maybe not every article but most. And I'll make the decision to quote from there based on the content of the article I quote, thank you very much.
As for Milo he's doing a whole tour at US universities labeled "the dangerous faggot". I won't be accepting any scorn from you for using the same wording the homosexual in question uses for himself, thank you very much again.
"I think Breitbart is entirely quotable."
It is more of a problem that you appear to think them credible.
I don't think ANY news outlet is entirely credible Lee. For instance the NYT or CNN regularely peddles lies. We saw that when they were shilling for the war on Iraq and told people Iraqi WMD:s were a fact.
So for me I take Breitbart with the same grain of salt as the MSM in general, and choose from them to quote what I deem worthy a quote.
You have to try to realise Lee, I'm not a COMMUNIST like you who takes what Pravda writes as absolute truth. I have a mind of my own. You don't, as we now know, so you're only apt to be right when your sources are right. Because you're a slave to them. That said your input here is really totally redundant and therefore unessecary - we all know your POW before you even state it as it is the current popular POW in every scenario.
"I don't think ANY news outlet is entirely credible Lee."
Not ‘entirely’ credible you say. I take the addition of the qualifying adverb to be an attempt to avoid admitting to the charge. (I wouldn't want to admit that in public either, but then I don't have that problem as I don't often use Breitbart as a source, and almost never without qualifying the reference by noting that it is Breitbart after all.) The rest of your post is irrelevant to the subject under discussion. Looks like it's mostly designed to change the subject. I'm not the subject here, so I'm not going to cooperate with your efforts in that regard. The subject is Breitbart's rather marginal credibility on most subjects. You appear to think them generally credible, comparable to what's often called MainStream Media (MSM). That's a bit of problem. More than just a bit, actually.
On another topic…
Petes used to want to give me shit for suggesting that Einstein had made an obvious error in his original paper on Special Relativity (obvious enough that even a tyro like me could spot it). He ranted on that way past the point anybody cared to hear it, came in next on his rant list to his consistently failed rants on the Maronites.
Rather more learned people in the field spot more than just the one. This guy claims to know of four. Well, only two in the original paper; two more arising from just being stubborn about it. (Being stubborn about it reminds me of Petes, so he's not entirely alone there; Einstein could be considered decent company if ya gotta be wrong with somebody.)
Turns out the Obama administration was already working that angle about as hard as it can be worked at current manpower and facilities levels
They may find there are other things that the Obama administration was already doing.
It seems that criminals, even criminal illegal aliens, often do not cooperate with law enforcement.
And this will probably be true no matter how many royal decrees are sent down from on high.
I think Breitbart is entirely quotable
Hmmm...you and apparently Donald Trump.
As for Milo he's doing a whole tour at US universities labeled "the dangerous faggot".
I doubt if I will catch any of Milo's tour. But no doubt college kids will enjoy him.
I won't be accepting any scorn from you for using the same wording the homosexual in question uses for himself, thank you very much again.
It is certainly up to you what kind of style you wish to use to make your argument. Of course I understand that within the gay community it might be acceptable to use that term.
" Of course I understand that within the gay community it might be
acceptable to use that term."
I don't claim to always keep fully up to speed on these things, but, I'm given to understand that ‘queer’ is okay again and that ‘faggot’ is currently generally unacceptable. I think Marcus‘ favored faggot there is only okay with the term because it pisses off his compatriots. (I have no particular problem with calling him a faggot, as he applies the term to himself, but I've been told here lately that, in general, ‘faggot’ is not on the favored list, although ‘queer’ is okay again. It's kinda hard to keep current with this stuff though, so I may be out of date again already, but I think I got it current.)
On another front: Team Trump is noticeably irritated with Obama's sanctions against the Russians. They're trying real hard to not say anything quotable, but they're noticeably upset about the sanctions pretty much across the whole team, Kellyanne Conway clear to Guiliani.
Lee: "I don't often use Breitbart as a source"
And how often have you seen me do it? Twice maybe? Can you find three occasions? I doubt it.
Lee: "I don't claim to always keep fully up to speed on these things, but, I'm given to understand that ‘queer’ is okay again and that ‘faggot’ is currently generally unacceptable. I think Marcus‘ favored faggot there is only okay with the term because it pisses off his compatriots."
I only used the term faggot because that's what Milo uses for himself. I thought you might have known that already. And for sure I didn't do it in order to "using offensive terms for someone's sexual orientation", as Lynnette got into her head that I did. I don't care one way or the other that he's a fag, I like the dude.
The main reason for my comment was that I have noticed that those with a "shield" can be more outspoken these days. Milo has two shields, he's a jew and he's gay. Therefore he's given more leeway to talk at Universities. It a regular white straight guy said exactly the same things the uproar which does exist against Milo too would have been ten times greater, and likely Unis would have cancelled the speeches.
Lynnette:
"Hmmm...you and apparently Donald Trump."
And about 200 million americans, probably. Why do you find a quote from Breitbart unacceptable, seemingy regardless of the content? Isn't that a wee bit narrow minded of you Lynnette?
Deported from the US 19 times, then he came back and raped a 13 YO:
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/0a51c183539c4e8e9f8737cd9f658f81/mexican-man-charged-rape-had-19-deportations-removals
This is why ya'll need a beautiful wall. A great wall, tall in the sky and deep under ground. To protect against predators like this.
Bridget, you're with me on this, right?
"Can you find three occasions? I doubt it."
I could, not a problem. My guess is you know better; you're just bein’ pissy ‘cause I didn't take the bait earlier (Fri Dec 30, 01:37:00 pm ↑↑), so you're gonna see if you can pull me in with this one. I don't believe your memory is sieved enough for you to have forgotten already.
Answer is, ‘No, you're not gonna pull me in on this one either’.
*sigh*
I had to go back and listen to Milo again because we went off on a tangent and I totally forgot the main points he was trying to make.
Marcus, the reason I do not believe that Breitbart is a credible source, as Lee said earlier, and why I don't turn to them for a cite to make a point is because they seem to be a biased publication using extremist reasoning that borders on propaganda.
I understand that the immigration numbers in Sweden are starting to overwhelm the systems you have put in place. But when someone like Milo states that Middle Eastern immigrants are the only ones with rape gangs then I have to say that he has obviously never been to Minnesota. We have had immigrants from Asian nations that also have gangs, some of which have used rape as an initiation. In their cases though it is usually within their own community that they look for prey. They are less likely to report this type of criminal activity because of the stigma involved.
I have not read of any lately so perhaps our law enforcement and the communities involved have found a way to neutralize the gang activity. And that is what is essential, getting the community and law enforcement to work together to stop this type of crime from happening.
All I see when I watch someone like Milo speaking is someone who wants to generalize and demonize a group of people. And whether it is extreme right or extreme left they are doing it to promote their agenda, not to report news in a neutral and objective manner.
It's kinda like this Marcus: The only rebuttal required for a claim, allegation or conclusion that's published on Breitbart is the notation that it's comin’ from Breitbart. ‘Nuff said.
Post a Comment