Stupid World

[Kickaha]

they go well with Tramadol.

Everything does, cept maybe alcohol, that tends to make you die

[Laava]

Back on topic, I got my arse owned on the dragstrip today by a guy on a Ducati 848.
i will post a seriously grainy image of what could be virtually any red bike to prove it.

[TheDemonLord]

So why did you answer yes to confirm you also accused me of calling for censorhsip?

I've explained and clarified this - everything else is your failure (either willfully or from ignorance) to understand.


My actions fit both narratives.

That depends on whether I'm being charitable and whether or not you are arguing in good faith.

You've demonstrated a lack of the latter, so I'm disinclined to be the former.


Where did I state my noble standard, sans exceptions?

Simple: When you made the accusations against me, accusing me of all the things you're currently been doing. That's where you stated your Noble standard (without said standard, there wouldn't be anything for you to complain about).


Still no contradiction there. Objectivity comes from the clarification/discussion/justification of subjective opinions all the time.

Only when they are applied by an external, neutral observer. Nemo judex in causa sua.

[TheDemonLord]

Bullshit
! he gave the explanation afterwards. as an excuse.

See Carbonhed's video, predating the NYT article. Not only that, The term has been around in the Scholarly world for a while.

Even if we assume a hostile position, the subsequent clarifications confirm what the correct context is.

However, to restate the question: Have you ever supported someone in cheating on their partner or did you disaprove of them doing so? If it's the latter, then you are doing exactly what JBP is talking about.


2 if you use his explanation his definition is what happened and yet men are still violent

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here - are you trying to suggest that you think there is only a single cause for Male violence, and since his idea doesn't mitigate all Male Violence, it's wrong?


# racial was a autocorect from radical.

Uh Huh. Let's see, you've accused me of Sexism, you've accused me of Racism - It's almost like you are following the SJW playbook step-by-step. In about 5 pages you'll throw out Homophobia, and 15 after that Transphobia.

No, I don't buy Autocorrect as an excuse.


Also i hate to tell you divorce rates have been steadily dropping,

Because Marriage rates have been steadily dropping...


yet the suicide for males climbed for those two years you quoted and hand choose right down to an individual country, for that one reason its still horseshit.

Divorce is more a factor in Male suicide for the 35-45 age bracket, Remember the first comment I said 'under 25' - kinda relevant.


You said the Mental health foundation was biased as was the writer yet your cited person is "PAY PER VIEW POLITICAL FREAK SHOW" did you not notice he is biased and shares some interesting views.
His views that were so far out of the accepted norm he was "retired from teaching"

You got a source for him being formally retired by the University of Toronto?

He's still listed here: http://www.sgs.utoronto.ca/facultyandstaff/Pages/Full-Members.aspx...

Or is this like your 'Women succeed at Suicide more than Men' and 'i could post a misogynistic rant. No ones claiming these make women commit suicide.' - where reality is the opposite to what you say?

All of the above, however is just more avoidance of the point. The writer has declared a socio-political position. One that is diametrically opposed to certain viewpoints. When said viewpoint is discussed, any adherent of that position is going to take a contrary stance, regardless of the evidence that is presented. As such, any rebuttal is to be considered prejudicial.

But let's pick apart your out-of-context and cherry picked quotes shall we?

First we need to agree on some grounds facts: Human Female mating patterns are Hypergamous - Not only have there been Mathematical models proving this, but also we can look at things like the 'Groupy' phenomena - remember when you quoted the God-Emperor Trump about 'they let you do whatever you want' - that's your Hypergamy right there.


As a fix for this, Peterson recommends a variety of things including "enforced monogamy" — a solution that implies men are oppressed due to lack of consensual sex.

He's never implied that. If all the available women go after the few men at the top of the societal Hierarchy, then the only way for those at the bottom of the Hierarchy to become desirable to Women is to use Tyranny and Force. See: Every pack Mammal mating strategy - the Males fight (sometimes to the Death) in order to be at the top (or near the top) in order to become a desirable mate to the Females.

See Also: Gangland activity: where status is conferred on the most violent and the most ruthless.


Mr. Peterson illustrates his arguments with copious references to ancient myths — bringing up stories of witches, biblical allegories and ancient traditions. I ask why these old stories should guide us today.
“It makes sense that a witch lives in a swamp. Yeah,” he says. “Why?”
It’s a hard one.
“Right. That’s right. You don’t know. It’s because those things hang together at a very deep level. Right. Yeah. And it makes sense that an old king lives in a desiccated tower.”
But witches don’t exist, and they don’t live in swamps, I say.
“Yeah, they do. They do exist.

The Witch that lives in the woods, the Old Woman in the Forest, the Crazy Cat lady. These are all manifestations of the same idea. These ideas exist in stories that predate the time when Cultures had any interaction with each other. The Crazy Cat lady (replete in a disorganized home, with rubbish and multiple animals all around) is the modern re-imagining of this idea.

The 'journalist' wishes to portray that JBP believes in a Witch with Magical powers, as a means to ridicule what he's saying, what they fail to understand is that the idea of a Witch (an old, resentful, childless hag, envious of younger Women's youth and beauty, hateful of the Men that rejected her or used her when she was in her prime and wishes curses and misfortune against them) is very much real.


Mr. Peterson does not pause when he says this. Enforced monogamy is, to him, simply a rational solution. Otherwise women will all only go for the most high-status men, he explains, and that couldn’t make either gender happy in the end.

Every society that has instituted a system of Monogamous, exclusive relationships (call it Marriage or whatever) have shown to be the most stable of Societies. Polygamist cults/societies on the other hand, tend to get destabilized.


When Mr. Peterson talks about good women — the sort a man would want to marry — he often uses these words: conscientious and agreeable.

Can you provide a citation there? He's certainly said that as a trait, women are more Agreeable than Men. Conscientiousness is simply hard-working: Do you want your partner to be lazy?


Wherever he goes, he speaks in sermons about the inevitability of who we must be. “You know you can say, ‘Well isn’t it unfortunate that chaos is represented by the feminine’ — well, it might be unfortunate, but it doesn’t matter because that is how it’s represented. It’s been represented like that forever. And there are reasons for it. You can’t change it. It’s not possible. This is underneath everything. If you change those basic categories, people wouldn’t be human anymore.

It's almost like he's referencing some Human Universals, and pointing out that you can't win against Nature. As a hilarious case-in-point; 50 Shades of Gray.


he left, he believes, refuses to admit that men might be in charge because they are better at it. “The people who hold that our culture is an oppressive patriarchy, they don’t want to admit that the current hierarchy might be predicated on competence,”

There's a simple way to answer this: Who do you promote in a company? The person who is the best at their job or the person who isn't?
Who is the person that you will follow? The person who makes good decisions, increases your prosperity or someone who makes poor decisions and makes your life worse?

That is the question of Competence, and it is a self-evident answer.

There's a secondary question (which is being deliberately conflated into the first) as to why the majority of those at the top happen to be Men. When we account for IQ variation, Competitiveness and disagreeableness, it's clear to see why things are that way.

Sexism need not apply.


Peteron talks a lot at going back to old values the 1950 marriages etc etc as if we need to seriously do this

but if were are going back to old values they include slavery, segregation, Death penalty, Censorship of movies books no internet.

Holy Bait and Switch Batman!

Firstly, he's never advocated for any of that (although he has discussed the Death Penalty - and his response is interesting, but the nuance would probably elude you).

Secondly, Look to your own stats that you posted regarding Suicide. If maybe, we (as a society) made it just a bit harder to get divorced, in order to encourage people (who aren't being violent towards each other) to stay together - how many different risk factors in Suicide would that address?

At least 4, from the list of 'FACTS' you were so liberally posting - so let me ask you:

What is your preferred alternative - a System whereby people are encouraged to stay together, resulting in a large reduction in risk factors associated with Suicide.
or
Piles of young, male corpses.


A far as i can see the majority of Peterson supporters are long haired gamers with no girlfriends. these same people lack the social girls to find girlfriends or interact with people.

I'm a long haired Gamer, Married, With kids.

So, again, you're demonstrably wrong here.

[husaberg]

See Carbonhed's video, predating the NYT article. Not only that, The term has been around in the Scholarly world for a while.

Even if we assume a hostile position, the subsequent clarifications confirm what the correct context is.

However, to restate the question: Have you ever supported someone in cheating on their partner or did you disaprove of them doing so? If it's the latter, then you are doing exactly what JBP is talking about.



I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here - are you trying to suggest that you think there is only a single cause for Male violence, and since his idea doesn't mitigate all Male Violence, it's wrong?



Uh Huh. Let's see, you've accused me of Sexism, you've accused me of Racism - It's almost like you are following the SJW playbook step-by-step. In about 5 pages you'll throw out Homophobia, and 15 after that Transphobia.

No, I don't buy Autocorrect as an excuse.



Because Marriage rates have been steadily dropping...



Divorce is more a factor in Male suicide for the 35-45 age bracket, Remember the first comment I said 'under 25' - kinda relevant.



You got a source for him being formally retired by the University of Toronto?

He's still listed here: http://www.sgs.utoronto.ca/facultyandstaff/Pages/Full-Members.aspx...

Or is this like your 'Women succeed at Suicide more than Men' and 'i could post a misogynistic rant. No ones claiming these make women commit suicide.' - where reality is the opposite to what you say?

All of the above, however is just more avoidance of the point. The writer has declared a socio-political position. One that is diametrically opposed to certain viewpoints. When said viewpoint is discussed, any adherent of that position is going to take a contrary stance, regardless of the evidence that is presented. As such, any rebuttal is to be considered prejudicial.

But let's pick apart your out-of-context and cherry picked quotes shall we?

First we need to agree on some grounds facts: Human Female mating patterns are Hypergamous - Not only have there been Mathematical models proving this, but also we can look at things like the 'Groupy' phenomena - remember when you quoted the God-Emperor Trump about 'they let you do whatever you want' - that's your Hypergamy right there.



He's never implied that. If all the available women go after the few men at the top of the societal Hierarchy, then the only way for those at the bottom of the Hierarchy to become desirable to Women is to use Tyranny and Force. See: Every pack Mammal mating strategy - the Males fight (sometimes to the Death) in order to be at the top (or near the top) in order to become a desirable mate to the Females.

See Also: Gangland activity: where status is conferred on the most violent and the most ruthless.



The Witch that lives in the woods, the Old Woman in the Forest, the Crazy Cat lady. These are all manifestations of the same idea. These ideas exist in stories that predate the time when Cultures had any interaction with each other. The Crazy Cat lady (replete in a disorganized home, with rubbish and multiple animals all around) is the modern re-imagining of this idea.

The 'journalist' wishes to portray that JBP believes in a Witch with Magical powers, as a means to ridicule what he's saying, what they fail to understand is that the idea of a Witch (an old, resentful, childless hag, envious of younger Women's youth and beauty, hateful of the Men that rejected her or used her when she was in her prime and wishes curses and misfortune against them) is very much real.



Every society that has instituted a system of Monogamous, exclusive relationships (call it Marriage or whatever) have shown to be the most stable of Societies. Polygamist cults/societies on the other hand, tend to get destabilized.



Can you provide a citation there? He's certainly said that as a trait, women are more Agreeable than Men. Conscientiousness is simply hard-working: Do you want your partner to be lazy?



It's almost like he's referencing some Human Universals, and pointing out that you can't win against Nature. As a hilarious case-in-point; 50 Shades of Gray.



There's a simple way to answer this: Who do you promote in a company? The person who is the best at their job or the person who isn't?
Who is the person that you will follow? The person who makes good decisions, increases your prosperity or someone who makes poor decisions and makes your life worse?

That is the question of Competence, and it is a self-evident answer.

There's a secondary question (which is being deliberately conflated into the first) as to why the majority of those at the top happen to be Men. When we account for IQ variation, Competitiveness and disagreeableness, it's clear to see why things are that way.

Sexism need not apply.



Holy Bait and Switch Batman!

Firstly, he's never advocated for any of that (although he has discussed the Death Penalty - and his response is interesting, but the nuance would probably elude you).

Secondly, Look to your own stats that you posted regarding Suicide. If maybe, we (as a society) made it just a bit harder to get divorced, in order to encourage people (who aren't being violent towards each other) to stay together - how many different risk factors in Suicide would that address?

At least 4, from the list of 'FACTS' you were so liberally posting - so let me ask you:

What is your preferred alternative - a System whereby people are encouraged to stay together, resulting in a large reduction in risk factors associated with Suicide.
or
Piles of young, male corpses.



I'm a long haired Gamer, Married, With kids.

So, again, you're demonstrably wrong here.
2 days and thats the best you can come up with
thats laughable.

Gets some facts and post them
You like what Peterson has to say as you like it, its neither logical or fact based it relies on picking and choosing data or practices to suit an agenda.
He likes to opine, things Like stepping back in time to say when divorces was lower so was male suicide.
sure thats true, but so was unemployment there was a male shortage due to war deaths as well in the 50's cars were cheaper as well.
Plus a million other things, but he just focuses on one thing and shortsighted people lap it up.
You go on about changes in society but then only want to tie them to very specific demographics and years and then to countries if you can see thats cherry picking no ones ever going to help you.
I dont care if buy autocorrect as an excuse as that it what it was.
As for the majority of Petersons man followers not being single long haired gamers ,TDL you are 2 out of three just yourself. you are practically a walking cliche.
Beside it might only take one Germain greer speech to radicalize your misses:laugh:
As clearly the left radical feminist loonies are just that dangerous aye.:2thumbsup
asuming she is your first wife?
If you want stronger divorce laws go vote for them. But don't push bs excuses as to why.
You want a stepford wife marry one. or Go buy a mail order bide like Yokel did.
Ps peterson sounds like Kermit the frog.

[husaberg]

Oh shit "no factual BASIS OF FOUNDATION"... that's bad right?

ESPECIALLY SINCE IT"S IN FUCKING CAPITALS?????????????

Poor old Jordan "no factual BASIS OF FOUNDATION". Man he's going to be pissed that this fucking retarded loser on the interweb has blown his world tour and multi million selling book out of the water.

I'll wake up tomorrow to global headlines that Jordan Peterson like has "no factual BASIS OF FOUNDATION" and they'll be helicoptering into shitsville, west coast, NZ to interview a snaggle toothed, banjo plucker fresh out of the bush on how he exposed the scam of the century "literally no factual BASIS OF FOUNDATION"!!!!!!!???????????????? :rofl:

Here's a panel on Bill C16.


https://youtu.be/2PPXwcYtHn0

Anyone who tries to use C16 as evidence is not real smart.
the same additions were made years before to countries and none of what Peterson said happened nor has it happened since.
According to legal experts, not using preferred pronouns would not meet legal standards for hate speech.
He claimed he would be able to lecture, without getting sanctioned this was untrue as it doesn't apply to universities
https://torontoist.com/2016/12/are-jordan-petersons-claims-about-bill-c-16-correct/
Peterson doesn't even believe in free speech himself otherwise you wouldn't want others censored.
Hes also religious nutter.

[TheDemonLord]

2 days and thats the best you can come up with
thats laughable.

Contrary to popular belief - I was busy over the weekend, I try not to make a habit of it, but sometimes things need doing.


Gets some facts and post them

Sure, as soon as you layout what your standard of Evidence is, you have been rather shy on this point.


You like what Peterson has to say as you like it, its neither logical or fact based it relies on picking and choosing data or practices to suit an agenda.

What Agenda, What Data, What Practices, What does he actually say that is either illogical or not based in Facts?


He likes to opine, things Like stepping back in time to say when divorces was lower so was male suicide.
sure thats true, but so was unemployment there was a male shortage due to war deaths as well in the 50's cars were cheaper as well.

I'm glad you agree it's true. Now the question is why. It could be war Deaths, it could also be 50% of the human Population hadn't entered the workforce en masse. Just a thought....


Plus a million other things, but he just focuses on one thing and shortsighted people lap it up.

The Irony is that he actually does the opposite, but in order to know that - You'd actually need to listen (and understand) what he says, as opposed to relying on misquoted, cherry-picked journalistic hit pieces on him.


You go on about changes in society but then only want to tie them to very specific demographics and years and then to countries if you can see thats cherry picking no ones ever going to help you.

I know right - it's almost like the changes in society are relevant to those societies where the changes occur, the people in those societies where those changes harm them, and the time periods in which those changes have come about.

It's Fascinating!


As for the majority of Petersons man followers not being single long haired gamers ,TDL you are 2 out of three just yourself. you are practically a walking cliche.

Yes - in case you missed it, you are trying to make out that we hate women, because we are bitter and depressed we can't get laid. The fact I'm married, with kids - goes rather a long way to disprove that.

Not to mention it's the classic Ad Hominem.


Beside it might only take one Germain greer speech to radicalize your misses:laugh:

It only took one Germaine Greer book to Radicalize Feminism.... So I wouldn't be so quick to laugh...


As clearly the left radical feminist loonies are just that dangerous aye.:2thumbsup

Well, shall I point to the death toll of every Marxist inspired Regime? I think 200 Million dead counts as 'Dangerous'. You should read up on the cross-over between Feminism and Marxism.


asuming she is your first wife?

Not that it has any relevancy, but yes, she is.


If you want stronger divorce laws go vote for them. But don't push bs excuses as to why.

Define 'Stronger'.

I also note that you don't actually address the point I made, which, considering how I linked it directly to what you have posted as Facts, is curious - it's almost like you've got no actual rebuttal and are seeking to divert attention.


You want a stepford wife marry one. or Go buy a mail order bide like Yokel did.

It's funny, if you met my Wife, you'd understand why. Just meditate on this: I'm well known to be an argumentative, Cantankerous Sod, consider the strength of will, of the Woman who can put up with me enough to Marry me.

If you can logically work through that, you'd understand WHY it's so funny.


Ps peterson sounds like Kermit the frog.

Something that he himself has acknowledged, Again - what is your point here? Or is it a half-assed attempt at ridicule?

[husaberg]

Contrary to popular belief - I was busy over the weekend, I try not to make a habit of it, but sometimes things need doing.



Sure, as soon as you layout what your standard of Evidence is, you have been rather shy on this point.



What Agenda, What Data, What Practices, What does he actually say that is either illogical or not based in Facts?



I'm glad you agree it's true. Now the question is why. It could be war Deaths, it could also be 50% of the human Population hadn't entered the workforce en masse. Just a thought....



The Irony is that he actually does the opposite, but in order to know that - You'd actually need to listen (and understand) what he says, as opposed to relying on misquoted, cherry-picked journalistic hit pieces on him.



I know right - it's almost like the changes in society are relevant to those societies where the changes occur, the people in those societies where those changes harm them, and the time periods in which those changes have come about.

It's Fascinating!



Yes - in case you missed it, you are trying to make out that we hate women, because we are bitter and depressed we can't get laid. The fact I'm married, with kids - goes rather a long way to disprove that.

Not to mention it's the classic Ad Hominem.



It only took one Germaine Greer book to Radicalize Feminism.... So I wouldn't be so quick to laugh...



Well, shall I point to the death toll of every Marxist inspired Regime? I think 200 Million dead counts as 'Dangerous'. You should read up on the cross-over between Feminism and Marxism.



Not that it has any relevancy, but yes, she is.



Define 'Stronger'.

I also note that you don't actually address the point I made, which, considering how I linked it directly to what you have posted as Facts, is curious - it's almost like you've got no actual rebuttal and are seeking to divert attention.



It's funny, if you met my Wife, you'd understand why. Just meditate on this: I'm well known to be an argumentative, Cantankerous Sod, consider the strength of will, of the Woman who can put up with me enough to Marry me.

If you can logically work through that, you'd understand WHY it's so funny.



Something that he himself has acknowledged, Again - what is your point here? Or is it a half-assed attempt at ridicule?

Read your answer and see how much they actually rely on conjecture and taking small things out of context to suit the agenda its laughable as is following a religious nut.
I am sure he believes everything he writes just as he believes in sky pixies and shutting down free speech he doesn't like.
or misrepresenting other stuff to make himself rich.
I never said or mentioned anything about his followers other tthan they believe hiam as thats what they want to here regardless if its illogivcal or not based on facts other than most were long haired gamers who where single you made up the rest all by yourself.

not to mention this

- in case you missed it, you are trying to make out that we hate women, because we are bitter and depressed we can't get laid.
Not to mention it's the classic Ad Hominem
Yet you are trying to make out thats what radical femism did to all women, thats a a bit inconvenient aye.
yet you go on about free speech. and preach peterson who thinks others should who don't agree with his thoughts on religion should be censored.
AS for the stuff you are trying to palm off as evidence stop cheery picking dates countries and places and certain years and you will see you have nothing but cherry picked data
I cant be easy being a frog

[TheDemonLord]

Read your answer and see how much they actually rely on conjecture and taking small things out of context to suit the agenda its laughable as is following a religious nut.

Let's assume that's true for a moment, I could easily make the same accusation against you.

The problem you have (which is why you don't have the balls to address it directly) is that the Conjecture I put forward happens to have a very clear link between the ideology you are defending (your version of 'Religious Nut') and the 'FACTS' you were so passionate about citing.


I am sure he believes everything he writes just as he believes in sky pixies and shutting down free speech he doesn't like.

Can you point to where he's declared a belief in a supernatural Deity? Can you also point to where he's shut down free speech he doesn't like?


or misrepresenting other stuff to make himself rich.

Oh noes! He's getting rich! He must be EEEEEEEEEEEEVIL!

If everything he said was demonstrably false, why would the various media outlets need to write such blatant hit-pieces on him, that rely on clearly manufacturing and misrepresenting what he says?

Case in point - the eponymous Cathy Newman interview 'So you're saying' (and the proceeding to say something that he isn't saying)


I never said or mentioned anything about his followers other tthan they believe hiam as thats what they want to here regardless if its illogivcal or not based on facts other than most were long haired gamers who where single you made up the rest all by yourself.

Yet, you contradict yourself in this very comment, it's the 'Single' part that is key. Why bring up someone's marital status? Unless, it was to try and paint a very particular picture.


Yet you are trying to make out thats what radical femism did to all women, thats a a bit inconvenient aye.

Did I? Can you provide the quotation? Or are you just making shit up/misrepresenting me again? Double hilarious since you've accused JBP of that.


yet you go on about free speech. and preach peterson who thinks others should who don't agree with his thoughts on religion should be censored.

Citation needed.


AS for the stuff you are trying to palm off as evidence stop cheery picking dates countries and places and certain years and you will see you have nothing but cherry picked data

I think you mean 'Data relevant to the time, society and issue'


I cant be easy being a frog

Indeed, Frogs have a higher standard of written English.

[husaberg]

Let's assume that's true for a moment, I could easily make the same accusation against you.

The problem you have (which is why you don't have the balls to address it directly) is that the Conjecture I put forward happens to have a very clear link between the ideology you are defending (your version of 'Religious Nut') and the 'FACTS' you were so passionate about citing.



Can you point to where he's declared a belief in a supernatural Deity? Can you also point to where he's shut down free speech he doesn't like?



Oh noes! He's getting rich! He must be EEEEEEEEEEEEVIL!

If everything he said was demonstrably false, why would the various media outlets need to write such blatant hit-pieces on him, that rely on clearly manufacturing and misrepresenting what he says?

Case in point - the eponymous Cathy Newman interview 'So you're saying' (and the proceeding to say something that he isn't saying)



Yet, you contradict yourself in this very comment, it's the 'Single' part that is key. Why bring up someone's marital status? Unless, it was to try and paint a very particular picture.



Did I? Can you provide the quotation? Or are you just making shit up/misrepresenting me again? Double hilarious since you've accused JBP of that.



Citation needed.



I think you mean 'Data relevant to the time, society and issue'



Indeed, Frogs have a higher standard of written English.
Round and around you go still with no facts or un-cherry picked data though.
If you go back a page you will be Peterson in person on video Saying someone should be censored and he is on video and other forms multiple times about religion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SNCrNqxPNM
https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/140713-Stupid-World/page700
Maybe if you actually did a bit of digging you might have noticed that.
He calls himself christian mentions religion almost every speech in glowing terms.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmrv9NSKKYE
Nothing is wrong with getting rich unless you are doing it by taking advantage of people by telling them lies and half truths.
You claim he must be telling the truth as he getting coverage, yet only posts before go on about radical feminists spreading stuff to kill off men.
Reply when you actually have something that doesn't rely on cherry picking data and ignoring other data to get it to fit.
Post some facts that would be a change.

[TheDemonLord]

If you go back a page you will be Peterson in person on video Saying someone should be censored and he is on video and other forms multiple times about religion.

Did he say Censured? Did he actually call for censorship? No one else on the Panel thinks he did. In fact, from the clip you posted, he even says just prior to that, that the receptions Dawkins and his book has received is 'just fine' - not exactly the statement of a censur....

Maybe you should listen to the full clip - I'll give you a quote, from the same show, which should help highlight how badly wrong you are on trying to label Jordan as a religious nut:

"If the faith system is Coherent, there is an ultimate value at it's pinnacle, whatever that ultimate value is, for you, it's God.'

Note - that's not a supernatural God. This is what he has made reference to, probably most clearly in the debate with Matt Dillahunty, and also in the multiple debates he's had with Sam Harris.


Maybe if you actually did a bit of digging you might have noticed that.
He calls himself christian mentions religion almost every speech in glowing terms.

Correction - if you did the proper digging, you'd know what that's not true. He's said that "He acts as if God is real" - that is not the same as declaring a Theistic or even a Deistic position.


Nothing is wrong with getting rich unless you are doing it by taking advantage of people by telling them lies and half truths.

And you just so happen to be the arbiter of what is Truth and Lies... How convenient.


You claim he must be telling the truth as he getting coverage, yet only posts before go on about radical feminists spreading stuff to kill off men.

Nope, I never said that (although, there are quite a few famous Feminists who've made statements about wanting to kill off Men - funny that). You keep trying to ascribe these things to me that I've not said.


Reply when you actually have something that doesn't rely on cherry picking data and ignoring other data to get it to fit.
Post some facts that would be a change.

Sure - Set your standard of Evidence, so we can be sure there's no goalpost moving.

Plus, it's a bit rich to make that claim when so far, you've not managed to represent a single point I've made accurately.

[husaberg]

Did he say Censured? Did he actually call for censorship? No one else on the Panel thinks he did. In fact, from the clip you posted, he even says just prior to that, that the receptions Dawkins and his book has received is 'just fine' - not exactly the statement of a censur....

Maybe you should listen to the full clip - I'll give you a quote, from the same show, which should help highlight how badly wrong you are on trying to label Jordan as a religious nut:

"If the faith system is Coherent, there is an ultimate value at it's pinnacle, whatever that ultimate value is, for you, it's God.'

Note - that's not a supernatural God. This is what he has made reference to, probably most clearly in the debate with Matt Dillahunty, and also in the multiple debates he's had with Sam Harris.



Correction - if you did the proper digging, you'd know what that's not true. He's said that "He acts as if God is real" - that is not the same as declaring a Theistic or even a Deistic position.



And you just so happen to be the arbiter of what is Truth and Lies... How convenient.



Nope, I never said that (although, there are quite a few famous Feminists who've made statements about wanting to kill off Men - funny that). You keep trying to ascribe these things to me that I've not said.



Sure - Set your standard of Evidence, so we can be sure there's no goalpost moving.

Plus, it's a bit rich to make that claim when so far, you've not managed to represent a single point I've made accurately.
Round and around you go, every thing that you disagree with is simply " alternative facts" Sounds familiar.

Its pretty simple what is a fact and what is simple conjecture most people other than conspiracy theorists would spot it in an instant.
Same way most people notice when the only way when the only way can get a data to support a theory is to cherry pick certain years and ignore all other contradictory data that doesn't support you narrow view.
You have never made a single logical point about Peterson or his views . Its like you are in a cult. You are Katman 2.0 with out the latent homosexual advances.

[TheDemonLord]

Round and around you go, every thing that you disagree with is simply " alternative facts" Sounds familiar.

Well, you are the one saying it, I've never referred to it as such, so no - it doesn't sound familiar.

The only thing sounding familiar is you

A: Ignoring the points I've made
B: Ascribing things to me I've not said.


Its pretty simple what is a fact and what is simple conjecture most people other than conspiracy theorists would spot it in an instant.

Which is why JBPs book is a worldwide bestseller ;)


Same way most people notice when the only way when the only way can get a data to support a theory is to cherry pick certain years and ignore all other contradictory data that doesn't support you narrow view.

Ah yes, I'm sorry I didn't include the data from Equatorial Guinea for the year 1934, when referencing an issue in NZ in the year 2018.

How silly of me...


You have never made a single logical point about Peterson or his views . Its like you are in a cult. You are Katman 2.0 with out the latent homosexual advances.

Except, y'know - I've provided the direct quotations to show that your cherry picked (IRONY!) and out of context quotes are incorrect.

The only person who has not made a logical point about Peterson is you.

[Graystone]

I've explained and clarified this - everything else is your failure (either willfully or from ignorance) to understand.



That depends on whether I'm being charitable and whether or not you are arguing in good faith.

You've demonstrated a lack of the latter, so I'm disinclined to be the former.



Simple: When you made the accusations against me, accusing me of all the things you're currently been doing. That's where you stated your Noble standard (without said standard, there wouldn't be anything for you to complain about).



Only when they are applied by an external, neutral observer. Nemo judex in causa sua.

You have not explained, nor clarified this, you simply point to your 'context' to try to change the accusation, but in your 'context' the correct answer would have been no; since you would not have added that different accusation.

So it does fit both narratives, your subjective take on it (and you just admitted to) is what I was calling you out for.

So, it's another implicit thing is it? fuck you're big on subjective interpretation to fit your narrative. Where have I actually stated my standards?

Exactly, so we agree there is not contradiction.

[husaberg]

Well, you are the one saying it, I've never referred to it as such, so no - it doesn't sound familiar.

The only thing sounding familiar is you

A: Ignoring the points I've made
B: Ascribing things to me I've not said.

To put it bluntly Your points are pointless, Yet they are far still far sharper than your barbs.


Which is why JBPs book is a worldwide bestseller ;)

So was Harry potter, a shit load of John grishman novels, lord of the rings, the da vinci code, as was the Female eunuch by Germaine Greer
Which you dismissed as being radical feminism so that another of your misses. Especially considering she is a hell of a lot more famous than your kermitt the frog.
Mcdonalds sells a lot of food but it doesnt mean it is goof=d for you or the best food, Peterson is fodder for his target market.



Ah yes, I'm sorry I didn't include the data from Equatorial Guinea for the year 1934, when referencing an issue in NZ in the year 2018.

How silly of me...
Was was silly was for you to claim it suicide was the biggest killer of under 25's when you really ment only in a country in certain years. And that it was epdemic proportions when the truth was it was actually dropping and not only that female suicides were not static as you had said for those years you later specified they had risen by 40%. to get around the 40% rise you then tried to use a different set of years for the females. which you have never explained you just ignore that.
To top it all offf you then blamed radical feminism for the difference in the male adn female stats only issue is there is many other reasons behind the difference and no one other than Peterson cults thinks its radical feminism.
Nor does it explain why that difference has always existed.




Except, y'know - I've provided the direct quotations to show that your cherry picked (IRONY!) and out of context quotes are incorrect.

The only person who has not made a logical point about Peterson is you.
Whatever no one else cares what you think enough to argue with you. Even cassina or whoever Graystone is, cant be bothered
i cant be arsed multiquoted you in replies its not worth the effort. 4/5 of your replies are plucked out of thin air.
You claim everything is proof, because you ignore anything that doesn't suit. You have the strongest confirmation bias this side of Katspam.
Any thing on one side for you is proof any thing contrary is ignored or dismissed as not be significant to you, Yet this is what the worlds experts in suicide say, but you claim to know better.
Just like your total dismissal of the NZ mental heath foundation letter.

[TheDemonLord]

You have not explained, nor clarified this, you simply point to your 'context' to try to change the accusation, but in your 'context' the correct answer would have been no; since you would not have added that different accusation.

If only, in previous posts, I'd first made the clarifications, then referenced them in subsequent posts when you summarily ignored them...

If only...


So it does fit both narratives, your subjective take on it (and you just admitted to) is what I was calling you out for.

Sure, it is my subjective take, and I've given my reasons for it.

If you've got an issue with that - try arguing with some intellectual integrity.


So, it's another implicit thing is it? fuck you're big on subjective interpretation to fit your narrative. Where have I actually stated my standards?

You've stated what falls foul of your standard, from which we are allowed to infer certain things about it.

It's from that, which we find how your standard is curiously one sided.


Exactly, so we agree there is not contradiction.

You are not a 3rd party, neutral observer to your subjective opinion.

Do you see how above I acknowledged what was my subjective opinion, I laid out the reasons why I hold said opinion, but I never tried to paint it as anything else?

That's the intellectual integrity I'm talking about, which you are lacking.

[TheDemonLord]

To put it bluntly Your points are pointless, Yet they are far still far sharper than your barbs.

You complain I never make a logical point, then refuse to address them as they are pointless.

If they were as illogical as you claim, then you could easily rebut the with a few sentences, yet we get first the posturing, then the dismissal. Looks more like avoiding the question due to an inability to answer...


So was Harry potter, a shit load of John grishman novels, lord of the rings, the da vinci code,

All of which, curiously, happen to have a central core, based upon the positive Masculine story.

That story, although 'fiction' has an element that is deeply true, it's why they are popular. So too is JBPs book


as was the Female eunuch by Germaine Greer

Oh, so she's not some silly Bint now? Sounds an awful lot like you're backpedaling.

So which is it? Is she an Author with influence or not? You keep saying something about Cherry picking, so choose.


Which you dismissed as being radical feminism so that another of your misses. Especially considering she is a hell of a lot more famous than your kermitt the frog.

Considering that Germaine Greer has been ostracised by the Intersectional feminists (since she's a TERF - Trans Exclusionary RADICAL FEMINIST - there's a hint in the name) I'm not so sure she's more famous. Especially since not mere pages ago, you were trying to downplay her fame and influence in order to avoid conceding the point that certain viewpoints she helped promote and foster are tied (by your own evidence) to risk factors in Suicide.


Mcdonalds sells a lot of food but it doesnt mean it is goof=d for you or the best food, Peterson is fodder for his target market.

Red Herring.


Was was silly was for you to claim it suicide was the biggest killer of under 25's when you really ment only in a country in certain years. And that it was epdemic proportions when the truth was it was actually dropping and not only that female suicides were not static as you had said for those years you later specified they had risen by 40%. to get around the 40% rise you then tried to use a different set of years for the females. which you have never explained you just ignore that.

So you're back to this, despite the clarifications being made, despite the evidence being posted, despite an explanation as to why a small change in the number of Female deaths (which, I should point out, is still a tragedy) results in a large percentage change due to the lower based number.

You're still hellbent on a complete misrepresentation.


To top it all offf you then blamed radical feminism for the difference in the male adn female stats only issue is there is many other reasons behind the difference and no one other than Peterson cults thinks its radical feminism.

I've never said it was the only issue, in fact I've made it clear it's not. I've referenced several other Academics in related fields that think that the rise of a certain type of Radical Feminism is causal, funny how you've ignored those.

Did the person who wrote the article mention JBP? I don't think he did - so clearly the statement "no one other than Peterson cults thinks its radical feminism." isn't true


Nor does it explain why that difference has always existed.

I've explained that, Men are more willing to use Violent methods. Women are more likely to use non-violent methods, especially methods that will preserve their looks.

That is an issue of Biology, not of Feminism. Stop trying to conflate things that I've already explained and clearly differentiated.


Whatever no one else cares what you think enough to argue with you. Even cassina or whoever Graystone is, cant be bothered

And yet, you keep replying, despite declaring you are done.


i cant be arsed multiquoted you in replies its not worth the effort. 4/5 of your replies are plucked out of thin air.


And yet, you keep replying, despite declaring you are done.


You claim everything is proof, because you ignore anything that doesn't suit. You have the strongest confirmation bias this side of Katspam.

Fine, where is your standard of Proof then, we can settle this very quickly and succintly.

You post up your standard of Proof. We'll compare the points you make against said standard, then we'll compare the points I make against said standard.

If you are right, nothing I can post up will be able to meet that standard and you can summarily dismiss what I say.
But, if I can post up things that meet your standard (and given what you've cited thus far, we both know I can), then your entire premise is proved to be false.

From that, we can infer that the reluctance to state the standard of evidence is an admission that you know I can meet it and therefore you'd have to take the statement seriously and that would invalidate your entire ideological worldview.


Any thing on one side for you is proof any thing contrary is ignored or dismissed as not be significant to you, Yet this is what the worlds experts in suicide say, but you claim to know better.

Consider this: Whatever the 'World experts in suicide' are saying, it's clearly not working - so on that basis maybe some of their fundamental presupositions aren't correct

The funniest part is, most of what you've posted as proof, I've not ignored or dismissed - you've posted multiple facts, I've never disputed them. You've posted various stats of Rates - the only umbrage I've taken with them is that they are not showing the current data, for the current issue (although in your mind, using current data for current issues is somehow cherry picking - because reasons...).


Just like your total dismissal of the NZ mental heath foundation letter.

I didn't totally dismiss it. I pointed to 2 things:

1: It was written by a self-declared adherent of an Ideological Philosophy (Social Justice) that is fundamentally opposed to the idea being espoused. From the statements on the NZ Mental Health Foundation, it's clear that the organization as a whole also adheres (or at least is favourable) towards said philosophy. As such, it cannot be treated as objective. It would be no different than a Priest writing a rebuttal to an Atheist arguing that God does exist on behalf of the Church.

2: From the letter, there is a clear gendered preference in favor of Women, this is inline with both the aforementioned point and shows the biases that such a philosophy holds against Men. Furthermore, it shows that my fundamental claim (that various Radical Feminist ideas have entered into society) to be true and correct (Social justice is spawned from Intersectional Feminism).

So, I'm not sure how you can claim I dismiss it, when in fact, I've used it to show the point I'm making is true.

To be clear - I'll give you an example of what I mean - here's a full quote from the letter:


Among your readers will be countless numbers of women who live with the grief of suicide loss every day, who may have read your editorial and felt guilt or shame and perhaps wondered whether if they had just been a little less empowered and more dependent, their loved one may still be alive. This is a disgraceful message to send to these women. You owe each of them an apology.

No Sympathy for the Countless Men who also live with the grief of suicide loss every day, who may have read that editorial and felt guilt or shame and perhaps wondered whether if they'd been a little more assertive and Masculine, their loved one may still be alive.

[husaberg]

.

adds to ignore
But before he does


Gillette debuted its “We Believe in the Best in Men” ad campaign on its website yesterday, part of an overall shift to the slightly modified tag “The Best a Man Can Be.” The 1:48 length video starts out with images of remarkably troubled looking men as a narrator makes reference to bullying, sexual harassment, and toxic masculinity. It then poses the question “Is This the Best a Man Can Get.” The viewer then sees depictions of a series of very ugly and negative behaviors, including bullying, fighting, sexual harassment, and blatantly interfering with a woman speaking in the workplace. The ad goes on to state it is time for men to stop making excuses and to renounce the idea that “boys will be boys.” Gillette concludes that by calling for and showing images of men holding other men accountable and emphasizing that the boys of today will be the men of tomorrow.


If one of your daughters or sons came to you and said they were cheating on their partner, would you:
A: Hi-5 them and tell them 'Go you!'
or
B: Disaprove of their actions
If it's option B - then congratulations, you are part of Enforced Monogamy.
Not to mention this is a Red Herring, an attempt at Poisoning the Well AND a Character Assassination.



Why are you bringing up Trump? Doubly funny when:
But to answer the Question: I've never condemned him. Groupies are a thing. Women like rich and powerful Men, and as such the Women ALLOW said Men to do things they wouldn't for other people.
.






It's almost like theres a link between telling Men they are all tyrannical, Woman-Beating Rapists - and young men killing themselves.


Inversely there is a greater amount of woman beating rapists who beat and rape women.
Young people sadly kill themselves as they are to afraid of the stigma attached to asking for help. This has nothing due to feminism, quite the opposite.




here is a clue, men beat women to death and beat women and have been rapping women since well before feminism was invented.
its nothing to do with feminism its the total opposite.
Conversely, No rational person thinks any rational feminist targets all men for the crimes of a few.
Nor does any rational teenager commit suicide.
While it may make you feel better to blame another sex the simple explanation is men dont talk about their problems.
Trying to blame others in the hope of regaining some outdated macho stereotype isn't going to help.
its actually making it worse.



Why do men not like to talk about their problems?
Here's a few ideas:

1: Enemies who know about your problems can exploit them and therefore exploit you
2: Acknowledging problems is to voluntarily lower yourself down the heirachy of competence
3: Women don't find that attractive

What I am blaming Feminism for - is pushing concepts like Toxic Masculinity, a myriad of grievances starting with man-, self-righteously declaring what is and isn't acceptable behaviour AND setting a blatant double standard, for continually pushing an implicit narrative that Men are born with original sin and can only be saved by castrating themselves before the god of Feminism.



There are Just as many male nutjobs as female nutjobs
Women face all those issues your own expectation of how things must be shape how people act, your own excuses are adding to the problem.
if you are saying there is additional pressures on men ask yourself is that a result of their thinking or your own and societies out of date expectations

You argue blaming feminism for male suicide, Its ridiculous in concept and has no basis in reality

Before you can solve a problem you need to be honest with yourself that there is a problem, And seek the real causes, rather than blame what is convenient to you.
Interesting enough you go on about islam being dangerous due to its teachings and them not wanting to align their belief with modern societies expectations of dress and culture, yet you seem to agree with their polices toward women or societies expectations regarding behaviour.

On Thursday Mark Dawson, the editor of the Wanganui Chronicle, published an editorial suggesting that ‘the growing empowerment of women’ is partly to blame for New Zealand’s high rate of male suicide. The Mental Health Foundation’s Sophia Graham responds.


Dear Mr Dawson,

I read your editorial ‘Tough topic we need to talk about’ with dismay. Many people responded with outrage to your speculation that male suicide is caused by female empowerment, and the Mental Health Foundation echoes the criticism you have received and strongly encourages you to issue an immediate retraction and apology. I note that NZME, publisher of your paper, has already removed your column from their website.

You wrote of the disproportionate number of men dying by suicide compared to women, suggesting: “one explanation for this disproportion may be the growing empowerment of women and their increasing role in society.”

“…Is it an unfortunate side effect that men feel less secure, less sure of their place in a world where they were once more dominant?”

Firstly, to answer your question, no, male suicides are not “an unfortunate side effect” of recent female empowerment. Male suicide rates have been significantly higher than female suicide rates since at least the 1920s. Many countries see a similar pattern. Suicide prevention research since the 1920s has found changes in male suicide rates are tied more closely to economic pressures than changing social roles.

Mr Dawson, your comments are not only wrong, they’re dangerous. We know many men still find it extremely difficult to ask for help when they’re going through a hard time. Alongside other agencies in New Zealand we work hard, every day, to encourage men not to let pride or fear prevent them from seeking and accepting the help they need. We all go through difficult times and we all deserve support.

Your editorial undermines this message and reinforces toxic stereotypes that contribute to men feeling they must soldier on and never show a sign of weakness.
encourage you to reflect not only on the anger caused by your ill-informed words, but also the hurt. There are thousands of empowered women around New Zealand who have used their agency and education to work to support men from all walks of life to seek help and recover from challenges they face throughout their lives.

Among your readers will be countless women who live with the grief of suicide loss every day, who may have read your editorial and felt guilt or shame and perhaps wondered whether if they had just been a little less empowered and more dependent, their loved one might still be alive. This is a disgraceful message to send to these women. You owe each of them an apology.

Many people who have lost someone to suicide are left with questions that are difficult or impossible to answer. They seek desperately to understand why their loved one took their life and what could have prevented it. Contrary to your headline, your editorial shed no light on this issue for them but instead sought to place blame where none is warranted.

Additionally, you showed a marked lack of compassion toward women who live with depression, anxiety and other mental illnesses. Women experience almost twice the rates of psychological distress as men and are more than twice as likely to be hospitalised for intentional self-harm. The issue is not as black and white as you would have it appear. There are no winners here.

As an editor of a newspaper, you should know better. Journalists have an important role in shaping social attitudes to, and perceptions of, suicide. Your careless and dangerous words betrayed the trust your readers place in you as an editor and a leading voice in your community.

I acknowledge your editorial contained some valid and interesting remarks on the how the pressures men face can contribute to suicide. It’s a shame these were left unexplored.

There are a large number of organisations who would be willing to work with you to better understand the complexities of suicide and mental health in New Zealand, the Mental Health Foundation is among them. By talking to suicide prevention experts in your community or the Mental Health Foundation we could work together to support our shared goal of preventing suicide in New Zealand.

Sophia Graham is the communications and marketing manager at the Mental Health Foundation of New Zealand.

For information about preventing suicide, see mentalhealth.org.nz/suicideprevention


Alcoholism is more than twice as common among men as women.
Typically, men are more likely to abuse illicit drugs and alcohol – 11.5% of males over 12 have a substance use disorder, compared to 6.4% of females.

[TheDemonLord]

adds to ignore
But before he does

So nothing then, just out of context quotes, cherry picked. Thanks for proving one of my points.

I'm going to leave this here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XMdT2cF-ZM

For those interested - you can listen to the whole thing, but I'd recommend skipping to around the 49:30 mark - where the phone callers call in.

The first, a Lady (so not a long haired, single male gamer...), suffering from Depression all her adult life has found that JBPs insight in his book has helped her manage her Depression, by the adoption of responsibility.
The second, a Man who starts by saying 'I was starring into the Abyss' (I think it's safe to assume he means he was Suicidal), then says (thanks to JBP) He's not.

Husa would have you believe that this is work of a snakeoil salesman, devoid of factual content, with no predictive utility and promoted by someone knows nothing about Suicide for purely profitable reasons.

I ask you this: Assume in the first instance that everything Husa has said is correct, or at least could be true; Now compare it against the testimony given:

If it is Snakeoil - why does it appear to work? At worst you could call it a psychological placebo, but even then results are results.
If it is devoid of factual content - why does it ring true for such a diverse groups of people?
If it has no predictive utility - why do the outcomes that he sets out occur when the principals are applied?
If it is by someone who knows nothing about Suicide - why does he appear to have helped so many people in finding a path where they don't take their own life?
finally
If it is purely for profit - why does he post the lectures in full, on youtube, where they can be consumed free of charge?

It is at this juncture that any rational person can see, that at the very least, JBP is onto something, you may dispute how much or how little, but Quod Erat Demonstrandum Husa's pure ideological dismissals is nothing more than denialism.

[husaberg]

.

adds to ignore
But before he does


Gillette debuted its “We Believe in the Best in Men” ad campaign on its website yesterday, part of an overall shift to the slightly modified tag “The Best a Man Can Be.” The 1:48 length video starts out with images of remarkably troubled looking men as a narrator makes reference to bullying, sexual harassment, and toxic masculinity. It then poses the question “Is This the Best a Man Can Get.” The viewer then sees depictions of a series of very ugly and negative behaviors, including bullying, fighting, sexual harassment, and blatantly interfering with a woman speaking in the workplace. The ad goes on to state it is time for men to stop making excuses and to renounce the idea that “boys will be boys.” Gillette concludes that by calling for and showing images of men holding other men accountable and emphasizing that the boys of today will be the men of tomorrow.


If one of your daughters or sons came to you and said they were cheating on their partner, would you:
A: Hi-5 them and tell them 'Go you!'
or
B: Disaprove of their actions
If it's option B - then congratulations, you are part of Enforced Monogamy.




Why are you bringing up Trump? Doubly funny when:
But to answer the Question: I've never condemned him. Groupies are a thing. Women like rich and powerful Men, and as such the Women ALLOW said Men to do things they wouldn't for other people.
.






It's almost like theres a link between telling Men they are all tyrannical, Woman-Beating Rapists - and young men killing themselves.


Inversely there is a greater amount of woman beating rapists who beat and rape women.
Young people sadly kill themselves as they are to afraid of the stigma attached to asking for help. This has nothing due to feminism, quite the opposite.




here is a clue, men beat women to death and beat women and have been rapping women since well before feminism was invented.
its nothing to do with feminism its the total opposite.
Conversely, No rational person thinks any rational feminist targets all men for the crimes of a few.
Nor does any rational teenager commit suicide.
While it may make you feel better to blame another sex the simple explanation is men dont talk about their problems.
Trying to blame others in the hope of regaining some outdated macho stereotype isn't going to help.
its actually making it worse.



Why do men not like to talk about their problems?
Here's a few ideas:

1: Enemies who know about your problems can exploit them and therefore exploit you
2: Acknowledging problems is to voluntarily lower yourself down the hierarchy of competence
3: Women don't find that attractive

What I am blaming Feminism for - is pushing concepts like Toxic Masculinity, a myriad of grievances starting with man-, self-righteously declaring what is and isn't acceptable behaviour AND setting a blatant double standard, for continually pushing an implicit narrative that Men are born with original sin and can only be saved by castrating themselves before the god of Feminism.



There are Just as many male nutjobs as female nutjobs
Women face all those issues your own expectation of how things must be shape how people act, your own excuses are adding to the problem.
if you are saying there is additional pressures on men ask yourself is that a result of their thinking or your own and societies out of date expectations

You argue blaming feminism for male suicide, Its ridiculous in concept and has no basis in reality

Before you can solve a problem you need to be honest with yourself that there is a problem, And seek the real causes, rather than blame what is convenient to you.
Interesting enough you go on about islam being dangerous due to its teachings and them not wanting to align their belief with modern societies expectations of dress and culture, yet you seem to agree with their polices toward women or societies expectations regarding behaviour.

On Thursday Mark Dawson, the editor of the Wanganui Chronicle, published an editorial suggesting that ‘the growing empowerment of women’ is partly to blame for New Zealand’s high rate of male suicide. The Mental Health Foundation’s Sophia Graham responds.


Dear Mr Dawson,

I read your editorial ‘Tough topic we need to talk about’ with dismay. Many people responded with outrage to your speculation that male suicide is caused by female empowerment, and the Mental Health Foundation echoes the criticism you have received and strongly encourages you to issue an immediate retraction and apology. I note that NZME, publisher of your paper, has already removed your column from their website.

You wrote of the disproportionate number of men dying by suicide compared to women, suggesting: “one explanation for this disproportion may be the growing empowerment of women and their increasing role in society.”

“…Is it an unfortunate side effect that men feel less secure, less sure of their place in a world where they were once more dominant?”

Firstly, to answer your question, no, male suicides are not “an unfortunate side effect” of recent female empowerment. Male suicide rates have been significantly higher than female suicide rates since at least the 1920s. Many countries see a similar pattern. Suicide prevention research since the 1920s has found changes in male suicide rates are tied more closely to economic pressures than changing social roles.

Mr Dawson, your comments are not only wrong, they’re dangerous. We know many men still find it extremely difficult to ask for help when they’re going through a hard time. Alongside other agencies in New Zealand we work hard, every day, to encourage men not to let pride or fear prevent them from seeking and accepting the help they need. We all go through difficult times and we all deserve support.

Your editorial undermines this message and reinforces toxic stereotypes that contribute to men feeling they must soldier on and never show a sign of weakness.
encourage you to reflect not only on the anger caused by your ill-informed words, but also the hurt. There are thousands of empowered women around New Zealand who have used their agency and education to work to support men from all walks of life to seek help and recover from challenges they face throughout their lives.

Among your readers will be countless women who live with the grief of suicide loss every day, who may have read your editorial and felt guilt or shame and perhaps wondered whether if they had just been a little less empowered and more dependent, their loved one might still be alive. This is a disgraceful message to send to these women. You owe each of them an apology.

Many people who have lost someone to suicide are left with questions that are difficult or impossible to answer. They seek desperately to understand why their loved one took their life and what could have prevented it. Contrary to your headline, your editorial shed no light on this issue for them but instead sought to place blame where none is warranted.

Additionally, you showed a marked lack of compassion toward women who live with depression, anxiety and other mental illnesses. Women experience almost twice the rates of psychological distress as men and are more than twice as likely to be hospitalised for intentional self-harm. The issue is not as black and white as you would have it appear. There are no winners here.

As an editor of a newspaper, you should know better. Journalists have an important role in shaping social attitudes to, and perceptions of, suicide. Your careless and dangerous words betrayed the trust your readers place in you as an editor and a leading voice in your community.

I acknowledge your editorial contained some valid and interesting remarks on the how the pressures men face can contribute to suicide. It’s a shame these were left unexplored.

There are a large number of organisations who would be willing to work with you to better understand the complexities of suicide and mental health in New Zealand, the Mental Health Foundation is among them. By talking to suicide prevention experts in your community or the Mental Health Foundation we could work together to support our shared goal of preventing suicide in New Zealand.

Sophia Graham is the communications and marketing manager at the Mental Health Foundation of New Zealand.

For information about preventing suicide, see mentalhealth.org.nz/suicideprevention

The same two years in the same country where you claimed males had rising substantially yet females rate had stayed the same actually showed Female suicides increased by 44 compared to the year before - a 30 per cent increase to 193. .


ie a child is twice as likely to attempt suicide if they are from a single parent family,
Also males raised in a broken homes to be three times as likely to have thought seriously about suicide as those whose parents had stayed together.
Us figures show About 40% of children who do not live with their biological father have not seen him during the past 12 months; more than half of them have never been in his home and 26% of those fathers live in a different state than their children.
Teenagers in single-parent families and in blended families are 300% more likely to need psychological help within any given year than teens from intact, nuclear families.
Then we have drug and alcohol use.
40% of patients seeking treatment for alcohol/substance use disorder report at least one suicide attempt at some point in their lives.
Acute alcohol intoxication is present in about 30–40% of suicide attempts and suicides.
Alcoholism is more than twice as common among men as women.
Typically, men are more likely to abuse illicit drugs and alcohol – 11.5% of males over 12 have a substance use disorder, compared to 6.4% of females.
While 95% of individuals with a mental illness and/or substance use disorder will not die by suicide, 90% of individuals who do die by suicide have either a mental or substance use disorder, or both
Between 40–60% of those who die by suicide are intoxicated at the time of those who death.
Studies conducted in substance abuse rehabilitation programs typically reported that 50–75% of clients had some type of co-occurring mental disorder.
Men are more likely to commit suicide than women. Researchers suggest that men suffering from depression are more likely to go unrecognized and untreated than women suffering from depression, in part because men may avoid seeking help (viewing it as a weakness). Men who are depressed are also more likely to have co-occurring alcohol and substance use disorders than women.
Women are more likely than men to attempt suicide.
Being a parent, particularly for mothers, appears to decrease the risk of suicide. Even pregnant women have a lower risk of suicide than women of childbearing age who are not pregnant.
75% of global suicides occur in low- and middle-income countries, so suicide is not a problem that occurs only in industrialized, wealthy nations as had often be previously suggested in the past.
Unemployment is associated with increased rates of suicide.
While i am sure you will fire back that radical feminism is the cause of divorce, given the reasons women cite vs men when seeking divorce this is clearly not the case.
For better or worse and love and cherish doesn't really include adultery or physical abuse or substance abuse.
Its not radical feminism fault that modern women expect to be not physically abused or not have your partner cheat or be a drunk or Drug user. Its common sense.


So here is an idea, maybe suicide is caused by vast number of social and economic and mental health and communication issues and have a lot to do with the victims environment that have nothing at all to do with your theories about radical feminism being the cause for the difference in Male and famale suicide rates.
Especially considering the undeniable fact more women attempt suicide than men.
No credible research has ever produced the link you claim, Which is why you have to attempt BS the NZ figures as Still dont support you theory even when you only cherry pick certain years data.

[Ocean1]

Oh noes! You should have stuck to copy and paste... because as soon as you says what you think it's fucking retarded... AGAIN!

Speaking of Jordan Peterson....

https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/food-wine/food-news/110691482/chocolate-maker-whittakers-faces-backlash-over-its-take-on-the-baby-gender-reveal

[Ocean1]

adds to ignore
But before he does

So you won't be seeing TDL's observation about you not ignoring shit any better than you actually comprehend it, then...

[husaberg]

So you won't be seeing TDL's observation about you not ignoring shit any better than you actually comprehend it, then...
I wont miss him talking in circles and being an epic hypocrite either.
I comphrehend TDL points better than you clearly do, the difference is i can see they are just baseless and built on a false and child like understanding of what actually occurs.
Whilst for the child its easy to blame others for your problems. Most adults don't do this.
Peterson wishes to profit of the pain and suffering rather than offering solutions, Some people are easier targets.
Look at your posts in the election thread for instance, You and TDL are all about unsubstantiated claims, but never produce any evidence to back them.
Funny enough also anything produced that shows you are wrong according to both of you should be ignored as being "propaganda"

[TheDemonLord]

So you won't be seeing TDL's observation about you not ignoring shit any better than you actually comprehend it, then...

It's funny - there's 3 people that I believe have got me on Ignore.

All, curiously, after I called them on their devotion to a certain left-wing Ideology or posted something heretical to said Ideology.

In all the years I've been here, Husa's never blocked Katman, yet (despite the many things Myself and Husa agree on), he's now blocked me.

One might conjecture that he doesn't block Katman, because most of what Katman posts is relatively easy to refute and argue against. I'm blocked because he can't refute and argue against it.

As an additional observation, he blocks me, but still attempts to 'win' the debate, by making points that he will never see the rebuttal of - which is the height of intellectual cowardice.

For the final point of hilarity - the claim that he understands the points better, yet he routinely misrepresented just about everything I said....

I guess Ignorance is truly bliss.

[Ocean1]

It's funny - there's 3 people that I believe have got me on Ignore.

All, curiously, after I called them on their devotion to a certain left-wing Ideology or posted something heretical to said Ideology.

In all the years I've been here, Husa's never blocked Katman, yet (despite the many things Myself and Husa agree on), he's now blocked me.

One might conjecture that he doesn't block Katman, because most of what Katman posts is relatively easy to refute and argue against. I'm blocked because he can't refute and argue against it.

As an additional observation, he blocks me, but still attempts to 'win' the debate, by making points that he will never see the rebuttal of - which is the height of intellectual cowardice.

For the final point of hilarity - the claim that he understands the points better, yet he routinely misrepresented just about everything I said....

I guess Ignorance is truly bliss.

I was going to just quote the bit most relevant to an observation; that I've never meet anyone who might benefit more from a close understanding of the 12 rules. Particularly *checks* 6,7,8,9 and 10 :laugh:

But I couldn't quite bring myself to ignore the opportunity to fuck up his ignore somewhat more completely than that, (metaphorical as I'm sure it is).

[Graystone]

If only, in previous posts, I'd first made the clarifications, then referenced them in subsequent posts when you summarily ignored them...

If only...



Sure, it is my subjective take, and I've given my reasons for it.

If you've got an issue with that - try arguing with some intellectual integrity.



You've stated what falls foul of your standard, from which we are allowed to infer certain things about it.

It's from that, which we find how your standard is curiously one sided.



You are not a 3rd party, neutral observer to your subjective opinion.

Do you see how above I acknowledged what was my subjective opinion, I laid out the reasons why I hold said opinion, but I never tried to paint it as anything else?

That's the intellectual integrity I'm talking about, which you are lacking.

All your clarifications do, is clarify that you should have answered no, instead of yes. So why did you answer yes? They have not been ignored at all, I'm not sure why you persist with this delusion.

No issue, since you have admitted it fits both narratives it renders any assumptions you make about which narrative is right, invalid.

Right, so you're going off half cocked about what I have 'stated' which was never actually stated.

Obviously not, nor have a claimed to be. So still not seeing the contradiction...

You accuse me of lacking intellectual integrity, yet what are you doing to show yours? Stacking assumptions and subjective opinion up so high you can't explain a simple yes vs no answer you made earlier, backing up claims of me 'blatantly' lying using inference and other bullshit... You're fucking pathetic dude, learn to own your mistakes, and maybe you won't be so lacking in both intelligence and integrity.

[TheDemonLord]

All your clarifications do, is clarify that you should have answered no, instead of yes. So why did you answer yes? They have not been ignored at all, I'm not sure why you persist with this delusion.

So, you acknowledge the clarifications, but continue to try and make a point as if they didn't exist. Who is truly the delusional one?


No issue, since you have admitted it fits both narratives it renders any assumptions you make about which narrative is right, invalid.

It's not an assumption, it's based on your actions. Since it's my interpretation, it's entirely valid.


Right, so you're going off half cocked about what I have 'stated' which was never actually stated.

Except you stated things that fall foul of your standard, from that it's quite easy to work backwards:

We can state the values that you gave for breaching the standard, and we can state that the inverse of those values must meet the standard.

Pretty simple stuff - I would have thought you could have worked that out...


Obviously not, nor have a claimed to be. So still not seeing the contradiction...

Clearly as that would require introspection and critical analysis...

It's very simple: You acknowledge you are not a neutral 3rd party observer - that means, your application of your own standard, with your own set of exceptions is done entirely at your own Whim.

Your waffle trying to assert it was not so is demonstrably false.

The contradiction lies between those 2 statements.

So which is it? The simple answer is that your standard is subject entirely to your own whims, and therefore my challenge of the exception to your standard and it's timeliness is entirely valid.

But you can't bring yourself to admit that, which is why you try and portray it as something objective, mandated by a higher power, over which you have no control.

I'll say it again: Pick one.


You accuse me of lacking intellectual integrity, yet what are you doing to show yours? Stacking assumptions and subjective opinion up so high you can't explain a simple yes vs no answer you made earlier, backing up claims of me 'blatantly' lying using inference and other bullshit... You're fucking pathetic dude, learn to own your mistakes, and maybe you won't be so lacking in both intelligence and integrity.

If everything you said were true, why have you been reduced to trying to make a semantics argument?

I've given the reasons why I've done what I did, the fact you don't like them, or more accurately; you are actively dismissing them to try and make a semantics point is not my concern.

The continued attempt at this line of argument, coupled with attempts to conflate a personal standard (which I'm dubious of, given how judicious you seem to be in applying the exceptions and your post-hoc justifications) with an objective standard only reinforces that this is due to an inability to argue the main point:

That the majority of people reject the Ideology of Social Justice (of which you are an adherent), the rejection is most pronounced when something that was previously successful drinks the kool-aid of Social Justice and ends up being a financial disaster.

Oh, and as proof of my integrity - see the parts above where I acknowledge what is my subjective opinion, you should try it sometime.

[Graystone]

So, you acknowledge the clarifications, but continue to try and make a point as if they didn't exist. Who is truly the delusional one?



It's not an assumption, it's based on your actions. Since it's my interpretation, it's entirely valid.



Except you stated things that fall foul of your standard, from that it's quite easy to work backwards:

We can state the values that you gave for breaching the standard, and we can state that the inverse of those values must meet the standard.

Pretty simple stuff - I would have thought you could have worked that out...



Clearly as that would require introspection and critical analysis...

It's very simple: You acknowledge you are not a neutral 3rd party observer - that means, your application of your own standard, with your own set of exceptions is done entirely at your own Whim.

Your waffle trying to assert it was not so is demonstrably false.

The contradiction lies between those 2 statements.

So which is it? The simple answer is that your standard is subject entirely to your own whims, and therefore my challenge of the exception to your standard and it's timeliness is entirely valid.

But you can't bring yourself to admit that, which is why you try and portray it as something objective, mandated by a higher power, over which you have no control.

I'll say it again: Pick one.



If everything you said were true, why have you been reduced to trying to make a semantics argument?

I've given the reasons why I've done what I did, the fact you don't like them, or more accurately; you are actively dismissing them to try and make a semantics point is not my concern.

The continued attempt at this line of argument, coupled with attempts to conflate a personal standard (which I'm dubious of, given how judicious you seem to be in applying the exceptions and your post-hoc justifications) with an objective standard only reinforces that this is due to an inability to argue the main point:

The the majority of people reject the Ideology of Social Justice (of which you are an adherent), the rejection is most pronounced when something that was previously successful drinks the kool-aid of Social Justice and ends up being a financial disaster.

Oh, and as proof of my integrity - see the parts above where I acknowledge what is my subjective opinion, you should try it sometime.

The point I am making, is that they do exist, and in light of them, you should not have said yes, to add an additional accusation that did not fit with them. How is that ignoring them?

Invalid to any constructive debate, subjective opinion counts for fuck all, remember.

:laugh: right, and just forget or ignore all the other bits of it? Out of curiosity, which statement are you taking the inverse of? Has that been stated, or are you inferring shit there too?

Nope, that is not what whim means, my application of it is justified by the explanation of the exception. You have admitted your subjectivity in your assertion that the exception was not present all along so that is not something you can claim was added at a whim. I've not portrayed it as mandated by a higher power; can you just stop making shit up?

The difference between yes and no is not merely one of semantics... Rather than admit you were wrong, you have reduced it to an argument about tangential details with little bearing on the point at hand. Where exactly do you think I have overstated my opinion as anything more than that? And if simply recognizing opinion is your benchmark for intelligence and integrity, it just goes to prove my point that you have neither :lol:

[TheDemonLord]

The point I am making, is that they do exist, and in light of them, you should not have said yes, to add an additional accusation that did not fit with them. How is that ignoring them?

I didn't add an additional accusation...
You did...


Invalid to any constructive debate, subjective opinion counts for fuck all, remember.

Not when it pertains to what my opinion is/was.


:laugh: right, and just forget or ignore all the other bits of it? Out of curiosity, which statement are you taking the inverse of? Has that been stated, or are you inferring shit there too?

Oh, the Irony considering what started this particular line.

In case your memory is a little vague, you made a number of attributed quotes to me. I denied them and challenged you to post up the quotation - this was the response (as an aside - remember the whole 'integrity' thing - this is how it works, I make statements about you, you challenge me, I post them up, whereas you make statements about me, I challenge you, you start coming up with excuses):


why should I back up what I say about you,

I called you a hypocrite on this (see also, why I don't grant any good faith to you)

You then stated that I lie and obfuscate - that's the part we can infer your standards.

The irony is, I'm meeting your standards, yet you continually fail to meet them yourself.


Nope, that is not what whim means, my application of it is justified by the explanation of the exception.

Still applied by you, at your own whim.


You have admitted your subjectivity in your assertion that the exception was not present all along so that is not something you can claim was added at a whim.

You're conflating two things.

What has happened is clearly a post-hoc justification. You made a statement, you got called out on it, then you provided an exception as a get-out-of-jail card.

My Subjectivity is to decline to ascribe good faith to that justification, when taken in the full context of the various dishonest methods (such as the above conflation) you have employed.

Perhaps if you didn't repeatedly do things like that, I'd be a little more generous.


I've not portrayed it as mandated by a higher power; can you just stop making shit up?

So, you agree it's applied by you, at your own whim.

You cannot have it both ways, which is what you are continually trying to do. You've tried to claim it as objective, whilst acknowledging it is subjective.


The difference between yes and no is not merely one of semantics... Rather than admit you were wrong, you have reduced it to an argument about tangential details with little bearing on the point at hand.

Who was the first person to disregard the content of the prior post, in order to make a Semantics argument about tangential details?

Wasn't me...


Where exactly do you think I have overstated my opinion as anything more than that?

See above - the whole 'My subjective standard is objective' part.


And if simply recognizing opinion is your benchmark for intelligence and integrity, it just goes to prove my point that you have neither :lol:

Not quite, recognizing opinion isn't the benchmark for intelligence and Integrity.

But deliberately failing to recognize opinion is certainly a benchmark for the opposite.

[oldrider]

Latest "social engineering" redundancy? :- https://twitter.com/HenryMakow/status/1098060351650873344/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Eembeddedtimeline% 7Ctwterm%5Eprofile%3AHenryMakow&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.henrymakow.com%2F - :bye: PMS. - Hello Unisex - genderless world? :facepalm:

[mashman]

The Government's ban on oil and gas exploration could cost up to $30b by 2050, NZIER say (https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12205320)... cue pink floyd money..........

[Graystone]

I didn't add an additional accusation...
You did...



Not when it pertains to what my opinion is/was.



Oh, the Irony considering what started this particular line.

In case your memory is a little vague, you made a number of attributed quotes to me. I denied them and challenged you to post up the quotation - this was the response (as an aside - remember the whole 'integrity' thing - this is how it works, I make statements about you, you challenge me, I post them up, whereas you make statements about me, I challenge you, you start coming up with excuses):



I called you a hypocrite on this (see also, why I don't grant any good faith to you)

You then stated that I lie and obfuscate - that's the part we can infer your standards.

The irony is, I'm meeting your standards, yet you continually fail to meet them yourself.



Still applied by you, at your own whim.



You're conflating two things.

What has happened is clearly a post-hoc justification. You made a statement, you got called out on it, then you provided an exception as a get-out-of-jail card.

My Subjectivity is to decline to ascribe good faith to that justification, when taken in the full context of the various dishonest methods (such as the above conflation) you have employed.

Perhaps if you didn't repeatedly do things like that, I'd be a little more generous.



So, you agree it's applied by you, at your own whim.

You cannot have it both ways, which is what you are continually trying to do. You've tried to claim it as objective, whilst acknowledging it is subjective.



Who was the first person to disregard the content of the prior post, in order to make a Semantics argument about tangential details?

Wasn't me...



See above - the whole 'My subjective standard is objective' part.



Not quite, recognizing opinion isn't the benchmark for intelligence and Integrity.

But deliberately failing to recognize opinion is certainly a benchmark for the opposite.

Do I need to post the quote and context again? You said an accusation you made against someone else also applied to me, which is adding one.

Can't see that I ever asked or cared what your opinion was...

Read up on what the word 'whim' means. For it to be an exception added on a whim, you would need to assert that it was not already there before I was 'challenged' on it; but you already admitted that was a subjective opinion so you can make no such assertion. I have not claimed my application of it is objective. If you could stop making shit up that would be great.

Also, try bringing the context through when you quote, you're asking me to bring in posts after, and more than two before, in the interests of context when I quote you, yet you clip part of the sentence out? :killingme: You're just determined to show how unintelligent and unprincipled you are :laugh:

[TheDemonLord]

Do I need to post the quote and context again? You said an accusation you made against someone else also applied to me, which is adding one.

If only I'd clarified it, with the context you are, again, ignoring.

I'll simply repeat: You added the accusation. Not me.


Can't see that I ever asked or cared what your opinion was...

And yet, you keep replying, so clearly - you DO care.


Read up on what the word 'whim' means. For it to be an exception added on a whim, you would need to assert that it was not already there before I was 'challenged' on it; but you already admitted that was a subjective opinion so you can make no such assertion. I have not claimed my application of it is objective. If you could stop making shit up that would be great.

Right.

You demand that I provide you with specific quotations to back up what I say about you (which I have repeatedly provided), then when I call you out on making shit up, You decline.

I call you a hypocrite (which, at this point, is demonstrably true, so not subjective opinion), you then start backpedaling (as you say) and referencing some mythical standard - I point out that you hold others to it, but curiously not yourself. And again refer to you as a Hypocrite.

Again, this is not a subjective matter. It's there in the written record.

Your excuse for this objective hypocrisy is a post-hoc explanation that you have exceptions, those exceptions (as you articulated them) are applied entirely at your discretion.

Then after that we get your continuing confusion by trying to play this as both Objectively applied and as Subjectively.

The only Subjective part on my behalf is where I say that based on the Objective hypocrisy, I'm not inclined to attribute any good faith subsequently.

But keep on conflating things, it makes for greater amusement when you try to claim I'm the one making shit up. *cough* Sargons Law *cough*

However, because I am a charitable sort of chap - there's a really easy way we could solve this: You could either post up the citations for the 2-3 baseless accusations you made against me, or you could retract them and admit you were making shit up.

I'd wager however, that neither will be forthcoming.


Also, try bringing the context through when you quote, you're asking me to bring in posts after, and more than two before, in the interests of context when I quote you, yet you clip part of the sentence out? :killingme:

Funny, because it's still more than you've ever done...

Doubly funny when you've repeatedly been shown to ignore context yourself... *Also Sargons Law*

As for the posts - if it's all too much for you to follow references to what you've said previously, then that's fine - just admit the complexities of this debate are beyond you...

To finally address your actual critique - I cited the most relevant part: Namely your refusal to adhere to the standard you repeatedly set for others. If you are so aggrieved at this, then perhaps you should think a little more carefully about your actions and words.


You're just determined to show how unintelligent and unprincipled you are :laugh:

You'd have a leg to stand on if I didn't provide you with the quotations as and when you asked for them
You'd further have a leg to stand on if you'd provided the quotations as and when you were asked for them.

The problem for you is, the opposite has occurred - and with that, It's a Sargonian Hat-trick.

[oldrider]

The Government's ban on oil and gas exploration could cost up to $30b by 2050, NZIER say (https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12205320)... cue pink floyd money..........

Alas Mashy - :rolleyes: - just another thread choked up with their endless ("exchange"?) diatribe. :lol:

[Graystone]

If only I'd clarified it, with the context you are, again, ignoring.

I'll simply repeat: You added the accusation. Not me.



And yet, you keep replying, so clearly - you DO care.



Right.

You demand that I provide you with specific quotations to back up what I say about you (which I have repeatedly provided), then when I call you out on making shit up, You decline.

I call you a hypocrite (which, at this point, is demonstrably true, so not subjective opinion), you then start backpedaling (as you say) and referencing some mythical standard - I point out that you hold others to it, but curiously not yourself. And again refer to you as a Hypocrite.

Again, this is not a subjective matter. It's there in the written record.

Your excuse for this objective hypocrisy is a post-hoc explanation that you have exceptions, those exceptions (as you articulated them) are applied entirely at your discretion.

Then after that we get your continuing confusion by trying to play this as both Objectively applied and as Subjectively.

The only Subjective part on my behalf is where I say that based on the Objective hypocrisy, I'm not inclined to attribute any good faith subsequently.

But keep on conflating things, it makes for greater amusement when you try to claim I'm the one making shit up. *cough* Sargons Law *cough*

However, because I am a charitable sort of chap - there's a really easy way we could solve this: You could either post up the citations for the 2-3 baseless accusations you made against me, or you could retract them and admit you were making shit up.

I'd wager however, that neither will be forthcoming.



Funny, because it's still more than you've ever done...

Doubly funny when you've repeatedly been shown to ignore context yourself... *Also Sargons Law*

As for the posts - if it's all too much for you to follow references to what you've said previously, then that's fine - just admit the complexities of this debate are beyond you...

To finally address your actual critique - I cited the most relevant part: Namely your refusal to adhere to the standard you repeatedly set for others. If you are so aggrieved at this, then perhaps you should think a little more carefully about your actions and words.



You'd have a leg to stand on if I didn't provide you with the quotations as and when you asked for them
You'd further have a leg to stand on if you'd provided the quotations as and when you were asked for them.

The problem for you is, the opposite has occurred - and with that, It's a Sargonian Hat-trick.

You missed a bit, you said I'm wrong then pointed elsewhere, but didn't explain any reasoning as to how the elsewhere made me wrong. So what exactly did you say yes to? if it wasn't to confirm your accusation against another also applied to me?

Not about your opinion, it vaguely amuses me to watch your delusions is why I keep replying.

You have not already provided those. Where in the written record is it? I am posting citations for the first point of contention, as I've explained, if you cannot demonstrate some intelligence and integrity, why should I move on to another?

You cited a part which changed the meaning due to the absence of the rest of the post.

I've asked you for them in this post, and in the post before, you have not supplied them. Just how delusional are you? Or does 'as and when' mean something different to you?

[Graystone]

Alas Mashy - :rolleyes: - just another thread choked up with their endless ("exchange"?) diatribe. :lol:

Oh I'm sorry, is this thread for your diatribe only? Aren't you clogging up enough other threads with your endless bigotry already? sharing is caring dude, now fuck off :laugh:

[mashman]

Alas Mashy - :rolleyes: - just another thread choked up with their endless ("exchange"?) diatribe. :lol:

ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaa... at least it isn't my fault ;)

[buggerit]

Oh I'm sorry, is this thread for your diatribe only? Aren't you clogging up enough other threads with your endless bigotry already? sharing is caring dude, now fuck off :laugh:

Well could you recommend a good heamorrhoid creme?:doctor:

[Katman]

So what exactly did you say yes to? if it wasn't to confirm your accusation against another also applied to me?

Dude, you don't even remember what you're arguing about.

TDL didn't level any accusation at me - he asked me if he'd ever being guilty of calling for someone to be censored.

[oldrider]

Oh I'm sorry, is this thread for your diatribe only? Aren't you clogging up enough other threads with your endless bigotry already? sharing is caring dude, now fuck off :laugh:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1098607565699731458 - :mellow:

<iframe width="280" height="158" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7HK-Oblu-CY" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[TheDemonLord]

You missed a bit, you said I'm wrong then pointed elsewhere, but didn't explain any reasoning as to how the elsewhere made me wrong. So what exactly did you say yes to? if it wasn't to confirm your accusation against another also applied to me?

See Katmans post. You've argued against yourself to the point where you can't tell what's real and what's your imagination.


Not about your opinion, it vaguely amuses me to watch your delusions is why I keep replying.

See Above.


You have not already provided those. Where in the written record is it? I am posting citations for the first point of contention, as I've explained, if you cannot demonstrate some intelligence and integrity, why should I move on to another?

Well, for a start - you've made a statement about someone else, regardless of anything else, you should be able to back that up with a citation.

But more importantly, You're perfectly happy to demand citations from Me (who, doesn't meet your standard, remember?), yet when you, yourself, are challenged to produce a Citation - nothing is forthcoming - surely you meet your own standard yes?

However, I think the approach here is to simply restate:

"You could either post up the citations for the 2-3 baseless accusations you made against me, or you could retract them and admit you were making shit up.

I'd wager however, that neither will be forthcoming."

Thanks for proving me right.


You cited a part which changed the meaning due to the absence of the rest of the post.

Well, here's the full quote:


Because this is exactly the point, why should I back up what I say about you, when you just lie and obfuscate instead of conceding a point that you are so clearly wrong on. What good does proving I'm not lying, when you are too irrational and illogical to even recognize what honesty is?

The relevant part is "Why should I back up what I say about you" (You know, the bit I quoted) - Doesn't matter if I lie or Obfuscate or anything else - the principal of the matter is you should always be able to back up what you say about someone else.

End of.

Here's the Rub, we both know why you've pissed and moaned about this: Because you stated something you know you can't back up, you refuse to retract (because you think that will somehow save face), and so your only option is this gordian knot of self-contradictory 'logic' in a piss poor attempt to avoid the point.


I've asked you for them in this post, and in the post before, you have not supplied them. Just how delusional are you? Or does 'as and when' mean something different to you?

Which is it? Did I cite something (as you agree I did) or did I not? Seems you are getting confused (again)

[Graystone]

See Katmans post. You've argued against yourself to the point where you can't tell what's real and what's your imagination.



See Above.



Well, for a start - you've made a statement about someone else, regardless of anything else, you should be able to back that up with a citation.

But more importantly, You're perfectly happy to demand citations from Me (who, doesn't meet your standard, remember?), yet when you, yourself, are challenged to produce a Citation - nothing is forthcoming - surely you meet your own standard yes?

However, I think the approach here is to simply restate:

"You could either post up the citations for the 2-3 baseless accusations you made against me, or you could retract them and admit you were making shit up.

I'd wager however, that neither will be forthcoming."

Thanks for proving me right.



Well, here's the full quote:



The relevant part is "Why should I back up what I say about you" (You know, the bit I quoted) - Doesn't matter if I lie or Obfuscate or anything else - the principal of the matter is you should always be able to back up what you say about someone else.

End of.

Here's the Rub, we both know why you've pissed and moaned about this: Because you stated something you know you can't back up, you refuse to retract (because you think that will somehow save face), and so your only option is this gordian knot of self-contradictory 'logic' in a piss poor attempt to avoid the point.



Which is it? Did I cite something (as you agree I did) or did I not? Seems you are getting confused (again)

I don't follow the conversations you have with others. Nor do I think the meaning of what we are discussing will be greatly changed by such a clarification; but as always, you should make it and back yourself up right? instead of point elsewhere and saying it proves you right...
You said I'm wrong then pointed elsewhere, but didn't explain any reasoning as to how the elsewhere made me wrong. So what exactly did you say yes to? if it wasn't to confirm your accusatory question against another applied to me in the affirmative?

I am demanding citations from you on the first point, so that you do not gish gallop from one to another like usual.

So given that 'end of', why will you not back up your point that we are discussing above? why will you not provide reasoning to rationalise why you answered yes to a simple question? I've been clear about my reasons for not answering all of your requests for being able to back myself up; yet you demonstrate massive hypocrisy by demanding I do so, yet refusing to back yourself up with no justification at all...

[layton]

Alright, time to kiss and make up..

Does anybody even know what they are arguing about anymore ?

Does everyone feel better and have it out of there system?

Great, lets move on?

[Graystone]

Alright, time to kiss and make up..

Does anybody even know what they are arguing about anymore ?

Does everyone feel better and have it out of there system?

Great, lets move on?

Just put us on ignore like everyone else... :shrug:

[TheDemonLord]

I don't follow the conversations you have with others. Nor do I think the meaning of what we are discussing will be greatly changed by such a clarification; but as always, you should make it and back yourself up right? instead of point elsewhere and saying it proves you right...

Clearly, you do, since the original comment that started this, wasn't addressed to you or regarding you.


You said I'm wrong then pointed elsewhere, but didn't explain any reasoning as to how the elsewhere made me wrong. So what exactly did you say yes to? if it wasn't to confirm your accusatory question against another applied to me in the affirmative?

I've given you the context, you keep ignoring it. This is an Impasse. As Katman rightfully pointed out, the accusatory question wasn't against another, it was Rhetorical.

My pointing elsewhere is simply pointing at objective reality, which you keep refusing.


I am demanding citations from you on the first point, so that you do not gish gallop from one to another like usual.

I've given you quotes for all that you've demanded of me.
You've given me zero quotes for all that I've demanded of you.

So, stop using words like 'Gish Gallop' (which this clearly is not), and how about you either:

A: Retract the blatant fabrications (which, given I believe you know them to be false, I refer to as 'lies') you've made.
B: Post up something resembling a Citation.

Given that we both know that neither will happen, I'm entirely justified in calling you a liar on this.


So given that 'end of', why will you not back up your point that we are discussing above? why will you not provide reasoning to rationalise why you answered yes to a simple question?

I have done so. You just don't like it. There's the difference.
I've provided you the quotes both before and after that show what the correct context is, you refuse to accept them.
Your refusal is not my burden of proof.
Your moving of the goalposts is also not my burden of proof.


I've been clear about my reasons for not answering all of your requests for being able to back myself up; yet you demonstrate massive hypocrisy by demanding I do so, yet refusing to back yourself up with no justification at all...

See above. your 'reasoning' is you got caught spewing Bullshit that you can't back up and are trying to weasel your way out of it.

Irregardless of whatever I have or have not done (in your opinion) there is still a burden of proof hanging over your head for your own integrity, not mine to back up what you've said.

A Burden, which if you had any integrity, you'd meet or issue a retraction.

But as I've said (and you keep proving me right on this):

I'd wager however, that neither will be forthcoming.

[Graystone]

Clearly, you do, since the original comment that started this, wasn't addressed to you or regarding you.



I've given you the context, you keep ignoring it. This is an Impasse. As Katman rightfully pointed out, the accusatory question wasn't against another, it was Rhetorical.

My pointing elsewhere is simply pointing at objective reality, which you keep refusing.



I've given you quotes for all that you've demanded of me.
You've given me zero quotes for all that I've demanded of you.

So, stop using words like 'Gish Gallop' (which this clearly is not), and how about you either:

A: Retract the blatant fabrications (which, given I believe you know them to be false, I refer to as 'lies') you've made.
B: Post up something resembling a Citation.

Given that we both know that neither will happen, I'm entirely justified in calling you a liar on this.



I have done so. You just don't like it. There's the difference.
I've provided you the quotes both before and after that show what the correct context is, you refuse to accept them.
Your refusal is not my burden of proof.
Your moving of the goalposts is also not my burden of proof.



See above. your 'reasoning' is you got caught spewing Bullshit that you can't back up and are trying to weasel your way out of it.

Irregardless of whatever I have or have not done (in your opinion) there is still a burden of proof hanging over your head for your own integrity, not mine to back up what you've said.

A Burden, which if you had any integrity, you'd meet or issue a retraction.

But as I've said (and you keep proving me right on this):

I'd wager however, that neither will be forthcoming.

Reading a post is not the same as following a conversation.

So, why don't you back yourself up and explain what the 'yes' you responded to my question meant? Pointing at 'context' and not linking it to the post in question is not backing yourself up.

Clearly you are now applying a subjective exception to the rule of always backing yourself up. If you had backed yourself up, you could simply repost what that was, and deal with any additional questions, as I have been doing for many pages now on this first point. It's lack, goes to show your massive hypocrisy.

[TheDemonLord]

Reading a post is not the same as following a conversation.

Flip Flop.


So, why don't you back yourself up and explain what the 'yes' you responded to my question meant? Pointing at 'context' and not linking it to the post in question is not backing yourself up.

Pointing at the Context and giving the prior and subsequent quotes is backing myself up. You are refusing to accept it.

As I said - Your refusal is not my burden of proof, nor is your shifting of the goal posts.


Clearly you are now applying a subjective exception to the rule of always backing yourself up. If you had backed yourself up, you could simply repost what that was, and deal with any additional questions, as I have been doing for many pages now on this first point. It's lack, goes to show your massive hypocrisy.

Except I HAVE Backed myself up, you even acknowledge in previous statements I have pointed to specific quotes.

which is still, more than you've done.

Your quibble is that you don't like what I've pointed to. I'll restate - your refusal is not my burden of proof, nor is your shifting of the goal posts.

Now, you refuse my demands to prove your lies against me (because we both know that they are baseless and you don't have the balls to retract them), yet you demand I supply more proof to satisfy your ever-shifting goalposts. And you wonder why I might not be obliging?

All we have here is that you've been caught lying, you tried to hide behind your 'Standards' - Standards which curiously only apply to me (and only when you need them to apply to me) and don't apply to yourself (that would be Hypocrisy). Not to mention all the other crap you've tried to pull in this thread.

[Graystone]

Flip Flop.



Pointing at the Context and giving the prior and subsequent quotes is backing myself up. You are refusing to accept it.

As I said - Your refusal is not my burden of proof, nor is your shifting of the goal posts.



Except I HAVE Backed myself up, you even acknowledge in previous statements I have pointed to specific quotes.

which is still, more than you've done.

Your quibble is that you don't like what I've pointed to. I'll restate - your refusal is not my burden of proof, nor is your shifting of the goal posts.

Now, you refuse my demands to prove your lies against me (because we both know that they are baseless and you don't have the balls to retract them), yet you demand I supply more proof to satisfy your ever-shifting goalposts. And you wonder why I might not be obliging?

All we have here is that you've been caught lying, you tried to hide behind your 'Standards' - Standards which curiously only apply to me (and only when you need them to apply to me) and don't apply to yourself (that would be Hypocrisy). Not to mention all the other crap you've tried to pull in this thread.

I disagree, you have failed to relate the context, to the three posts dealing with a specific question. You have failed to explain why you answered 'yes'. You keep claiming you have provided this link, so where is it? Why do you refuse to back up that claim?

I have backed up my assertions on this first point; you should do the same, otherwise you continue to show your hypocrisy. Your notion that you only need to back yourself up to a level you deem acceptable creates a subjective exception to the rule of always backing yourself up; your further behavior of not providing that (through reiteration) despite claiming it has been covered, only doubles down on that hypocrisy.

[Katman]

You have failed to explain why you answered 'yes'. You keep claiming you have provided this link, so where is it?

It might have something to do with the unsuppressed joy you exhibit when someone you disagree with is censored.

To me, that's much the same as calling for the censoring yourself.

[Graystone]

It might have something to do with the unsuppressed joy you exhibit when someone you disagree with is censored.

To me, that's much the same as calling for the censoring yourself.

Yet that's not the reason, and that's not the same thing.

But keep trying to help ToDoLists out, he needs it, and that you're helping could give him perspective on just how wrong he is :laugh:

[husaberg]

It might have something to do with the unsuppressed joy you exhibit when someone you disagree with is censored.

To me, that's much the same as calling for the censoring yourself.

Banning people for breaking site rules is okay
First amendment style Free speech rights doesn't apply to privately owned organisations like twitter youtube facebook Kiwibiker etc either.
So who has been censored other than you anyway?

[Viking01]

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/2188333/donald-trump-asks-beijing-immediately-end-tariffs-us-farm

It amazed me somewhat when I read the above article today.

Given the background of Donald :

- Having started the US - China trade war, and crowing that he was all
in favour of a tariff based trade war ;
- Having levied US tariffs against a much higher value of goods than
the Chinese did in return ( $ 253 billion to date, with $ 267 billion
threatened - vs $ 130 billion by the Chinese in response) ;
- Having set an arbitrary date of March 1 2019 for the $ 267 billion
tranche of exports to have new tariff rates kick in (10% to 25%) ;

Donald now wants the Chinese to remove their current tariffs as some
"gesture of goodwill". What ?

All because negotiations happen to have proceeded longer than his
March 1st deadline, and that he has chosen not to change the tariff
rate (for the $ 267 billion tranche) at this point in time.

Did Donald think that it was "worth a go" (at this particular point in
trade negotiations) ?


Never mind that this "trade war" was always less about trade (US -
China current account trade imbalance), and much more about :

- Made in China 2025 initiative (including 5G and AI) ;
- Alleged cyber theft ;
- Individual companies granting IP to the Chinese as part of an agreement
to manufacture in China ;
- The restricting of Chinese access to "sensitive technologies" and halting
purchase of (or investment in) US technology companies by the Chinese ;
- Gaining increased access to (and control of) companies within the Chinese
service sectors (such as banking and insurance)

While in the meantime, the US has been taking side-action such as :

- Triggering arrest of the Huawei CFO in Canada (with potential extradition
to the US) ;
- Telling the Chinese that they must take action to stop the decline of the
Yuan : USD exchange rate.


Maybe the Chinese will surprise me, but I struggle hard to think of any good
reason why the Chinese would seriously consider accommodating his request.

[TheDemonLord]

I disagree,

Of course you do...

you have failed to relate the context, to the three posts dealing with a specific question. You have failed to explain why you answered 'yes'. You keep claiming you have provided this link, so where is it? Why do you refuse to back up that claim?

As I've said, the Yes, was in relation to the only accusation I made against you. The three posts were to show:

1: The Accusation that was made.
2: The posts, made by you, that prove the Accusation was true.
3: The clarification of the context (which you are hellbent on ignoring)


I have backed up my assertions on this first point; you should do the same,

No, you haven't. And as above, you've confirmed I've provided 3 posts. So stop this dishonest "You haven't provided proof" when clearly and by your own admission I have.


Your notion that you only need to back yourself up to a level you deem acceptable creates a subjective exception to the rule of always backing yourself up; your further behavior of not providing that (through reiteration) despite claiming it has been covered, only doubles down on that hypocrisy.

What a perfect description of exactly what you did with your whole 'Waaaaah I have Standards'

I'll simply repeat - retract the lies or post up a citation.

But we both know you won't.

[TheDemonLord]

Yet that's not the reason, and that's not the same thing.

But keep trying to help ToDoLists out, he needs it, and that you're helping could give him perspective on just how wrong he is :laugh:

What's that?

A Guilt by association Fallacy?

Colour me surprised...

[Graystone]

Of course you do...


As I've said, the Yes, was in relation to the only accusation I made against you. The three posts were to show:

1: The Accusation that was made.
2: The posts, made by you, that prove the Accusation was true.
3: The clarification of the context (which you are hellbent on ignoring)



No, you haven't. And as above, you've confirmed I've provided 3 posts. So stop this dishonest "You haven't provided proof" when clearly and by your own admission I have.



What a perfect description of exactly what you did with your whole 'Waaaaah I have Standards'

I'll simply repeat - retract the lies or post up a citation.

But we both know you won't.

So it wasn't in response to the question I asked? the same question you quoted immediately before that answer.

The three posts were what I provided to show the context (I'll reiterate them below); I'm unsure to what three posts you refer to.

"Have I ever called for the censuring of you or any member who posts anti-vax material? Have I ever asked the Mods to delete posts or restrict your freedoms in anyway?"
"Have I done the same for the causes as above?"
"yes"

They'll keep.

[oldrider]

If this was happening anywhere else in the world - would there not be outrage? - https://twitter.com/i/status/1101949005536415744 - :scratch: - Why?

[husaberg]

If this was happening anywhere else in the world - would there not be outrage? - https://twitter.com/i/status/1101949005536415744 - :scratch: - Why?

I dont recall you being outraged at these UN findings
https://nypost.com/2015/05/02/un-report-outlines-how-hamas-used-kids-as-human-shields/
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/06/world/middleeast/syria-russia-un-war-crimes.html
https://www.france24.com/en/20180306-syria-russia-usa-air-strikes-wreaked-massive-civilian-toll-un-says-ghouta-chemical
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/un-rights-report-evidence-of-war-crimes-by-israel-and-hamas-over-gaza/2015/06/22/b80e4cc1-2da3-470b-846f-d2de85db20cc_story.html?utm_term=.3a04c88a900b
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/23/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-report.html
Quite the opposite

[TheDemonLord]

So it wasn't in response to the question I asked? the same question you quoted immediately before that answer.

The three posts were what I provided to show the context (I'll reiterate them below); I'm unsure to what three posts you refer to.

"Have I ever called for the censuring of you or any member who posts anti-vax material? Have I ever asked the Mods to delete posts or restrict your freedoms in anyway?"
"Have I done the same for the causes as above?"
"yes"

They'll keep.

The three posts that you agree I quoted.

I'll simply repeat - you've been given the correct Context - that you continue to ignore it it your problem, not mine. I've fulfilled my Burden of Proof, anything else is not my concern.

My only concern at this point is demonstrating that you:

A: Made knowingly False statements about me (AKA Lying)
B: Refused to retract them when confronted and
C: Hypocritically demand proof from others, whilst coming up with ways to excuse yourself from having to do the same when confronted in the above statement.

Not to mention the myriad of other bullshit you've pulled in your repeated avoidance. An avoidance which serves to highlight and prove the fact that you've been caught lying, acting like a hypocrite and demonstrating zero integrity.

[Graystone]

The three posts that you agree I quoted.

I'll simply repeat - you've been given the correct Context - that you continue to ignore it it your problem, not mine. I've fulfilled my Burden of Proof, anything else is not my concern.

My only concern at this point is demonstrating that you:

A: Made knowingly False statements about me (AKA Lying)
B: Refused to retract them when confronted and
C: Hypocritically demand proof from others, whilst coming up with ways to excuse yourself from having to do the same when confronted in the above statement.

Not to mention the myriad of other bullshit you've pulled in your repeated avoidance. An avoidance which serves to highlight and prove the fact that you've been caught lying, acting like a hypocrite and demonstrating zero integrity.

Backing yourself up requires discussion, I keep asking what your 'yes' was in reply to, because it does not fit with the immediate context, you act as if other context somehow trumps this and changes what you were replying to, but offer only evasion when confronted by this point. That is why backing yourself up only to a subjective 'burden of proof' is an exception that makes you a hypocrite.

Which three posts?

As I've explained, they'll keep until you can demonstrate some intelligence and integrity on this first point.

[mashman]

U.S./China stuff...

James Wolfensohn, former president of The World Bank. He talks of the known production shift to the East and the likely outcomes, among other things, but a good talk that makes the tariff stuff look like nothing more than the accompanying theater.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6a0zhc1y_Ns

[oldrider]

I dont recall you being outraged at these UN findings - Quite the opposite

Really - seems English is not your first language - the post was a question?

Well many were outraged by this abomination but it still went virtually unnoticed by the MSM:- https://twitter.com/Muhammad_imrran/status/1102189689107210240 :sick:

[husaberg]

Really - seems English is not your first language - the post was a question?

Well many were outraged by this abomination but it still went virtually unnoticed by the MSM:- https://twitter.com/Muhammad_imrran/status/1102189689107210240 :sick:

It wasnt a question it was a simple statement of fact. Did you see a question mark? What is in question is that your level of outrage has nothing to do with the acts involved but everything to do with the alleged perpetrators.
The UN clearly pointed out on multiple occasions. Hamas uses children as human shields, stores munitions and fires rockets from schools, You are of course not outraged by that though, until those same children then die in the crossfire.
You are not interested war war crimes when they are committed by Russia Syria or Hamas.
There is only one thing you are interested in, its the sole reason you post on KB these days and thats to spread more of your anti Jewish propaganda.

https://nypost.com/2015/05/02/un-report-outlines-how-hamas-used-kids-as-human-shields/
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/06/world/middleeast/syria-russia-un-war-crimes.html
https://www.france24.com/en/20180306-syria-russia-usa-air-strikes-wreaked-massive-civilian-toll-un-says-ghouta-chemical
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/un-rights-report-evidence-of-war-crimes-by-israel-and-hamas-over-gaza/2015/06/22/b80e4cc1-2da3-470b-846f-d2de85db20cc_story.html?utm_term=.3a04c88a900b
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/23/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-report.html

[oldrider]

As an avid defender you will be very familiar with the where and why of this topic then:- https://twitter.com/HenryMakow/status/1102212485816426503?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5 Eembeddedtimeline%7Ctwterm%5Eprofile%3AHenryMakow% 7Ctwcon%5Etimelinechrome&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.henrymakow.com%2F

<iframe width="558" height="314" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fvvknCDrX94" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[husaberg]

As an avid defender you will be very familiar with the where and why of this topic then:- [
Avid defender of what asking you to justify your propaganda.
The UN clearly spelled out the why of what happens in the Middle east with Hamas and Israel already.
You just refuse to acknowledge what happens when humans are used as shields and school and hospitals are used to store and send missiles from.
As well as stead fastly refusing to condem any other country other than the USA and Israel for anything.
https://nypost.com/2015/05/02/un-report-outlines-how-hamas-used-kids-as-human-shields/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/un-rights-report-evidence-of-war-crimes-by-israel-and-hamas-over-gaza/2015/06/22/b80e4cc1-2da3-470b-846f-d2de85db20cc_story.html?utm_term=.3a04c88a900b
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/23/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-report.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/06/world/middleeast/syria-russia-un-war-crimes.html
https://www.france24.com/en/20180306-syria-russia-usa-air-strikes-wreaked-massive-civilian-toll-un-says-ghouta-chemical

[TheDemonLord]

Backing yourself up requires discussion, I keep asking what your 'yes' was in reply to, because it does not fit with the immediate context,

And I've told you. The Accusation I made against you.

It may not fit the immediate context, but it does fit the context of what I said, in relation to you and have repeatedly referred to.

The fact that you ignore this is your problem, not mine.


you act as if other context somehow trumps this and changes what you were replying to,

It does. I've made it clear what the correct interpretation is - by referring to statements prior and statements subsequently. You are simply hellbent on ignoring this.


but offer only evasion when confronted by this point.

Except for the whole posting of quotes, explaining the context, referencing what I've said.

Unlike you, who when confronted with a point, go off on a tangent about Standards and how they only apply when you want them to.


That is why backing yourself up only to a subjective 'burden of proof' is an exception that makes you a hypocrite.

No, it doesn't.

You can disagree with the evidence presented (which you are doing), but you cannot deny that it has been presented nor can you deny that I have not fulfilled my obligation.

Your disagreement however fails on one key point - if I was trying to post-hoc retcon what I meant (which is what your accusation essentially is), then I wouldn't be able to point to prior statements made by me, against you - that show that my meaning is in line with what I say it is, as opposed to what you want/need it to be.

Problem is, those prior statements exist, and I've pointed them out to you. Which means we are left with you sticking with the bad-faith interpretation, despite the clarifications being made and pointed out, in order to try and win a Point. The only reason for persisting with this tactic?

It's cause you've got nothing.

It's those last to parts that make me NOT a hypocrite. As an added bonus, your repeated demands for this of other people and repeated refusals of this for yourself is the only demonstation of Hypocrisy in this thread (and an additional bonus - Sargon's Law)


Which three posts?


to the three posts dealing with a specific question.

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

How about, you take 5 minutes, get your story straight, you may want to re-read what you've written - then come back to me.

Classic.


As I've explained, they'll keep until you can demonstrate some intelligence and integrity on this first point.

And as I've explained - doesn't matter how stupid or dishonest you think I'm being - you've still got a burden of proof, which you are refusing to meet.

We both know why all this avoidance and 'standards' and refusals: Because I've not said the things you ascribed to me. You know this - yet you refuse to retract them (that makes you a liar)
Then demanding proof of others which you yourself refuse to meet (that makes you a Hypocrite)
You also refuse to concede them (that makes you dishonest).

Curiously enough - all the things you accuse me of - Sargon's Law again.

[oldrider]

The circle of diversity? :confused: https://twitter.com/StefanMolyneux/status/1102708333868331008/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Eembeddedtimeline% 7Ctwterm%5Eprofile%3AHenryMakow&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.henrymakow.com%2F - :corn:

[Graystone]

And I've told you. The Accusation I made against you.

It may not fit the immediate context, but it does fit the context of what I said, in relation to you and have repeatedly referred to.

The fact that you ignore this is your problem, not mine.



It does. I've made it clear what the correct interpretation is - by referring to statements prior and statements subsequently. You are simply hellbent on ignoring this.



Except for the whole posting of quotes, explaining the context, referencing what I've said.

Unlike you, who when confronted with a point, go off on a tangent about Standards and how they only apply when you want them to.



No, it doesn't.

You can disagree with the evidence presented (which you are doing), but you cannot deny that it has been presented nor can you deny that I have not fulfilled my obligation.

Your disagreement however fails on one key point - if I was trying to post-hoc retcon what I meant (which is what your accusation essentially is), then I wouldn't be able to point to prior statements made by me, against you - that show that my meaning is in line with what I say it is, as opposed to what you want/need it to be.

Problem is, those prior statements exist, and I've pointed them out to you. Which means we are left with you sticking with the bad-faith interpretation, despite the clarifications being made and pointed out, in order to try and win a Point. The only reason for persisting with this tactic?

It's cause you've got nothing.

It's those last to parts that make me NOT a hypocrite. As an added bonus, your repeated demands for this of other people and repeated refusals of this for yourself is the only demonstation of Hypocrisy in this thread (and an additional bonus - Sargon's Law)





:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

How about, you take 5 minutes, get your story straight, you may want to re-read what you've written - then come back to me.

Classic.



And as I've explained - doesn't matter how stupid or dishonest you think I'm being - you've still got a burden of proof, which you are refusing to meet.

We both know why all this avoidance and 'standards' and refusals: Because I've not said the things you ascribed to me. You know this - yet you refuse to retract them (that makes you a liar)
Then demanding proof of others which you yourself refuse to meet (that makes you a Hypocrite)
You also refuse to concede them (that makes you dishonest).

Curiously enough - all the things you accuse me of - Sargon's Law again.

So you've finally admitted it does not fit the immediate context? Do you understand how difficult it makes conversation when you answer a question with an answer to a different one that may not have even been asked? One might even say it is a very irrational approach.

You spout enough drivel to find context for retconning pretty much anything. Your post-hoc 'context' approach means you just ignore what I asked, and had to find something you could answer yes to. Of course prior statements exist to fulfill this, so this does not sufficiently back up your point. Nor have you (even now) explicitly stated the yes was not in response to the direct question I asked; for this reason you still offer evasion, and fail to back yourself up.

As far as I am aware, the three posts I refer to, are not the same ones you do. This is because time and time again, you do not back yourself up, it would have been trivial to post the three that you refer to by now, but again, your way is evasion.

And yet, they'll keep until you can demonstrate some intelligence and integrity on this first point.

[Viking01]

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/452961-skripal-novichok-poisoning-britain/

[TheDemonLord]

So you've finally admitted it does not fit the immediate context? Do you understand how difficult it makes conversation when you answer a question with an answer to a different one that may not have even been asked? One might even say it is a very irrational approach.

I've made this repeatedly clear - by pointing out the correct Context - if you are too stupid to understand this, that is not my issue.

I've given you the correct Context, referenced. If you were being honest in this, you'd accept the clarification and move on. But as above - you are deliberately being dishonest, so...


You spout enough drivel to find context for retconning pretty much anything. Your post-hoc 'context' approach means you just ignore what I asked, and had to find something you could answer yes to.

I ignored the question because it was irrelevant. All that is required of me is to clarify and back up my clarification. The rest is in your head.


Of course prior statements exist to fulfill this, so this does not sufficiently back up your point.

That's an Oxymoronic statement.

Considering my defense to your accusation is to point to prior statements (which you've now acknowledged do exist) and demonstrate that they form a consistent series of Logical Statements. Statements which show what the correct Context is (despite your repeated attempts to the contrary).

Then your statement acknowledging their existence, but simultaneously claiming they do not sufficiently back up my point is contradictory (becoming a bit of a theme with you....)

Which is it? Does my accusation that you were happy to see someone who you don't like for political reasons being Censured stand? If it does - then I've fulfilled my Burden of proof for that which I've accused you of. Your attempt to attribute statements to me or accusations against you from me is not relevant.

If it does not stand - how do you explain the quotes that I cited from you, expressing happiness when hearing that someone you didn't like was censured for political reasons?


Nor have you (even now) explicitly stated the yes was not in response to the direct question I asked; for this reason you still offer evasion, and fail to back yourself up.

Since I've stated explicitly what it was in relation to... (See if you can work out the rest)

But I repeat - I've ignored this, because it's irrelevant. It's not in relation to anything I've said, against you. It's you trying to argue against what you want me to have said - and I'm having none of it.

A
as far as I am aware, the three posts I refer to, are not the same ones you do.

Let's assume that's correct - there's a simple way to resolve this - and that's by you not hiding behind these vague statements, actually editing your post so it's clear what rebuttal is in response to what statement.

In short - it's by you backing yourself up.


This is because time and time again, you do not back yourself up, it would have been trivial to post the three that you refer to by now, but again, your way is evasion.

See above - you acknowledge (implicitly) that I have backed myself up, yet you refuse to do the same. So how about, you (for once) fulfill your burden of proof - since you are now the one disputing what is being referenced - Burden of Proof is on you.

But I suspect all we will see is (Another textbook example of you fulfilling Sargon's Law) Evasion.


And yet, they'll keep until you can demonstrate some intelligence and integrity on this first point.

Then so too will the statement that you are a Dishonest, Hypocritical Liar.

I'll also state that at this point - I'll decline any further requests for proof/clarification from you. Applying your standards to you. Any requests by you will simply be met by a statement about your character, and a question as to whether or not you wish to retract or cite the lies you've made about me.

[Graystone]

I've made this repeatedly clear - by pointing out the correct Context - if you are too stupid to understand this, that is not my issue.

I've given you the correct Context, referenced. If you were being honest in this, you'd accept the clarification and move on. But as above - you are deliberately being dishonest, so...



I ignored the question because it was irrelevant. All that is required of me is to clarify and back up my clarification. The rest is in your head.



That's an Oxymoronic statement.

Considering my defense to your accusation is to point to prior statements (which you've now acknowledged do exist) and demonstrate that they form a consistent series of Logical Statements. Statements which show what the correct Context is (despite your repeated attempts to the contrary).

Then your statement acknowledging their existence, but simultaneously claiming they do not sufficiently back up my point is contradictory (becoming a bit of a theme with you....)

Which is it? Does my accusation that you were happy to see someone who you don't like for political reasons being Censured stand? If it does - then I've fulfilled my Burden of proof for that which I've accused you of. Your attempt to attribute statements to me or accusations against you from me is not relevant.

If it does not stand - how do you explain the quotes that I cited from you, expressing happiness when hearing that someone you didn't like was censured for political reasons?



Since I've stated explicitly what it was in relation to... (See if you can work out the rest)

But I repeat - I've ignored this, because it's irrelevant. It's not in relation to anything I've said, against you. It's you trying to argue against what you want me to have said - and I'm having none of it.

A

Let's assume that's correct - there's a simple way to resolve this - and that's by you not hiding behind these vague statements, actually editing your post so it's clear what rebuttal is in response to what statement.

In short - it's by you backing yourself up.



See above - you acknowledge (implicitly) that I have backed myself up, yet you refuse to do the same. So how about, you (for once) fulfill your burden of proof - since you are now the one disputing what is being referenced - Burden of Proof is on you.

But I suspect all we will see is (Another textbook example of you fulfilling Sargon's Law) Evasion.



Then so too will the statement that you are a Dishonest, Hypocritical Liar.

I'll also state that at this point - I'll decline any further requests for proof/clarification from you. Applying your standards to you. Any requests by you will simply be met by a statement about your character, and a question as to whether or not you wish to retract or cite the lies you've made about me.

Simple question then, when you responded 'yes' in the afore-mentioned post, was it in response to the question I asked (and that you quoted)?

Anyone who was actually interested in clarification would be able to answer yes or no to that.

[TheDemonLord]

Simple question then, when you responded 'yes' in the afore-mentioned post, was it in response to the question I asked (and that you quoted)?

Anyone who was actually interested in clarification would be able to answer yes or no to that.

As I said:

You are a dishonest, Hypocritial Liar. Do you wish to post a Citation or a retraction for the fallacious claims you've made about me?

[Graystone]

As I said:

You are a dishonest, Hypocritial Liar. Do you wish to post a Citation or a retraction for the fallacious claims you've made about me?

Luckily, saying it does not make it true; you'd need to back yourself up to show that...

I guess we got a bit close to the truth, being that you made a simple mistake, then compounded that by refusing to admit answering yes when the correct answer is no, is wrong. Your claims that you were ignoring the question are pathetic, given you quoted the question in question. Your claims that it was in response to a different question, that I do not recall even asking, are almost as pathetic. This is how I back up my claims about you being dishonest (in not admitting you were wrong) or moronic (in not understanding why those claims are irrational). Feel free to continue showing your true colors by answering attempts at rational discourse with more evasion and insults though.

[TheDemonLord]

Luckily, saying it does not make it true; you'd need to back yourself up to show that...

I guess we got a bit close to the truth, being that you made a simple mistake, then compounded that by refusing to admit answering yes when the correct answer is no, is wrong. Your claims that you were ignoring the question are pathetic, given you quoted the question in question. Your claims that it was in response to a different question, that I do not recall even asking, are almost as pathetic. This is how I back up my claims about you being dishonest (in not admitting you were wrong) or moronic (in not understanding why those claims are irrational). Feel free to continue showing your true colors by answering attempts at rational discourse with more evasion and insults though.

Hold yourself to your own standard, and you might have a point.

Do you retract the lies you've made or will you post a citation?

[Graystone]

Hold yourself to your own standard, and you might have a point.

Do you retract the lies you've made or will you post a citation?

Which part of my standard there is one I do not hold myself to? Do you think I am not backing up my claims about you being dishonest or moronic on that point? If so, I would welcome rational discussion on why this is or isn't the case...

Will you? We can move on if you do...

[Berries]

This Sargon bint has a lot to answer for.

[TheDemonLord]

Will you? We can move on if you do...

No. Burden of proof is on you.

Do you retract your lies or will you post a citation?

[Graystone]

No. Burden of proof is on you.

Do you retract your lies or will you post a citation?

Which I am trying to satisfy through discussion, I have provided rational justification (as outlined in the bit of the post you failed to quote) on the topic at hand, faced with it, you seek to change the subject. Why should I play along with that? Why would I expect that next time you will find some rationality or integrity when you have just demonstrated you lack these things? It has been the same with your bluster and confusion about the Twitter CEOs remarks, the same as your inability to understand the Argument From Authority fallacy, every time I satisfy your burden of proof you find something else to gallop along to...

[TheDemonLord]

Which I am trying to satisfy through discussion, I have provided rational justification (as outlined in the bit of the post you failed to quote) on the topic at hand, faced with it, you seek to change the subject. Why should I play along with that? Why would I expect that next time you will find some rationality or integrity when you have just demonstrated you lack these things? It has been the same with your bluster and confusion about the Twitter CEOs remarks, the same as your inability to understand the Argument From Authority fallacy, every time I satisfy your burden of proof you find something else to gallop along to...

Irrelevant.

Do you retract your lies or will you post a citation?

[Graystone]

Irrelevant.

Do you retract your lies or will you post a citation?

Discussion and rational justification is irrelevant?




Have I ever called for the censuring of you or any member who posts anti-vax material? Have I ever asked the Mods to delete posts or restrict your freedoms in anyway?
Have I done the same for the causes as above?

Yes:

Is the original quote we are discussing, since then (and in reference to this) you have said:


I ignored the question because it was irrelevant.

Which clearly you did not, as you truncated my post to quote only the question, and the response you gave would not have made any sense without the question. So I have cited and back up my points about why you remain wrong on this very simple answer you gave.

You have also said (again in reference to the above quotes):


It may not fit the immediate context, but it does fit the context of what I said, in relation to you and have repeatedly referred to.

Which shows your irrationality, by not seeing anything wrong with answering a question with an answer to a different question which may not have even been asked. So again, I've cited and backed up my claims about you being wrong on such a very simple point.

[TheDemonLord]

Discussion and rational justification is irrelevant?

You are doing neither.

Do you retract the lies you've spoken, or will you post a citation?


Is the original quote we are discussing, since then (and in reference to this) you have said:

When you decide to apply your own standards to yourself, I may be inclined to clarify, until then:

Do you retract the lies you've spoken, or will you post a citation?


Which clearly you did not, as you truncated my post to quote only the question, and the response you gave would not have made any sense without the question. So I have cited and back up my points about why you remain wrong on this very simple answer you gave.

I've made it clear, I never made that accusation against you, that comment was not directed at you, and that the 'yes' pertains only to that which I have spoken about you.

Do you retract the lies you've spoken, or will you post a citation?


You have also said (again in reference to the above quotes):

Which shows your irrationality, by not seeing anything wrong with answering a question with an answer to a different question which may not have even been asked. So again, I've cited and backed up my claims about you being wrong on such a very simple point.

I've given you the clarification with the prior and subsequent posts that show the correct meaning and context, the question you keep asking has been rendered irrelevant by said clarification. That's the very definition of irrationality, and it's coming from you.

Do you retract the lies you've spoken, or will you post a citation?

[Graystone]

You are doing neither.

Do you retract the lies you've spoken, or will you post a citation?



When you decide to apply your own standards to yourself, I may be inclined to clarify, until then:

Do you retract the lies you've spoken, or will you post a citation?



I've made it clear, I never made that accusation against you, that comment was not directed at you, and that the 'yes' pertains only to that which I have spoken about you.

Do you retract the lies you've spoken, or will you post a citation?



I've given you the clarification with the prior and subsequent posts that show the correct meaning and context, the question you keep asking has been rendered irrelevant by said clarification. That's the very definition of irrationality, and it's coming from you.

Do you retract the lies you've spoken, or will you post a citation?

Aren't I? Perhaps you should back that up :laugh:

Which part of my standards am I not applying to myself?

The 'yes' pertains to the question you answered with it. It's absurd that you claim to have been referring to something else entirely, after you took the time to quote only that question. Either you are irrational, and think little of having a logical discussion, or you are dishonest and seek to lie about your response in a post-hoc justification.
It is not a clarification though, as a clarification should add information to reduce confusion or misinterpretation, your clarification only increases those things. Why trim the quote? Why quote at all if you were responding to something different?

[Viking01]

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03-09/us-gets-its-ass-handed-it-world-war-iii-simulation-rand

[TheDemonLord]

Aren't I? Perhaps you should back that up :laugh:

Have you fulfilled your burden of proof and posted a citation or Have you retracted the lies?

No?

There's the back up to that statement.


Which part of my standards am I not applying to myself?

Compare the number of times you've asked me for references and citations (and you acknowledge I've given them) to the times I've asked you for such.

Will you retract the lies or will you post a citation?


The 'yes' pertains to the question you answered with it. It's absurd that you claim to have been referring to something else entirely,

Not if the something else is the only accusation I've ever made against you. That's the bit you are leaving out.

Just like you are leaving out the citation or a retraction for the lies.


Either you are irrational, and think little of having a logical discussion, or you are dishonest and seek to lie about your response in a post-hoc justification.

Except the part you are leaving out. Namely the prior statements, which shows that it cannot be a post-hoc justification and confirms what the correct meaning is.

You'd accept that if you were having a logical discussion, but as above - we've proved you aren't.

Which is why you still have not posted a citation or a retraction.


It is not a clarification though, as a clarification should add information to reduce confusion or misinterpretation, your clarification only increases those things. Why trim the quote? Why quote at all if you were responding to something different?

If you are too stupid to understand the Clarifcation, that's neither my burden of proof nor my issue. I don't believe you are that stupid however, so I'm left with you dishonestly choosing not to understand the clarification, an explanation which falls right in line with all your other actions.

Still no citation or retraction...

[Graystone]

Have you fulfilled your burden of proof and posted a citation or Have you retracted the lies?

No?

There's the back up to that statement.



Compare the number of times you've asked me for references and citations (and you acknowledge I've given them) to the times I've asked you for such.

Will you retract the lies or will you post a citation?



Not if the something else is the only accusation I've ever made against you. That's the bit you are leaving out.

Just like you are leaving out the citation or a retraction for the lies.



Except the part you are leaving out. Namely the prior statements, which shows that it cannot be a post-hoc justification and confirms what the correct meaning is.

You'd accept that if you were having a logical discussion, but as above - we've proved you aren't.

Which is why you still have not posted a citation or a retraction.



If you are too stupid to understand the Clarifcation, that's neither my burden of proof nor my issue. I don't believe you are that stupid however, so I'm left with you dishonestly choosing not to understand the clarification, an explanation which falls right in line with all your other actions.

Still no citation or retraction...

Have I been attempting a rational discussion though? Yes. And I have fulfilled my burden of proof and posted a citation in post 10579.

As above, I have been providing such things, the difference is that you want to gallop off to a different topic entirely because this one has not turned out the way you would like, I'm actually requiring you to back yourself up, to adhere to your own standards by highlighting your irrationality and dishonesty on this point.

The something else doesn't matter, as you were not responding to it. Despite you ignoring the latter part of that sentence, you did quote the question you responded to.

It is a post hoc justification since you could have dishonestly changed what the yes referred to after you posted it. Clearly it was in response to the yes/no question you quoted at the time, otherwise why did you quote it? Why did you not provide any additional context for the 'yes' to indicate it didn't refer to the question you quoted and responded to?

If you insist on asserting it is a clarification, then clarify why you trimmed the quote? Why quote at all if you were responding to something different?

[FlangMasterJ]

Cool thread guys.

[husaberg]

Cool thread guys.

If you put one or both on ignore it cuts down the page size a bit.
Kb legend says it started over one, not doing the KB wave to the other.

[FJRider]

... Kb legend says it started over one, not doing the KB wave to the other.

The KB wave is secret. Those without proper security clearance (and the qualifying number in their post count) will not be told (or will admit) there IS a secret wave.

I'm not even sure you have (official) acknowledgement of your status in this regard ... ;)

[Voltaire]

Cool thread guys.

Needs more citations :sleep:

https://sjsuwritingcenter.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/austen-powers.jpg

[husaberg]

https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/63806692/call-me-a-liar-one-more-time-i-dare-you-i-double-dare-you-mherfker.jpg

[Berries]

Anyone seen the new Laurel and Hardy film?

[Viking01]

https://www.rt.com/news/453560-israel-middle-finger-election-posters/

I thought election posters normally showed politicians with ink
on their finger, encouraging the electorate to get out and vote.

[mashman]

"What would you do if someone told you the world was going to end, and they knew exactly how it would happen? They have graphs and studies, trajectory lines sweeping up to terrifying new heights, projections that can only possibly mean doom. The evidence is overwhelming and irrefutable, and yet all around you life goes on as normal. How does anyone deal with that?

Many people are more than capable of compartmentalising these things, and getting up for work in the morning. Some are utterly disbelieving, insisting that it simply cannot be happening. Some go numb. Others look at the concerning information, and agree that someone should probably do something about it, but perhaps in a few years." (https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/12-03-2019/contemplating-the-end-of-the-world-with-extinction-rebellion/)

[Viking01]

https://www.rt.com/news/453842-snowden-archive-shut-intercept/

First Media owner:

https://russia-insider.com/en/pierre-omidyar-funding-pro-regime-change-networks-and-partnering-cia-cutouts/ri26353

[mashman]

Bill Gates says poverty is decreasing. He couldn’t be more wrong (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/29/bill-gates-davos-global-poverty-infographic-neoliberal)... Seems like Max Roser of Our World in Data is a bit of a duplicitous moron who has been more than dishonest with his data and therefore any findings that come from it.

Our World in Data = propaganda for other duplicitous morons.

"There are a number of problems with this graph, though. First of all, real data on poverty has only been collected since 1981. Anything before that is extremely sketchy, and to go back as far as 1820 is meaningless. Roser draws on a dataset that was never intended to describe poverty, but rather inequality in the distribution of world GDP – and that for only a limited range of countries. There is no actual research to bolster the claims about long-term poverty. It’s not science; it’s social media."

"Scholars have been calling for a more reasonable poverty line for many years. Most agree that people need a minimum of about $7.40 per day to achieve basic nutrition and normal human life expectancy, plus a half-decent chance of seeing their kids survive their fifth birthday. And many scholars, including Harvard economist Lant Pritchett, insist that the poverty line should be set even higher, at $10 to $15 per day.

So what happens if we measure global poverty at the low end of this more realistic spectrum – $7.40 per day, to be extra conservative? Well, we see that the number of people living under this line has increased dramatically since measurements began in 1981, reaching some 4.2 billion people today. Suddenly the happy Davos narrative melts away."

[mashman]

SEC Stunned That Musk Failed to Get Pre-Approval of Tweets (https://nz.finance.yahoo.com/news/sec-stunned-musk-failed-pre-001430466.html)...

"The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission said it’s “stunning” that Elon Musk didn’t seek pre-approval of any of his tweets about Tesla Inc. in the months since he was ordered by a judge to do so."... :killingme.

[Ocean1]

Bill Gates says poverty is decreasing. He couldn’t be more wrong (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/29/bill-gates-davos-global-poverty-infographic-neoliberal)... Seems like Max Roser of Our World in Data is a bit of a duplicitous moron who has been more than dishonest with his data and therefore any findings that come from it.

Right, right. So the fact that the extremely poor had actually zero money way back then, didn't in fact know what that was, means that the UN, World Health etc etc, (where OWID numbers actually came from) are all lying through their collective teeth. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

Let's face it, the only reason you're so desperate to believe shit like that is because the real world facts don't align with your cargo cult narrative and your evel capitalist bogeymans.

[carbonhed]

Right, right. So the fact that the extremely poor had actually zero money way back then, didn't in fact know what that was means that the UN, World Health etc etc, (where TWID numbers actually came from) are all lying through their collective teeth. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

Let's face it, the only reason you're so desperate to believe shit like that is because the real world facts don't align with your cargo cult narrative and your evel capitalist bogeymans.

Hey! They may have had no moneys or foods but they were happy as Larry... living off the land, shitting in the fields. They may not have had cell phones but they did have Bilharzia!

[mashman]

Right, right. So the fact that the extremely poor had actually zero money way back then, didn't in fact know what that was means that the UN, World Health etc etc, (where TWID numbers actually came from) are all lying through their collective teeth. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

Let's face it, the only reason you're so desperate to believe shit like that is because the real world facts don't align with your cargo cult narrative and your evel capitalist bogeymans.

It is the fact that that dataset is used at all that's bemusing. They have real data. The only reason to add a dataset pre-1981 is duplicitous and to promote a narrative that doesn't exist i.e. poverty is on the decline.

Rational anarchist you say? Yet can't handle the fact that his dataset is bullshit and instead goes for the messenger............ I ain't the desperate one, dude.

[TheDemonLord]

It is the fact that that dataset is used at all that's bemusing. They have real data. The only reason to add a dataset pre-1981 is duplicitous and to promote a narrative that doesn't exist i.e. poverty is on the decline.

Rational anarchist you say? Yet can't handle the fact that his dataset is bullshit and instead goes for the messenger............ I ain't the desperate one, dude.

So, in order to track Change over Time, you're complaining that they've used...


















Data from a Time period?!?


Those Bastards!

[Ocean1]

Those Bastards!

That's duplicitous morons to you, fella.

It's behavior you often see from socialist fanbois; "We're not sure what this hard data stuff is, but our feelings on the subject don't like it. Shockingly, sheeple aren't convinced by the power of our emotional argument alone. But we're right, so we'll just cobble up some of this data stuff that says what we want and that'll be as good as anything the bogeyman says. :laugh:

Classic cargo cult mentality: We want the same shit rich pricks have, but the story that you got to work hard to get it is just diversionary bullshit, so we'll cobble up something that looks similar to what dem rich pricks do. That'll work...

... And whine like little bitches when that don't work. :laugh:

[Ocean1]

It is the fact that that dataset is used at all that's bemusing. They have real data. The only reason to add a dataset pre-1981 is duplicitous and to promote a narrative that doesn't exist i.e. poverty is on the decline.

Rational anarchist you say? Yet can't handle the fact that his dataset is bullshit and instead goes for the messenger............ I ain't the desperate one, dude.

Messenger eh?

Who was it that went for Max Roser? The guy who gave you data from the UN and WHO? Sounds like some of that there "projection" you're always blaming on everyone else that doesn't agree with you.

Face it, the only people that can't bring themselves to believe that there's been a massive international convergence of wealth and massively improved standard of living across the board are fuckwits that have a vested interest in even more aggressive redistribution of wealth than is already in place.

[mashman]

Messenger eh?

Who was it that went for Max Roser? The guy who gave you data from the UN and WHO? Sounds like some of that there "projection" you're always blaming on everyone else that doesn't agree with you.

Face it, the only people that can't bring themselves to believe that there's been a massive international convergence of wealth and massively improved standard of living across the board are fuckwits that have a vested interest in even more aggressive redistribution of wealth than is already in place.

It's the data, dude :shake:

[Viking01]

https://southfront.org/expanding-global-footprint-of-us-special-operations/

[Viking01]

https://www.france24.com/en/20190324-Mueller-report-summary-trump-campaign-not-conspire-Russia-2016-election

What ? Two days after Donald has declared "victory", and not even a
comment on this thread ? Surely people are not as depressed as poor
Rachel Maddow :

https://www.rt.com/usa/454554-maddow-crying-mueller-report-indictment/

Not that the Russians will be celebrating the outcome. You can be sure :

- there will be further US financial sanctions applied against the RF
(and against companies supporting its economy and energy business) ;

- any Russian businesses operating in the US will come in for more
scrutiny (maybe even regulation) ;

and that :

- the US will continue to seek to use its oil and gas resources to try
and monopolise the world energy market (to counter combined Saudi -
Russia influence).

But given that signs for the local US fracked gas market are not all
that rosy :

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/02/investors-finally-waking-north-americas-fracked-gas-crisis.html

US investors might have to hope for a more positive outcome in Venezuela
(sorry, I should have said "a win for democracy and western values").

[Ocean1]

Racism causing health disparities.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/111604620/half-of-mori-and-pasifika-deaths-potentially-avoidable-study-finds

Apparently.

[Viking01]

https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/europe/111982402/julian-assange-arrested-by-british-police-and-removed-from-ecuadorian-embassy

[pritch]

https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/europe/111982402/julian-assange-arrested-by-british-police-and-removed-from-ecuadorian-embassy

The prosecutor at Alexandria in the Eastern District of Virginia has a number of cases he is watching, among them: Julian Assange, Edward Snowden and Kim Dot Com.

I had not even heard of Alexandria back when I first read that. Since then a certain Mr Manafort, former manager of the Trump election campaign, has caused it to be in the news.

Alexandria is right next door to Washington DC. It's just up the road from Quantico the HQ of the FBI and a big US Marine base. It's just a hop skip and jump to Langley home of the CIA - and so on. The government loves trials in Alexandria because almost everybody on the jury will either work for the government or have a family member who does. Juries in Alexandria tend to be very friendly to the Government.

I guess Mr Assange will be headed there soon.

[Viking01]

https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2017-speeches-testimony/pompeo-delivers-remarks-at-csis.html

[Viking01]

At least the provenance of this one is clearly identifiable (and
written in English as well). Should make it easier for the western
press agencies to manage.

https://www.rt.com/news/457826-russian-navy-beluga-norway/

[Viking01]

https://www.rt.com/uk/458077-theresa-may-has-sacked-gavin-williamson/

Rarking up the Russians is obviously politically acceptable. And low risk.

But it seems that while one transgression against the Chinese may be forgiven,
it's obviously not a mistake that one should make twice. Especially when you
might want to trade with them (or have them invest with you) in the future.

[Viking01]

At least the provenance of this one is clearly identifiable (and
written in English as well). Should make it easier for the western
press agencies to manage.

https://www.rt.com/news/457826-russian-navy-beluga-norway/

Update:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/europe/112430036/alleged-russian-spy-whale-refuses-to-leave-norway-may-be-transported-to-sanctuary

It appears that instead of being a spy, it is very likely a defector.

Or possibly even an economic migrant, simply in search of cheap
Norwegian cod handouts.

[Dadpole]

Some reports state what the whale was wearing was a Go-Pro harness. :blink:

[Viking01]

Some reports state what the whale was wearing was a Go-Pro harness. :blink:

Yes, I'd read the same. The cunning devils. Next, it'll be:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQLyDc-tt2Y

I was thinking about getting one for my son to fit to their husky,
but now it looks decidedly politically risky.

[mashman]

Some reports state what the whale was wearing was a Go-Pro harness. :blink:

Some stoned movie student probably just watched whale rider and...........

[oldrider]

WIKILEAKS Face book: https://www.facebook.com/terryrexx/videos/2280782261985508/ :rolleyes:

[Viking01]

Don has obviously been very busy working on the Chinese trade issue recently.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-05-10/trump-working-change-way-economists-view-tariffs

But now that he has just levied new tariff rates, there is now a short break
in his busy schedule, enough to get back to working on the US Constitution.

http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_84440.shtml

[oldrider]

Don has obviously been very busy working on the Chinese trade issue recently.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-05-10/trump-working-change-way-economists-view-tariffs

But now that he has just levied new tariff rates, there is now a short break
in his busy schedule, enough to get back to working on the US Constitution.

http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_84440.shtml

According to this informant Big Donny has also been busy getting his own life in order:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vyg6BlLOEXA

The same source claims he (Big Donny) will be opting for son in law Jarred to be his next VP? :- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYFPkN0kqyk - :shutup: - :wait: Time will reveal all?

[Viking01]

It's been a busy two weeks for Mike Pompeo, scuttling all around the world
(e.g. Baghdad, London, Brussels) reminding politicians of various countries
what they can and can't do, and issuing updated hymn sheets to sing from.

I see that he has had just finished visiting Sochi in Russia, supposedly telling
the Russians:

- Not to interfere in the 2020 US election (as they did back in 2016)
- Not to interfere in Venezuela (and not support Maduro)
- To return some US citizens being held by Russia
- To return some Ukrainian sailors being held by Russia
- That US sanctions would continue until they give back Crimea

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-usa-lavrov-pompeo-interference/pompeo-tells-russia-dont-meddle-in-next-u-s-presidential-election-idUSKCN1SK21C

However, I rather suspect it was more about discussing Iran, and gauging
just how far the US could "push the boundary" regarding Iran.

And whether Russia might choose to get involved, should "push" evolve
into US forces launching missiles or dropping bombs on Iranian nuclear
facilities (all currently operating in accordance with IAEA and JCPOA
rules and protocols).

It was interesting to note that Putin decided to visit a Kinzhal missile
manufacturing plant before meeting Pompeo in Sochi.

While this may have been completely coincidental, I have been unreliably
informed by an anonymous news source that after the earlier beluga whale
incident in Norway, Putin declined to also pay a visit to a top secret bird
training facility nearby (where birds are apparently being trained to attack
US aircraft).

It is understood recent testing conducted offshore has shown sea gulls to
be very effective, either diving into engines or fouling cockpit windscreens:

https://sputniknews.com/military/201905141075010703-bird-strike-causes-millions-of-damages-us-marines-f-35/

It is further understood that in keeping with past Russian practice of testing
weapons in "active theatre", some advance squadrons may soon be deployed
along the edges of the Golan Heights in Syria and the Bekka valley in Lebanon
(in order to encourage incoming aircraft to go flock off home, and take their
missiles and bombs with them).

Please note the above has not appeared on any of the main Russian news
websites. But it will likely appear on CNN shortly. Russian sources believe
the Americans to be particularly gullible.

[Viking01]

An advisory :

https://www.apnews.com/b4f5c00455fb4ffb878ed29df58abc03

Another advisory:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

[Katman]

An advisory :

https://www.apnews.com/b4f5c00455fb4ffb878ed29df58abc03

Well that would certainly be convenient for America.

Hmmmm. :sherlock:

[oldrider]

New York—Moscow—Tel Aviv Triangle - https://fitzinfo.wordpress.com/2019/05/16/new-york-moscow-tel-aviv-triangle/ - By Jack Bernstein an American Jew in Racist Marxist Israel (1984 Anno Domini)

[Quote]
The whole East v West theme is completely contrived and an instrument of the synagogue, to create WW3 which the West has been set up to lose. After the war, Russia (together with China) will impose its now hidden communism (Perestroika Deception) on the entire world. [Unquote]

It appears as if we might be now very close to the objective of the quote above being realised as America prepares for it's all out assault upon Iran? - :wait: Time will reveal all.

[husaberg]

New York—Moscow—Tel Aviv Triangle - https://fitzinfo.wordpress.com/2019/05/16/new-york-moscow-tel-aviv-triangle/ - By Jack Bernstein an American Jew in Racist Marxist Israel (1984 Anno Domini)

The whole East v West theme is completely contrived and an instrument of the synagogue, to create WW3 which the West has been set up to lose. After the war, Russia (together with China) will impose its now hidden communism (Perestroika Deception) on the entire world. [Unquote]

It appears as if we might be now very close to the objective of the quote above being realised as America prepares for it's all out assault upon Iran? - :wait: Time will reveal all.

Its been a busy week for you Joseph Goebbels
https://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-if-you-repeat-a-lie-often-enough-people-will-believe-it-and-you-will-even-come-to-believe-joseph-goebbels-141-92-76.jpg

New York—Moscow—Tel Aviv Triangle - https://fitzinfo.wordpress.com/2019/05/16/new-york-moscow-tel-aviv-triangle/ - By Jack Bernstein an American Jew in Racist Marxist Israel (1984 Anno Domini)



The whole East v West theme is completely contrived and an instrument of the synagogue, to create WW3 which the West has been set up to lose. After the war, Russia (together with China) will impose its now hidden communism (Perestroika Deception) on the entire world. [Unquote]

It appears as if we might be now very close to the objective of the quote above being realised as America prepares for it's all out assault upon Iran? - :wait: Time will reveal all.


Israeli National Anthem? (should be) - "Onward Christian Soldiers". :rolleyes:

Do it for us but keep our name out of it? - Yeah right!:- https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-said-to-tell-his-defense-chiefs-to-keep-israel-out-of-iran-us-tensions/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter - Christians fighting Muslims for Israeli benefit? - What's new here? :scratch:


Poor old Donald - doesn't want war - those pesky Iranians just wont leave Israel (or America?) alone - they will just have to be dealt a lesson they wont forget! :oi-grr:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/lLbmKWxLGls




US-Israel relationship is ‘altar’ of ‘holiness,’ and Jerusalem embassy is ‘shrine’ — US ambassador! - https://mondoweiss.net/2019/05/relationship-jerusalem-ambassador/ - ? :innocent: Holy molly!


Israeli National Anthem? (should be) - "Onward Christian Soldiers". :rolleyes:

Do it for us but keep our name out of it? - Yeah right!:- https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-said-to-tell-his-defense-chiefs-to-keep-israel-out-of-iran-us-tensions/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter - Christians fighting Muslims for Israeli benefit? - What's new here? :scratch:


Is the world is beginning to "feel the love" here? https://twitter.com/morphonios/status/1115519942244409344/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Eembeddedtimeline% 7Ctwterm%5Eprofile%3AHenryMakow&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.henrymakow.com%2F - :wait: - As they say in the cheese adds - Good things take time! :bleh:

[oldrider]

Me thinks you protest too much - trying just a little too hard! :rolleyes: Whatever?

[oldrider]

Israeli rabbis at military prep school are caught on video praising Hitler? :rolleyes: https://mondoweiss.net/2019/04/israeli-military-praising/ - Really? :scratch:

[Viking01]

https://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/meetings/meeting-2019/press-release-2019

If you hadn't registered earlier, then I'm afraid that you're too late.

It's always interesting to review the list of participants, and see which countries
have representatives attending (and not). Sorry, China and Russia, you miss out
this year, but they'll be talking about you anyway.

It's good to know what are the 'big ticket' items keeping the wealthy and influential
awake at night at the moment.

I didn't see any mention of 'hot spots' like Venezuela or Iran on the agenda, so I'll
assume all is quiet and under control there. Though I'm still not quite sure whose
control.

If you want to know the outcome of discussions, you'll just have to wait for the
"leaked minutes"afterwards.

[Viking01]

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/460674-freedom-gas-fracking-propaganda/

Which, in turn, begs the question how the US classifies all that sour
(socialist) oil it is having to import from Russia (due to oil sanctions
imposed upon Venezuela by the US).

[Viking01]

I hear that a large cloud formation was seen to pass over London
yesterday, but commentators were quick to clarify the situation
and avoid unnecessary public unrest:

https://www.indy100.com/article/trump-uk-visit-sky-news-watch-video-baby-blimp-protest-queen-8940766

And Donald has wasted no time endearing himself with the locals,
saying his comments about London mayor Sadiq Khan were wrong,
and just another example of the fake news that he has to endure:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/03/trump-praises-nigel-farage-and-refuses-to-apologise-for-nasty-jibe-as-he-leaves-us

I see that they had organised a 41 gun salute to mark his visit. But
if I was Her Madge, I'd be jolly careful not to stand too close and
risk getting caught in the cross-fire:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/03/donald-trump-arrives-in-buckingham-palace-for-state-visit

As for the "fist bump" [shakes head]. Little hands, I guess.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/trump-state-visit-handshake-fist-bump-meeting-buckingham-palace-a8941946.html

I'm only disappointed that they didn't offer to confer an honorary
knighthood on Donald, and then when he knelt down to receive his
honour, well, you know the rest.

No-one would blame Her Madge (she could say she was provoked).
And I'm fairly confident that she'd probably get a light sentence and
home detention (and our eternal gratitude).

[oldrider]

Discomforting Facts about World War II - by Jacob G. Hornberger - https://www.fff.org/2019/06/06/discomforting-facts-about-world-war-ii/ - :scratch:

[husaberg]

Discomforting Facts about World War II - by Jacob G. Hornberger - https://www.fff.org/2019/06/06/discomforting-facts-about-world-war-ii/ - :scratch:

http://annapbl.weebly.com/uploads/3/0/2/7/30270157/9368855.jpg

[oldrider]

KB's radical Alinsky "Community organiser" wannabe - "hateberg" tries and tries again. - :yawn:

[austingtir]

KB's radical Alinsky "Community organiser" wannabe - "hateberg" tries and tries again. - :yawn:


He's probably an organizer on sites like Socialist Aotearoa, AWSM, Vest movement NZ, Auckland peace action, tamati antifacist action etc etc.... all of those and more are all ANTIFA. I know for a fact they go on many forums around NZ trying to push their agendas.

[husaberg]

KB's radical Alinsky "Community organiser" wannabe - "hateberg" tries and tries again. - :yawn:

https://bluevirginia.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/projection.jpg

[Katman]

What a fucking moron.

[husaberg]

Suck my cock you fucking moron.


https://i.imgur.com/B8pTTfZ.jpg

Do you have some more narcissistic projection to share Steve.
Maybe just some homoerotic projection ones to start with?

[austingtir]

Anyone that compares trump to Hitler is a delusional retard!!

Im part jewish myself (my grandfather was in the german jewish community at the start of the war and left for England at obviously the right time)and TBH I find it fucking offensive and I genuinely think people like Husaberg are the dregs of humanity at the current time.

Totally brainwashed muppet! Or complete scumbag pos its hard to decide.

[Laava]

Anyone that compares trump to Hitler is a delusional retard!!

Im part jewish myself (my grandfather was in the german jewish community at the start of the war and left for England at obviously the right time)and TBH I find it fucking offensive and I genuinely think people like Husaberg are the dregs of humanity at the current time.

Totally brainwashed muppet! Or complete scumbag pos its hard to decide.
Lol!.................

[husaberg]

Lol!.................
Yokel was told he could be anyone he wanted to be and he choose to be austingtir (Ie a cretin again)
342073
https://pics.me.me/jews-are-not-people-they-are-animals-adolf-hitler-undocumented-48071434.pnghttps://www.commondreams.org/sites/default/files/users/user20550/screen_shot_2017-08-16_at_10.41.14_am.pnghttps://www.snopes.com/tachyon/2016/11/kkkhead.jpg?fit=577,285


A 1990 Vanity Fair article about billionaire businessman stated that Mr Trump?s then wife Ivana, said her husband owned a copy of ?My New Order? ? a printed collection of the Nazi leader?s speeches.
Marie Brenner, the article?s author, wrote: ?Ivana Trump told her lawyer Michael Kennedy that from time to time her husband reads a book of Hitler's collected speeches, 'My New Order', which he keeps in a cabinet by his bed.


Donald Trump appears to take aspects of his German background seriously. John Walter works for the Trump Organization, and when he visits Donald in his office, Ivana told a friend, he clicks his heels and says, ?Heil Hitler,? possibly as a family joke.

Last April, perhaps in a surge of Czech nationalism, Ivana Trump told her lawyer Michael Kennedy that from time to time her husband reads a book of Hitler?s collected speeches, My New Order, which he keeps in a cabinet by his bed. Kennedy now guards a copy of My New Order in a closet at his office, as if it were a grenade. Hitler?s speeches, from his earliest days up through the Phony War of 1939, reveal his extraordinary ability as a master propagandist.
?Did your cousin John give you the Hitler speeches?? I asked Trump.
Trump hesitated. ?Who told you that??
?I don?t remember,? I said.
?Actually, it was my friend Marty Davis from Paramount who gave me a copy of Mein Kampf, and he?s a Jew.? (?I did give him a book about Hitler,? Marty Davis said. ?But it was My New Order, Hitler?s speeches, not Mein Kampf. I thought he would find it interesting. I am his friend, but I?m not Jewish.?)

[austingtir]

Yokel was told he could be anyone he wanted to be and he choose to be austingtir (Ie a cretin again)
342073





Have you ever quoted a single thing he's said in context? Or do you just take the MSM globalist's for their word that thats how it was said? I have seen all those quotes first hand and none of them were in the context you are making them out to be.


Again if you cant even put basic quotes in context there is very little point in arguing with a biggoted pos like yourself.

And snopes which is run by two pensioners and their cat is not the best place to get accurate information from. I reckon the cat is the smartest of the three.

All your posting is out of context propaganda nothing more.

[Viking01]

https://www.rt.com/news/462020-trump-heights-golan-netanyahu/

See that Don's been pro-active, and started establishment of a new
retirement village, for when he leaves politics. Apparently even has a
view of the surrounding countryside.

[Viking01]

I see that the NZ press is having another go at just how bad overseas
tourists are at driving on NZ roads, and how road rage is a problem.

And there goes BP, proposing to supply a "thumbs-up" sign which can
be affixed to the car rear window and activated by the driver.

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/bp-launches-thank-you-button-campaign-help-kiwis-praise-other-motorists

Just better hope that the tourist behind you is not from Greece,
Russia or Iran.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/travel/news/rude-gestures-abroad-countries-list-5689955

[Viking01]

It must be tough for some in retirement. Speaking opportunities drying up.
A story to tell, and no-one wants to listen.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-18/clinton-broadway-play-shuts-down-early-after-ticket-sales-sag

Maybe, when they do the audit on the Clinton Foundation, they'll find a
few dollars left over for them. Maybe even a suit to wear (orange, of
course). Even Donald would see the humour in the situation.

[Viking01]

Wanted: New Monkey.

Must be honest and hard working. [The last one was caught stealing the peanuts.]

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-18/massive-embezzlement-scandal-threatens-juan-guaidos-political-future

Are you into monkey business ? Does this sound like you ? Interested ?

All CV's to: Elliott, Chief Organ Grinder, Harry S Truman Building, Washington DC.

All correspondence treated in strict confidence. :yes:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/02/elliott-abrams-special-envoy-venezuela-190212012146896.html

[Viking01]

Some-one call Henry K. Don's off his meds again, and he's been trying
to impersonate Richard Nixon (again).

Heavens sake, man. It was the Gulf of Tonkin, not the Persian Gulf ...
oh, never mind.

But .... this tweeting solo in the middle of the night again? Don, Don,
Don. We've talked about this before.

https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201906211076009851-trump-says-stopped-us-strike-on-iran-10-minutes-before-it-was-set-to-be-carried-out/

You know what happens when you don't take your tablets, and then
go off all half cocked ?

You start saying stupid things like:

"the drone was over international waters" and "we were lucky there was
no-one in the drone".

One, if it had been over international waters, we wouldn't have turned
its transponder off. And they wouldn't have shot it down.

And Two, drones are unmanned by definition.


As for the air raid on Iran that "might have been" in progress. What
can I say ? [Groan]

"A general said 150 people were going to die", so I called it off".

F#$%* sake. man. It's not a f#$%* party. Yes, we might have
celebrated, but you don't call off air strikes. Ever.

Next, people will start thinking we care.

A caring hegemon ? How the hell are we going to put the fear of God
into them, if you talk like that ?

[Interrupt]

No, no, I can't talk to Bibi at the moment. Tell him I'm talking to
Donald about it now.... Yes, he's sorry..... And yes, I'll call him
back.

[End Interrupt]

So, where were we ? Oh, yes. And 150 ? 150 ? What were you thinking?

If you're going to use numbers, use BIG numbers. It doesn't matter
if they're not credible - just use BIG numbers.

150 ? That's only three Afghan wedding parties. Hell, between starvation,
cholera, and the bombs we give to drop on the Yemenis, the Saudis do
that in a typical week-end.

Now, Madeleine Albright, she knew her stuff. There was a Secretary of
State you could admire. Not like the other one - what was her name ?

Anyway, when interviewed about the half million Iraqi children that died
due to US sanctions, Madeleine came out with classic lines like:

"I think this is a very hard choice, but the price ? we think the price
is worth it."

See. That's how it's done. And she didn't have to make that sh#t up.
It was true. Ah, Madeleine, we miss you.

Now, all you've done is make people laugh at us. Like:

https://youtu.be/lfJ_F4jJKvU

and

https://politics.theonion.com/bolton-calls-for-forceful-iranian-response-to-continuin-1835735060

OK, I'll sort Bibi out. Yes, you can go out and play golf. But, first,
give me your f#$%* phone.

[austingtir]

Nobody can beat the japanese for WTF?

https://twitter.com/BNONews/status/1142540833910132737

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D9shOnMXUAABrJ6.png

[mashman]

NZ Finally hits the Earth Overshoot charts (https://www.overshootday.org/newsroom/country-overshoot-days/) and weighs in at 2.9 sustainable planets every year to maintain BAU... but hey, at least we're not the worst right :second:

[Viking01]

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/06/private-equity-and-institutional-investor-owned-u-k-utility-engaged-in-massive-fraud-regulatory-evasions-worker-coercion-caused-catastrophic-environmental-damage.html

[Viking01]

Friday 28, 2019

Dear Diary. It's been a busy week. Still, we've managed to hit most nails on the
head again.

1. Iran (tick)

The loss of the drone earlier in the week wasn't exactly a success story. Guess you
can't win them all.

[Note] Contact Northrop Grumman about a replacement. At least some-one will be
happy.

Looks like it's back to the old "financial sanctions" again. Just need to "squeeze
their pips a little tighter."

2. China (tick)

"Rattled the cages again" prior to meeting Xi at the G20 in Osaka:

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3016072/us-wraps-hearings-plan-hit-all-chinese-goods-tariffs-trade-war
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/3016242/donald-trump-prepared-impose-lower-tariffs-if-china-talks-fail

3. North Korea (tick)

Sent Kim a "nice letter", just as Xi was visiting. Good timing. Don't worry Kim,
we haven't forgotten you. Heh, heh, heh.

Though strangely, Kim wasn't as overjoyed about a letter from me this time.
Can't understand why. It worked last time.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/06/hostile-acts-korea-condemns-sanctions-extension-190626032600297.html

4. India (tick)

Sent the "old master of diplomacy" Mike Pompeo out to India to "make them an
offer they couldn't refuse". US missiles, aircraft, best vassal status.

And all we asked were a few "small concessions" in return (re no Russian s400's,
no Iranian oil, no Huawei 5G, open your agriculture to more GMO's).

https://www.rt.com/news/462683-pompeo-india-trade-diplomacy/

But it seems that they're not happy with "our offer", and have imposed some
tariffs on our products. Ungrateful, to say the least.

Well, I suppose it's understandable. Probably something to do with our removing
India from the GSP last month (oh, and those iron and steel tariffs we refused
to waive).

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/06/trump-demands-withdrawal-india-unacceptable-tariff-hike-190627065326869.html

[Note] Squeeze their pips as well.

5. Venezuela

Thought it was going to be a light week, only monitoring a visit by a Russian
military plane and a Russian warship. But then Elliott managed a "late charge".

But if the Venezuelan military can't do the job:

https://www.rt.com/news/462769-venezuela-maduro-assassination-plot/
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/06/27/the-failed-venezuelan-coup-and-the-decline-of-us-hegemony/

it seems we'll have to resort to tried-and-true "financial sanctions" as well.
At least, with CitGo oil assets in the US, there's a little more leverage.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-27/cia-finances-another-group-fraudsters-venezuelan-opposition

[Note] More "pip squeezing" required.

6. Democrats

The Democrats and their primary debates. [Smile]. Round Two tonight. You have to
admit it's nice to have some "light entertainment".

At least, with 20 candidates, Dems in charge are trying to drown out all the damn
trouble makers, and deny them and their "socialist policies" any airtime. Good job.

Must remember to give them a wind-up by Twitter before bed. Tell them that Joe
was my pick of the line-up.

7. The G20 in Osaka

https://www.apnews.com/2a91f0afceda4010b1e0756ba48cbff5

A busy "dance card". Putin, Xi, Erdogan, MBS, Merkel and Abe. Losers.

Will start with a relaxed meal with Scotty Morrison. Just to say "Thanks, Blue.
You're a good bloke".

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-25/australia-planning-new-naval-port-us-counter-china

Haven't made my mind up yet whether to "reboot trade talks" or "put the boot in".
I'll wait and see what presents that Xi brings me first. I do like surprises.

[Note] Announce afterwards that the tariff rate on the next $300 bln of Chinese
goods is only 10% (instead of the 25% that I threatened). That way, they'll be
grateful.

After all, we don't want to over-do it. Don't want to trigger a global recession.
Especially when the economy, the stock market and unemployment are all doing
so well at home.

[Note] See how Jerome Powell is getting along with those interest rate cuts
I was "suggesting" to him. Only have to last until the 2020 election.

https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3015936/all-his-bluster-donald-trumps-approach-economics-has-three-basic


Not a bad week all said. Ah, sometimes it's great to be a hegemon.

[oldrider]

"1976 joke" becomes "2019 reality"? - :yes:

<iframe width="280" height="158" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/js5-OsdvqTY" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[oldrider]

"I'll tell you what is disrespectful ? taking the ancient nation states of Europe and turning it into one country with its own anthem and flag, without ever asking for permission!"

Nigel Farage

Watch the video. https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/ill-tell-you-what-is-disrespectful-taking-the-ancient-nation-states-of-europe-and-turning-it-into-one-country-with-its-own-anthem-and-flag-without-ever-asking-for-permission-nigel-farage/ - :kick: On yer Nigel. - :yes:

[oldrider]

Israeli TV Host Implores Israelis: Wake Up and Smell the Apartheid:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=331&v=QyyUvxHLYr4 - :corn: - Mudguard syndrome surfacing in Israel? :scratch:



<iframe width="903" height="508" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/QyyUvxHLYr4" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Viking01]

https://sputniknews.com/asia/201907081076187247-amid-chinas-rise-australia-weighs-difficult-uncomfortable-question-of-nuclear-weapons/

Just what we need here down in the south - nuclear weapons.

I'll feel so much safer sheltering under a "nuclear umbrella"
when the various military start raining down nuclear missiles.

[Note to self]

Add names of prominent "think tank" members to the list ....
along with the politicians and the bankers ...

[Edit]

https://off-guardian.org/2019/07/08/going-nuclear-in-the-antipodes-australias-megadeath-complex/

Enjoyed the Comments section

[pritch]

These guys are arse holes but they were seriously dim. They wore masks so the security cameras would not identify them, but their cell phones automatically connected to the school wifi under their user names. Bingo!

Guess that means they failed technology class?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/local/teen-graffiti-hate-crime-divides-maryland-high-school/?utm_term=.2179047b96e1

[Viking01]

I was looking for an image online of Trump and the "dogs of war",
but sadly could only find one of him holding his prize pekingese.

But it seems his other "dogs of war" have been busy these last two
weeks.

It started off with the French poodle Macron visiting Iran, trying to
persuade the Iranians that they should acquiesce to Trumps wishes
on the nuclear front.

And while Rouhani was courteous and listened, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
advised him that he should simply stop being the US's lapdog and go
home.

There were of course a few yelps of indignation from the French press
once he got home. But I see he is looking at coming back for a second
chew very soon.

https://www.france24.com/en/20190709-france-macron-eu-nuclear-iran-trump

Then this last week, Trump let the UK bulldog off the chain. Intent
on demonstrating that the UK still rules the waves, er, waives the
rules, a few squaddies decided to hijack an oil tanker off Gibralter.

I'm sure that it was all just a wind-up. Just a bit of harmless fun.

But, concerned the Iranians might have lost their sense of humour
(and might target one of the UK's own tankers currently in the Gulf),
the UK asked if their tanker could hide behind a US warship while it
passed through the strait of Hormuz. Just in case.

https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201907091076198292-uk-tanker-given-military-escort-amid-irans-promise-to-respond-to-ship-seizure---report/

Despite French protestations Iran must not exceed the agreed limit
on its holding of slightly enriched nuclear material, the US sanctions
(re-applied by Trump after having pulled the US out of the JCPOA)
have prevented Iran from disposing of its slowly increasing stockpile -
in the manner agreed with the UK, France and Germany under the
JCPOA.

Not to mention that the much touted EU INSTEX system system -
which was supposed to allow Iran to perform some limited trading
with the EU - has still not been implemented (let alone activated)
- for EU fear of US sanctions.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/06/us-iran-sanctions-eu/592489/

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/07/trumps-version-of-the-iran-accord-heads-i-win-tails-you-lose.html

Somehow, Don, I think the Iranians have cottoned onto how the
game is being played. And frankly, your "dogs of war", they don't
seem very scary. Or that much use.

Think it might be better if you simply tied your dogs up for the
time being, and just did all the barking yourself.

As for breeding from them in the future? Probably a lost cause.
Think that they have both been neutered already.

[Edit]

They may not be the brightest of dogs, but at least they are
loyal to their master. Good boys. Sit . Stay.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-07-09/uk-france-accept-trumps-call-more-troops-syria-germany-rebuffs

[Correction]

My apologies. My earlier post alluded to one certain party lacking
some essential parts of their anatomy.

In the past day, some have in fact been found - but after careful
forensic examination, they were found to actually belong to the
former UK Ambassador to the US.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/10/kim-darroch-effectively-sacked-by-johnson-on-the-orders-of-trump

[Viking01]

After yesterday's announcement (re Syria), I had expected
"large numbers of troops" were to be allocated by France
and the UK .

But I have to say today's announcement is rather, well,
underwhelming.

https://www.checkpointasia.net/london-and-paris-to-send-fully-30-extra-soldiers-to-syria-after-trump-request/

Apparently, France and the UK operate "covertly" in Syria.

But, why would you have to operate "covertly" in a country
where you had a legal international right to be present ?

Perhaps they mean that they have temporarily lost them ?

Maybe they should ask the Russians for help ? They always
seem to know where opposition Special Forces are located.

Maybe even ask them to launch a few missiles to mark the
spots ?

And the last paragraph was interesting, where Rukban is
the refugee camp within the de-confliction zone adjacent
to the Jordanian border. Remind me again, why are they
"trapped" ?

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/04/tens-thousands-displaced-syrians-stuck-rukban-camp-190412192612893.html

Surely, if the majority of the "refugees" wanted to be
relocated to the "opposition controlled north", you'd
think that the US could simply airlift the refugees out.

I mean, they were doing so for various ISIS fighters
and their families earlier (to Azerbaijan), so I can't
see the problem.

Maybe they don't have enough gold to make it all
worthwhile ?

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03-01/us-army-takes-50-tons-gold-syria-alleged-deal-isis

[Viking01]

https://southfront.org/uk-deploys-second-warship-in-persian-gulf-amid-tension-with-iran/

I see that the UK has decided to relocate another destroyer to the
Persian Gulf in order to "protect" its oil tanker fleet. Even the BBC
is getting all hot and bothered, calling the situation "critical".

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48956547

So, whose bright idea was it to hijack an Iranian oil tanker off the
coast of Gibraltar ? I see the ships officers from the Iranian ship,
while detained, have still not been charged.

Well, we can only hope that what ships the UK does send have had
their gas turbines upgraded. Choosing turbines that were not suitable
for running in warmer waters was definitely a wee oversight.

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/final-cure-for-type-45-destroyer-propulsion-problems-announced/
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/03/21/uk-hires-team-to-stop-destroyers-from-breaking-down-at-sea/

I mean, they wouldn't want to break down and then accidentally drift
into local Iranian waters. I'm sure one of those nice IRGC boats would
be only too happy to come give them a tow into "safe harbour".

No, on second thoughts, perhaps they should send a tug as well ?

[Viking01]

A long read that might interest a few.

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/07/michael-hudson-de-dollarizing-the-american-financial-empire.html

[Laava]

Be interesting to see how this turns out...
"500,000 people vanish into thin air..."
http://nzh.tw/12249284

[austingtir]

Be interesting to see how this turns out...
"500,000 people vanish into thin air..."
http://nzh.tw/12249284


What they are going to find is some mean ass ex green berets (who were hand picked because no family, friends and loosends) who take no shit from anyone.

LOL at 400k neck beard incels storming a legit military base (thats likely worth billions of dollars) that the government doesnt want anyone to see inside.

Its going to be hilarious if any of these clowns actually show up though.

[Viking01]

I really shouldn't read the news while I'm having my breakfast. It took me
ages to clean the coffee off the PC screen, when I was laughing at one of
Don's latest.

Twitter post criticising Ilhan Omar and Ocasio-Cortez

"....and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most
powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don?t they go back
and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.
Then come back and show us how....
? Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) 14 July 2019 .

reported in:

https://sputniknews.com/viral/201907141076244822-trump-omar-aoc-countries-of-origin/


Some-one in the White House. Please. Buy Don an atlas. And quick.

You know, those books with plenty of maps and nice pictures of other
countries around the world.

Showing the places where the US has military bases, or has bombed
since WW2. Surely the Pentagon has something they can give him.


[ Overhead during the daily catch-up in the White House this morning ]

Ilhan Omar
Somali-American politican, born in Mogadishu in Somalia.

Don, Don, I do understand that the original "Black Hawk Down" was
not a great US military success story - but the movie more than made
up for it at the box office. Just let it go, will you ?

Yes, Somalia was one of the seven countries that Wes told us about
back in 2002:

https://www.globalresearch.ca/we-re-going-to-take-out-7-countries-in-5-years-iraq-syria-lebanon-libya-somalia-sudan-iran/5166

Yes, "back to the Stone Age".

No, they're not a rock band.

Though, rocks are probably all that will be left once our boys
have done their business. Heh, heh, heh.

No, there won't be anything of interest left for the Chinese and
the Russians. It's all under control. Just chill.

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/political-horn-africa-181009105638922.html
https://www.fort-russ.com/2018/04/breaking-russia-to-open-military-base-in-africa/


Ocasio Cortez (AOC)
US politican, born in the Bronx of Puerto Rican parents.

Don, she was born here. She's one of us.

Well, no, she's not "one of us". She's one of "them". You know
what I mean. (whisper) A Democrat.

Where the heck is Puerto Rico ?

Don, I've told you this before. Hop to Cuba (who we love to hate),
then turn left, skip across to Haiti and the Dominican Republic,
and then jump across one more to Puerto Rico. A hop, skip and a
jump.

Yes, I know it's confusing. They all look alike. You've bombed one
place, you've bombed them all.

Is it anywhere near the British Virgin islands ? Well, close. But I
doubt there are any virgins left there, well, not if Epstein has had
anything to do with it.

Look, I was just joking.

Yes, I know he's a good friend. Yes, that was tasteless. Look, I'm
sorry. Yes, I apologise.

No, it's not one of those sh#t hole countries - though it might as
well be after that hurricane in 2017.

Why do we care? Well, we don't - they all speak Spanish (just like
in California).

And if they could vote - which they can't, they'd be (whisper)
Democrats.

https://truthout.org/articles/puerto-rico-has-not-recovered-from-hurricane-maria/
https://ahtribune.com/world/americas/3019-puerto-rico.html

But since the hurricane, some of them have shifted to Florida and
Texas. Even New York.

Yes, we need their votes. You wouldn't want them to vote for AOC,
now, would you?

[Sound of hurried footsteps and rapid exit]

[austingtir]

AOC and Illan are both idiots who deserve to be hanged just for being idiots let alone all the actual treason they are committing all over the show.


FFS Illan alone married her brother filed numerous false tax returns and other stuff and this woman is still somehow sitting??
If any republican had done any of the stuff these two twits have done they'd be long gone.


There are certainly some dumb people in the USA but imo they are not Trump supporters. Look at the type of people these crazies are electing? Socialists, muslim agitators and outright communists.

[husaberg]

yeah yeah have they been bankrupt 4 times and been accused of rape by their wife and 40 or so others..................

[Viking01]

It's a full-time job being a neo-con point-man these days. Who said that
evil never rests ? Or is that rust ?

https://www.checkpointasia.net/john-bolton-unwinds-on-vacation-in-hiroshima-nagasaki/

I see John Boy has recently been taking some well earned rest from his
neo-con mischief making, and visiting the sites of past US "successes".

Since he likes to see things "up close and personal", perhaps they could
indulge his fantasy and drop him out the bomb bay doors when next they
do a B2 flyover of North Korea.

Just drop in on Kim, so to speak.

[austingtir]

Megan Fox and Brian Austin Green have three sons: Noah Shannon Green (born 2012), Bodhi Ransom Green (born 2014) and Journey River Green (born 2016).

Why are most of these female celebs complete and utter degenerates these days?
And as for Brian Austin Green what a complete cuck who lets their kids be treated like this?

https://i.imgur.com/WkCmjjY.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/QoyTQeE.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/Zlfzh8C.jpg

I could understand maybe 1 of these kids (even that is bullshit) but all three???

So off the top of my head we have Charlize theron, Sandra Bullock and Naomi Watts all doing similar stuff.... who else?

https://i.imgur.com/c9odiIh.gif

[Viking01]

Growing up here in NZ in the late 50's, we seem to have been spared
much of the nuclear war hysteria and threat (1962 Cuban Missile Crisis,
excepted).

It has been interesting to discuss the prospect of nuclear war with
family home in Scandinavia, and well as with other Scandis I know
here in NZ. Their recollections of those times.

But it seems that our American friends - whose military seems to
losing its supposed pre-eminence (through a series of local ME wars
and poor weapons development) has decided to rattle its nuclear
sabres again.

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/464467-nuclear-weapons-doctrine-american/

Do they somehow think that their main "adversaries" are frightened?

I'm sure that they are - if only at the thought of the quality and the
thinking of the western politicians and military with whom they must
interact.

And sadly, two of Scandinavia's "finest" continue their presstitute
services unabated:

https://www.rt.com/news/462633-inf-treaty-nato-conference/

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/16/hong-kong-china-democracy-europe-taiwan-beijing-eu

They have obviously discovered their "price".

[pritch]

Then this last week, Trump let the UK bulldog off the chain. Intent
on demonstrating that the UK still rules the waves, er, waives the
rules, a few squaddies decided to hijack an oil tanker off Gibralter.

I'm sure that it was all just a wind-up. Just a bit of harmless fun.

But, concerned the Iranians might have lost their sense of humour
(and might target one of the UK's own tankers currently in the Gulf),
the UK asked if their tanker could hide behind a US warship while it
passed through the strait of Hormuz. Just in case.



20/20 foresight. :clap:

[husaberg]

20/20 foresight. :clap:

the it for tat isn't really cricket old chap, the Iranian one was detained over it being suspected in breaching an EU embargo
the Pommy one was allegedly taken in international waters. and or non Iranian waters (oman) just to make a point.

[Viking01]

20/20 foresight. :clap:


Yes, I rather liked the UK stance that they took their action in
response to a breach of EU sanctions - even though Iran is not a
member of the EU, and the tanker destination (of Syria) has been
disputed.

But it appears Iran decided that if the Brits can highjack a tanker,
then so can it.

https://www.rt.com/uk/464693-uk-war-iran-tankers/

And the UK responded with Jeremy Hunt sticking his fingers in his ears
(doing his best "la-la-la, I can't hear you" imitation) and Boris doing
his "what the f#$k just happened" impression. [ Edit: Sadly, RT has
since replaced the original photographs ]

Well, that didn't quite go to plan, did it?. What a pair of tankers !

Meanwhile, the UK press - diligent as always - has managed to find
the "obligatory" Russian involvement.

https://southfront.org/uk-media-found-russian-trace-in-uk-tanker-seizure-by-iran/

Though it is still unclear whether they will finally go for "the UK tanker
was in Omani waters" story, or "the Russians spoofed the tanker GPS,
so it drifted into Iranian waters" story.

Meanwhile, this week, the UK gets ready for the election of Boris the
Great.

I have to admit I thought it strange at first to see a photo of Boris
holding up a piece of hair-wear ("Is that a Kipper I See before Me?")
before I re-read the photo title and realised it was a shrink-wrapped
fish. You have to read the article ....

https://www.scmp.com/news/world/europe/article/3019497/britain-get-ready-boris-johnson-cusp-power

And in anticipation of this great event, some of his fellow Conservative
members ("members", that is the right word, isn't it?) have been beating
upon a path to his door - to offer their resignation notice.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/philip-hammond-resigns-chancellor-boris-johnson-sacked-prime-minister-a9014181.html

It just gets better and better.

[pritch]

the it for tat isn't really cricket old chap, the Iranian one was detained over it being suspected in breaching an EU embargo
the Pommy one was allegedly taken in international waters. and or non Iranian waters (oman) just to make a point.

You're overthinking it. The Brits took one of theirs so they'll take a Brit one. Or several.

My sympathies are currently with Iran. They are sitting at home minding their own business. They are not sailing up and down the US coast, nor have they surrounded the US with military bases.

Trump really doesn't want to get involved in Iran, or any other new war. He wants to get out of the ones the US is in, but he has manic hawks like Bolton and Pompeo in his ear all day, and they have both wanted to bomb Iran for decades.

[husaberg]

You're overthinking it. The Brits took one of theirs so they'll take a Brit one. Or several.

My sympathies are currently with Iran. They are sitting at home minding their own business. They are not sailing up and down the US coast, nor have they surrounded the US with military bases.

Trump really doesn't want to get involved in Iran, or any other new war. He wants to get out of the ones the US is in, but he has manic hawks like Bolton and Pompeo in his ear all day, and they have both wanted to bomb Iran for decades.

I have sympathies with the Iranians but as like the USA what the majority of the people want and belive may not be what their government suggests.
Both are playing a dangerous game of brinkmanship with eath other just as.
Trumps a buffoon i doubt he has any long term strategy other than trying to get reelected and feather his nest and his mates nests.

[Viking01]

Some weeks it's all quiet on the news front. But not this week.

Where do you start ? Well, with a good news story, of course.

Conservative Leader Elected
Yes, you guessed it. Boris got the job. And from the left to the
right, everyone (well, almost everyone) was overjoyed.

A quick survey of a few websites this morning:

Ivanka showed her time spent at the G20 hadn't been wasted,
and sent Daddy's best wishes:

https://www.rt.com/news/464849-ivanka-tweet-kingston-johnson-pm/

There were one or two naysayers, of course. All to be expected:

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/464839-boris-johnson-british-problems/
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/23/boris-johnson-clown-crowned-country-london-dude

But if you wanted just a "quick summary", well, this is for you.

https://www.vox.com/2019/7/23/20707069/boris-johnson-elected-uk-prime-minister-brexit-conservative-party-leader-election

I'd completely forgotten all about the zipline incident. Zipline,
I said, not zipper.

You know, the one where Boris ended up suspended in mid-air,
not knowing where to turn or how to get down.

But after celebrating the anniversary of the moon landing, I do
hope that Boris is not going to put himself in charge of the UK
"moon attempt". Though he probably has the cheeks for it.


Moving on to international news now.

Afghanistan

Yes, Don, I know that I said "use big numbers" when you're making
threats, but they have to be credible. I mean, 10 million. Out of
a population of 35 million.

https://sputniknews.com/world/201907221076324687-afghanistan-would-be-wiped-off-face-of-earth-in-10-days-but-trump-doesnt-want-to-kill-10mln-people/

How did you expect to accomplish that? Use nuclear weapons?

Oh !

Does that mean "leveling the playing field" for peace involves
levelling all the other players as well ?

Or is this what "winning a war" now means in "neocon speak" ?

Well, I've read the same approach worked with the Japanese
back in 1945. And they've been pretty quiet on the Asian front
for the past 70 years.

Or were you just subtly trying to imply "We can leave in peace"
or "we can leave it in pieces".

Twitter diplomacy is so hard to decipher, with only 140 characters.

Pakistan

Imran Kahn even went to the White House to join in the discussions
on Afghanistan.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/07/trump-pakistan-extricate-afghanistan-190722193747363.html

Finally the US has realised that Pakistan is an important factor in the
"quest for peace". All those "nasty words" exchanged last year seem
to have been forgotten (or sent to the media archives, at least).

And if the US plans to remove not only all its troops but its weapons
and equipment as well, then a land route out of Afghanistan would be
quite handy.

This is, if you assume the US actually has an intention of leaving
Afghanistan.

Somehow, leaving Afghanistan after 19 years would still sound like
defeat to me. Just like Vietnam.

And look what it did for Gerald Ford's re-election prospects in 1976.
Look how that turned out. The US ended up with a Democrat (Jimmy
Carter).

Maybe the US will leave just a "small task force" (say 3 to 4 thousand
"peace keepers") behind in Afghanistan.

Just like in Iraq. We all know how well that has worked out.

Mind you, if I was Imran, I wouldn't be overly happy about the idea of
having large numbers of US troops and weapons "transiting my country".

I mean, they might just decide to stay - and bring "peace and democracy"
to Pakistan as well.

Yes, the "peace doves" might say "coo, coo", but the US might instead
hear "coup, coup".

I'm sure that Modi would be all for it.

Yes, I know Modi said that "he wasn't interested" in the US becoming
involved in India - Pakistan discussions over Kashmir, but I'm sure that
was all just for "public consumption". He didn't really mean it.

He'd warm up to the idea once it was a fait d'accompli. Imagine how it
would look to his voters if he could say "I've solved the Pakistan problem".

And it would help put an end to that silly Chinese CPEC idea, once and
for all.

https://eurasiafuture.com/2019/03/18/cpec-is-the-main-artery-of-the-global-village/

Not to mention "putting the wind" up the Iranians next door. Teach them
to meddle in our Gulf. Heh, heh, heh.

I can't see a downside to it myself. I'm surprised that John Boy hasn't
mentioned it already.

Venezuela

Yes, I said that it's been a busy week.

Well, we threatened them yet again that we would "turn their lights
out" as well, and indeed we did. Just as promised.

https://www.rt.com/news/464803-venezuela-new-power-outage/


And it's only Wednesday.

[Viking01]

Can't keep a good man down:

https://www.rt.com/uk/465076-gavin-williamson-boris-education/

Obviously didn't bury him deep enough.

Maybe Boris thinks that Gazza will be an inspirational message
to England's youth. "Energising" is the word I think he used
in his acceptance speech.

[Viking01]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/26/brexit-deadlock-as-no-10-insists-eu-must-scrap-backstop-before-talks

Boris, I know you're seeking to do your best Churchill impression,
but somehow, I don't think you'll be making a two-finger "V for
Victory" sign anytime soon.

Think you're more likely to be shown a different two-finger sign.

[Viking01]

[ Overheard in the White House ]

Well, Don, that was a short bromance. Just as well that you
still have Kim.

But I guess that the signs were there.

First, that French oak tree we planted in the White House
grounds. It turned up its toes back in June.

https://www.newsweek.com/white-house-tree-died-donald-trump-emmanuel-macron-1443077

Yes, I know that you did your best and regularly "showered
it with praise" from the balcony.

But now that uppity little Frenchman dares to levy taxes on
our technology companies.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-07-26/trump-may-slap-tariffs-french-wine-hints-no-trade-deal-until-after-election

Who does he think that he is ? How dare they meddle with our
companies ?

Next, the Germans will pick up on the idea. And then, where
will we be ?

Time to meddle with some of their data. Whose data did they
think it was, anyway ?

And their elections. Meddle with their elections !

Say it was the Russians, doing a trial run for 2020.

Yes, I know the Europeans have just had their elections, but
no-one is going to fact check. Trust me.

Oh, and tell them to ramp up their Russian sanctions, while
they are at it.

Buzzards !

Speaking of which, I see that Chinese is on the menu again this
coming week, with trade talks due to resume again on Tuesday.

Don, that wee comment you made, "the US and China might not
sign a trade deal before the 2020 election". That worries me.

What ?

But Don, you said that "trade wars were easy", and that you
had them by the .... , and all you had to do was to squeeze
their pips some more.

Don, you're not going soft on me, are you ? You know that our
donors wouldn't like to hear that message.

Throw in a few more tariffs, man. Yes, the other $300 billion.

And lock out a few more Chinese technology companies, just
for good measure.

What are you waiting for ?

Oh, and threaten them with being "currency manipulators".

Look, it's not currency manipulation when we do it, because
it's our dollar. Besides, we call it "stabilisation".

https://eurasiafuture.com/2019/07/05/china-is-well-aware-that-currency-devaluation-is-suicide/

Look, we both know it's BS, but the "home team" only listens
to CNN. What do they know ?

They all think the Chinese are wearing the cost of the higher
tariff rates as it is. Who said you can't fool them all the time ?

You could always threaten to "take them to the WTO", and tell
the WTO to "get tough" on them.

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/3020320/us-president-donald-trump-presses-world-trade-organisation-stop-lenient

Yes, we both know the WTO is backlogged and can't adjudicate
its current case load (because we won't approve any new judges
in order to make a quorum).

And that they might end up throwing out our cases because our
claims are tenuous at best.

A bit like Bob Mueller's Russiagate report. Poor old buzzard -
you almost feel sorry for him.

I know. Threaten to remove their "developing nation" status.

Yes, I know we can't do that, but threaten to do it anyway.
The "home team" will lap it up.

Yes, I know most of our "friends" have "developing nation"
status as well. Just get Mike to have a quiet word with them
beforehand.

And lastly, while I remember, please get them to take down
that fake Presidential seal:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49116539

Yes, you have a good week-end too. Another busy week
coming up. You can't play golf all the time.

[Viking01]

Back in March, Trump sent Congress on Monday a record $4.75 trillion budget plan
that called for increased military spending - coupled with sharp cuts to domestic
programs like education and environmental protection - for the 2020 fiscal year.

And just this last week, the Democrats agreed to an increase in the debt ceiling.
Subject of course to both main parties getting some "wins". Have to look after
those "special interests".

https://truthout.org/articles/trump-pelosi-deal-raises-debt-limit-but-protects-war-machine-hyde-amendment/

But I don't see any actual progress on one of the items that will slowly make
itself felt over the coming years : Internal Infrastructure.

It's not that it's a surprise, having been flagged for at least the past 20 years.

https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/making-the-grade/report-card-history/

Don even made it a goal of his first "100 Days" to develop and to produce an
infrastructure plan. He even came up with a budget number ($1.5 trillion).

But something happened, in that federal funding was only going to provide $200
billion of that $1.5 trillion amount - and the rest was to be funded by state and
local governments, foreign borrowing and (you guessed it) private capital.

Needless to say (but I will), various state and local governments were upset,
as they would have to provide their contribution from funds already allocated
to other activities.

Then Don turned around to criticise his own plan:

https://www.alternet.org/2019/04/that-bill-was-so-stupid-trump-reportedly-admitted-his-administrations-own-infrastructure-plan-was-a-pathetic-failure/

and then the Democrats (because they were harassing him):

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/07/trump-promised-massive-infrastructure-projects-instead-weve-gotten-nothing.html

Amazingly enough, the exact same amount ($1.5 trillion) had been budgetted
and approved earlier - but allocated between reduction in corporate taxes and
increased military spending.

Guess it just shows that the US voter needs a better lobby group.

[oldrider]

Guess it just shows that the US voter needs a better lobby group. True enough but:-

The US has got any amount of excellent "extremely well financed" effective lobby groups! - Problem is they are virtually "all" plugging for Israel! - :facepalm:

Time to genuinely re-evaluate value for money that the US taxpayers (unknowingly?) spend on "Israel". - :o

[Viking01]

Another beautiful day in the Capital today.

Breakfast (tick)
Shower and shave (tick)
Washed the dishes (tick)
Made the bed (tick)
Done the washing (tick)
A quick read of the world news (tick)

All by 10:30am. Almost a PB.

The US
-Don's talking about the urgent need for improved rat catchers.
or maybe I misread that article.
-Pelosi and Nadler pretending to talk about impeachment (again).
While "racing" to beat the "recess break" deadline (think we call
it "school holidays" over here).

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/26/nancy-pelosi-donald-trump-impeachment-1437530
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-07-28/nadler-trump-violated-law-six-ways-sunday-just-waiting-evidence-impeach

The UK
-Boris pretending to threaten the EU with withdrawal, while
quietly preparing to call a snap election. You crafty devil.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/28/boris-johnson-turbo-charging-no-deal-brexit-plans-say-ministers
https://moneymaven.io/mishtalk/economics/boris-johnson-throws-down-the-gauntlet-no-backstop-not-even-temporary--tgfDs5REkWAAy0MA6UVeQ/
https://www.apnews.com/db77a1d5827a47fe8b99210db64a744a

-Boris sent another ship to the Persian Gulf (to make sure
they don't misplace any more tankers). France and Germany
have each offered a dinghy, while Mike Pompeo effectively
said "that while you're special, you're on your own" .

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49144717
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-07-23/france-germany-join-uks-joint-maritime-security-mission-gulf
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/22/uk-must-look-after-its-own-ships-in-the-gulf-says-pompeo

China

-Trade talks (and fireworks) do not restart until tomorrow.

Middle East

-Jared has rarked up the neighbours again, while Bibi might
face some more pushback.

https://www.scmp.com/news/world/middle-east/article/3020379/kushners-middle-east-peace-plan-has-alarm-bells-ringing
https://www.rt.com/newsline/465241-arab-alliance-israel-elections/

BRICS

-Just some old news (with the lights back on in Caracas, and a
US spy plane feeling "threatened" by a Venezuelan fighter jet).
Gosh, those US spy planes are so "sensitive". Must be all those
electronics.

https://off-guardian.org/2019/07/25/venezuela-defeats-new-power-sabotage-in-hours/

http://valdaiclub.com/a/highlights/meeting-of-the-brics/


Well, it seems like everything is under control for the time being.

Think that I'll go out and wash the car. And the Honda as well.

And since it's such a lovely day, I might even take the Honda for
a blast up over the Rimutakas.

Could even wind up a motorist or two with a "fast overtaking
manoeuvre" (just to keep my eye in). It's important to keep
practicing those riding skills. Might even throw in a yellow
line or two, if the fancy takes me.

[Viking01]

You lucky devils. Who knew that reclaimed swampland could have
so much economic value ?

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/114596802/deal-for-christchurchs-quakedamaged-red-zone-returns-power-to-the-people

And you get to pay approx $25 mil a year for the next 30 years
for the privilege as well.

[Viking01]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7303103/Boris-Johnson-hints-UK-remain-EU-single-market-customs-union-2021.html

Boris, you old fox.

Tell them that you're going to "do Brexit" by October 31 - and then "hint"
that the UK will actually remain in the Customs Union and the EU for up to
another two years.

Out of the EU in word, but not in deed. And leaving you time to deal with
Labour and win an election, er, "negotiate a more favourable EU deal".

And, of course, the EU will play along with that plan.

Brilliant ! A master stroke. No wonder that they put you in charge of the
hen house.

[oldrider]

Boris - the British Trump? - :yawn: - like all "go forward" western politicians, completely compromised and totally controllable. - (He who pays the piper calls the tune!) - :violin:

[Viking01]

There's just no respect (or fear) being shown these days.

First, the US-China trade talks collapse within a day:

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-07-31/us-china-trade-talks-collapse-after-half-day-negotiations

Guess that Don's recent tweets (just prior to the resumption
of talks) didn't have the desired effect.

And now the Iranians have started to mock her Madge:

https://www.rt.com/news/465485-iran-cartoon-queen-pirate-uk/

She will not be pleased. Mock the UK politicians by all means.

And Don, just to show that they haven't forgotten you:

https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2019/08/01/602364/Donald-Trump-shining-star-of-flipflopping-universe

[Hugo Nougo]

jesus people!, its not that cold out there, go for a fucking ride. The worlds leaders will still be talking shit when you get back.

[oldrider]

Surprise, surprise? Americans think of media as even more destructive than banks & corporations - :shifty: - https://www.rt.com/usa/465461-us-media-distrust-americans/ - :corn:

[Viking01]

I have enjoyed the National Geographic magazine ever since
I was old enough to read it. Nearly 60 years ago. I enjoyed
both the variety of articles, and (as I got older) its still
neutral tone.

But about 5 years ago, I noticed a sudden change in content
with a sudden perceivable political focus and bias (western
dominated).

Not just the occasional article, but right throughout the
whole magazine.

To the point that within a year, I chose to cancel my annual
subscription. Incidentally around 2015, as it happens.

So it was with interest that I noticed this article today:

https://www.unz.com/article/what-makes-national-geographics-race-denying-editor-susan-goldberg-run/

And I have to admit the jury (me, in the case) is undecided
whether to retain subscriptions to Scientific American and
New Scientist.

Not only due to "dumbing down" of some articles, but because
of some articles of dubious scientific content on various
contentious subjects (e.g. GMO's).

It almost appears that they are becoming willing to sacrifice
some quality of scientific content in the interest of pushing
US political and economic barrows.

Thank heavens for Bike Rider.

[oldrider]

Stupid fucking world all right! - :weird: - https://twitter.com/HenryMakow/status/1157770222620860421?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5 Eembeddedtimeline%7Ctwterm%5Eprofile%3AHenryMakow&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.henrymakow.com%2F - :thud:

[Viking01]

It took a reading of the full article before we finally come to
the real reasons in the last two paragraphs:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-announces-more-sanctions-against-russia-over-poisoning-ex-n1038951

Couldn't they just have used "US election meddling" ? I mean, at
least that was a mildly credible political "hook on which to hang
this coat."

But Skripal ?

https://www.checkpointasia.net/more-sanctions-on-russians-for-refusing-to-say-if-they-have-stopped-beating-their-wives/

Or can we expect another "false flag" in the coming days ?

[oldrider]

1000 dogs poisoned a week in South Africa! - :wait:


<iframe width="280" height="158" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/A5nQDEJketk" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Further unsavoury (?) South African news?.- https://christiansfortruth.com/jewish-comedian-in-south-africa-mocks-white-farmers-brutally-murdered-by-blacks/

[Viking01]

Jens, if I'd known that you were visiting NZ, I'd have baked a cake.

https://www.rt.com/newsline/465913-nato-us-withdrawal-stoltenberg/

But, aren't you a little lost ? NZ is in the southern hemisphere, and
NATO is in the northern hemisphere. Russians meddling with your GPS?

And NZ is not a NATO member. Well, not yet, anyway. But I suppose
that could change.

So, what did you want to come talk to us about ?

Did you want to come borrow some of our troops for another one of
those ill-fated NATO "peace keeping" missions (in the Middle East) ?

Or one of our ships to come do tanker protection duty in the Persian
Gulf ?

Or was it simply to make sure that we continue to "vote the right way"
at the UNGA ?

I'd be ever so interested to know.

[pritch]

Or one of our ships to come do tanker protection duty in the Persian
Gulf ?



They are currently trying to put together an international fleet for this apparently. Somewhat surprisingly China has offered a ship or ships.

[Viking01]

They are currently trying to put together an international fleet for this apparently. Somewhat surprisingly China has offered a ship or ships.

Surprising ? Well, .... maybe not.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29299/china-curiously-says-it-may-join-u-s-persian-gulf-maritime-coalition-despite-trade-war

[Edit]

https://www.checkpointasia.net/china-considers-escorting-tankers-to-protect-from-seizure-by-the-us/

[Viking01]

Don, I think some of the population don't believe your pontifications
on renewable energy, and are just going ahead with "green" solutions
anyway.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/08/07/the-promise-of-offshore-wind/

While I'm still unsure whether the solar panels earlier installed at the
White House are still present (the Democrats seem to install them,
and the Republicans seem to remove them):

https://www.thoughtco.com/history-of-white-house-solar-panels-3322255

I think there is certainly some opportunity for operating a small wind
turbine (or two) on the front lawn, judging by the amount of "bluster
and hot air" currently being generated and expelled from the residence.

I particularly liked the last paragraph of the first article above, where
you advised that fracking is "good for you":

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/06/19/we-need-ban-fracking-new-analysis-1500-scientific-studies-details-threat-health-and

Just as well you and Obama between you have dealt with that annoying
EPA organisation. You know, the one responsible for human health and
the environment in the US :

https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/aboutepa/our-mission-and-what-we-do_.html

https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/04/26/how-obama-defanged-the-epa-before-trump-gutted-the-agency/

[Edit]

https://www.rt.com/usa/466001-us-regulators-pesticides-corporations/

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/08/07/trumps-rollback-fuel-economy-standards-could-cost-americans-460-billion-consumer

[oldrider]

All wars benefit bankers and corporates - the real enemies who are hidden and or pretending to be our friends. :doctor: - Interesting? - :corn:


<iframe width="903" height="508" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/YmvuYTH5nU0" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Viking01]

They are currently trying to put together an international fleet for this apparently.
Somewhat surprisingly China has offered a ship or ships.

Just pursuing your earlier comment a little further.

Its interesting how sometimes "seemingly unconnected events" turn
out to have a connection or an impact after all.

China was proposing to provide vessels to escort oil tankers through
the Persian Gulf (possibly independent of any US initiative to do so).

US trade war on China and sanctions on Iran --> China continues to
purchase Iranian oil --> depress global oil price --> impact upon US
shale fracking

https://www.checkpointasia.net/us-shale-is-already-in-big-trouble-now-imagine-what-happens-if-china-restores-iranian-oil-purchases/

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-07-22/why-us-shale-doomed-no-matter-what-they-do

[oldrider]

HAIR-TRIGGER NUCLEAR ALERT OVER KASHMIR? - :bye: - https://ericmargolis.com/2019/08/hair-trigger-nuclear-alert-over-kashmir/ - :wait:

[Viking01]

A few words from economist Joseph Stiglitz earlier this year might help to set
the scene:

"It’s old news that large segments of society have become deeply unhappy with
what they see as the Establishment, especially the political class.

The Yellow Vest protests in France, triggered by President Macron’s move to hike
fuel taxes in the name of combating climate change, were but the latest example
of the scale of this alienation.

There are good reasons for today’s disgruntlement: four decades of promises made
by political leaders of both the center left and center right, espousing the neoliberal
faith that globalization, financialization, deregulation, privatization, and a host of
related reforms would bring unprecedented prosperity, have gone unfulfilled.

While a tiny elite seems to have done very well, large swaths of the population
have fallen out of the middle class and plunged into a new world of vulnerability
and insecurity. Even leaders in countries with low but increasing inequality have
felt their public’s wrath."

Perhaps that also helps explain what's been happening in Britain, with all that
Brexit business?


While on the environmental front, despite the latest IPCC reports, there seems to
be little political appetite for change (despite warning flags being waved):

https://grist.org/article/a-hot-planet-threatens-food-and-water-more-than-realized-ipcc-says/


With that in mind, thought that it might be interesting to go back and read up on the
Green New Deal that was being proposed in the US earlier this year.

A number of Green New Deal articles were duly posted, purporting to outline what was
been proposed:

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/2/7/18211709/green-new-deal-resolution-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-markey

Though not everyone was happy (and certainly not within the wider Democrat team):

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/12/21/18144138/green-new-deal-alexandria-ocasio-cortez

A few "doubters" turned up to say that it was not even a "plan", but just "a plan to
make a plan". Even worse, that "it wasn't even new":

https://www.mintpressnews.com/corporations-see-a-different-kind-of-green-in-ocasio-cortez-green-new-deal/253076/

Others were quick to leap in and state that "whatever it was", it still would not work.
I'm not quite sure I understand the logic.

But with "feedback from both sides of the fence", at least there could be no claims of
partisanship. Obviously, they both hate it.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/02/25/slandering-the-not-so-radical-green-new-deal-a-bipartisan-operation/

There were obviously some calling for "compromise":

https://www.thenation.com/article/the-green-new-compromise/

But now I'm starting to feel, well, "slightly disillusioned" with aspects of the whole
concept:

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2019/08/10/misanthropic-bankers-behind-green-new-deal/

Maybe I have just been sliding down the slope and have become "trapped in the
trough":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hype_cycle

Roll on the "slope of enlightenment".

[Viking01]

Of course we'll still respect your sovereignty in the morning. Now
bend over and touch your toes.

No wonder that John Boy had a smile on his little walrus face in the
first article.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/13/us-no-deal-john-bolton-trade-foreign-policy
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/13/brexit-iran-huawei-what-john-boltons-interim-deals-could-cost
https://www.dw.com/en/us-uk-looking-for-quick-post-brexit-trade-deal/a-50000771

Certainly has to be easier than "doing a trade deal" with the Chinese.

https://www.checkpointasia.net/us-china-trade-war-casualty-figures-are-in-and-they-show-china-is-winning/
https://www.apnews.com/7f5e9de173484e5dacc8a32ef888ea9e

[Edit]

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/bolton-john-trade-brexit-iran-war-china-boris-johnson-a9056261.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/the-independent-daily-cartoon-a8575981.html

[Edit 2]

https://www.globalresearch.ca/leaked-uks-new-trade-secretary-met-us-pressure-groups-discuss-weakening-regulations/5685693

[Viking01]

I was recently in contact with some family back home in Copenhagen,
discussing the supposed upcoming visit of Trump to Denmark and its
likely justification:

http://cphpost.dk/news/donald-trump-considering-denmark-visit.html

I jibed that Don simply wanted to come over and see how a decent social
democrat country - one that looked after its citizens - actually functioned.
So that they could replicate that back home.

But on reflection, I see that now that global warming has exposed more
of the "green land" under Greenland, he simply sees good opportunities to
build some exotic golf courses and new exclusive Trump hotels ...

That explains the reason behind his upcoming visit. He obviously wants
to come do a deal.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-08-15/trump-asks-advisors-about-possibility-buying-greenland

Well, Don, I have only two words to say to you.

[Edit]

https://sputniknews.com/world/201908161076562744-danish-politicians-scoff-at-trumps-reported-wish-to-buy-greenland-it-must-be-an-april-fools-day/

[Edit 2]

https://www.commondreams.org/further/2019/08/16/one-nation-united-hygge-weary-americans-welcome-their-enlightened-new-danish

[Edit 3]

https://www.thebeaverton.com/2019/08/trump-loses-interest-in-buying-greenland-after-learning-it-isnt-a-money-themed-amusement-park/

[F5 Dave]

"I love you" :love: no, wait. That's 3 words.

"Suck my. . . " no. Still 3.

Hmm this is hard. :confused:

[husaberg]

Hmm this is hard. :confused:

Nah thats three plus a vocalisation?

If the two words were coming from Bend Oregon it would be "YES please" or "I'm Cumming"

[Viking01]

There have been quite a number of articles posted in the western
mainstream press recently about Chinese Silk Road projects, with
shrieks of alarm about Chinese lending and "debt entrapment".

Even a good friend of mine (who should know better) was recently
telling me how I should be aware of unscrupulous Chinese lending.

As if the Australian banks have not been "making hay" here in NZ
the past few years, and that we shouldn't be a little more focused
closer to home:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/114751794/former-bnz-chairman-blames-weak-and-ineffective-reserve-bank-for-industry-failings

But I digress.

I suggested to my friend maybe he should instead spend some time
looking at the history of the IMF (and the World Bank).

The book "Pillaging the World - The History and Politics of the IMF"
(by Ernst Wolff) is both easy and interesting reading.

But it seems there are few articles posted by the mainstream press
about past lending action by either the IMF or World Bank. Unless
you go looking for them, of course. So, maybe it's time to do a little
search.

Let's start with the IMF.

The IMF is an intermediary, effectively acting as "arranger" (and
"enforcer") for the banks making the actual loans to the approved
borrower.

Following the recent Argentine election (where the incumbent Macri
was dealt a heavy defeat, and currency and stock / bond markets
then "tanked" quickly afterwards), I came across an article on a
conservative blog where the author effectively asked the question:

"How can the IMF be so stupid as to consistently make such poor
lending decisions ?"

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/imf-lending-austerity-argentina-ecuador-by-jayati-ghosh-2019-08

Is the writer that naive, or simply just being disingenuous ?

Of course, it's not a "poor lending decision" by the IMF. It's
just the standard IMF "loan recipe" being applied.

Where certain "standard conditions" (externalities) are imposed
upon the borrower e.g.

-currency devaluation
-cut back on fuel and food subsidies
-cut back on pensions and social welfare payments
-focus loan monies primarily on exporting activities (whose income
streams must be directed back into IMF loan repayment in the very
first instance)

And where it is desirable to try and strip borrowing countries of
certain key physical assets (e.g. energy/water/mineral companies).
Typically through privatisation and sale (and generally with rapid
purchase by circling "vulture funds" for just cents on the dollar).

It's not exactly a great surprise as this behaviour has been going
on since the end of WW2, though probably more visibly since Chile
and the "Chicago Boys" in the early 1970's :

https://www.globalresearch.ca/pillaging-the-world-the-history-and-politics-of-the-imf/5420397

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/08/bretton-woods-institutions-enforcers-not-saviours.html

You might be forgiven thinking that given the IMF's control over
the approval of loans, at least it would adhere to its own rules.

But No, you'd be disappointed. Apparently, IMF rules were made to
be "broken" or "amended" at will.

A few recent examples.

Ukraine

For those who remember the Ukraine coup in 2014, sovereign loans
made by Russia to the previous Ukrainian administration (ousted in
the coup) should have been repaid to Russia via the IMF when the
latter approved new loans.
[Result: Russian repayment rejected]

http://johnhelmer.net/the-kolomoisky-pyramid-started-with-hillary-clinton-and-victoria-nuland-of-the-state-department-plus-christine-lagarde-of-the-imf/

Similarly, extension of existing loans to the Ukraine should have been
denied by the IMF (because of Ukraine's "conflict status", and through
its failure to adhere to terms of the Minsk agreement made with the EU).
[Result: New loan extensions approved]

https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/10/09/the-global-financial-system-is-dying-in-a-london-courthouse/

Pakistan

It has also been interesting watching Pakistan over past months,
watching to see whether it would manage to obtain loans from
outside of the IMF cabal of western banks.

Despite some funding from outside parties, Pakistan still ended up
requiring a $US 6 billion loan via the IMF.

Whereas IMF loans will normally be repaid to the country's creditors,
in this case the IMF loan was made conditional upon none of the loan
amount being used to repay Chinese creditors (involved in building
of Pakistani infrastructure forming part of the new Silk Road). Part
of the reason why lending was being undertaken in the first place.

https://thediplomat.com/2019/07/the-imf-takeover-of-pakistan/

China and Russia

Given China's (and Russia's) willingness to help fund the building of
new infrastructure within neighbouring nations, the IMF has also been
busy investigating "creative ways" to try and meddle.

One example: If a Chinese (or Russian) bank makes a loan - instead of
an IMF affiliated bank, maybe the IMF could encourage the borrower to
"stiff" the lender regarding loan repayment - once the infrastructure
has been built or the product delivered and installed?

https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-imf-changes-its-rules-to-isolate-china-and-russia-2/5506116

Social Inequality

While the IMF professes to care about social inequality, it seems clear
that it is only bank shareholders that the IMF truly cares about.

https://theconversation.com/imf-says-it-cares-about-inequality-but-will-it-change-its-ways-120105

World Bank

Maybe the IMF's sister organisation (the World Bank) has a better track
record ?

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/07/michael-hudson-discusses-the-imf-and-world-bank-partners-in-backwardness.html

Nope. And it seems that no opportunity is too small not to be exploited:

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/08/even-larry-summers-denounces-world-banks-pef-ebola-bonds-that-enriched-investors-at-expense-of-the-sick-in-the-congo.html

Perhaps the slogan "we're here to help" should be re-written "we're here
to help ourselves" in the case of these two organisations.

So please pardon my increasing "deafness" when I start hearing shrieks
about Chinese lending and "debt entrapment".

[Edit]

You'd also expect to hear more about some of the IMF and World Bank
"success stories" in the media:

https://sputniknews.com/world/201904121074059700-imf-world-bank-venezuela-block/

https://www.rt.com/news/466728-lee-camp-honduras-brazil/

https://off-guardian.org/2019/08/20/offering-choice-but-delivering-tyranny-the-corporate-capture-of-agriculture/

[Edit 2]

Some of you may remember an IMF loan being taken out by Ecuador around
the time that Assange was given up by the Ecuadorian authorities and was
expelled from their London embassy. Pure coincidence, of course.

Another IMF "success story" (just read the attached transcript):

https://therealnews.com/stories/ecuador-takes-harmful-imf-loan-even-though-it-doesnt-need-it

[Viking01]

https://www.rt.com/news/466939-australia-us-coalition-iran/

Maybe once we get our new Poseidon 8A's, we can go play there
as well.

Don, we'd send a frigate, but it's such an awfully long way to go.
Maybe if we ask the Iranians nicely, they'll fuel it up for us when
we get there.

[Edit]

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12260633

[Viking01]

I've always loved graphs. A great way to help simplify things or to
try and tell a story.

But I'm not quite so sure about this one.

https://www.statista.com/chart/19070/results-of-the-fragile-states-index/

After just a cursory examination, I noticed:

That NZ and Greenland are clearly in a stability league of their own.

That Greece and Argentina are almost stable - WT# ??

And as for the US and the UK being stable ? They clearly didn't evaluate
the mental state of their politicians.

At least it brought a smile.

[pritch]

After just a cursory examination, I noticed:



After just such an examination I noticed we aren't on their map. Fuckem! I hate it when that happens.

[oldrider]

After just such an examination I noticed we aren't on their map. Fuckem! I hate it when that happens.

I thought that is what he was referring to - Greenland and God's own - are not on the map? :Oops:

[Viking01]

I thought that is what he was referring to - Greenland and God's own - are not on the map? :Oops:

Pritch: We are on the map, but shown in very light grey in the bottom
right-hand corner.

Old Rider: Yes, it did cross my mind that maybe there was a subtle
political message being delivered (i.e. that "Gods own" might soon be
subject to some ownership change as well ... 8-)

On possibly a related note, I see the IMF plans to visit and participate
in a conference here next week:

Introduction
The Reserve Bank and the International Monetary Fund are hosting a
conference in Wellington next week to discuss broad issues around
monetary policy, the labour market, and the future of inflation targeting.

Inflation Targeting: Prospects and Challenges has attracted delegates
from around the world. It will be co-hosted by the Bank and the IMF’s
Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, and will be held at Te Papa
Tongarewa on August 28 and 29.

While inflation targeting has had a history of success in delivering low,
stable inflation and substantial macroeconomic stability over the past
several decades, the last 10 years have proven to be challenging for
monetary authorities.

RBNZ Assistant Governor and General Manager of Economics, Financial
Markets and Banking Christian Hawkesby says: “We are now faced with
stubbornly low inflation and low interest rates, driven by structural and
cyclical factors. If monetary policy is to be successful for a further 30
years, we need to confront these challenges.

“This is what this conference is about — understanding the big questions
about inflation targeting and considering how we need to adapt to continue
being as successful as possible.

Programme
https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/research-and-publications/seminars-and-workshops/inflation-targeting-prospects-and-challenges

[pritch]

It would appear that map is device dependent. On the laptop the map stops just to the right of Australia. On this iPad a pop up jammed the screen. On the smallest screen the best picture. The iPhone map shows the pale NZ.

[oldrider]

The most constructive parts of that program are the "breaks". - :argh: - All they really need to do is float the decimal point! - :whistle:

[mashman]

There have been quite a number of articles posted in the western
mainstream press recently about Chinese Silk Road projects, with
shrieks of alarm about Chinese lending and "debt entrapment".

Jeremy Rifkin wants the world to undertake an infrastructure overhaul to create jobs for the growing population. Part of that infrastructure undertaking is a train line from China to France. His reasoning is economics based and projected ROI in terms of savings for business etc... As such, it completely ignores human behaviour and the planetary limits that it will have to completely ignore to develop the resources for such projects. Completely moronic, but also exceptionally ironic........ especially when he claims that such things will be required in order to pay for the sharing economy that is to come. Moronic. Insane would be closer... but hey, it's what people want to hear ha ha ha ha haaaaaaa

[austingtir]

Jeremy Rifkin wants the world to undertake an infrastructure overhaul to create jobs for the growing population. Part of that infrastructure undertaking is a train line from China to France. His reasoning is economics based and projected ROI in terms of savings for business etc... As such, it completely ignores human behaviour and the planetary limits that it will have to completely ignore to develop the resources for such projects. Completely moronic, but also exceptionally ironic........ especially when he claims that such things will be required in order to pay for the sharing economy that is to come. Moronic. Insane would be closer... but hey, it's what people want to hear ha ha ha ha haaaaaaa


China's not going to have any money to build that train line with once Trump is done with them.

[Viking01]

The year started with the election of Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, and change
(not always positive) was on the cards:

https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201810291069311429-us-brazil-bolsonaro/
https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/02/article/bolsonaro-scandal-puts-brazil-on-edge-as-farmers-eye-amazon-forests/

We started the month with mention of a greater-than-normal number
of forest fires in the Amazon:

https://www.dw.com/en/brazil-forest-fires-rage-as-farmers-push-into-the-amazon/a-50116455

Though Bolsonaro denied that these claims were in fact legitimate:

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/bolsonaro-accuses-state-agency-of-lying-on-brazil-deforestation-11738700
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/08/the-amazon-is-burning-at-a-record-rate.html

Importance of the Amazon

The Amazon is the last major global bastion of rain forest.

It has sometimes been described as the "lungs of the planet", and has
been recognised as not only having significant diversity of plants and
animal species, but an ability to stabilise world weather patterns.

Germany and Norway had earlier protested to Brazil about Amazonian
forest fires and reacted by withdrawal of Amazon protection subsidies:

https://www.france24.com/en/20190816-norway-stops-subsidy-brazil-amazon-broke-agreement-deforestation-bolsonaro

To which Bolsonaro responded by criticising their "colonial attitude".

But despite Bolsonaro's claim the fires were nothing unusual - and that
many were started by environmentalists (instead of illegal loggers and
ranchers clearing forest), it looks like the locals didn't necessarily agree
with his story, have had enough, and are now protesting for action.

https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Amazon-Crisis-Mass-Protests-Erupt-Across-Brazil-20190824-0001.html

So after 20 days of "doing nothing", whilst claiming that Brazil did not
have the fire-fighting resources, we now see that he has arranged for
the deployment of up to 44,000 of their military to fight their fires.

So what has changed?

https://www.vox.com/world/2019/8/24/20831282/amazon-fires-brazil-jair-bolsonaro-military-flames-macron-trump-g7-

rondonia-amazonias

Separately, I see the latest G7 conference has convened in southern
France.

At first, I thought I saw what were "heads on pikes", but sadly I was
disappointed. They were only cardboard cut-outs (very much like the
politicians themselves).

https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/G7-Summit-Starts-Amid-Discontent-with-Amazon-Fires-Trade-Wars-20190824-0002.html

After first discussing the "big ticket" items like Brexit, GAFA tax and
the US trade war with the EU, they managed to found a little time
to discuss environmentalism.

Well, the "next best thing". The EU-Mercusor trade agreement, and
how that deal might be compromised by the Amazonian fires.

https://sputniknews.com/latam/201907171076267395-brazils-bolsonaro-to-propose-mercosur-trade-agreement-with-us---

report/

But as the following article says, what does the G7 have to offer?
Or indeed, what does the G7 propose to do ?

https://www.rt.com/news/467179-g7-macron-amazon-crisis/

Guess that we'll have to wait for the G7 press release and conference
minutes.

Apart from local ranchers and loggers, there are others that will
seek to benefit economically from opening up of the Amazonian
basin to exploitation e.g. mining.

[I'll ignore soy beans for the moment - it's presently being argued
over on another thread]

https://www.aljazeera.com/ajimpact/brazilian-gold-rush-destroying-amazon-forests-190822020613066.html

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/03/14/brazil-open-indigenous-reserves-mining-without-indigenous-consent

Which typically try to avoid meeting the true costs of their operations.

https://ips-dc.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/ISDS-Mining-Latin-America-Report-Formatted_April29.pdf


Perhaps we should forget such extractive processes for a minute, and
focus on what rain forests themselves offer (and why their ongoing
destruction matters).

https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/10/30/collapsing-rainforest-ecosystems/

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/how-amazon-s-fires-deforestation-affect-u-s-midwest-n1045886

http://www.globalissues.org/article/170/why-is-biodiversity-important-who-cares

I do recognise the above does not address ecological footprint, estimated
resource over-consumption (Earth over-shoot) and need for more sustainable
development. Which Mashman often mentions. [Ack]

[mashman]

China's not going to have any money to build that train line with once Trump is done with them.

China have already built that which is necessary their end. Economies between China and Europe need infrastructure projects to contribute to growth. Those countries will build their part in order to boost their economy's. As such, China needing money to finish the project isn't a requirement. Other countries having the money to do it is, which is exactly what underpins Rifkin's economic model to grow the economy.

The money creation is simple: "Hi. We wish to build a trainline to lower costs and speed up various business facets. It'll cost $X, and we're all in on it because it'll create jobs and grow the economy, so no one loses.". The money is created on the promise of future ROI i.e. it's backed by a future asset and the economic growth that surrounds its creation. Same as a death pledge, I mean mortgage, the asset exists on paper without necessarily ever coming to fruition... but it keeps the economy ticking and allows the agencies of concern to keep on spreading the manure that more pointless jobs are a good thing given that the associated economic activity leads to planetary collapse.

If Trump somehow manages to drop China's economy on its arse, then we'll all feel it. You don't crash a massive economy without the rest of the world feeling it (GFC), especially when they are the owners of (goods) production that holds up approximately 1/3 of the global economy. As such, trumps tough talk is demonstrably pretty fuckin' moronic from an economic perspective... but hey, limited vision is limited vision when the knowledge base demonstrably sucks ass. That seems to be people in business for ya.

[mashman]

I do recognise the above does not address ecological footprint, estimated
resource over-consumption (Earth over-shoot) and need for more sustainable
development. Which Mashman often mentions. [Ack]

The behaviour linked to (which I rarely read these days given that the same things repeat so frequently) is a symptom of our lack of sustainable development. Our lack of sustainable development is a symptom of our business culture, more specifically the inability of the underpinning economic model to accept the program, Entire crops were lost (chur Agent Smith) or Housing market collapsed or giving a big wave to a nuclear power plant or we've had earthquakes hope you have insurance etc...

Earth Overshoot is the voice of the planet in data, and it's saying "ok ok, 50 years is long enough. Tidy up your room or else...", with the else bit involving the slow slide into extinction whilst believing that extracting more resources is a good idea to maintain the economic model that is creating hell on Earth. No drama, just a simple way of putting it according to the evidence.

Someone should do something :killingme

The behaviour and economics that drive sustainability are subtly different from today, but that's another story.

[Viking01]

Another week, another queen. This time, the English Queen. Albeit
her Madge recalling Don's last visit to the UK. I have to admit that
she looked less than amused in the photo.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/europe/115271004/trumps-big-chopper-ruined-my-lawn-queen-told-scott-morrison

I can fully sympathise with her. She probably felt like letting the
corgis loose on him, but then thought better of it.

I admit that I'm not a great corgi fan, but I wouldn't wish that on
any animal.

Not only traumatised by the whole experience, but unable to ever
get the taste out of their mouth.

And then, adding insult to injury, having to have a distemper shot
as well. I know who needs the f@#$%&* distemper shot.

Besides, Don's Secret Service agents would have likely shot one
of them - then there would have been a right royal international
incident.

I was thinking maybe Don could arrange a visit to Holland and go
for the trifecta, but then I remembered that Beatrix abdicated to
her son a few years ago.

Ah well, I'm sure that there will be other opportunities.

[TheDemonLord]

So, how much did Gillette loose in Brand Value by going 'woke'?





That would be $8 Billion.

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Get Woke, Go broke.

[austingtir]

Another week, another queen. This time, the English Queen. Albeit
her Madge recalling Don's last visit to the UK. I have to admit that
she looked less than amused in the photo.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/europe/115271004/trumps-big-chopper-ruined-my-lawn-queen-told-scott-morrison

I can fully sympathise with her. She probably felt like letting the
corgis loose on him, but then thought better of it.

I admit that I'm not a great corgi fan, but I wouldn't wish that on
any animal.

Not only traumatised by the whole experience, but unable to ever
get the taste out of their mouth.

And then, adding insult to injury, having to have a distemper shot
as well. I know who needs the f@#$%&* distemper shot.

Besides, Don's Secret Service agents would have likely shot one
of them - then there would have been a right royal international
incident.

I was thinking maybe Don could arrange a visit to Holland and go
for the trifecta, but then I remembered that Beatrix abdicated to
her son a few years ago.

Ah well, I'm sure that there will be other opportunities.

The "Windsors" are germans anyway so I couldnt care less. Good on Don for "messing her lawn up" I say.

[austingtir]

So, how much did Gillette loose in Brand Value by going 'woke'?





That would be $8 Billion.

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Get Woke, Go broke.


I used to buy Gillette. Fvck them. Schick seems to last longer anyways.

[Viking01]

Had no sooner commented on the fires in the Amazon on Sunday:

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/amazon-fires-brazil-environment-climate-change-sparking-crisis-11841490

and some scattered outbreaks were observed in the south of France
overnight:

https://www.dw.com/en/g7-in-biarritz-second-day-takeaways/a-50160282

Fortunately, Don was on hand to pi$$ on everyone and to dampen
down the hot spots.

However, on the last day (26th), more high winds are expected,
with the possibility of another willy-willy or two:

https://www.apnews.com/2be891050c31428493e36606b2ef1223

I did have to check the dictionary to see if I had applied the
correct meteorological term:

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=willy-willy

[austingtir]

Had no sooner commented on the fires in the Amazon on Sunday:

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/amazon-fires-brazil-environment-climate-change-sparking-crisis-11841490

and some scattered outbreaks were observed in the south of France
overnight:

https://www.dw.com/en/g7-in-biarritz-second-day-takeaways/a-50160282

Fortunately, Don was on hand to pi$$ on everyone and to dampen
down the hot spots.

However, on the last day (26th), more high winds are expected,
with the possibility of another willy-willy or two:

https://www.apnews.com/2be891050c31428493e36606b2ef1223

I did have to check the dictionary to see if I had applied the
correct meteorological term:

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=willy-willy


Im surprised the usual suspects arent in a flap about Trump "declaring a national emergency" and just fully stopping trade with china altogether. They must be off getting their scripted talking points in order.

[Viking01]

Now the post G7 conference statement has been issued, it's reassuring
to see that "the hand is still firmly on the tiller of the global ship".

Though I'm not quite so sure whose hand, and in which direction the ship
is heading. I keep having these recurring dreams of water swirling around
a plughole.

The first article below leads with a photo of Don talking with one of the
other attendees, though I'm not sure which one. The media did have
some trouble with identifying some attendees, as South Africa's Cyril
Ramaphosa can attest.

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/467394-g7-summit-macron-us/

On that subject, I'm not even sure how Cyril managed an invitation
(given that they managed to keep out all of the other BRICS members).

Maybe with SA becoming chair of the African Union in 2020 (and the
recent declaration of the African Free Trade Area), it was to ensure
that he was clear about his "marching orders" for 2020. Who knows?

Some commentators say that the G7 format is dead, but I think that is
being unduly pessimistic.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-08-23/g7-obsolete-useless-talking-shop

It's a great place for the heads of state to come together and talk,
and even poke a bit of fun at each other.

This year, Macron poked some fun at Bolsonaro (about setting fires
in his backyard) and Bolsonaro replied with comments about Macron's
mother, er, wife. They didn't even need to all be present at the G7
in order to do that. How good was that?

And Macron invited the Iranian FM Zarif to come along and poke fun at
Don and John Boy about the JCPOA. Though you had to have a sense
of humour in the first place, and I'm not sure that is one of John Boy's
strengths (with all his talk of sanctions and "maximum pressure" and
escalation).

But, to come back to the key point, it's important to keep talking.

And (after a quick look at the post conference statement in the link
below) they managed to avoid the hole of committing themselves to
"talking and doing". Which China and Russia always seem to fall into.

https://southfront.org/g7-format-is-dead/

Speaking of which, maybe next year the G7 will change its mind and
extend an invitation to both Russia and China (assuming, of course,
they have both behaved themselves and not been disruptive in the
meantime).

And after this year's conference having been such a success, I hear
that Don is proposing to host the G7 at his Miami golf club next year.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/26/trump-2020-g7-summit-national-doral-miami-resort

And if Zelensky from the Ukraine turns up to provide some light comic
relief (assumes he lasts that long), then next years G7 conference
could be even better than this years.

[Viking01]

https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/news/2019/08/we-are-not-alone-with-monetary-policy

My English is not so good. Perhaps some-one could translate.

[austingtir]

https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/news/2019/08/we-are-not-alone-with-monetary-policy

My English is not so good. Perhaps some-one could translate.


They arent getting to fleece everyone quite as badly as they were so they are asking all the "peasants" to spend more of their hard earned money so they can steal it off us some more.

Nah screw them. My money's staying in my "bank account".

[mashman]

https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/news/2019/08/we-are-not-alone-with-monetary-policy

My English is not so good. Perhaps some-one could translate.

"We don't really understand why things aren't working the way they used to, but we're working on it. In the meantime, we're going to go with the tried and tested lower interest rate approach to encourage borrowing which will invoke magic enough to make people want to produce more goods and services so that people have more stuff they can chose from to buy. Then we cross our fingers that this brings some form of stability to the global market and NZ NZ rah rah rah.......".

Nothing new.

[Viking01]

Obviously Don gave Boris a wee pep-talk while they were at the G7
in the south of France ("just f@#$%&* do it and watch them squeal"),
and Boris has duly fronted up in front of her Madge to ask her to sign
off on suspending Parliament for a few weeks.

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/467480-boris-democracy-brexit-parliament/

I had thought that on this occasion, her Madge might have said "enough
is enough" and applied the brakes on the circus carousel.

But No, her Madge, in line with a long-standing pledge of non-interference
in UK politics, kept her hand off the hand brake, the corgis muzzled, and
duly signed off.

https://www.france24.com/en/20190828-uk-pm-boris-johnson-suspend-parliament-until-october-14

But even if her Madge thought this might keep Andy off the front page
(and bring her "some peace and quiet"), well, she might be disappointed.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/28/boris-johnson-turns-queens-balmoral-stay-into-a-holiday-from-hell

Let the games begin.

[Viking01]

At least my email client allows me to set rules to filter inbound email
and to route annoying scam email straight to a "Deleted" folder.

But it's not so easy to do likewise with one's cordless phone.

The last two weeks, there have been about 3-4 scam calls per day,
supposedly originating from Spark. But today, it has been just about
on the hour.

Think that I have managed my exercise quota today, just getting up
to answer the phone. [Have since relocated one handset, and placed
it facing me so that I can read the calling number]

But after a quick search online, it seems that these scam calls are not
unusual:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/102838544/robocall-spree-has-international-scammers-hanging-up-on-kiwis

Even to the point of Spark posting up an advisory on their website:

https://www.spark.co.nz/scamalerts

Though it seems that for a "small investment" with Spark, I can reduce
this problem:

https://www.spark.co.nz/shop/landline/homephones/callscreen/

Sorry. is this a scam ? ... 8-)

[oldrider]

Israel Threatens to Use Nuclear Weapons to ‘Wipe Out’ Its Enemies :kick: https://www.globalresearch.ca/israel-threatens-use-nuclear-weapons-wipe-out-its-enemies/5687924 - :scratch:

Run that by us again? - The (nuclear) haves are being threatened by the (nuclear) have-nots? - Yeah right that makes a lot of sense. :whistle:

[Viking01]

Seems like it was all action in the UK Parliament last night.

https://www.dw.com/en/uk-lawmakers-vote-to-support-plan-to-stop-no-deal-brexit/a-50274288

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49573555

https://www.apnews.com/b19feee04deb4747a4fc5839680e183f

Will they lodge and pass a bill to force Boris to go back
to the EU and ask for a further extension (and so delay
a no-deal Brexit) ? Will Boris submit, or will he instead
be permitted to call a general election ?

Stay tuned, folks. Another action packed day tomorrow.

But if we wind the clock back 100 days (just before Boris
was appointed), it all rather seemed to be going roughly to
plan. But with a few defections, Boris's handlers might not
be feeling quite so pleased:

https://www.apnews.com/db77a1d5827a47fe8b99210db64a744a [Corrected]

Though if an election is called, his electoral chances may still
be good, especially with the opposition having already been
neutered well in advance:

https://www.globalresearch.ca/plot-keep-jeremy-corbyn-out-power

Interesting days ahead.

[Edit] Day +1

24 hours makes quite a difference. Having decided to oust
those Conservative members who voted against the motion,
the government was compelled to halt a "no deal Brexit" (still
subject to a vote in the Lords). He then failed to entice the
Opposition to immediately call an election.

[Edit] Day +2

The motion is passed in the Lords, despite earlier suggestion
of a possible filibuster. Now other delays are suggested:

https://moneymaven.io/mishtalk/economics/another-weird-brexit-turn-tories-vote-to-support-no-deal-bill-in-house-of-lords-mUB9gkhpJEWtrA9sXGNoOw/

https://moneymaven.io/mishtalk/economics/bill-to-stop-no-deal-brexit-passes-lords-legal-challenge-may-come-monday-45znEydbGESp0eAegqJiYw/

[oldrider]

Reaping what you sow? - http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=194217 - Response to Israel defending itself? - :o

[Quote] It was just one of many it has done in Lebanon and Syria, with their usual offensive strikes presented as defensive ones. How many times have we heard that in the last 20 years? That Hezbollah would extract an eye for an eye was a given. [Unquote] - There has to be a better way, surely? :scratch:

[Viking01]

https://www.dw.com/en/why-did-president-donald-trump-call-off-taliban-talks/a-50344189

Which came as some surprise, given that the US were still able to retain over 8,000 troops
in-country as part of the agreement. And still continue to satisfy some of its own geo-strategic
needs and objectives.

As per the article:

Trump's announcement came after the Taliban admitted to a Thursday car bombing at a security
post near NATO's Resolute Support Mission headquarters in Kabul. Two NATO soldiers — one US
and one Romanian — were among 12 people that were killed in the attack.

"What kind of people would kill so many in order to seemingly strengthen their bargaining position?"
Trump said in the tweet.

Indeed, Don. Indeed.

https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/vietnam-war/operation-rolling-thunder/
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/nixon-announces-start-of-christmas-bombing-of-north-vietnam


https://sputniknews.com/columnists/201903231073479642-nato-bombing-yugoslavia/
https://russia-insider.com/en/history/extent-natos-destruction-yugoslavia/ri4901

[ Edit ]

https://www.rt.com/news/468479-taliban-fighting-us-talks/

[Viking01]

It's been an interesting week.

Looks like John Boy will now have to find himself a cosy little job at
some neo-con think-tank for the time being, after the Apprentice's
Master fired him. We'll all miss you, John ... OK, I'm just joking.

But it does raise a few important points.

"Who is going to craft US foreign policy" now ? Pompeo ? Pence ?
Putin ?

And "who is going to declare unofficial US war" against all those
countries that the US doesn't currently like.

It's an important job. And a fool time job, to boot.

Even Robert Fisk alludes to these important questions while talking
about media coverage of politics in his latest column:

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/john-bolton-donald-trump-israel-netanyahu-iran-boris-brexit-khashoggi-a9102356.html

While we're on the subject of media, wasn't it the 18th anniversary
of 911 this week ?

You'd think that the anniversary of such a major event would be being
trumpeted (sorry, no pun intended) along over the US press.

While I saw a few brief mentions of commemorative services, the main
item I came across was some (apparently) "fake news" about WTC7,
and how, "stricken with grief, that it had collapsed in sympathy with
the Twin Towers."

Personally, I find that very hard to believe. But I'm sure that it will all
become much clearer when the movie comes out.

When we find out that there indeed was a conspiracy, but that it was
due to the Iranians and the North Koreans having colluded. Aided and
abetted, of course, by the Chinese. Can't trust those panda lovers.

And if Maduro keeps up his good work, they'll probably even manage a
cameo for Venezuela.

Mmmm. That's a thought, Don.

Maybe, if you get hard pressed to find a suitable political candidate
to draft US foreign policy (no, forget Bibi, he's busy with his election),
you could tickle up the movie studios and see if they had some script
writers with some spare time on their hands.

And that way, not only do you get a better storyline (and continuity),
you can also get some-one better than Alec Baldwin to play you in the
movie.

[ Edit ]

Behind the play today:

https://www.checkpointasia.net/trump-replaces-bolton-with-fringe-neocon/

[mashman]

"The ECB also said it was re-starting quantitative easing. It will buy €20bn of debt a month from 1 November.

The eurozone's main interest rate has remained unchanged at zero.

The moves come as the ECB combats an economic slowdown. The bank said its asset purchase programme would "run for as long as necessary", while interest rates would remain "at their present or lower levels" until eurozone inflation reached its target rate of 2%." (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49674176)

Stupid is as stupid does... repeatedly.

[Viking01]

"The ECB also said it was re-starting quantitative easing. It will buy €20bn of debt a month from 1 November.

The eurozone's main interest rate has remained unchanged at zero.

The moves come as the ECB combats an economic slowdown. The bank said its asset purchase programme would "run for as long as necessary", while interest rates would remain "at their present or lower levels" until eurozone inflation reached its target rate of 2%." (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49674176)

Stupid is as stupid does... repeatedly.

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/mario-draghi-ecb-monetary-stimulus-risks-by-ashoka-mody-2019-09

https://moneymaven.io/mishtalk/economics/ecb-s-counterproductive-qe-whatever-it-takes-morphs-into-as-long-as-it-takes-6hlZa8mKV0Kad0OlmHJALw/

https://www.dw.com/en/german-central-bank-chief-slams-ecb-stimulus-package/a-50423189

[Viking01]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/13/for-the-record-signs-of-trouble-before-david-cameron-book-hits-shelves

Getting in early and trying to set the record straight ?

Fund the retirement villa purchase ?

Or just hoping to sway the judges opinion at a future hearing ?
"Don't blame me - it was all Boris's fault".

If projected sales are any indication, I don't fancy his chances.
On any count.

[oldrider]

Second World War Could Have Ended in 1943 Had Allied Bombing Focused on Military-related Targets:- :shutup: https://www.globalresearch.ca/second-world-war-could-have-ended-1943-had-allied-bombing-focused-military-related-targets/5682757?utm_campaign=magnet&utm_source=article_page&utm_medium=related_articles - :wait:

[mashman]

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/mario-draghi-ecb-monetary-stimulus-risks-by-ashoka-mody-2019-09

https://moneymaven.io/mishtalk/economics/ecb-s-counterproductive-qe-whatever-it-takes-morphs-into-as-long-as-it-takes-6hlZa8mKV0Kad0OlmHJALw/

https://www.dw.com/en/german-central-bank-chief-slams-ecb-stimulus-package/a-50423189

I watched inflation as the UK dropped 350 billion quid into the economy. Nothing. Ahh the days.

When people have less money to buy things with and businesses need to keep their share of a market that is dwindling in revenue if not volume, so debt is created. That debt is the "asset" that the ECB are going to buy. Ever wondered why the stockmarket kept, and keeps on, rising?... and all the while inflation doesn't blip? Business pays the wages! Ya might wanna consider that a liddle, and ya might not, but it is evidenced to have happened.

Helicopter money. The same concept except from bottom up instead of trickling down, but it inherently runs into the same problems.

Whether you "subsidise" business through the public or whether you directly "subsidise" business in a more conventional manner (QE), you still need to "subsidise" business... and enough so that employee wages can keep up with the cost of living and therefore able to buy that which is being produced.

The circle of life, heh.

[oldrider]

Russia prevents Israeli airstrikes in Syria? - :spanking: - https://www.jpost.com/printarticle.aspx?id=601618 - What Bibi wants Bibi usually gets? - he will not be happy - He needs votes? :msn-wink:

[Viking01]

Very reasonable rates. Willing to settle for golf games and photo opportunities.

Proven track record. No country too large to handle. Principles not an issue.

Examples

- China : Foreigners detained and threatened with extradition

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/2178611/arrest-huaweis-meng-wanzhou-may-dash-canadas-hopes-free-trade-deal-china
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/12/16/canada-pay-heavy-price-for-trudeau-groupie-role-in-us-banditry-against-china/
https://eurasiafuture.com/2019/07/07/canadas-total-fall-from-grace/

- South America : Old colonial style treatment and trampling of human rights

http://upsidedownworld.org/archives/international/canadian-mining-continues-trample-human-rights-latin-america-trudeau/
https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Canada-Mining-Companies-in-Latin-America-Have-Blood-on-Hands--20161024-0007.html

No favouritism shown. We even do it to our own people

https://www.rt.com/news/448626-canada-pipeline-tribal-protests/
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/06/18/koch-oil-big-lies-and-ecocide-writ-large-in-canada/

- Venezuela : Coup support a specialty

https://globalnews.ca/news/4890495/canada-venezuela-juan-guaido-secret-talks/

- Ukraine : White-washing and re-imaging

https://www.fort-russ.com/2019/07/banderas-international-why-canada-defends-ukrainian-fascism/


Just in Today

- Iran : Confiscation of foreign assets (proven guilt not required)

https://www.rt.com/news/468790-canada-confiscated-iran-buildings/


Canadian Election

Suppose this all helps to shift focus from the upcoming Canadian election
and that SNC-Lavalin scandal that has been bubbling away all year. Damned
inconvenient timing.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/snc-lavalin-scandal/5670443
https://www.vox.com/2019/8/15/20806133/justin-trudeau-snc-lavalin-ethics-report-canada-elections
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/election-snc-lavalin-campaign-1.5280298

Contact Details

Still interested ? Please contact Government Buildings in Ottawa. Just ask
for Justin.

Financial Donations ? Off-shore account details can be supplied on request.

[pritch]

Getting in early and trying to set the record straight?


Preorders are slow? Perhaps the Poms have about had enough of Eton oldboys running the show? The recent examples haven't exactly covered themselves in glory.

[husaberg]

Globalresearch is an "anti-Western" website that can't distinguish between serious analysis and discreditable junk — and so publishes both. It's basically the moonbat equivalent to Infowars or WND.

While some of GlobalResearch's articles discuss legitimate humanitarian concerns, its view of science, economics, and geopolitics is conspiracist — if something goes wrong, the Jews or the West didit! The site has long been a crank magnet: If you disagree with "Western" sources on 9/11, or HAARP, or vaccines, or H1N1, or climate change, or anything published by the "mainstream" media, then GlobalResearch is guaranteed to have a page you will love.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Globalresearch

[mashman]

Saudi oil attacks: Iran condemns US 'deceit' after accusation (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-49707303)... apparently it's our human nature to make war :killingme ;) :love:

[Viking01]

Saudi oil attacks: Iran condemns US 'deceit' after accusation (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-49707303)... apparently it's our human nature to make war :killingme ;) :love:

Ah, it's a grand job being an oil producer. Restrict the oil supply,
and the crude oil price goes up.

https://oilprice.com/

Obviously, it has taken a while to find a "successful recipe" to boost
global crude oil prices.

Who knew that all they had to do was get the "sandal brigade" in
Yemen to launch a few missiles. Bang. Job done.

No more having to troll the Iranians using missile-carrying destroyers
in the Persian Gulf.

Mike P is happy, in that they can still blame the Iranians anyway.

Don's happy, since he can tell the US public that at least they won't
run out of petrol.

Assuming that the hurricane season in the Gulf of Mexico doesn't take
out a refinery or two. [ BTW, I hope you don't believe all that climate
change nonsense on Global Research. Think some-one on KB recently
said that IrrationalWiki was the best place to look for reliable news on
that subject ]

https://sputniknews.com/us/201909161076810937-trump-authorizes-release-of-oil-from-strategic-petroleum-reserve-amid-attacks-against-

saudi-aramco/

Plus he gets to give the legislators a "hurry-up" re the approval of all
those pipelines that the US "greenies" have been protesting against.

Ah, happy days. What's not to like ?

Which reminds me. I had better go put my tin-foil hat on, and go fill
up the car petrol tank .

[ Edit ]

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/468935-saudi-oil-field-drone-attack/

[mashman]

Ah, it's a grand job being an oil producer. Restrict the oil supply,
and the crude oil price goes up.

Excellent tool, from a wide range of tools, to bury countries with. Ya get to topple governments. Ya get to pretend that someone else is the lawful President of the country. Ya get to destroy, or at the very least seriously financially impede oil reliant economies and claim that socialism has failed. Ya get to use your trusted friends overseas instead of the locals, coz exports. Oh the fun you can have when ya play with such tools. It doesn't take much to forget that there's an awful lot of lives at the end of such debacle either, but that don't make good press.

[pritch]

"Who is going to craft US foreign policy" now ? Pompeo ? Pence ?
Putin ?

Saudi Arabia apparently.

Yesterday Trump posted this on Twitter:

"Saudi Arabia oil supply was attacked. There is reason to believe that we know the culprit, are locked and loaded depending on verification, but are waiting to hear from the Kingdom as to who they believe was the cause of this attack, and under what terms we would proceed!"

[pritch]

Tulsi Gabbard, US Senator for Hawaii, current Democratic candidate for president, a former soldier, and a veteran, does not like Trumps tweet.

"Despicable. Offering to place our military assets under the command of a foreign country—Saudi Arabia—is a disgrace and betrayal of my patriotic brothers and sisters in uniform and to our Constitution. We are not your prostitutes. You are not our pimp."

[austingtir]

^^

Well thats the way we expect deranged leftist's to take such things these days.

Lets just go right past what he actually said and lets get all mortally offended over what we THINK he said.....


Rinse and repeat for the full two Trump terms.:lol:

[pritch]

Lets just go right past what he actually said and lets get all mortally offended over what we THINK he said....


‘THINK’ he said? Those two posts are direct quotes, I only added the emphasis.

None of which will stop Trump denying he said it. He has now denied that he said he would hold talks with Iran without precondition, despite the fact that there are video clips of him saying precisely that.

The stable genius is big fan of asbestos and he has prepared the way for asbestos to be used in the US of A again. Lucky Yanks. What’s next, bringing back lead in paint?

[austingtir]

‘THINK’ he said? Those two posts are direct quotes, I only added the emphasis.

None of which will stop Trump denying he said it. He has now denied that he said he would hold talks with Iran without precondition, despite the fact that there are video clips of him saying precisely that.

The stable genius is big fan of asbestos and he has prepared the way for asbestos to be used in the US of A again. Lucky Yanks. What’s next, bringing back lead in paint?


No when you have allies and THEY get attacked anyone crossing their T's and dotting their i's might think its a good idea to check with said ally first before you go in guns blazing.


But not in lefty lala land obviously.... The very same people that were claiming Trump was going to nuke all and sundry once he got those nuclear codes.... I guess theres still another 5 years for me to be wrong on that one too.

Must suck being wrong all the time..... :weird:

[austingtir]

Anyway.... I never wanted to ride a horse so much in my whole life<_<


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LarJtrHNJME

[Laava]

‘THINK’ he said? Those two posts are direct quotes, I only added the emphasis.

None of which will stop Trump denying he said it. He has now denied that he said he would hold talks with Iran without precondition, despite the fact that there are video clips of him saying precisely that.

The stable genius is big fan of asbestos and he has prepared the way for asbestos to be used in the US of A again. Lucky Yanks. What’s next, bringing back lead in paint?
Yep, the guy and his adoring minions are grade A fuckwits of the lowest order. It is beyond a joke how fucking retarded he really is. And yet he still has the neverending and neverthinking support of his Trombies, a group of retards so demented they will stop at nothing to not understand what is really going on. These useless cunts are energy vampires sucking the will to live out of everybody within earshot.

[Viking01]

Seems that matters can change quickly in 24-48 hours.

Both WTI and Brent Crude oil prices fell back overnight:

https://oilprice.com/

And the Saudis indicated that their oil facilities could be
"soon repaired". So they won't lose a significant portion
of their global crude oil market share.

So what is going to happen with that war I was promised ?

With Donald's team "half cocked and hammered", all the
Saudis apparently had to do was say "go". And then there
was going to be "fireworks".

Maybe it has something to do with the suggestion that
their missile defences were not as robust as promised:

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/468935-saudi-oil-field-drone-attack/

Even Putin has offered to help out the Saudis:

https://southfront.org/putin-advises-saudi-arabia-to-buy-s-300-if-it-really-wants-to-protect-oil-infrastructure-video/
https://www.france24.com/en/20190917-russia-saudi-arabia-putin-weapons-troll-trump-turkey

On the local front, I can only hope that certain local oil
companies are as quick to drop their retail petrol price,
as they were to hike them up (now that crude prices
have started to fall back).

[Viking01]

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/shocking-video-simulation-shows-devastation-nuclear-war-would-cause

[oldrider]

Between this story:- www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/mapstellstory.html - :scratch:

And this story? - :msn-wink:


<iframe width="903" height="508" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/9ZeELwaE7Xk" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>