The inevitable end result of our last 56 years

[Douglas Caddy]

Elon Musk is under federal investigations, Twitter says in court filing (yahoo.com)

 

[Ron Bulman]

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

 

 

 

This really is a forum low point. Do you really think this is a difficult question to answer?
 

I would suggest that the obvious reason it has not been answered is that it wasn’t relevant to debate. It wasn’t contrary to a position that I have taken. William and Matt certainly can’t comprehend that there can be any other position than theirs in regard to Russia and the horrific conflict that we are witnessing. ie that it is more nuanced than a simple heroes and villains comic book story. Of course this has been laid out and ignored, repeatedly. 
 

The big issue in your comprehension is that, nobody I have seen here is pro-putin, or war crimes. So, to ask if we are pro the bombing of civilians, is beyond ridiculous, whoever the perpetrator is. We are not even pro war. In fact I have openly said I seek detente, rapprochement and peace. Its not acceptable when the US, Russia, or Ukraine does it. I don’t recall much outrage of your parts when Dugin’s daughter was car bombed (assassination is a war crime). Unless I have missed something; your compassionate, humanitarian selves were taking a break that day. 
 

Perhaps there is another explanation aside from pure innocent naivety? If you guys think you can keep malevolently asking questions that suggest people might be pro-war crimes, or anything else heinous, to slur or stigmatise members, when the persons are clearly not pro those things, then it really sets an insidious precedent. And it works both ways. Given this forum is public, searchable on google, I would question if the shoe were on the other foot, how much you’d like your own names associated with questions that suggest you are pro something that is morally reprehensible? It can work both ways gentleman. Of course my recommendation is that everyone stops doing this particular thing, before it really gets out of hand. 

Maybe a communication breakdown.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

"Setting aside partisan politics..."   Posted without intentional irony, eh, Ben?

Trump's "diplomacy?"

Are you referring to Trump's embarrassing press conference in Helsinki, after Putin dressed him down behind closed doors?

Certainly, our EU allies had no illusions about the fact that Trump was, obviously, a compromised Kremlin asset.

The only people on the planet who still haven't figured that out are the Republicans in the Trump cult.

My hunch is that Putin didn't want to undermine his Orange Asset by annexing Ukraine while Trump was POTUS.

He miscalculated, because Trump would have rolled over for Putin on demand.

Meanwhile, Ben, did you and Mathew Koch watch the historic J6 Congressional hearing today?

W-

 

I am in the wrong time zone to watch the Cheneycrat J6 hearings, which are something of a show trial. I sometimes watch highlights or read transcripts.

Let Trump face charges in a real court, with defense counsel, open to the public.  

If Trump is found guilty, fine, if he skates, fine, if he is exonerated, so be it. 

For me, Biden is President now, and the Deep State more powerful than ever. Trump is receding in the rear view mirror. 

---

Keep in mind what a Democrat said about Democrats:

(The Donks) weaponize the national security state to go after political opponents....

That was Tulsi Gabbard, not me. 

The Donks seem very tight with the Deep State now, and with globalists, Silicon Valley, media, Wall Street. 

This is not the party of Walter Reuther. 

Be advised. 

 

[Matt Allison]

5 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I am in the wrong time zone to watch the Cheneycrat J6 hearings

Apparently so, because then you would already know that everyone that has testified at the J6 hearings has been a Republican.

[Matthew Koch]

13 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:

LOL

Try not to bomb any playgrounds today, ok?

Matt.. just like with the Zelensky Starwars t shirt asking to join the dark side, when you talk like this you need to ask: Are We The Baddies? 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

Helpful hints from the M$M:

 

TECH & SCIENCE-NEWSWEEK

Best Place to Survive Nuclear War in the U.S.

BY JESS THOMSON ON 10/10/22 AT 7:32 AM EDT

[W. Niederhut]

1 minute ago, Matt Allison said:

Apparently so, because then you would already know that everyone that has testified at the J6 hearings has been a Republican.

Ben's time zone never seems to interfere with his ability to immerse himself in the daily MAGA-verse propaganda.

But he's someone who really needs to study the damning evidence about Trump's J6 coup attempt, including the fact that the Secret Service knew in advance that Trump's mob was armed and planned to attack the Capitol.

As for Mathew Koch, he needs to take a break from watching Faux News and Ron DeSantis commercials to learn the terrible truth about Mango Mussolini and his seditious goon squad.

Did Fox even cover the historic Congressional hearings today?

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Helpful hints from the M$M:

 

TECH & SCIENCE-NEWSWEEK

Best Place to Survive Nuclear War in the U.S.

BY JESS THOMSON ON 10/10/22 AT 7:32 AM EDT

Nice little top up for the fear psychosis for some. What a chocolate teapot of an article that is. 

[Matt Allison]

6 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

As for Mathew Koch, he needs to take a break from watching Faux News and Ron DeSantis commercials to learn the terrible truth about Mango Mussolini and his seditious goon squad.

 

yeah, I don't need any extra MAGA stupidity in my life, so I have him on ignore. Others can deal with that noise.

9 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Did Fox even cover the historic Congressional hearings today?

Don't know. I would assume they set aside some time to lie to their viewers about it, but I'm not sure.

[Kirk Gallaway]

This has become rather boring and repetitive. I don't begrudge anybody who doesn't think the U.S. or Nato should be contributing weapons to this war. But there's been an unmistakable trend of excusing leaders for their actions that's started with Trump being helpless before  the U.S. "deep state' and now it's being done with Putin who was "left no choice" by the American Exceptionalist  deep state.

Now we have Jeff, who was repeatedly assuring us during the Russia military build that there was no way Putin would invade and this was all for show  as if he was our forum "inside man " to Putin. I thought at the time, maybe Jeff know something and I was hoping to God he was right.

Of course he wasn't  and typically the  phase where Putin is condemned for the invasion is skipped altogether and then the American Exceptional deep state made  poor Vlad do it.

Early on, every one here seemed pretty moderate in the prospect of U.S. involvement in the war, except I did find Ben's persistent warmongering toward U.S. escalation rather off putting.

It would be interesting for you to see the reaction that I've seen recently in Easter Europe. There's absolutely no trust for Putin. There is fear of further invasion, and an expression that they are just glad they're not being invaded. This fear wasn't as prevalent in Western Europe, as there's been quite a buffer zone for a long time and fears were always discounted just as we were all in disbelief when Putin finally invaded.

Of course historically Europe can never build lasting peaceful relations, and have always messed things up requiring the U.S. to get involved and become the balance of power and  contrary to what anyone says, they were never relishing that role, but by default became the Western superpower.

The present world situation for the last 50 years is the one major world superpower spends way too much on defense. In that country, there are 2 parties. One party is aggressively expansionist and has waged 3 major costly wars in the Middle East with great cost of lives and human displacement and the other party has  mopped up 2 of the wars,but rather slowly so as not to appear soft, which politically is an obsessional American no no.

Currently the Democrat's base will not allow the party  to get in a prolonged war where Americans are brought home in body bags unless there's a great justification and there's only  been one such a justification in 50 years as the Democrats voted against both the Bush wars but voted for the invasion of Afghanistan after 911, because there's no way the  U.S. would have just let that happen without retaliating.

Guess what, the world you live in isn't perfect. you can sit on the sidelines and criticize, like you've probably always done. So you want world peace? World peace lovers in  America, Canada, Europe and the world at large.  At this time, what singular party in the world is your best shot for world peace?

 

Edited October 14, 2022 by Kirk Gallaway

[Benjamin Cole]

1 minute ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

This has become rather boring and repetitive. I don't begrudge anybody who doesn't think the U.S. or Nato should be contributing weapons to this war. But there's been an unmistakable trend of excusing leaders for their actions that's started with Trump being helpless before  the U.S. "deep state' and now it's being done with Putin who was "left no choice" by the American Exceptionalist  deep state.

Now we have Jeff, who was repeatedly assuring us during the Russia military build that there was no way Putin would invade and this was all for show  as if he was our forum "inside man " to Putin. I thought at the time, maybe Jeff know something and I was hoping to God he was right.

Of course he wasn't  and typically the  phase where Putin is condemned for the invasion is skipped altogether and then the American Exceptional deep state made  poor Vlad do it.

It would be interesting for you to see the reaction that I've seen recently in Easter Europe. There's absolutely no trust for Putin. There is fear of further invasion, and an expression that they are just glad they're not being invaded. This fear wasn't as prevalent in Western Europe, as there's been quite a buffer zone for a long time and fears were always discounted just as we were all in disbelief when Putin finally invaded.

Of course historically Europe can never build lasting peaceful relations, and have always messed things up requiring the U.S. to get involved and become the balance of power and  contrary to what anyone says, they were never relishing that role, but by default became the Western superpower.

The present world situation for the last 50 years is the one major world superpower spends way too much on defense. In that country, there are 2 parties. One party is aggressively expansionist and has waged 3 major costly wars in the Middle East with great cost of lives and human displacement and the other party has  mopped up 2 of the wars,but rather slowly so as not to appear soft, which politically is an obsessional American no no.

Currently the Democrat's base will not allow the party  to get in a prolonged war where Americans are brought home in body bags unless there's a great justification and there's only  been one such a justification in 50 years as the Democrats voted against both the Bush wars but voted for the invasion of Afghanistan after 911, because there's no way the  U.S. would have just let that happen without retaliating.

Guess what, the world you live in isn't perfect. you can sit on the sidelines and criticize, like you've probably always done. So you want world peace? World peace lovers in  America, Canada, Europe and the world at large.  At this time, what singular party in the world is your best shot for world peace?

 

Tough call. 

Tulsi Gabbard, a four-term D Congresswoman from Hawaii, just said the Donks are "warmongers." The establishment GOP is hardly any better, maybe worse.  

The non-interventionist, populist wing of the 'Phants is interesting, but not mature yet. 

If I were you, I would read the Newsweek article for the place safest in the US during a nuke war. 

I just hope you lunatics bypass Thailand. 

---30---

"I can no longer remain in today’s Democratic Party that is now under the complete control of an elitist cabal of warmongers driven by cowardly wokeness, who divide us by racializing every issue & stoke anti-white racism, actively work to undermine our God-given freedoms, are hostile to people of faith & spirituality, demonize the police & protect criminals at the expense of law-abiding Americans, believe in open borders, weaponize the national security state to go after political opponents, and above all, dragging us ever closer to nuclear war."--Tulsi Gabbard 

Hey, Gabbard said it. Not me. 

[Kirk Gallaway]

23 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Kirk:

To be sure, these are huge topics, and many books have and will be written about the topic of Ukraine, and the actors involved. 

As this is a comments section, I often speak in shorthand. I hope you grant me some leeway in that regard. 

Of course, there are nuances. There are occasional schisms between the official national security state, and the globalist-multinationals. 

For example: Mainland China. The globalists want to make nicey-nice with the CCP, but the national security state is apprehensive, and besides a new enemy means more funding. 

The globalists want the national security state as a global guard service, and 90% of the time, they get it. There are exceptions. 

I disagree with you in some regards. Even back in Smedley Butler's time, the military could be co-opted into bully boys for multinationals. 

Today the multinationals are huge---Apple, GM, Tesla, BlackRock, WalMart, Disney, NBC-Universal, the NBA and more---and extremely involved in setting the public's agenda and news space. They control the agenda and framing of news in DC much more than before. Normally they get the US military as their international security service. Smedley Butler all over again. 

We may agree---that initially the globalists were fine with letting Putin take Ukraine. Not enough business there to warrant much of an effort, and they could business with the kleptocrat capitalist Putin. 

The Deep State-national security state may have had a different agenda in Ukraine, and that was to lure Putin into Russia, to ensnare him into a quagmire.  Also, more funding on the way for the Deep State. 

The US signals sent to Putin---that of withdrawal of US personnel and the famous ride offer to Zelensky---obviously helped entice Putin into Ukraine.

Was Biden on board? Clueless? Mindlessly fist-bumping MbS? (I only mention the fist-bump as it might have been a senior moment, ie, mild temporary dementia. But Biden seems foggy much of the time).

Interesting topic.  

I repeat: This is a volitional war by Putin, even if baited. 

 

 

Ben, thank you for sharing a glimpse into your thought process.

[Benjamin Cole]

https://warontherocks.com/

WE ARE ON A PATH TO NUCLEAR WAR

JEREMY SHAPIRO

 

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Opinion | If Putin Uses Nukes in Ukraine, the U.S. Must Respond with Military Force--Leon Panetta 

Russia simply cannot be allowed to unleash nuclear weapons in Ukraine."

---30---

Both guys above are Deep Staters.

.....

The problem with bomb shelters in Thailand is the water table is so high, anything underground is prone to flooding.

Maybe a lead-lined cargo container....

 

[Benjamin Cole]

20 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Ben, thank you for sharing a glimpse into your thought process.

Kirk:

 

I enjoy your commentary, even if I disagree. 

[Kirk Gallaway]

Re: Gabbard, Ben  I wasn't aware you've recently become "born again" and  were pro police from your compassionate stance toward the police on 1/6?  Do you know she also said  the Democrat Party is anti police and anti religion??

Early on in her career she was a gay hater but she found,......  whatever it is religious gay haters find and moderated her stance, though that might not mean much to you.  She actually ran for President  in 2020. The conspiracy community thought they could make her their candidate, but she'd have none of that.

She's very limited as a candidate but she would have been ok on some fronts.

I'm reminded in a Dem 2020 debate when there was 15 Dem candidates and 6 women among them and it had to wind down to fewer candidates, and the pundits beforehand said what I thought was a rather sexist comment, that 2 of these weak dem women candidates , like Gabbard and Kirsten Gillebrand (who I never forgave for running Al Franken from Congress!) are going to have to eliminate the other to survive the next round.

The debate started and sure enough, Gabbard interrupts Gildebrand and starts ripping her. It looked so contrived and forced, and it was like she took a page from these pundits, and I was sickened because I never want a pundit to run any debate!

And sure enough, they ended up destroying the paltry 2% rating they each had coming into the debate.

 

Edited October 14, 2022 by Kirk Gallaway