Comments by "dixon pinfold" (@dixonpinfold2582) on "Sky News Australia"
channel.
-
1200
-
590
-
403
-
That man who threatened the police officer has to be found, arrested, jailed, charged and tried. Then deported.😠🤬
*******EDIT, One Month Later: 🎉 He has been found, arrested and charged! 🎉 Absolutely fantastic!👏
From the CP24 site: "Toronto police arrested Amro Abufarick, 19, and Malek Abufarick, 34.
Amro has been charged with one count of unlawful assembly, one count of being a member of an unlawful assembly while masked, one count of mischief interfering with property, one count of assaulting a peace officer, and one count of uttering threats.
Malek has been charged with one count of unlawful assembly, one count of mischief interfering with property and one count of assaulting a peace officer."
392
-
360
-
248
-
232
-
206
-
143
-
121
-
118
-
104
-
86
-
77
-
72
-
72
-
71
-
62
-
59
-
59
-
56
-
54
-
52
-
50
-
45
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
20
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@dimelo8826 Well, if you set up shop selling hatred as a way of improving society, the twisted people of the world flock to your door, each demanding to be served first.
Thanks, MSNBC. Thanks, CNN. Thanks, Democrats, American universities, Hollywood, the book publishers, the ad agencies and all the rest. Who am I forgetting?
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
That's not a real point. It's a cheap rhetorical mess. However, your opening question is worth answering.
Under our system, the Speaker runs the House of Commons. Not politically, but procedurally he's the boss. So when a foreign leader visits the House, up to a point it's his show. On this occasion he thought he'd make a personal contribution to the Zelenskyy visit, i.e. the old man, who lives in his hometown. The Speaker, unfortunately, because he enjoys respect simply by virtue of his office, was not supervised by anyone on the matter. He screwed it up through incompetence and no one caught his mistake.
In my view this wasn't right at all. The Prime Minister's Office is very powerful and in any case should take the reins on all important matters of state to make sure no blunders occur. Here they should have ensured proper vetting, but did not.
For that reason I believe that the Prime Minster's Chief of Staff should certainly resign or be fired. There's no excuse for a government allowing a Speaker to make such a mistake. Absolutely unacceptable.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
Here are some words of Jiang Qing, wife of Mao Zedong and a Party senior leader: "If good people beat bad people, it serves them right; if bad people beat good people, the good people achieve glory; if good people beat good people, it is a misunderstanding; without beatings, you do not get acquainted and then no longer need to beat them."
This gives some idea of the crude idea of violence and physical coercion so often found in women in positions of power, whenever they are not completely against it. It seems to be black and white: either it is never ok, or it is completely necessary for the achievement of approved goals and therefore highly desirable. With male leaders it is nearly always a matter of very difficult line-drawing, with violence and physical coercion ordinarily viewed as a highly regrettable last resort. (By physical coercion I mean the threat of violence.)
These three administrators put me in the mind of the old ladies during the Reign of Terror who would arrive early in the morning at the scaffolds in Paris to sit all day in the front rows, knitting and watching as the revolutionaries chopped the heads off aristocrats (men, women, even children). The quality of empathy ordinarily found so frequently in women is evidently absent.
It seems to me that a precondition for such a frame of mind is that the women themselves expect never to face risk of such treatment themselves, presumably by right of being female. I think that to them it is an abstraction rather than a matter of direct experience, whereas only a very rare man hasn't lived through a single bout of violence. But I don't think I fully understand this not-uncommon female attitude. It's very alien to me.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
@MrKerri888 Thanks for your reply.
Yes, even science has no way of insulating itself from the mental decline of a dumbed-down populace. (Feel free to use my term 'The Great Dumbening'.)
Not only are they, IQs somehow aside, less bright, they are much more venal. So science is warped by the age nearly as much as any other aspect of the civilization, but it entered the mid-postwar period in sturdier shape than the others. I'd say it was still on the rise till about 1985 or '90.
It had been much bolstered by the counterweight of traditions built up and scrupulously maintained during the previous century, say 1870-1970. At various points in the same period, religion, politics, social usages, art, culture, philosophy, basic education, academia outside of science, and most other things, had entered a phase of decay.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I watched the White House piece with interest. Curiously, it brought to my mind something with a very faint parallel, namely the rise to positions of great power of eunuchs in the imperial court of China during the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644 CE).
Here is a very bare-bones summary (please, no snickering; that wasn't a pun):
The presence of eunuchs in the Chinese imperial court dated back to at least the 8th century BC. However, their power rose to extremes during the Ming Dynasty.
In the early 15th century CE, eunuchs established their own mini-bureaucracy at court, which grew to rival the official state bureaucracy. By the end of the 15th century CE, there were approximately 10,000 eunuchs in the imperial palace.
By the latter stages of the Ming Dynasty, the number of eunuchs had increased to about 70,000, and they had established almost complete domination of the imperial court.
During this period, four infamous eunuch dictators — Wang Zhen, Wang Zhi, Liu Jin, and Wei Zhongxian — wielded enormous power.
The Ming Dynasty is considered the height of eunuch influence in Chinese history. Their power was so great that they could select and remove emperors, control state affairs, and even cause the fall of dynasties.
(It has been said that powerful eunuchs were responsible for ending China's incipient era of maritime exploration of the world. A great fleet of ships was dedicated to the purpose in the mid-15th century, but the plans came to an abrupt end.
However, eunuchs were mainly responsible for the exploration program in the first place, and the view that they ended it is not widespread. Most attribute its end to the death of an emperor, Confucian insularity, war with Mongol tribes, and objection to the expense.
Of course, around the same time, Europeans began their own energetic program of maritime exploration, leading to results with which we are all familiar.)
After the fall of the Ming Dynasty, the Qing Dynasty (1644-1912) initially reduced the number of eunuchs to 3,000 due to concerns about their excessive influence. However, eunuchs played a role in Chinese politics until the abolition of the imperial system in the early 20th century.
Of course my point is not to say that any peril to the US is posed by any group, but it is interesting to note that there is a historical precedent for a takeover of the topmost machinery of state by a minority comprised of people with sexual differences.
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
-
@Wolfpaw754 The CDC tabulation of doctors' entries on death certificates did not reveal what you think it did, because you don't know anything about death certificates.
Doctors are supposed to enter the proximal cause of death (and can also enter supplemental information, depending on the form in their state). Therefore it must never be, for example, diabetes or influenza , but instead things like sepsis or pneumonia , respectively. Those are proximal (meaning near) causes.
Nor should it ever be covid-19 , but instead heart attack, ARDS (acute respiratory distress syndrome), pneumonia, stroke, kidney failure , or whatever was the nearest cause.
Things like covid-19, influenza, and diabetes are supposed to be listed only as underlying contributing factors.
Thus the 94/6 ratio should have been 100/0, but 6% of forms were botched.
Don't blame the CDC, or me, or anyone else for how death certificates work. Blame the 6% of doctors who need remedial training in how to fill out a form.
And don't take my word for it. Hear out a highly respected covid-19 ICU doctor and UC Riverside professor of medicine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TECf3xSFbU&t=632s&frags=pl%2Cwn
How are we supposed to battle coronavirus hysteria based on incorrect arguments if we don't make the right arguments ourselves?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1) Gad Saad, Elon Musk and Neil Young all happen to be Canadian citizens — Young by birth, Saad and Musk by emigration in their youth. And all three have their claim to greatness. In my view Neil Young has tarnished his, but that certainly can change.
2) Let's be clear on Lemon's X program. It wasn't cancelled and can remain on X. All that happened is that Musk immediately after the interview withdrew from the generous partnership deal he'd signed with Lemon.
So Lemon blew it, but can continue the show. It's just that he's on his own unless he finds another partner, which he's 100% welcome to do. Solo or with a partner (or partners), his choice. Musk is all about the inclusion and the choice. Liberals, conservatives, wokesters, Trump, everyone can come in — and be, and do, and say, what they want. It just has to be lawful.
3) It's true, Trudeau faces political obliteration in the 2025 election. The Conservatives, according to poll aggregator site 338Canada, have a ">99% chance" of a majority win to form the next government. Ahhhh! Such a heavenly state of pleasant expectation. A remarkable 74% of Canadians want Trudeau to step down, not next year or soon, but quite literally now.
4) SkyNA, please don't use that graphic saying "Quebec, Canada." Gad Saad is in Montreal, Quebec. If an Australian professor were in Sydney, surely the graphic would say Sydney, Sydney, NSW or Sydney, Australia. It would never say New South Wales, Australia, I think.
Affection, gratitude and respect as always to Rita Panahi and Sky News Australia from Canada.🇨🇦🇦🇺 Sibling nations always and forever.
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
-
No, he's an intellectual. The problem is that something's happened to him in the past four or five years. He was already majorly rattled, as so many psychologists and psychiatrists are, by years of absorbing the problems of his patients, and since then he's had to deal with the stress of illnesses both chronic and sudden, the illness of his wife, combined with an extreme amount of travel, money pouring in, criticism and controversy. It has not done his mind or his brain (he's had neurological problems, according to him) any favours and he's nowhere near as sharp as he was five or ten years ago. If he can pull himself fully together again I'll be amazed.
I'm inclined to agree with you about 'air time.' He's qualified to speak on the psychology of whole nations, even maybe on that of Putin a little, but here he spent too much time ranging far outside the list of subjects suitable for him to comment publicly on.
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
-
That lack of confidence is justified. Canada, the UK, and Israel are at 73, 70, and 68% vaccinated right now, and 66, 62, and 63% double-vaccinated. Yet thousands of new infections a day: 2.5k, 33k, and 7.7k, among populations of 38m, 68m, and 9m.
Still light restrictions in Canada and the UK despite the infections, but then we're not barking mad like Oz, are we? You guys would be under virtual mass house arrest, with soldiers in the streets.
[Numbers from Our World in Data (vax coverage), Worldometer (7-day avg. new infections)]
Note that those vaccine coverage numbers include young children, who are ineligible. Counting only the eligible, it's in the 80s/70s. Sorry to say it, but you don't appear to have a hope.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@MethodiousMind It's a tactic of rulers known throughout the ages, because ever since they've applied abusive force to their people they've faced the problem of police or soldiers who quite understandably don't want to abuse the people amongst whom they have always lived and will continue to live.
It's repugnant to any mentally and morally healthy human being, including police and soldiers, to abuse people in the first place, but add the further complication that the people live on their own street, and even the terrible ones won't want to do it.
So, as you suggest, you get them from out of town or out of province or state. At Kent State almost none of the National Guardsmen were from Kent. Occasionally they're sourced from abroad: King George III hired Germans to push around his American subjects (they were called Hessians). In the present war in Ukraine, Putin has brought in Chechens, who are neither Ukrainians nor really Russians (although Chechnya is unfortunately part of the Russian state).
If you can't easily get local authorities to act and thus source them from elsewhere, it's highly likely you're doing something that's not right.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Flash forward to 2029, when Mahuta is prime minister of New Zealand:
Having banned US navy vessels from entering New Zealand's ports after one year in office (2025), she now invites China to build both a military base and a naval seaport in her country, citing the risk of eventual invasion by the US. In her speeches and interviews she has dwelt on the possibility for two years. She has repeatedly claimed to have reliable intelligence proving the danger, but says she cannot share the reports for fear of endangering lives.
The media have fully cooperated, running frequent reports and opinion columns demonizing the US and praising China. The issue appears to have helped get her re-elected. New Zealanders are behind the government's China invitation by a slim majority.
The US scoffs at the idea they ever wanted to invade, despite New Zealand's abrupt severance of military ties and cooperation four years earlier. They say that New Zealand does not make itself a US target as a non-aligned nation and that the US is eager for a normal friendship. But they warn that they may now have to take steps to maintain global security. (The security of Australia, Japan, and Taiwan would be seriously compromised by the New Zealand plan, as would that of a dozen other countries in the region. The US navy's ability to guarantee open sea lanes in the western Pacific, which the bulk of the world's traffic and cargo transits at some point, is in peril.)
The US does not specify what steps those may be. Thus by her own actions Mahuta has created the thing she used to justify a close alliance with China---the possible threat of a US invasion.
The US considers telling China it won't allow it to build in New Zealand, and eventually decides that it's worth it, simply because there's a chance it will work. (But they do not plan on starting a war with China. They are bluffing.) Australia backs the US, devastating relations with the Kiwi government. So do Britain and Canada, but in Europe only a few lesser powers do so, Denmark the most stalwart among them. The major powers unleash a diplomatic offensive instead. Russia makes numerous public statements in favour of China.
The bluff works. China does not abjure building the base and port in New Zealand altogether, but announces postponement of the plan to begin building immediately. US and its aforementioned allies increase the number of naval vessels in the waters off Australia, greatly vexing Prime Minister Mahuta.
Although she retains strong media support, polls show that New Zealanders are turning on her, the collapse of relations with Australia being called a disaster and completely avoidable. In response she announces plans for New Zealand to become a republic and to leave the Commonwealth, calling them racist, colonialist institutions tied to US hegemony. A new constitution will thus be needed. She receives significant public support for these measures, vigorously emphasized by the media, but still slides further in the polls, now with just 30% approval. The next election is three years off.
committing to actions at this time. The US issues a warning to New Zealand that it may damage itself by alienating itself from the West, and urges it to change course.
Mahuta spins this as a direct threat of imminent invasion, and the media go along. A week later on a Friday afternoon she declares a state of emergency and curtailment of freedoms as preparation for militarily defending the country begins. Parliament is prorogued. Press freedom is suspended and opinion polls can no longer be published. Internet connections with the rest of the world are broken and social media are censored. Capital is forbidden to leave the country. By-elections to fill vacant seats are cancelled. Snitch lines are set up for reporting New Zealanders suspected of being American spies or agents. It is announced that international phone lines are monitored.
Travel is not halted and tourism continues, so many New Zealanders leave the country, reporting that the people are furious but have no way to fight the government. Many with yachts or sailboats load them with belongings and head for Australia or Singapore. Others must leave with only their luggage.
Departures are only allowed for 16 days. At that point Mahuta declares them too damaging to New Zealand to be permitted anymore and ends them. She blames the US for all the measures she has taken in the last five weeks, promising to restore freedoms as soon as it is safe to do so, but warns that this may not be possible soon. She likens the situation to the Coronavirus Pandemic of 2020-21, saying that, as then, sacrifice alone can make New Zealanders safe...
------------------
I may or may not add to this (probably not) but if I don't, I at least know I've made my point.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I understand perfectly why you are upset. I am too. However, there's been an incredible amount of rot talked on the internet about this story. Here is my version and analysis of what really happened:
1) The role of the Speaker of the House
The Speaker of the House is a Member of Parliament elected by fellow MPs to run the House of Commons, not politically, but procedurally and administratively. Both the office and the holder of the office are traditionally accorded considerable respect, especially the office itself. As the senior official, the Speaker presides not only over day-to-day legislative sessions, debates, etc., but also over visits to the House of Commons by foreign heads of state. Overall responsibility for state visits, however, falls on the Ministry of Global Affairs and the Prime Minister's Office (PMO).
2) Zelenskyy's visit
The visit from Volodymyr Zelenskyy was an important one politically for the government. President Zelenskyy is popular in Canada, while Prime Minister Trudeau himself has been suffering from low popularity, so this was a chance to perhaps borrow some of the president's prestige. Perhaps to assist in this way, the Speaker, Anthony Rota, who is also a Liberal, came up with an idea.
He knew of a man in his hometown (where he is the serving MP) said to have been a Ukrainian freedom fighter several decades back, so he conceived that the man could attend the goings-on, sit in the gallery, be announced by him (Rota), and be briefly lauded by him. This was entirely his own idea. One would expect that the PMO would have to approve the idea, but it turns out that, according to the (Liberal) Government House Leader, Rota informed no one in the government, nor anyone in the Ukrainian delegation.
Now, the PM in Canada is a more powerful figure than the national leader in many other liberal democracies, and the PMO is said by many to practically run the country, so it is hard to know how this came to pass, but I suspect that it stems from a parliamentary tradition that the Speaker does not answer to the government. Rather, in the House of Commons, it is the other way around.
So Speaker Rota invited the man, who agreed to come. Rota, no student of history, failed to vet his invitee, or at least failed to vet him properly. And as it appears the PMO and Global Affairs were unaware of his invitation, they did not, and possibly under the rules could not, subject him to supervision on this aspect of procedure.
3) The fateful minute-and-forty-five seconds
He thus went ahead and wrote his one-minute introduction of the man, presumably carrying it into the House in his briefcase or pocket.
When the moment came, Speaker Rota told the assembled MPs, the Ukrainian delegation and the two national leaders that the old man was "a World War II veteran who fought for Ukrainian independence against the Russians." He called him "a Ukrainian hero and a Canadian hero," to general applause and two standing ovations.
It obviously wasn't clear to anyone listening that this unknown old man's WW II service was the same as his "fight for Ukrainian independence against Russia," nor that they were even concurrent. (As we all now know, they in fact were the same thing.)
I doubt anyone imagined any more than Speaker Rota that anything was wrong. Perhaps some were puzzled, but they likely just assumed that there were hostilities between Ukrainians and the Soviet government at some point in that era (perhaps before the war, perhaps during, perhaps shortly afterwards). A few maybe assumed that the Speaker misspoke; still others may have thought it best to trust that the Speaker and the PMO somehow knew what they were doing. In any case, it appears no one guessed that the two biographical details referred to the same thing, and that the man had in fact never served in the Red Army!
And if some did suspect that perhaps something was amiss, who would risk withholding their applause only to later find out that they themselves had not thought things through adequately during a mere 100-second tribute?
Allow me to repeat myself, to stress that No one applauding knew he was a Nazi, nor even that it was during WW II that he "fought for Ukrainian independence against the Russians" as the Speaker worded it. (Of course, one certainly doesn't even have to be a soldier to fight for a people's independence. Besides soldiering there's fearless open activism, underground partisan activity, appeals to diaspora for money — there are a lot of possible roles.) They clearly didn't know or they most certainly would not have applauded.
4) The blame
Thus in my view the entire fiasco is about 80% the Speaker's personal fault. Although he meant well, he blundered.
The remainder of the blame I place on the PMO, specifically on the PMO Chief of Staff. I don't even know this person's name and I don't care what it is. But I do know that the onus for ensuring that the visit of a head of state goes well (i.e. perfectly) is on the top staff member of the head of government. That's the PMO Chief of Staff. That person should resign or be fired.
—————————
Ms. Cain, I'd like to hear your reaction to my reply. Thanks for hearing me out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Correction: 🇦🇺🇦🇺🇨🇦🇨🇦🇺🇸🇺🇸🇬🇧🇬🇧 I'm not agreeing with your prediction of war, but if it did come to that, Canada would never fail to come to Australia's aid. Never, you can depend upon it. (Look up Passchendaele, Vimy, Ypres, Battle of the Atlantic, Normandy, Holland, Italy, Hong Kong, Kuwait, Kandahar.) I was shocked we were left out of your comment. Wtf?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The answer is easy: tariffs on American goods mean fewer Canadian people & businesses will elect to buy them, resulting in lower volumes of those goods being exported.
Most Canadian people and businesses have other options for these items (e.g. Canadian brands of ketchup, Asian or European brands of autos or machinery), so if they don't simply go without, they'll just switch suppliers. And for countless US companies, Canada is 10-20% of their sales. Thus their lower exports to Canada will result in weaker profits and inevitably job losses.
As for how things will work in the other direction, it may be quite different. For most of Canada's exports to the US, there are fewer options for just sourcing domestically or looking overseas instead.
That's because the US generally buys stuff from Canada that it very much needs but cannot supply itself and prefers not to buy from far-off countries which charge more, are unstable, or are hostile to it. For example, heavy crude oil: the other options are Venezuela, Iran and Iraq. Forget about getting it for $55-60 a barrel from them, or counting on them to always be there. Zero chance. If I were them, knowing how little choice the US has, I'd set my price over the Brent benchmark and dare the US to pass it up. (A lot of refineries would close.)
Many other things too will be a challenge to replace or will cost more. Or both. Some examples are potash fertilizer, various kinds of food, all kinds of other metals and minerals (uranium and aluminum especially), lumber, and the list goes on and on. When it comes to manufactured goods, the average price of a Big Three SUV is forecast to rise by $9,000. Expanding domestic auto production much would take until the mid-2030s — and at great expense, so that $9k increase isn't going anywhere.
Only a small minority of US corporations will be eager to expand production at home at a cost of billions of dollars, when the next president could simply remove the tariffs with the stroke of a pen. You wouldn't believe how much planning, permitting, investment, construction, supply chain building and sheer time it takes to open a US aluminum smelter, especially unattractive since they'll never, ever match Canada's minuscule electricity cost. US aluminum executives say it takes 30-40 years. (!)
There's much more detail but I gotta go now. Thanks for having the curiosity to ask. You're practically one of a kind.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lidiaspazzard Why are you assuming 2.5x greater transmissibility ought to result in 2.5x more infections? One could only expect that if there were only a single cycle of transmission. But it's not over when one infected person infects another. It goes on, and so the numbers mount.
By the same token, were transmissibility to fall by half, infections will fall by much more than half, other things being equal.
Yet other things are not equal, are they? The level of human contact is a major factor, and it is surely far higher this summer (where I live, as well as in the UK).
So take a variant that spreads much more easily, add more contact, subtract vaccine-conferred protection, subtract infection-conferred immunity, allow for many other relevant factors, and you get where we're at right now.
I could go on, but the algo truncates long replies when I try making them. Cheers.
1
-
@lidiaspazzard Concerning death rates, I checked Worldometer for cases vs. deaths, this year vs. last.
On Sept.7, 7-day avg. deaths were up 16.9x (from 8 to 135); infections were up 18.8x (from 2,028 to 38,015). (I should have staggered the dates by 20 days to compare properly, for that's an average timespan from a positive test to death, but I'm trying to keep this simple where it's not too unreasonable to do so.)
So the survival rate is quite similar.
Confounding factors abound. For one thing, a great number of the vulnerable are already dead. You can't die twice. One would expect crude mortality to fall for that reason. Hospital protocols thankfully are constantly improving.
As for backing up my claim about this summer's spread if we had last summer's variant, I don't think I have to. The vaccine efficacy numbers make it axiomatic. (Initially (e.g. January) they were in the mid-90-percents for infection, now they're down to the 70s neighbourhood, depending on the brand.)
I say axiomatic because I'm not making any inferential leaps. If your infections are at x and you vaccinate 75% of the people with a 75%-efficacious vaccine, the new level, y, will plunge dramatically. It's the 2.5x higher transmissibility of the delta variant that's preventing that (although increased social contact and less mask-wearing are contributing).
(I should add that vaccine efficacy is still around 90% for preventing severe illness, hospitalization, and death. This would help explain why infections are 30% of the winter peak while deaths are only at 10%.)
If this whole post makes it up I'll be amazed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I have a theory which others may wish to help me evaluate: Namely that the cult of hypersensitivity, victimhood, fragility, hurt and mental illness—and last but not least, gender switching—has to do with seeking attention. For when do even the busiest, the most selfish and indifferent parents give their children attention and care? When they're injured and in pain, of course. When do divorced or separated parents come together with their child or children? At a time of crisis, when something is threatening him/her/them.
So who can doubt that children neglected in any significant way—or conversely, fussed over to the point where they become addicted to it—will come to realize that the attention they crave can easily be obtained by claiming hurt, or by asserting the need for an enormous program of medical intervention?
And how likely is it nowadays that parents will fail to respond? It's now the law that they have to follow orders from their children on 'transitioning', is it not?
Please let me know what you think: Are child-generated crisis and perma-crisis a way for emotionally desperate children to get attention—or at any rate something they need that they're not getting from their parents, in the form of attention?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Not so. It's merely an intermediate tactical goal on the way to the ultimate strategic one: sending boys and men and people of European ancestry (unless in the 1%) to the back of the bus, forever.
I never thought that more than a few radicals wanted anything like that, nor that they could possibly make any headway towards it, but as usual my lifelong refusal to ignore evidence has steered me right.
The progress of their efforts to date is down to the grotesque alliance formed between left radicals and the power elites.
The elites are terrified to death of the pitchforks which history indicates would otherwise be sure to result from class resentment generated by the gross inequalities of income and wealth in the present era.
So they've rushed to wear the mantles of "caring," "empathy" and "social justice," endorsing them to draw attention away from the collapsing economic futures of most people. (Girls and women especially have drunk the Kool-Aid, hearing loud and clear that there's something for them in all this.)
It's almost impossible to say which group is which's useful idiots, the radicals or the elites. But eventually one of two things will happen: one will eliminate the other, or they'll merge into a single thing. Either way it'll end in totalitarianism, guaranteed. Unless they can be stopped soon, before our fairly free speech and fairly clean elections cease to exist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
JewTube - Censor Yourself. Or we'll do it for you. No. The mortality rate is obtained by dividing deaths by infections --- total infections. So we start with deaths and confirmed infections to get the raw global case fatality rate (CFR) This is at present 3.2% (925k deaths divided by 29m confirmed cases). In Australia and the US it's 3.0%.
But in jumping from there to the mortality rate, a large adjustment to this number is necessary because of numerous infections not recorded during their active course --- typically not even suspected --- but clearly indicated after the fact by random antibody testing. Infections of this sort which go under the radar greatly outnumber those we know about. The multiple of actual infections to confirmed ones depends on the population tested. According to the CDC in late July, in the US it is 6x to 24x.
That's quite a range, and it will take more time yet to discover the real rate of infections as the research comes in. You can do your own digging into results of the antibody seroprevalence studies, but mine suggests that so far it appears a multiple of 6 to 12 is likely. If that is shown to be true, then the mortality rate is 0.25 to 0.5%. Most authorities I've read who are willing to share their expectation say 0.2 or 0.3%.
It's also true that the CFR has been dropping around the world. Medicines have been approved, doctors have improved treatment protocols, and it's possible the virus is weakening through mutation. Based on a 3-week lag from diagnosis to death, the current 7-day average of 5,075 deaths, and the 7-day average of 251,851 new cases three weeks earlier, the CFR is currently running at 2.0% worldwide and 1.7% in the US.
But that's not the last of the good news. Last week the British Medical Journal decided that for various technical reasons it's time to ask "Are we underestimating seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2?" https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3364 One they didn't mention is the immune benefits of memory T cells, which may be clearing the infection in many people without the need for antibodies. If it's true that we are underestimating infections in multiple ways, the actual mortality rate may in time prove to be about the same as for influenza: 0.1% or even lower. Time will tell, but as far as I know no one is saying 1% these days.
1
-
1
-
@birgittabirgersdatter8082 The CDC tabulation of doctors' entries on death certificates did not reveal what you think it did, because you don't know anything about death certificates.
Doctors are supposed to enter the proximal cause of death (and can also enter supplemental information, depending on the form in their state). Therefore it must never be, for example, diabetes or influenza , but instead sepsis or pneumonia . Nor should it ever be covid-19 , but instead Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome, heart attack, pneumonia, stroke, kidney failure , or whatever was the nearest cause.
Things like covid-19, influenza, and diabetes are supposed to be listed only as underlying contributing factors.
Thus the 94/6 ratio should have been 100/0, but 6% of forms were botched.
Don't blame the CDC, or me, or anyone else for how death certificates work. Blame the 6% of doctors who need remedial training in how to fill out a form.
And don't take my word for it. Hear out a highly respected covid-19 ICU doctor and UC Riverside professor of medicine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TECf3xSFbU&t=632s&frags=pl%2Cwn
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shanewatson2491 They're estimates in a sense, but they're also findings based on tests which have been validated for high accuracy (two German tests are actually rated at 100.0%), far higher accuracy than the PCR tests used for diagnosis. Embedded in confirmed case rates, too, is a range of uncertainty owing to test sensitivity and specificity limitations.
So there's a range in antibody seroprevalence findings, yes, but it's not due to guessing. It's due to the fact that every population has a different rate of actual infections --- every country, every state, every county (and every demographic group, too) and it's not easy to project these to the whole country, not all of which has been studied. No single massive study of the entire US population has been done, for some reason (hello, CDC?) although Canada has managed to do it.
In the meantime, the range for the blended national number has been narrowing and the middle of the range, though slowly falling, is starting to stabilize around 0.25 to 0.4%. So while I agree that 0.24% looks like false precision, at least it's close to the middle of the range and outstanding compared to your earlier pronouncement of 3%.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@donaldkasper8346 "It is how it is working. Got a problem with reality?" No, it is NOT how it is working. If it were, all 30 NATO members would have been obliged to send troops into battle in Ukraine weeks ago. That, my friend, is reality.
NATO support is not equivalent to NATO membership. Also, not every NATO member is militarily supporting Ukraine, indicating that support is optional. Thus, strictly speaking, military aid to Ukraine comes from various European and North American countries, Japan, Australia, NZ, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gregsimpson9391 There are Canadians like you, too. During the 70s and 80s they thought the Cold War was just a game being played by opposite but equal idiots.
I can't blame them. Such a long period of freedom, prosperity, and stability lulls people into a sense that those things just exist. People struggled for them long ago, but now they are just fruits to be enjoyed.
They get used to a routine of career, home, and partying (golf, too, I'm afraid) and lose sight of, or never become aware of, the reality that our situation is extremely fortunate, an incredibly unlikely historical aberration sustained by innumerable juggler's balls, as it were, kept continuously in the air. It's actually, like all rare and precious things in life, quite fragile.
This is what history teaches us about democracies. They eventually they fall into tyranny, always quite suddenly. The problem (as strange as it is sad) is that they lose the ability to produce the people needed to sustain them.
They are eventually saddled with too many people unconvinced that sustaining it is a serious business and not a game, unconvinced even that it's better than one-man or one-party rule. 'The Republic or the Caesars, who cares?' 'The US or China, which one pays better?' 'The US is racist.' (You must think it pretty unimportant to know about these things, or you'd have learned by now that the Chinese are actually much more racist yet.)
Because to them it's all a game, China included. To them, deep down even the Chinese are the same as the double-chinned suburbanite golfers of the Anglosphere. 'Can't they and the Americans move the game along and conclude those trade deals, can't they leave off with their battling for influence around the world? How it bores me when I'm trying to enjoy life. They should be good fellows and let us play through.'
Not you specifically of course. I have no clue as to the number of your chins or what part of your town you live in.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@donwilson2848 Why, you ask? Because they innocently believe that if you destroy something, an ideal replacement appears in its place, through the mere intensity of your wish that it happen.
When you burn down a house you get a new larger, nicer house from the insurance money, right? When you blow all your money your parents give you more, right? That's how life and the world work.
So let's tear down society, learning, values, reasoning, language, all the institutions that got us here, all human relations slowly worked into passable shape over millennia, and it'll be great.
Does that answer your question?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@buckodonnghaile4309 Regarding the 300+ MPs, I'm quite certain they didn't realize what was going on. On the subject of her personally, I can only speculate.
If she had known beforehand what the real facts of the matter were, she would've shut his appearance down instantly. She'd know the disaster that would come out of it. (Or maybe not!—maybe she'd know what it could do for her own chances of becoming PM, for if Trudeau resigns, she almost certainly gets his job. Very speculative of me here, and I'm partly joking, but stranger things have happened in this world.)
That leaves the matter of what she thought during the Speaker's remarks, not knowing in advance what this was really all about. In those remarks he mentioned two things: The old man's WW II service, and that he "fought for Ukrainian independence." They weren't made to sound necessarily like the same thing, or even concurrent. His "fight" for Ukraine could've been post-WW II. And one certainly doesn't have to be a soldier to fight for a people's independence. There's fearless open activism, there's underground partisan activity, there's appealing to diaspora, there's a lot of possible roles.
So, knowing the history of the era as she does, she might assume that his Ukrainian separatist activities had nothing to do with his (presumed) service in the Red Army.
Or, more likely, she could've felt deep dread in the pit of her stomach, simply out of fear that the well-meaning but not-terribly-bright Speaker had blundered, that the man had never been in the Red Army. But she wouldn't know for certain, would she? There's a difference between "No, this is wrong! I can't participate in this!" and "Oh my god, please don't let this be what I fear it is." So what's she going to do, applaud, or stand there grim-faced with her arms folded in front of her chest? Remember, the whole boring thing unfolded in the span of about one minute.
Thanks for putting me through that, i.e. making me speculate on what went on in the mind of someone who sickens me. (Yes, I cannot stand the Trudeau government, and she is the Deputy PM.) I need a bath now!😂
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@reuvenpolonskiy2544 BS. In this case there are parties analogous to police, meaning armed defenders: namely the US and the rest of NATO, plus other democracies in the West Pacific.
Or, if you like to think of everything as gangs (how Russian of you!), fine, have it your way. But remember that the biggest, strongest richest gang is the Ukraine-Western alliance, not Russia with its ragtag little buddies Khamenei, Kim, Lukasahenko and Assad. 😄
Xi has it in for the West, too; I'll grant you that. But he's not a friend of Russia's, he's more like its usurer. He gave Putin a dirty wedding dress and a tube of lipstick to put on. Russians will be working very hard and eating a lot of beets and carrots for a long time to pay him off.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ronburgandy1475 Fuck you, you incoherent semi-literate putz. You sound drunk.
China under the Party was never trustworthy, not now, not in the 90s, not when they backed North Vietnam, not during the Cultural Revolution, not when they backed North Korea, not during the Great Leap Forward.
Anybody who got into bed with them in the past 70 years is an asshole, Australian, New Zealander, American, German, I don't care.
What a dumb fuck, thinking you're teaching me history by telling me which side China was on in the Second World War. Tells me what morons you hang out with. (Simpson by any chance?)
"Educated yourself on how global trade works." Why, because that's the one thing you know anything about? Drunk ignorant pompous fool. Read your post again when you're sober.
Have another glass of local plonk you fat fucking dumb trade consultant or whatever the fuck you are. Drink to the Party you owe it to.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Honesty, Democrat-style: Telling a lie for 2, 5, 10 or 20 years, then reversing as though they never said it
Intelligence, Democrat-style: Spouting foolishness for 2, 5, 10 or 20 years, then reversing as though they never said it
By that time they've taken a wrecking ball to society, justice, the economy, culture, values, the American future.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1