Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "The Real News Network" channel.

  1. George Galloway was kicked out for being against the Iraq war.
    38
  2. Why do they all act surprised that he acts like a roge mafia boss ? MBS held the prime minister of Lebanon hostage (he was invited to KSA under a pretext), they made him resign on TV in KSA after weeks - he was released then. French has "colonial" ties to Lebanon and I think Macron intervened (and maybe others behind the scenes). That Lebenese politician accepted the invitation of Macron and flew from Riyadh to Paris before returining home safely, where he got a big welcome after the many weeks of absence. And he retracted his resignation the next day. MBS invited family members and power brokers into a hotel for a meeting (I think in 2017 or early 2018). Held them hostage. Likely some were mistreated, maybe even tortured. One helicopter crashed - likely one person did not follow the invitation and tried in vain to flee the country They were released after weeks when they were willing to sign over huge amounts of money. During that time MBS bought a 500 million yacht. - He is making powerful enemies. - Now if he had done that (limiting it to rough handling as opposed to torture) AND also contributed to the funds to compensate for reduced oil revenue to bring the country forward - I would not object so much (little sympathie for the other 1 percenters of Saudi Arabia). Record numbers of executions, and they are not all murderes. Allowed women to drive - and put the peaceful female activists who had demanded that right into prison. That is a rogue mafia boss who grew up in the bubble of the super rich and cannot correctly evaluate his real power. He is a buddy of Jared Kushner (who might have shared intelligence also regarding dissenters of the regime who live in the U.S.) MBS should remember that Saddam Hussein also had a carte blanche for many years. Until he hadn't. - They buy the silence of Western polician and the media, but that does not mean they would not drop them the moment MBS or the country is not useful anymore. Some of them might feel a little ashamed of being sell-outs - which would make them extra resentful as soone as that is "safe" for them. The cruel actions of Saddam Hussein were published, got little official attention as long as Saddam Hussein was best buddy. But the stories were warmed up - and gladly - once he had become a pariah. There are rumours that Saddam was lured into believing that the U.S. would not intervene if they would take some Kuwaiti oil. Indicating that he was not useful anymore (they had not even beaten Iran) and maybe too independent for the liking of the Bush admin (the same war mongers were at large then that also "graced" the Bush 2 admin, John Bolton even made it into the Trump admin). The U.S. encouraged Iraq under Saddam Hussein in 1979/1980 (after Iran had toppled the shah and cut ties with the U.S.) to start a war against Iran. KSA considers Iran to be the arch enemy, they are Shia Muslim and therefore apostates - form the point of view of extrem Sunni Islam that is cultivated in Saudi Arabia. They cultivate Wahabbism also for political reasons, to control the Saudi population. Iran was the natural hegemon in the region - the decades of support of the U.S. for the shah regime shows that. They also are a nation with thousands of years of culture, do have a capable people's army - as opposed to nouvaux rich Saudi Arabia. Iran has developed it's capabilites (technology, medicine, ...) without relying on Western employees for qualified jobs and cheap work immigrants from developing countries. The Ayatollahs used the oil revenue to provide the basics for the population. They do not spend like crazy on expensive systems to buy goodwill of Western politicians and the Western media. Instead they built a people's army and developed asymmetric defense stratgies. In a war between KSA and Iran (w/o) foreign intervention I would bet on Iran. And neither the U.S. nor Israel or even Saudi Arabia are really eager to have war with Iran. They hope to bring them down with economic warfare. The KSA ruling political class hates the natural strong position of Iran in the region (which got stronger after the U.S. removed Saddam Hussein from power), they are now friendly with Iraq as well. The other rich gulf countries are too small to have imperial ambitions, but the Saudi leadership detests that the Iranians are going to beat them regarding economy, culture, influence, having a respected military if oil revenue become less relevant.
    20
  3. Khashoggi was involved when the U.S. had help from the Saudis to send jihadists to fight against the Soviet army in Afghanistan in the 1980s. So he likely had ties to the CIA.
    15
  4. The Saudis could not get anything done if they would not pay for foreign labor. They are completely dependent for their standard of living on foreign skilled work force. Sure the children of wealthy families go to university. But they do not necessarily become engineers, architects or scientists. They ALSO do not have the environment at home to put that training into work (even if they have a STEM degree). A French engineer will seek a job in a company that is likely French and will stay in the country. There is no risk the company will leave the country in a hurry because of security or political risk either. Trained scientiest and experts need job offers after graduation, or their knowledge does not help the country. If they do have ambition, they will go elsewhere. - Sure some could start their own thing in KSA. But with increasing complexity of research and technology that has become more difficult. The West could build their institutions in the 1950s. And at the same time their corporations made use of the potential work force. The Saudis do not have an MIT and in their nouvaux rich culture they never put in the work and hassle on a large scale in the past decades. Iran cut ties with the West, they had to become independent and get their own industries, universities, and companies. The Saudi cannot integrate the expensive weapons systems (which are part of the U.S. protection racket) into their military or a strategy. They do not have good leadership in the military. In that kind of society with that much oil revenue a coup with help of the military is always an option. So the upper class places some of their sons in the military so they know what is going on there. Not because of the excellence of the candidates or because they want to serve in the army. No doubt the rich families distrust each other and in that manner control each other - family ties, not a desire to serve, interest in the military, or dedication, or graduation from a prestigious academy puts those men into position of military leadership. KSA pilots fly in high altitude (safe) and just drop the bombs on Yemen. They do not know nor do they care what they are going to hit. They are utterly imcompetent, and make acomplete mess of it, and cannot even deal with poor Yemen. (Lawrence Wilkerson, paraphrased). Bombing like that is not only unethical, it is also stupid as military strategy. After all th bombing would be to take out major assets of the enemy. They kill civilians instead. Well, the (younger ?) sons are not risking something while the other family members are doing fine in the international jetset or as rich business men if they are more ambitious. You do not get good leadership, and they do not offer their own training, nothing like Westpoint. Maybe the U.S. helps to train their officiers. A little bit. The U.S. wants KSA to buy U.S. weapons like crazy. KSA having a capable independent army (see Iran, Syria or Israel) is not part of the plan. The U.S. has a protection racket going on.
    13
  5. The weapons purchases (mainly from the U.S. the top mafia boss, but also other wealthy NATO countries) do not protect Saudia Arabia, they protect the tyrannical regime of the royal family of Saudia Arabia.
    12
  6. Did I just hear Maher talking down on Wilkerson - because Maher knows and has the contacts ?
    9
  7. Israel massively lobbies the British MPs, see Aljazeera undercover video (in 2016 - we can arrange for a scandal for 2 MPs to get them out off parliament). McDonalds tried the same shit they sued people who - mildly - criticized them for the nutrional value (or lack thereof) of their food. It was a PR debacle for McDonalds - not sure if they lost the case or if they just gave up at some point. Their "advesaries" were not that powerful or had the huge platform, they just wanted to exercise a crack down on someone they perceived to be without power and financial means. Didn't work out.
    7
  8. Tribalism beats politics - "liberals" are supposed to be better than that.
    7
  9. Search with "The Real News Thomas Frank" - and then search on the TRN website with his name if necessary. The other parts 1 - 4 were all released in September, part 6 has yet to come. On their website they embedd the youtube videos. They almost always have the TRANSCRIPTS on their site (well edited), audio for download and an additional comment section.
    7
  10. They did that with the Hillary Clingon "rallies" as well.
    6
  11. 9:00 he repeats several times ...the Vietnam war was a bad idea... - 3 times - he still cannot bring himself to label the horrific war of aggression correctly - it was a genozide on the Vietnamese, a from of colonialsim, the U.S. elites were terrified poor people anywhere on the globe could have a left leaning economic model (of course the S.U. and China tried to influence these countries, but that is no excuse, the the U.S. had not business being there, Vietnam and Korea could never have been a threat to the U.S. and did not even have economic ties with them (at least nothing of significance. And the young U.S. soldiers were fooled into fighting that war, abusing the willingness and idealism of young people willing to server their country.
    6
  12. Sadly many of the progressive races did not go well, Beto in Texas, Abrams in Georgia, Ben Jealous. I do not wonder that the transgender candidate for governor in Vermont did not succeed either. Likely too out there for many voters. But the losses in Florida, Georgia and Texas really suck. The campaigns are quite an achievment (the losses were in the narrow range) - but a win would have strengthened the position of the progressives in the party. 1 % more in Texas and Beto would have won. That IS a signal HOW to run a winning unapologetic campaign WITHOUT Big Donors. But since he missed out on the epic victory the Democratic party can breath a sigh of relief - and gladly dismiss that lesson. They would have it much harder to IGNORE it if Beto had won Texas. As for Vermont: likely the Republican governor is not too bad - that is the fingerprint of Vermont - a crazy Republican would not make it there in the first place, and a moderate can be appealing enough, especially with the bonus of being the incumbent.
    6
  13. Disagree - Maher used it as if it was a "cool" word - it is not. Of course he does not detest black folks - but how much empathy does he really have. Anyway, it does not matter that he made a mistake - more like what follows after the mistake. And he seemed to sort of brush if off. Instead of giving a sincere apology and then move on (and find another choice word to use without the terrible baggage). As a comedian he knows the power of language.
    5
  14. 15:00 - Israel is the driver for US foreign war politics
    5
  15. The stagflation crisis was in Europe as well. It is an interesting time (economy wise). Did he have the majority of the houses to take bold measures ? As for being soft on Iran - should he had ordered a war - or riks even more lives ? (I recommend former Colonel Wilkerson or former CIA officier Michael Scheuer on the "chances" when going to war with Iran. The Shah had built a formidable army (it hasn't decreased sinde then) and Iran is not a small country, nor would it be easy to control (terrain). Iraq, Afghanistan anyone ? The CIA and Reagans campaign arranged a deal with the new Iranian leadership to hold back the hostages. But at least Reagan never apologized. Nor did he apologize for the Iran/Contra affair or the drugs they let the CIA import into the U.S. while starting the war on drugs.
    5
  16.  @pluce2474  If he had reached for his phone to call 911 because he was wary about police stopping him (!), they would have "feared for their life" and shot him at the spot. He was smart to not move at all when they gave implausible orders. He could not get out of the car w/o taking off the seatbelt and reaching for the door and he was calm enough to realize that it would have been dangerous to do so with cops that were so unprofessional and out of control. They had no legal reason to stop him anyway, he did have a provisory licence plate, they had plenty of time to notice that. He knew and they knew that he was being stopped for driving a nice, new car while being black. I do not blame him for wanting to have witnesses and good light in that situation. Plus he BLINKED to indicate that he intended to stop.
    5
  17. That is ALSO an undeclared subsidy for the domestic weapons manufacturers. The Israeli buy a lot of U.S. stuff (they are smart enough to do that). - Never mind they get sorted out U.S. material at a huge rebate or for free (Iron Dome). And sometimes they steal technology / material (like the weapons grade plutonium for their 200 - 300 nuclear warheads) and also some special components while they were at it. (ignitions ??).
    5
  18. throughout the U.S. 100 million people have conditions that make them "undesireable" for insurance companies. They will have a hard time getting insurance.
    5
  19. parts 1 - 4 came in quick succession - do not despair lol I guess the last part will be out within 2 or 3 days. As for part 1 - 4 see their website (see answers to Thomas Sorenensen)
    5
  20. Peaceful dissenters are sentenced to death - one female not sure if the appeal is going on, or if the prosecutor is only demanding the death sentence and she might be lucky and only get years in prison.
    5
  21.  @edwardmiessner6502  Do you thin they had something on the cook and he would set her up (so that they leave him alone) ? On the other hand I wonder if they were only lazy cops trying to meet their quota. - Like the current VP Harris (kicking down and being friendly with the higher ups).
    5
  22. Funny how Venezuela always comes up - but not Haiti, Puerto Rico, Honduras, Mexico. You have a very superficial understanding of economy and trade policies and U.S. foreign policy in Latin America if you think Venezuela proves anything negative about "Socialism". True there is a rich and wealthy upper class in Venezuela - coming from exploitative capitalistic policies in the past - with a lot of support of the U.S. / the West on behalf of Big Biz. And: Venezuela lived and lives of it's fossil fuel revenues. I argue that under a Conservative or even under a more left-leaning but Capitalistic government a lot of these revenues would have gone to the top 10 % - instead of being "squandered" for the welfare of the majority - like healthcare or education + government jobs (admitted: likely many of them not necessary). Such "normal" governments also would NOT have strengthened small farmers while somewhat curbing Big Ag. They would NOT have shielded the country from imports using tariffs and trade barriers to allow the local (often small) businesses to develop * . Very likely they would not have even considered such policies - and if so it would be very hard for ONE country to go against neoliberal "globalization". You just have to look at how hard politicians tried to impose TPP, TTIP, CETA, TISA onto their countries - many of which are the wealthiest countries in the world and have something like democracy. * These policies allowed the post WW2 Economic miracle in Western Europe, U.S. and Japan - some free market economy and lots of regulations and tariffs and quotas. What did NOT happen then: Tax evasion - and income and corporate taxes were high then, international "free flow" of capital, deregulation of the financial "industry", outsourcing of jobs from the wealthy to the poor countries aka globalization - it DID NOT HAPPEN during the ERA of the ECONOMIC MIRACLE. Turns out you can rebuild war-torn countries from scratch while going against anything the "free" market zealots will tell you is the gospel of economics. Status quo governments will be pro "free" "trade" Or at least they will not actively challenge the assumptions of Capitalism (highest profit and lowest price above all). They will not challenge the assumptions of "globalization". Had Venezuala had a "same old, same old" government (no matter if more right, center or left) they still would struggle with the following problems: no local business development *, plunging oil revenue = budget cuts or more debt, and definitely as much corruption as always (different people would profit from the corruption granted). Conservative governments attract more international investors - but that does NOT strenghten the national economy. They usually do not pay taxes. These investors exploit the work force, the workers have the minimum and not one Cent more. And that means these workers do not have the DISPOSABLE INCOME needed to jumpstart the domestic consumption. Sure they are at least not unemployed, but it is often too little to live and too much to starve. So the people are not out in the streets but it does nothing for the national economy. Capitalism uses MASS PRODUCTION - which also means by necessity MASS CONSUMPTION. If only 30 % of the population is doing well and has disposable income, that is just not enough to keep the economy afloat. This is why the middle class developed in the 50s - 70s in the U.S., Western Europe, Japan. Workers got their fair share of the increase of productivity. (see all the charts about productivity vs. wage growth. Note the lockstep until the 70s, then wages became stagnant while productivity continued it's rise (in the U.S. + 67 or 69 % from 1970 - 2013, wages adjusted for inflation only plus 8 %). The U.S. had repeated real estate and stock market bubbles and invented private credit card debt as "cure" for STAGNANT domestic CONSUMPTION caused by STAGNANT domestic WAGES. Well that "cure" is maxed out now.
    4
  23. 2) While oil prices were high the Socialist government of Venezuela "wasted" the good revenues to implement health care, education and hired a lot of government employees (likely more than were necessary). As long as it lasted it was good - Chavez was immensly popular because people experienced that their life became better. Now the party is over - and it would be over with a Conservative government as well. A Conservative government would impose "austerity" now, plunging the majority of the population into misery again (from which they were lifted during the Chavez era). As reward for not offending the Capitalists and the Western neoliberal ruling class and their doctrines they would get some IMF loans. So on the surface it would look better. But of course once the vultures are in - the IMF - the country is going down the drain, anyway. Kirchner of Argentine asked George W. Bush for a Marshall Plan for Latin America. His response: If you want to boost the economy you need to go to war ! Of course the Marshall Plan for Europe was one of the smartest investments ** the U.S. has ever made. And if the U.S. ever wanted to REALLY solve the immigration problem (undermining domestic wages) they would need to make sure the economic situation in all of Latin America improves (most important of course in Mexico). Note how there is NO immigration problem with Canadians. ** the Marshall Plan helped to maintain U.S. dominance because else struggling post war Western Europe would have become friendly with the Soviet Union. It helped to jumpstart the recovery in Europe AND it was a blast for U.S. exports. Plus it built a lot of good will in Europe for the U.S. (the U.S. still lives of that good will)
    4
  24. 3) Venezuela made the mistake of not using the time of high oil revenue to boost local production - and the only chance to do so is to keep cheap imports out - which is of course contrary to the "free" "trade" gospel. Instead they allowed a lot of imports into the country which was affordable at that time thanks to the high oil revenue. - The import / export balance was not as skewed because they got more money for their major export product. Much more imports than exports = plunging currency (only the U.S. with it's military can avoid that economic law - too big to fail). Normally a devaluing currency would make domestic production more competitive (competing imports are getting more expensive in comparison). But you must be still able to import the necessary raw materials and half products (no country is independent in that respect, not with international diversified mass production). And you also must have the skills in the workforce and the DOMESTIC enterprises or co-ops already in place who could INCREASE PRODUCTION if they get the advantage of a devalued currency. If you depend mainly on imports to satisfy consumers demands you cannot just jumpstart the local production of these goods in the middle of the crisis. I always wondered if the U.S. secretly has an agreement with the Saudis regarding the plunge of the oil prices. After all it does a lot of damage to their "enemies" - and make no mistake: for the ruling class in the U.S. countries like Venezuela, Brazil, Syria, Iran Russia ARE the ENEMY - no matter what they do - (BRICS anyone, U.S. hegemony anyone). Sure Mexico and its decline in oil revenue is collateral damage (immigration crisis anyone ?) It also hurts the U.S. fracking industry - but they made money hand over fist and will have to sit it out.
    4
  25. 4) Venezuela made the mistake of not making bold land reform thus boosting local FOOD production for DOMESTIC CONSUMPTION. Instead of having large latifundias in the hands of the upper class where they grow cash crops for export (and leverage the work of usually low paid farm workers). Sure those cash crops exports help somewhat maintain the import/export balance and the value of the currency - but: agricultural products do not bring a lot of good revenue in export. All countries who depend on exports of agricultural products are poor and will remain poor - because the prices they can achieve on the global market will keep the farm workers poor. Having a lot of small farmers who OWN the property makes an economy more stable. These people will not be unemployed (they are self-employed). They will stay in the rural areas (instead of clogging the cities, with all related problems like rising rent, problems with water supply, waste water treatment, more traffic, more pollution). In case the currency plunges or in case of an economic crisis, the country will at least be self-sufficient when it comes to food. There will be less civil unrest in case of economic troubles - because people do have something to hold on to. They have at least a modest livelyhood. All these policies were applied in Western Europe after WW2. In local manufacturing and agriculture. The farmers in my country still live of the protective policies of the post-war era. There is no way they could have made it into solid middle class under the "free market" conditions that we have today.
    4
  26. All the speculation would not be possible if there wasn't cheap money from the FED - to the banks which hand it over the the funds (and since the regulation they also can trade themselves. Large and well known funds can speculate (for expample on British Pound - Brexit) without any deposit. Bank gives them money, they specualte, when it works out (or not but within the normal range )- fine. If something goes really wrong a Bank goes bust (Barings Bank). If it gets really crazy - likr gpt omdzsmvr all the world's largest financial institutions bet on repackaged shitty loans - see 2008/2009 crisis. If rich people would only specualte with their money, it would just change hands (minus the fees). No they are allowed to work with loans for the deposits - or no deposit is required.. Other companies may have a deposit of 10 %
    4
  27. I saw in live reports: school fitness halls, rows of simple wood tables, lots of people sitting there each with a heap of ballots to count. And they transport the ballot cartons on foot - I saw footage of a line of volunteers one person giving the carton to the next person (like passing on the torch or the bucket). And two cities traditionally compete who comes up with the counted final result first - and I think they employ good runners. Like: the ballot NEVER leaves the public eye (I guess this is an old tradition from the times before they had bicycles). - That's British democracy for you. P.S. and Lord Buckethead and Theresa May lol
    4
  28. I am on a "Corbyn kicked May in the behind" binge watch - greetings from Austria !
    4
  29. Sanders in an interview (during the unity tour with Tom Perez): Interviewer makes a statement that both Trump and Sanders had a populist message. Sanders interrupts (more or less) and clarifies: "The word populist is thrown around a lot - I saw people hurting. They are desperate". I do not think that a team of ten in a weekend retreat came up with that "messaging" and then carefully trained him to deliver that sort of remark when the occasion arises. - It was a quite spontaneous reaction. - That's the advantage of being a real person with (long standing) convictions - such statements bubble to the surface quite effortlessly.
    4
  30.  @pluce2474  The worst crime in the U.S. is to annoy a cop - it can get you the immediate death penalty. They can't have been busy or they would not have had the time to harrass a regular driver. They could easily wait 1 minute or 2 until he felt safe to stop. And "normal" cops would not be so pissed about "being made to made" that they act like he is a terrorist. - btw he was in uniform.
    4
  31. Is it possible someone wanted to frame you ? Or were the cops just lazy and trying to full a quota with an easy target ? or getting pressure from above ?
    4
  32. A part of the U.K. had done well and in the short term continued to do well (incl. the sell off of publicly owned housing which was good for those who were already IN). The citizens had become complacent and did not understand WHAT had made the Golden Era / The Economic Miracle possible after WW2. (High employment, good wages rising with productivity, and high taxes for the rich and highly profitable businesses). The Thatcher voters were far away from the mining areas and cheap coal was more important than having jobs for a major part of the country. (A fade out with massive investment would have been in order for the coal region. But other manufacturing jobs would have meant these workers would continue to be organized in unions. Thatcher ruled for the Tories and the rich - not for all of the country. Ruining a part of the country that did not vote for Tories anyway ? Bring it on ... Some stateswomanship !) Ironically the middle class had been doing well because of the left leaning policies that were the exception to the rule. The form of softened capitalism after WW2 with Big Finance on a short leash and strong worker's rights - the "golden era" - was an anomaly that allowed an spectacular increase of wealth among the regular people. Between 1947 and 1970 average wages in the U.S. (adjusted for inflation !) rose by 97 % while productivity rose by 112 %. So the U.S. workers got the lion's share of productivity gains, which meant their purchasing power almost doubled. It was like that in all first world nations incl. the U.K. - in France purchasing power almost trippled in about the same time span. the 15 % of productivitiy gains in the U.S. went to the owners and shareholders. May not sound like much for 23 years - but it was 15 % of a very large and ever expanding pie that went to only few people (few comparatively speaking to all of the workforce). So the business owners and the "investors" got plenty. But not enough for their liking. That is especially true for the "investor" class. So they used the oil crises of the 1970s with unemployment sharply rising for the first time after WW2 to hit back - against the New Deal and in the U.S. as well. (On the European continent the good times lasted longer despite the disruption of the 1970s). So while unionized good manufacturing jobs in the U.K. were destroyed - the jobs for the useless and dangerous speculation in Big Finance exploded. (Note that Europe was rebuilt with a highly restricted banking sector. They were restricted to BORING BANKING. That is all that is needed for a thriving economy. Germany for instance did have a stock exchange - a few large companies were public (auto, energy, steel, chemical). The stock exchange was a lame affair and the companies did not need (or use) the stock exchange to raise money. Maybe there were a few cases where new shares were issued (the companies had all existed BEFORE WW2) - not much was going on and in any case those highly successful companies could have gotten the necessary capital differently.
    4
  33. Pleasantly surprised to see that the New York Times covered the story of the Texan speech teacher - about time, too.
    4
  34. So he is mayor from 1980 or 81, Congressman and later Senator since 1991. His wife works, too. They have a regular home in Vermont, a row house in D.C. (not uncommon for a long term politician). Jane inherited a housein Maine they could hardly use, so they used the sales revenue for the vacation home. What comes next - him replacing his boring middle class car with a new one ? (Well we could explain that maybe with some book revenue.) Whoever thinks someone GAVE them the money for the vacation home has not thought this through. Such gifts (transfer) leave paper trails. That would be risky and a completely unnecessary risk. And unless the Democratic party has intense connections with the mob it would be hard to come up with that amount in cash. And paying that much in cash to a the former owner woud AGAIN leave very suspicious evidence. When a politician is being bought, there are much more refined, safe, legal ways to do that. (Like think tanks buying a lot of his books - I can practically see Sanders' books given out as Christmas gift to Wallstreet folks - lol - or hiring a family member for a very high paying position to avoid the word job). I am not sure what his motivations were for endorsing her (he certainly was aware of the shenanigans and likely more in detail than his fans). Maybe he has a lucky nature and is in a way so "cynical" or pragmatic that he can move forward w/o holding a grudge or being weighted down be hurt feelings - while having no illusions about what is going on in the shark tank. Some people think he was threatened. Anyway, he gives the Democrats enough headaches as it is. - And he has changed the national discussion about healthcare, that is no small feat. I guess HRC is fuming, she did not pull that off in the 90s (when universal healthcare seemed to be a worthwhile goal for the Clinton resume - for both Bill and Hillary). Her outburst in 2016: "This country will never, ever have universal healthcare" may be rooted in some envy - along with the resentment that another man stole her thunder.
    4
  35. It is recorded too low - usually they are O.K. - just a friendly reminder - thanks
    4
  36. + Ron Methane has 28 times the effect of CO2 over 100 years - so it may break down much quicker than CO2 - but right now we cannot afford to have methane too released, so stop eating beef. And the pipelines must not leak.
    4
  37. a car that does not " belong" in a neighbourhood is reported. Police decides they will PULL out the man from the car before they have even checked out the situation, or know anything about the man, the vehicle ... For all we know that could have been a medical emergency. 3 knocks he wakes up, police grabs him by the head IMMEDIATELY (while he is likely not even fully awake). So they approach a non-threatening SLEEPING man and as soon as he is in the process of waking up they escalate. And they do not even try to hide it. Is that a signal to other people that "do not belong" in certain neighbourhoods to never ever dare showing up except maybe as landscapers or when delivering parcels.
    4
  38. 5:50 Medicare has an overhead (administrative cost) of 2 %, so 98 % of the budget is spent to cover bills for treatment. The mandate of Obamacare is that the private insurance companies should achieve the goal of spending 80 % for treatment - meaning the GOAL is NOT to spend MORE than 20 % on everything else (administration, profit). So ideally they have only 10 times the "non-treatment" expenditures compared to the public non-profit program.
    4
  39. Not the Germans (population) ! A few sellout politicians and surprised and gutless members of parliament. The bill was a surprise bill. Introduced by the FDP (neoliberal, liberterian - they have trouble to stay relevant and FUNDED), interestingly the AfD was the other party to sponsor it. The AfD is is a populist right wing (fairly right) party so they tend to attract the anti-Jewish crowd too (real anti-semites, almost always not criminal people, usually they are "orderly" people, who have the sentiment and the prejudices. Not perpetrators - but the kind of people that were enablers in the 1930s). Obviously the Israeli Lobby had a success. When the bill was sneaked in, there was no discussion, not in parliament and not publicly. They members of parliament were all guilt-tripped into signing it. No one had the GUTS to stand up, likely they did not want the PR consequences. If it comes out that there was money involved (Afd and FDP) that could backfire big time - and draw even unwanted attention - many German citizens are currently not aware of the BDS movement. The affected products sold in Germany would likely include software or agricultural products, or boycotting the Eurovisions Song Contest (Israel participates) or sports events (where Israel weirdly enough is counted as European country. Israel has a military and surveillance technology based economy, but I do not think they export a lot to Germany. If anything they get military goods for free FROM Germany (I remember a submarine being delivered free of charge). There are - surprisingly - anti-Jewish sentiments in the population (not much). Like in all other countries (judging form the comment sections on the internet, but occasionally also in real life). And then there are well intentioned people without prejudices that clearly see the State of Israel for what it is.
    4
  40. MONEY - he is a TOOL of the Israeli lobby
    4
  41. UK spends the least of all wealthy European countries in USD per capita * (Germany 5,600, UK 3,900 Norway 8000ish, U.S. 9,200 !! Switzerland 9,600) In the last 10 years the Tories CUT the system with the LEANEST BUDGET in Europe. Respectively they failed to supplement funding. The influx of low-pay immigrants meant more patients while the contributions based on wages did not rise adequately. * Healthcare expenditures per capita in USD World Bank 2014 - I know those numbers by heart - you get the idea. "Wealthy" nations is important: living costs and wages influence the costs of healthcare. It also looks like the moment a system is private (CH, U.S.) or has even a 2 tier set-up it gets more expensive (paper shufflers, dysfunctional incentives, etc.) Australia has 6,000 for instance. Most of the UK expenditures stem from the NHS, if it was better funded - but still among the most efficient systems in the world - it might work like a charm. Which would mean no justification whatsoever to "improve" it with privatization. (CH and U.S. have private systems look at their expenditures). Healthcare is 8 -10 % of the GDP of wealthy nations (the private U.S. system 17 % = world record in inefficiency) - If that sector is heavily leaning towards NON-POFIT and "for the common good" - then the "landlord" and "rentier" class and the investors cannot make much profit from it. The NHS in former times (before PFI's etc.) was off limits for the "investors".
    4
  42. Well, if I had KKK aspirations I would join the police - more possibilities, the FBI does not place their moles there, and when they shoot people they go free. Johnny Lee Clary reformed KKK spokesmen (he was a Grand Dragon in one state he did not shy away from being associated with the KKK): many L.A. cops were supporters - And also businessmen. They gave money but did not want to be publicly known as KKK supporters. A mole planted by the FBI got her hands on his rolodex (he thought she was his fiancé ! ) - so some "good" citizens got visits from the FBI - at work. And the KKK was pissed off at him and accused him of betrayal. he got out of a meeting with his gun. (Sure you can shoot me, but I'll take some of you with me). One of the few legitimate cases where a weapon might have been useful for self-defense. Having no options left (he came from a dysfunctional home, that's why the clan could recruit him as teenager), he remembered the black pastor that had impressed him against his will, when Johnny Lee and his stooges harrassed him - several times.
    4
  43. I hope Trump stays president, Pence coming into power would be worse.
    4
  44. One voice of reason - the German comedian Volker Pispers said something like that years ago - that he understands why Iran would want to have a nuclear weapon - as an AN EFFECTIVE DETERRENT. While the theocratic rules imposed on the population are crazy - the leaders of that theocracy are not irrational - certainly not when it comes to foreign policy. Remember Iran had a secular democracy in the 50s, the CIA arranged a regime change on behalf of UK and US business interests. BP (British Petroleum had been operating for a long time in Iran. The Iranians in the 50s demanded 80 % of the oil revenue to build the country (the extraction of the Iranian oil is relatively cheap). Wise politics would have been to meet them at 70 or 75 % under the condition that they buy a lot of U.S. and UK made stuff with it. It would have been a blast for the Iranian AND the general ! economies of the U.S. and the U.K. But the special interests that had the ear of the imperialisticly minded governments did not like it, they stood to lose a lot (while many citizens in their countries would have profited from the increased exports - businesses and workers alike). The British government offered 50 % (I think they got only 30 % before, a very bad deal for Iran) - the Iranians declined, then there were a lot of diplomatic hostilities and sanctions that hit the Iranian economy hard, in 1953 after an US engineered coup, a dictator was installed. The Iranians got rid of that dictator in 1979 - in a bloodless revolution BTW, the Shah ordered to shoot at protesters so some people were killed. But then the military refused to follow the Shah's orders to go against their fellow citizens, they retreated into their barracks. At the end millions of people were on the street - still peacefully - and the Shah fled the country. The negative outcome is that the Iranians did not trust the Western ideas anymore, they supported the Ayatollahs and accepted them as leading figures. Assuming these very religous people would bring a rule of justice and better conditions for the regular Iranians. In economics term that may be true, that they do better than under the Shah (despite the war with Iraq in the 80s and the ongoing sanctions), but their freedoms are very restricted. The rule has been somewhat loosened in the last years, the very young, very open population of Iran is getting restless. On the other hand the religious leaders use some of the oil revenue for education and for a free healthcare system that is said to be pretty good considered that they are still a sort of developing country. (No doubt there is also a lot of corruption, resources and no free press makes that a given). They do have universities (more of 50 % of the students are women). The U.S. backed the Shah - of course - until the very end. Some time later the people in the U.S. embassy were taken as hostages by students and that was tolerated by the new government (the students accused the members of the embassy of spying and being engaged in couterrevolution - which is highly likely). And the hostages were kept there for a long time (but not mistreated). Of course the Reagan presidential campaign negotiated with the Iranians with help of the CIA that they would NOT release those hostages before the elections (which could have won Carter the reelection, as it would have been a success of his diplomatic efforts). The Iranians had nothing to lose by keeping the hostages some more months, they were released on the inauguration day of Reagan, the Iranians were promised US weapons, I am sure they had recordings to blackmail the Reagan and CIA representatives. Well Reagan kept his word (never mind treason and illegal weapons delivery to an official adversary/enemy of the U.S. - see October surprise and Iran/Contra affair). If Iran ever USED Nuclear Weapons in an initial strike they would be wiped out. - Israel, their arch enemy is a rogue nuclear power. It is known that they have a lot of nuclear bombs - and likely the better technology to deliver them. Oh, and of course in 1980 the U.S. encouraged Saddam Hussein to start a proxy war with Iran. Saddam was the darling of the West then, like George Friedman put it: We were smart, we supplied weapons to both sides to keep the conflict going. And while they were fighting each other, this helped to consolidate our power. - Slightly paraphrased. That war lasted 8 years, up to 1 million people dead. So why would Iran TRUST the U.S. or the Western nations (who conveniently look the other way if they are not active in screwing Iran).
    3
  45. +maria - VOTE Labour - Corbyn is on the right side - he is not complacent about Britian having de facto a under class, and he is not going to continue with with insane foreign policy (the US regime changing and the UK being the poodle of whoever is in the White House - and putting the soldiers and the citizens in harms way). Plus COLLUSION WITH TERRORISTS. (in Syria but even at home) BTW the "Manchester boys" were tolerated if not groomed - by the British intel agencies. UK was working for 20 years minimum on toppling Gaddafi. So they thought having some very disgruntled ex Libyans and also muslim influenced by the extreme Islam exported by Saudi Arabia was a good idea. In 2011 men that were under control order in the UK we let on the loose to fight against the government of Gaddafi in Libya. There they learnt the terrorist trade (incl. bomb making).And many of them then went to Syria terrorizing the population (especially Christians as we know from missionaries). It seems they did not get the memo they were supposed to terrorize and kill the civilians in OTHER countries like Syria - not back at home. It was no coincidence the attack happened in Manchester. Expect May to introduce more internet spying on normal citizens (and much good would it do when the authorities ignore warnings of the FBI and of neighbours - Salman Abedi had talked about suicide bombing). Never mind colluding with potential terrorists and just letting them take the plane to another country (One guy told that the police held him in Heathrow - he gave them a telephone number of MI5 - the MI5 that was under the leadership of Theresa May then as Home secretary. With a more progressive Labour party under Corbyn you will have none of that. - the weapons manufactureres and war mongergers are not going to like it.
    3
  46. 400.000 dead persons and millions of displaced persons in Syria alone would never have happened if the US had not plotted - in 2001 after 9/11 to topple the Syrian government. It was a dusted off plan of the 90s. Seek for: General Wesley Clark 7 countries in 5 years. Also Roland Dumas former French Foreign minister: in 2009 the UK decided it would go to war with Syria (he was contacted about it then - wanted France to join the "effort" ?".  - In 2005 CNN's Christine Amanpour interviewed Assad - to her it was obvious that the US had the rhetoric of regime change going against Assad (They discussed whether he was in "full charge". Assad replied "at the same time I am accused of being a dictator - that would mean full control".
    3
  47. + John Kelleher The Soviet Union GAVE UP control of Eastern Europe - they did not lose control. They STEPPED DOWN from the Cold War. And they RETRACTED their military bases and nukes from Eastern European countries. And allowed the civilian protest movements there to flourish without interfering. The S.U. had "helped" the hardliners in Tchechoslovakia, Hungary, Germany to crush non-violent mass protest movements in the 50s. They did not do that in 1988. In Eastern Germany the hardliners were on their own, the protest movement regarded Gorbachev as protector. (This was the first time the very obedient Eastern German dictatorship did not follow the S.U. When the "Big Brother". S.U. proclaimed reform and opening (Perestroika, Glasnost) the hardliners in Eastern Germany for the first time did their own thing. Since they were not so sure how this all would end (the Soviets clearly would not send in the troops this time to save their rule, they shied away from cracking down too brutally on the civilian protests. Shooting at protesters was discussed (as came out after the fall of the Berlin Wall) but at the end they did not dare to follow through. In 1989 the Berlin Wall fell. The S.U. had needed the Eastern European countries as members of and markets in their economic system (they called it marxism/socialism but it really was state capitalism = a top down micro managed economy). When they gave up on their economic ideology the satellites states were less important, the S.U. would increasingly do trade with all countries and the satellite states had become more of a burden. They always were - unlike in colonialism the S.U. did not extract wealth from the "associated" states, Gorbachev realized that it was not worth the trouble to hold on to the "empire". (A lesson the U.S. has yet to learn).
    3
  48. Interesting thought - you made my day.
    3
  49. The first two years he had a Democratic Congress. (And there is a reason the next midterms did not go well for the Democrats - the original enthusiasm had faded, people realized they would not get the desperately needed "hope and change" from the Democratic Party. Obama had run an exemplary presidential campaign, could reach the black voters and could have mobilized the masses - had he chosen to do so. The reality is: his donors and the political establishment (of both major parties) deeply detests the masses engaging in the political process, it could plant rebellious ideas in the mind of the plebs. So of course Obama did not encourage it (nor did he give the masses something to be excited about). He gave up single payer or even the public option voluntarily. He was totally OK with the crackdown on Occupy which was the middlefinger to the banksters. His financiers didn't like to be embarrassed that way. No one FORCED him to choose the foxes as guardians for the hens (his cabinet choices contradicted everything he had talked about during his campaign). For anyone watching him objectively it was clear within short time that he would sell out and betray his voters. He appointed voluntarily an Attorney General that could hardly be bothered to give the banks a slap on the wrist. Oh and of course Marijuana was not redefined - contrary to any scientific knowledge it is a schedule 1 drug = very dangerous, NO medical usefulness, no research allowed. Obama knows full well (and from experience) that Marijuana is not as dangerous as let's say Heroine (another schedule 1 drug). Even I know of Marijuana's medical applications and I do not have researchers at my disposal. It is a good example where he easily could have done something that would have helped the population and chose not to because of his ties to big industry (in this case three, big pharma, alcohol and the prison industry). Low level drug offenses are comparatively harshly punished, lives, families, communities are destroyed. Minorites are disproportionally suffering. Not to forget the patients who find relief with marijuana only and often risk fines, jail or losing custody of their kids if they use marijuana.
    3
  50. No Trump does not acutally build things (he himself certainly not). And when he touches actual tangible products (wine, steaks, university, airline, real estate, casinos, hotels) they flop. To be honest I heard more about his failures but in the recent years when HE was the entrepreneur there are a lot of failures. Or his collusion with Scottish politicians to get his golf hotel there (against the locals). Or when he had a city sue under eminent domain. He wanted additionl parking space where her house stood. He lost. He made money from having buildings constructed and then rented. He could draw from the business model, experience, connection and money of his father and I guess when he started out it was hard not to succeed if one had some basic business mindset, punctuality, could stay sober etc. He is certainly good in the entertainment segment and yes his beauty contests are likely a commercial success. Then how much of the real work does he do - he keeps the oversight, he is certainly networking. I guess he knows and is willing to DELEGATE and may have some sense for good, hard working people. If you have enough money (or enough credit) you can buy talent and leverage it. OK that is an entrepreneurial skill, but not THAT impressive. He is not walking on water. He also LICENCES his name and seems to be pretty CARELESS about it (for example Trump Magazine and appartment buildings in New Mexico if I remember correctly.) Trump and son Eric advertised the licensed real estate project. People trusted the "Trump" name and lost a lot of money. Legally Trump was not responsible for the bankrupcy. BUT: he got a lot of licensing fees (from the real estate project and also from the failed magazine) - and he actually GOT these. While other people (many of them not wealthy) LOST money because they were trusting/stupid enough to think that Trump meant rich and successful and a project with his name on it was a safe investment or a safe project to work for. Other brands license their name as well, but they choose carefully to whom they tie it. They stay involved and/or have shares in the company. A magazine may take years to become succesful. If you are interested in sustainable, long-term business astrategy can be to not demand a lot of license fees in the beginning but to wait until the project is doing well and then have a steady stream of revenue. Trump got huge fees right from the beginning - for him (and only for him) it was a splendid project, very little work, a lot of revenue. I suspect, Trum gave the newspapers and other media (especially the large ones) enough advertisements so they would not report too much and too detailled about these operations and damage his reputation. I have my reservatations about Bill Gates and Steve Jobs (monopoly, outsourcing to China, working with suicide companies, Microsoft squeezing freelancers, cooperation with the surveillance state, tax evasion via Ireland). However: Donald Trump does not play in the same league with them, not even close when it comes to entrepreneurship, to create something sustainable (and something new).
    3