Youtube comments of terrytees (@terrytees).
-
1400
-
654
-
190
-
144
-
136
-
127
-
119
-
112
-
92
-
72
-
67
-
66
-
65
-
63
-
57
-
43
-
40
-
33
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
15
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
it's a dead giveaway when looking at Azov Battalion emblem, the Wolfsangel in front of the black sun a logo designed by Wilhelm Landig an ex SS officer., Last time I saw the black sun it was Brenton Tarrant killing muslim's in New Zealand in 2019. The nationalists are useful idiot's and paid muscle used and privately funded by oligarchs – the most known being Igor Kolomoisky, an energy magnate billionaire and then-governor of the Dnipropetrovska region.. HE wanted to become President but failed to win any seats in 2014 but being in the top 2000 richest people on earth and the top 3 in Ukraine he repacked a candidate. Your reason for the current President is not quite correct, Igor got him a TV show on his station and now he's in power, Igor's in power via a proxy.
Difference between this nationalists and the one from the 30/40's is there target, there target for know is not religious, it's ethic meaning Russian. Am sure they believe they can over though Igor, who is Jewish, when there powerful enough but something tells me there being strung along just like Ukraine was by the EU.
Long and short, Igor Kolomoisky is the man behind whats happening. Google Igor Kolomoisky and Azov Battalion and you will see Israel news papers publishing articles requesting Israel to stop funding Azov and calling out Igor.
6
-
6
-
@CROsigliere Bill Clinton Jan 20 1993 - Jan 20 2001 - Intervention in Haiti 1994 - 1995, Kosovo War 1998 to 1999, Operation Infinite Reach 1998. Barack Obama Jan 20 2009 to Jan 20 2017 Operation Ocean Shield 2009 to 2016, International Intervention in Libya 2011, Operation Observant Compass 2011 to 2017, American Led Intervention in Iraq 2014-to present, American Led intervention in Syria 2014 to present, Yemeni Civil War 2015 to present, American Intervention in Libya 2015 to present.
I would put the orange man in there also but sadly he never started any wars in the fours years in was in office in fact he is the only President from 1981 upwards to have not done and thats regardless of any party.
Not only did Joe Biden write the disastrous and racist 1994 crime bill he also wrote the 1995 Omnibus Act which morphed into the Patriot Act, he voted against Gay Marriage in 1996 he repealed the Glass Steagall Act, voted for the Patriot Act in 2001, voted for the Iraq war in 2002, voted the end bankruptcy protections for students in 2005 and presented George W. Bush with the Liberty Medal in 2018.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@CVLFMG "Legal Acrobatics, Illegal War"
President Obama failed to request Congressional approval for military action, as required by the War Powers Act of 1973. The legal machinations Mr. Obama has used to justify war without Congressional consent set a troubling precedent that could allow future administrations to wage war at their convenience — free of legislative checks and balances.
Even the left wing rag Salon called it out "When President Obama ordered the U.S. military to wage war in Libya without Congressional approval (even though, to use his words, it did "not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation"), the administration and its defenders claimed he had legal authority to do so for two reasons: (1) the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (WPR) authorizes the President to wage war for 60 days without Congress, and (2) the "time-limited, well defined and discrete" nature of the mission meant that it was not really a "war" under the Constitution (Deputy NSA Adviser Ben Rhodes and the Obama OLC). Those claims were specious from the start, but are unquestionably inapplicable now.
From the start, the WPR provided no such authority. Section 1541(c) explicitly states that the war-making rights conferred by the statute apply only to "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." That's why Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman -- in an article in Foreign Policy entitled "Obama's Unconstitutional War" -- wrote when the war started that the "The War Powers Resolution doesn't authorize a single day of Libyan bombing" and that "in taking the country into a war with Libya, Barack Obama's administration is breaking new ground in its construction of an imperial presidency."
Ackerman detailed why Obama's sweeping claims of war powers exceeded that even of past controversial precedents, such as Clinton's 1999 bombing of Kosovo, which at least had the excuse that Congress authorized funding for it: "but Obama can't even take advantage of this same desperate expedient, since Congress has appropriated no funds for the Libyan war." The Nation's John Nichols explained that Obama's unilateral decision "was a violation of the provision in the founding document that requires the executive to attain authorization from Congress before launching military adventures abroad." Put simply, as Daniel Larison concluded in an excellent analysis last week, "the war was illegal from the start."
But even for those who chose to cling to the fiction that the presidential war in Libya was authorized by the WPR, that fiction is now coming to a crashing end. Friday will mark the 60th day of the war without Congress, and there are no plans for authorization to be provided. By all appearances, the White House isn't even bothering to pretend to seek one. A handful of GOP Senators -- ones who of course showed no interest whatsoever during the Bush years in demanding presidential adherence to the law -- are now demanding a vote on Libya, but it's highly likely that the Democrats who control the Senate won't allow one. Instead, the law will simply be ignored by the President who declared, when bashing George Bush on the campaign trail to throngs of cheering progressives: "No more ignoring the law when it's inconvenient. That is not who we are."
When Mr. Obama first announced American military involvement in Libya, he notified Congress within 48 hours, as prescribed by the War Powers Act. This initiated a 60-day period, during which he was required to obtain approval from Congress; if he failed to do so, the act gave him at most 30 days to halt all “hostilities.”
Last Sunday was the 90th day of bombing in Libya, but Mr. Obama — armed with dubious legal opinions — is refusing to stop America’s military engagement there. His White House counsel, Robert F. Bauer, has declared that, despite the War Powers Act, the president can continue the Libya campaign indefinitely without legislative support. This conclusion lacks a solid legal foundation. And by adopting it, the White House has shattered the traditional legal process the executive branch has developed to sustain the rule of law over the past 75 years.
Since the 1930s, it has been the job of an elite office in the Justice Department — the Office of Legal Counsel — to serve as the authoritative voice on matters of legal interpretation. The approximately 25 lawyers in this office write legal opinions after hearing arguments from the White House as well as other executive branch departments."
The war is illegal under the United States constitution and our War Powers Act, because only the US Congress has the authority to declare war and the president has been unable to show that the US faced an imminent threat from Libya. The president even ignored his top legal advisers at the Pentagon and the department of justice who insisted he needed congressional approval before bombing Libya.
Second, the war has reached a stalemate and is unwinnable without the deployment of Nato ground troops, effectively an invasion of Libya. The whole operation was terribly ill-considered from the beginning. While Nato supports the Benghazi-based opposition (situated in the oil-rich north-east), there is little evidence that the opposition has support of the majority of Libyans. The leading opposition group, the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (which had reportedly been backed by the CIA in the 1980s), should never have launched an armed civil war against the government if they had no chance absent a massive Nato air campaign and the introduction of Nato troops. Their reckless actions, encouraged by western political, military and intelligence interests, created the humanitarian crisis that was then used to justify the Nato war campaign.
Third, the United States cannot afford it. The US cost of the mission is projected to soon reach more than $1bn, and we are already engaged in massive cutbacks of civil services for our own people.
It is not surprising that a majority of Republicans, Democrats and independents alike think the US should not be involved in Libya.
This war is misguided. An invasion would be a disaster. Nato already is out of control, using a UN mandate allowing for protection of civilians as the flimsy pretext for an unauthorised mission of regime change through massive violence. In a just world, the Nato commander would be held responsible for any violations of international law. As a means of continuing the civil war, Nato member France and coalition ally Qatar have both admitted shipping weapons to Libya, in open violation of the United Nations arms embargo.
In the end, the biggest casualty of this game of nations will be the legitimacy of the UN, its resolutions and mandates, and international rule of law. This condition must be reversed. The ban on arms supplies to Libya must be enforced, not subverted by Nato countries. The US must cease its illegal and counterproductive support for a military resolution now.
The US Congress must act to cut off funds for the war because there is no military solution in Libya. Serious negotiations for a political solution must begin to end the violence and create an environment for peace negotiations to fulfil the legitimate, democratic aspirations of the people. A political solution will become viable when the opposition understands that regime change is the privilege of the Libyan people, not of Nato."
You do realise that legal experts on international war all across the globe have called the war illegal, not just news publications.
But hey if you want to use legal acrobatics moves to justify the destruction of a nation then answer me this, do you think Libya is better off now, how happy are you with the reintroduction of the African slave trade? A black man or women can be bought now for less than four hundred dollars, yes four hundred dollars for a slave to work and be killed as and when you please or a sex slave to be bought.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@CVLFMG Bill Clinton Jan 20 1993 - Jan 20 2001 - Intervention in Haiti 1994 - 1995, Kosovo War 1998 to 1999, Operation Infinite Reach 1998. Barack Obama Jan 20 2009 to Jan 20 2017 Operation Ocean Shield 2009 to 2016, International Intervention in Libya 2011, Operation Observant Compass 2011 to 2017, American Led Intervention in Iraq 2014-to present, American Led intervention in Syria 2014 to present, Yemeni Civil War 2015 to present, American Intervention in Libya 2015 to present.
I would put the orange man in there also but sadly he never started any wars in the fours years in was in office in fact he is the only President from 1981 upwards to have not done and thats regardless of any party.
Not only did Joe Biden write the disastrous and racist 1994 crime bill he also wrote the 1995 Omnibus Act which morphed into the Patriot Act, he voted against Gay Marriage in 1996 he repealed the Glass Steagall Act, voted for the Patriot Act in 2001, voted for the Iraq war in 2002, voted the end bankruptcy protections for students in 2005 and presented George W. Bush with the Liberty Medal in 2018.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Devin Dubuque Have you read the research yet? I can tell by your comments your ill informed on the subject, it's not about false memories, it's about the observable ones that are confirmed by all the parties included that are of main interest. You can't have any opinion on this subject unless your prepared to read the research and if not your have to admit your closed mined to new information or so incredibly fragile your scared of influence to do with the possibility of some as stupid as a after life. I can't believe your that child like tho.
If not your making assumptions that someone is researching a subject that could potential get them in hot water without financial rewarded from it. EMMMM by not looking at the research your the one clearly playing on beliefs tho. It's not about death Devin and if you think so your missing the point..... all it's about the model we have for the consciousness.
It's all about understand the brain and thats the point of reading the research, it's not about prove god or a after life or any crap like that.
It's childish and insecure of you to start using terms like pseudoscience or paranormal for things that are not clear with the current understanding. Plenty of neuroscientists belived that mind isn't just a mechanical model. In-fact it's a very new concept that it's all materialism and imo thats just patch work.
Lets look at it like this Dennett says that the mind is a super computer, can't wait for the algorithm to come out dan....Now the distinguished nobel prise winning neurologist Sir John Eccles rejects this theory, saying that it never goes beyond vague generalities; materialists believe that the problems will be resolved when we have a more complete scientific understanding of the brain, perhaps in hundreds of years, a belief which Eccles ironically terms "promissory materialism." Eccles feels that this "impoverished and empty" theory fails to account for "the wonder and mystery of the human self with its spiritual values, with its creativity, and with its uniqueness for each of us." (How the Self Controls Its Brain, pp. 33, 176.) He criticizes identity theory for allowing no real scope for human freedom. Extensive experimental studies have shown that mental acts of attention and intention activate appropriate regions of the cerebral cortex. An intention to move, for example, initiates the firing of a set of neurons of the supplementary motor area about 200 Milli-seconds before the intended movement takes place. If the mind is the brain, this would mean either that one part of the brain activates an other part, which then activates another part, etc., or that a particular region of the brain is activated spontaneously, without any cause, and it is hard to see how either alternative would provide a basis for free will.
By your thinking Eccles, a none believer in materialism, is now a psedosciencst. SMH Am sorry but the man contributed far more to the science of mind than most.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Eccles_(neurophysiologist)
People having active consciousness about meeting supernatural beings doesn't prove anything apart from he current model of the mind being incorrect. It certainly doesn't prove the existence of god or life after death BTW They could have had interaction with a pot of coffee and it doesn't prove anything nor that would prove that it lasts very long but what it does say is that the current model seems floored. Very Simple really.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@astilldance All assets are at the same value they were over 200 years ago, what you are experiencing is simply inflation,. A tailor made Saville row suit costs the same in the weight of gold as it did two hundreds years ago. To much money is being printed via governmental over spending.
The time after ww2 Gary points to as a example had the lowest rate of income tax set at 50%, the highest was 95%, yes there was an wealth tax in the form of inheritance tax which has stayed to this day. He also forgets to mention Britain needed rebuilding and with rebuilding comes new housing and with that comes plumbers, roofers, plasterers, building merchants, drivers, road works, the list is endless, all of them taxable with the new for of taxation brought in after WW2 that took tax straight out your pay packet before you got it, PAYE. When the lowest rate of income tax is 50% your gonna get a lot of money and with all that work required Britain flourished, today is not the same.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
They weren't industry plants, there had an organic buzz by 87, they had respected hot records there were active on the underground hip-hop scene in the mid 80's and known by all they frequented union square and Latin quarters. You should ask historian that were there at the time. Talk to Paradise, Claude Gray. Lets get this straight as you were clearly not in the New York Club scene in the mid 80's.
At first It was songs that went over in the Clubs well that had all the momentum, sure Rakim is a far better MC than Kid n Play as well as most rappers but Eric b and Rakim's appeal was different, as said it was about clubs and sorry to burst your bubble but the R didn't go down that well at Latin Quarters, groups like UltraMagnetic dominated those Clubs, the R is just to laid back for the club scene at that time, his success came from an introspective audience which is why artists like that have the longevity the do.
As for Kid n Play I can name more than 4 songs as anyone with a decent collection of 80's hip-hop can but to be fair I just have to name the songs that rocked the clubs and most artists barley have one of those but Kid n Play had at least two with Last Night and Gittin Funky. Look there producer was Hurby Luv Bug, he dominated mainstream successful artists at the time, look at his catalogue.
By the reasoning you have given for these guys to be plants you could accuse Biz Markie of being a plant, this is basic and lazy writing by you all for the click bait.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dsgrbrowne1 Bill Clinton Jan 20 1993 - Jan 20 2001 - Intervention in Haiti 1994 - 1995, Kosovo War 1998 to 1999, Operation Infinite Reach 1998. Barack Obama Jan 20 2009 to Jan 20 2017 Operation Ocean Shield 2009 to 2016, International Intervention in Libya 2011, Operation Observant Compass 2011 to 2017, American Led Intervention in Iraq 2014-to present, American Led intervention in Syria 2014 to present, Yemeni Civil War 2015 to present, American Intervention in Libya 2015 to present.
I would put the orange man in there also but sadly he never started any wars in the fours years in was in office in fact he is the only President from 1981 upwards to have not done and thats regardless of any party.
Not only did Joe Biden write the disastrous and racist 1994 crime bill he also wrote the 1995 Omnibus Act which morphed into the Patriot Act, he voted against Gay Marriage in 1996 he repealed the Glass Steagall Act, voted for the Patriot Act in 2001, voted for the Iraq war in 2002, voted the end bankruptcy protections for students in 2005 and presented George W. Bush with the Liberty Medal in 2018.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
12:20 this guy is completely clueless, he keeps banging on a bout the working class, where has he been? There is no working class only surf class, hand to mouth class, working class would be those that labour in industry 5-6 days a week often own there own home holiday once a year and have a survivable pension. Those jobs don't exist anymore your working class that you patronise are on benefits or doing a minimum wage supermarket job with no prospects of retirement. My guess is almost none of these people of the left side are working class outside of a few union reps. I find it remarkable that both sides, more so the left as their always at it, can't tell there being used as are the migrants, there are no jobs for the native so clearly the migrant are not getting work, they go straight on benefits, in the end that bankrupts the county and the left get there communist paradise only to find out it is a nightmare and the central banker sits back and laugh. And don't start me on the Asian's they fell right into the trap, Starmer laid the race bate and both side lapped it up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@G.A.C_Preserve All major outlets reported on this, Ukraine's Ministry of Defence said Denis Kireev, 45, was a spy so killed him. Denis Kieer was a Ukrainian peace negotiator, you can see him pictured on the far left in the initial peace talks with Russia.
Volodymyr Struk, 57, who was mayor of Kreminna since 2020, suffered a “gunshot wound to the heart” after being abducted, from his home, it was reported on by the Ukrainian news agency UNIAN. Anton Gerashchenko, an adviser to the Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs. alleged that Struk was deemed a “traitor” after being “judged by the court of the people’s tribunal. “He was shot by unknown patriots as a traitor,” Gerashchenko wrote, “according to war-time law.”
Every major outlet reported on this and in-fact seemed to celebrate it, just look it's in the Evening Standard. Google there names. ---
Again Denis Kireev and Volodymyr Struk you can see all the press reporting and even see pictures of there dead bodies.
1
-
1
-
On the contrary, Gary's a classic gambler in denial, he was a leverage trader for goodness sake. His whole argument is that asset prices go up because the rich buy assets yeah? He is so blind to facts that he even used gold as an example.
Pardon me for pointing out the obvious but none of these assets have increased in value, only in digits count. The Ruch don't but they to increased there value they buy them to store there value, it's an unbacked fiat system in collapse, the rich have nothing to do with that, printing money out of thin air is the reason all fiat system thought-out the history, they are doomed to fail, go back to Roman times and see for yourself.
The price of a suit in Savile Row is no different today to it's price a couple hundred years ago if you convert the fiat in to the price of gold, it's exactly the same weight. Just go look a the historical price of gold as that is the true measure of inflation, inflationary money systems anyway collapse without fail.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1