If you're on X, you should subscribe to this account. It's consistently one of the best on the whole platform. Constantly showing the receipts and taking the wokies to the woodshed. If you're not on X, you should join. It's a new ballgame. Not like the old Twitter at all.
The most underrated observation about the Great Awokening is that its success (and intensity) was due largely to the election of Donald Trump and the resulting unwillingness of reasonable liberals to criticize it because everything on the left had become one big binary choice...
… one big binary choice between whether you were with Trump or against him, and many otherwise woke-hesitant/critical libs understood that even nuanced criticisms of woke excesses would automatically cast them with the bad guys in the eyes of their compatriots on the left. It just wasn't worth the risk. And so few of them spoke out against it until campus anti-Semitism after 10/7 gave them cultural and political "permission" to do so.
Posted by: Fat Bob Untervehr8471 ||
03/07/2024 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[26 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The wages of sin are death. Filling universities with people below average IQ is a sin.
#2
The important thing to remember is that most allies are just for now.
Posted by: ed in texas ||
03/07/2024 9:29 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The thing about the Jews being the canary in the coal mine is not necessarily that it happens to them first, but that it takes going that far before anyone speaks up at all. Be grateful, Fat Bob Untervehr8471, that there are canaries cheeping in your coal mine before you’re all killed off, instead of afterward.
#4
Actually a lot of the woke hesitant lefties have not taken a stand against the anti semitic riots and intimidation that goes on daily in Universities and other leftist institutions.
and when they do criticize it is frequently perfunctory or they mix in some anti Islamophobia stuff
Posted by: lord garth ||
03/07/2024 17:56 Comments ||
Top||
[Red State] During his final press conference on Wednesday as Joe Biden's Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, John Kerry said that given Russia's willingness to wage a war in Ukraine, they should also step up their efforts to combat so-called climate change:
I believe that Russia has the ability to be able to make enormous changes in what they really want to do. I mean, if Russia has the ability to wage a war illegally and invade another country, they ought to find the effort to be responsible on the climate issue. Unfortunately, because of the actions that Russia took in an unprovoked, illegal war against another nation, we have not been engaged in discussions with Russia. Sadly, and I say sadly, obviously, because it’s a loss for the world not to be able to have Russia acting constructively on this issue, but we need every country, including Russia.
#2
I don't believe the average American has any beef with Russia. It's the elites like John Kerry who dream of global hegemony who have a beef with anybody who is not on board with their agenda.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
03/07/2024 12:14 Comments ||
Top||
[NationalInterest] The fight to save the A-10 has never been about the airplane. It has always been about saving the capability and the institutional knowledge of the attack pilot community.
I am a proud Hog Ammo Troop. Mr. Hog holds a place in my heart equal to my beloved Miss Buffy. He has done his job well for nearly fifty years.
But the world has moved on, and from a technological standpoint, the Hog - and its pilots - would be at unacceptable risk from any kind of opponent who could bring modern aircraft and anti-aircraft weaponry into a fight.
It's time now. We can rightfully criticize My Beloved Service for their consistent, seventy-six year long policy of placing air superiority and strategic bombing above CAS. But keeping the Hog in the line much longer would be a mistake.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
03/07/2024 7:00 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Agreed, Mike. The A-10 is an exceptional aircraft for CAS, provided there is total air superiority and the 'targets' have only rudimentary ground-to-air capabilities.
They do create incredible destruction and sound really cool, however.
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
03/07/2024 7:03 Comments ||
Top||
#5
The American way of war has been based on air superiority since WWII. To the point where some people assume it's a given, and it ain't.
Posted by: ed in texas ||
03/07/2024 9:25 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Mike and others are right. I love the plane and crew. Let the Hog retire with dignity. Maybe some airshows to remember…
#7
The A-10 is an exceptional aircraft for CAS, provided there is total air superiority and the 'targets' have only rudimentary ground-to-air capabilities.
ASUP is not the A10's mission.
That's the job of somebody else.
#8
Air superiority is one of the main battle battlespaces in a peer or near-peer conflict, but how many of those have we been in in the past 70 years. Conversely, CAS is hugely important to offset the shortfalls our ground forces face in any kind of land-based scrimmage for bases, ports or critical terrain. In those conflicts, absent an A-10 form of USAF CAS aircraft, the entire tactical CAS mission would devolve to Army Aviation. Yet I see nothing in future force structure or budgets anticipating this increased asset need. Nor do I anticipate that national political leaderships has plans to abandon power projection as a foreign policy tool. So isn't the abandonment of the A-10 foreshadowing a glaring capabilities deficit for the asymmetric military toolbox Washington is addicted to using?
#10
What is in the pipeline to replace the CAS role? I realize the A-10 is doomed, but is there anything to replace it? Some have mentioned the F-35.That's ridiculous.
I also realize that the Air Forces doesn't care about CAS. It's just some ground pounders getting mauled.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
03/07/2024 13:17 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Given the wonderful results being seen in Ukraine and the US Army's ongoing difficulties meeting recruitment goals, the days of large swarms of ground pounders are over, regardless what's being "taught" at the war colleges.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
03/07/2024 13:18 Comments ||
Top||
#12
I'm down in shop, away from my laptop. Thought I saw something about a pending SF deployment to Taiwan. Maybe one of the others can find it and post it.
#16
Flying JP233 type drone mother loaded with explosive drones with a choice of on the fly tracking system - manual, guided, AI, mix? Maybe fuse options too, proximate, contact, delay?
by Victoria Nikiforova
[RIA] The leading US newspaper, the New York Times, suddenly began publishing a series of materials with the title “On the Edge” and the general meaning “We will all die. In nuclear fire.” From a professional point of view, this is simply a masterpiece of newspaper art - colorful infographics, interactives, inviting subheadings, beautiful animated illustrations, and on them, in the most spectacular way, large cities and peaceful villages explode, burn and are plunged into radioactive ash. What is all this for? Why do Americans get such nightmares?
Here you need to understand that the New York Times is actually the wall newspaper of the US Democratic Party. Biden's presidency has been a series of epic failures across the entire foreign policy front, from Afghanistan to Ukraine. We urgently need to invent some kind of victory for him, but how?
And now nosy propagandists are asking Americans to believe that Biden will save them from nuclear war. There is no doubt that the Hollywood series authored by the New York Times will end, as expected, with a happy ending, in which the wise helmsman of the Democratic Party will call everyone to peace in the world.
This will not look as humiliating as simply asking Russia to negotiate. Moreover, the US Democratic Party boasts that it is always for peace, it is only the nasty Republicans who like to fight.
Very much in the spirit of the American establishment: regardless of party affiliation, act on the world stage in the “buy a goat, sell a goat” style. First, a serious threat is created, markets rise and fall in response to this, and individual members of the elite become overwhelmed. Then the threat is resolved with the help of the international community, the world exhales, and the Americans leave with a profit.
Of course, the New York Times blames Russia for the escalation of nuclear threats. However, the whole world can clearly see who really “bought the goat”: the Ukrainian conflict was created exclusively by the combined efforts of the West. It can at least be recalled that right before the start of the SVO, Zelensky demanded that the guarantor countries of the Budapest Agreement give Ukraine nuclear weapons and received a very positive reaction. Today, Moscow only regulates the level of escalation, recalling threats that are unacceptable to itself, in response to which nuclear retaliation will become inevitable.
But pretentious material works not only for the domestic audience. This is also a message from Russia - and one that is simply astonishing in its impudence.
The video series is designed to make the reader nightmare: we will, they say, do this and that to you - Hiroshima will seem like flowers. And suddenly a sudden turn of the topic: where are all the treaties between Russia and the United States that limited the proliferation and production of nuclear weapons? Oh, how come they don't work? Why did bad Russia suspend the START-2 treaty? And in February 2026 it will cease to operate altogether - and then what?
And here come the idyllic photographs of the leaders of the USSR and the USA signing non-proliferation treaties. I remember how in 1963, realizing defeat in the Cuban Missile Crisis, the United States and Britain sent their delegations to Moscow to sign an agreement banning nuclear tests. The message is obvious: let's urgently negotiate with Russia on nuclear weapons.
Guys, have you completely lost your shores there? Washington has turned Ukraine into its huge military base, the Ukrainian Armed Forces are a US proxy army. There are countless American advisers, instructors, mercenaries and special services there; we are already tired of denazifying them. You are actually waging an undeclared war against Russia and then, in all honesty, you offer to negotiate.
With childish innocence it is explained why the Americans need new agreements. In the absence of existing treaties, they have no way to monitor the status and capabilities of Russia's nuclear forces. And we have hypersound, Poseidon, and Burevestnik - a full range of absolutely irresistible high-tech products, the possibility of using them across the United States scares our former partners to the point of trembling.
To force Moscow to negotiate, threats are used. A familiar horror story sounds: if Russia uses tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine, then the Americans will launch a powerful conventional air strike on Russian bases in Belarus or try to destroy the Russian fleet. But we all understand that tactical nuclear weapons will be used in Ukraine only if the Americans give them to Zelensky. He will use it, there is no doubt about it. And all this will immediately be blamed on Russia.
Another brazenly voiced threat: the United States is almost openly working to increase its nuclear potential, planning to spend two trillion dollars on this matter.
A familiar blackmail, but it no longer works. Not only Russia, the whole world is tired of playing “buy a goat, sell a goat” with the Americans.
Treaties on the limitation of nuclear weapons are a good and useful thing. However, at the turn of the 80-90s, together with the signing of the Reykjavik Treaty and START-1, we gave the Americans a royal gift: we surrendered Europe to them, withdrawing our troops from there. Today this seems to be a wrong decision - security on the continent has become much worse.
Then, by the way, in the late 80s, the world community was terrorized with exactly the same horror stories as today’s New York Times article: “nuclear winter”, “Letters from a dead man”, “we are all going to die”. One can feel the familiar propaganda style.
However, it takes two to tango, “agreement is the product of complete non-resistance of the parties.” Trying to bring Russia into negotiations on nuclear weapons in the midst of a war with it through blackmail and threats is a deliberately failed enterprise. Why did the Americans take up this? And this is an attempt to cling to at least some topic and drag Moscow into negotiations, which Washington so painfully needs today, silently suffering from the inability to admit it.
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited. by Gevorg Mirzayan
[REGNUM] During the Antalya Diplomatic Forum, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said a lot of interesting things. Including what he understands by the word “allies.”
He spoke through the prism of Moscow’s relations with one of its allies in the CSTO and the Eurasian Union - Armenia. The very one whose Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan questions relations with Moscow and whose nukers from among the protégés of George Soros (nominally former, but they are not former) generally say that the strategic orientation towards Russia was a mistake.
“The Armenian leadership decided to rely on extra-regional countries courting Yerevan, promising to help it in all its troubles, if only Armenia broke off relations with Russia and the integration structures created in our common region. The West does not hide this. This is his main goal in relations with the countries of Central Asia, Armenia and any other states of the post-Soviet space. Our allies and friends understand this perfectly and are faithful to their obligations. The Armenian leadership decided to make different decisions,” the minister explained.
That is, we are talking precisely about the fact that allies - in Lavrov’s understanding - must at least be faithful to their obligations. Especially considering that a significant part of these allies, including Armenia, in the event of Russia’s defeat in the Northern Military District, will not only be weakened, but simply buried under Russian rubble. Well, or at least they will be vulnerable to external threats, because Moscow is now protecting them not only in words, but also in deeds. Unless, of course, they are ready to defend themselves, as Kazakhstan did in 2022 and Armenia did not do in 2021-2022.
However, of course, I would like to receive from allies in the CSTO and the Eurasian Union not only loyalty to their obligations, but also realistic assistance. Someone, of course, provides it, for example, by helping to organize gray import channels. But it turns out to be an interesting picture. The assistance from Russian allies in the CSTO and the Eurasian Union cannot be compared with that provided to Moscow by countries that are not in a full-fledged defense bloc with it.
It is clear that Western propaganda needs to look for some kind of explanation for what happened, especially against the backdrop of how Ukrainian propaganda blames its American and European partners for what happened (allegedly for not supplying the necessary weapons in the required quantities). And one of the convenient explanations was assistance to Russia from the “wrong” countries. North Korea, which sent millions of shells to Moscow. Iran, which planted the missiles. China, which helps Russia circumvent sanctions.
The Russian Foreign Ministry and the Ministry of Defense do not confirm this data. Just like the Iranians and North Koreans. But they don’t really deny it either. After all, Western stories about Korean and Iranian assistance are partly true.
The false part is that the root cause of Russian success is some kind of external assistance. Whereas in fact, everything goes absolutely within the framework of the laws and logic of a “war of attrition.” When, for example, the key role is played by the difference in the mobilization potential (Russia’s is five to six times higher than the Ukrainian one), the economy (everything is clear here), the military-industrial complex (Russian produces so many products that its volumes for some types of weapons exceed not only Ukrainian, but also a general Western one) and the cohesion of society (in Russia, men are not caught on the streets on cameras, but elections are held). However, the truth is that we receive support from our partners. And not only moral.
It is no secret that cooperation in the field of combat botany with the Iranians greatly helped the Russian army in the first period of the Northern Military District, when commercial quantities of drones were needed at the front. Now the Russian “Geraniums” have become a real nightmare for the Ukrainian Armed Forces, knocking out equipment during the day and weapons depots and places of deployment of enemy personnel at night. Likewise, it is no secret that purchases of the main North Korean product - shells - helped Russia achieve multiple superiority over Ukraine in the field of artillery strikes. One of the leading Russian military experts posted on his social networks a photo from the air defense system, where Russian, Iranian and North Korean artillery shells stood side by side. A sort of symbol of friendship.
Yes, this is not exactly friendship, but rather practically legal (Russia has the right to engage in foreign trade with the country with which it sees fit) cooperation, and completely mutually beneficial. From an economic point of view (Russian partners, in need of money, do not supply goods to Moscow for free). On the military side, both Pyongyang and Tehran are in dire need not only of field testing of their systems, but also of the unique experience that the Russian army is now gaining, leading a military defense system against a NATO-style army. And, of course, in the information that Russia receives from dissecting Western equipment that has fallen into its hands.
Finally, cooperation is more than beneficial in strategic terms. Both Tehran, Pyongyang, and Beijing (with the help of which, according to Russian military experts, Moscow was able to import a huge number of machine tools for its military industry) are extremely interested in Russia winning the Northern Military District and thereby inflicting a strategic defeat not so much on the Kyiv regime, as much as the United States. It demonstrated to everyone the senselessness of the American foreign policy approach based on force and the threat of force. And thereby forced America either to negotiate amicably with its opponents, or to reduce its interference in the affairs of regions foreign to the United States.
This cooperation highlights another important point of the Northeast Military District - the specific approach of our allies. Those who (unlike Tehran and Pyongyang) are in the same military-political bloc with Russia. Those who (unlike Tehran and Pyongyang) will not only be weakened, but simply buried under Russian rubble if Moscow loses the Northern Military District. Those whom (unlike Tehran and Pyongyang) Russia directly protects from external threats. And if experts have few complaints about the so-called Kazakhstan (Although Astana declared compliance with sanctions, it did a lot to support Russian gray imports), then they have enough about Armenia and a number of Central Asian partners.
Therefore, it is not surprising that after the end of the Northern Military District, Russia will most likely undergo a reassessment of military-political relations with third countries. Translating them from a family-historical basis (“brothers”, “one people”, “lived together for centuries”) to a model based on pragmatism. Simply put, those countries that stood with Russia in their hour of great need and provided an analogue of Lend-Lease will receive help from Moscow in their hour of great need. Moreover, no matter how specific the power there is, Russia does not interfere in the internal affairs of its partners, and the Russian people are even more deeply indifferent to this.
Those countries that turned away in this hour of great need will pay, literally. Russia may continue to protect them within the framework of the CSTO and CIS structures, but will begin to make much more stringent demands in terms of their adherence to Russian interests. Moreover, both in foreign and domestic policy, including clearing the government of Russophobes, removing obstacles to NGOs promoting the Russian language and culture, etc.
Finally, those countries that helped the enemy in their hour of need - and here we mean primarily Europe - will be ignored. And this is not an emotional boycott - geographically, politically, economically and infrastructurally, the security and prosperity of Europe largely depends on its good relations with Russia.
The irony is that this revision from treaty-legal alliances to alliances of interests and pragmatic goals will occur even without any targeted Russian action. Simply because in a multipolar world, where the interests of countries become diverse and relations are not black and white, rigid ideological alliances (like NATO) are not needed. They will disappear on their own, giving way to multilateral cooperation based on interests. Cooperation on a pragmatic basis.
by Vadim Bondar
The events of recent days indicate that the world is rapidly approaching a watershed: global negotiations and a new world order or nuclear apocalypse. And this divide is no longer between countries, but between specific people in these countries.
On March 4, at the World Youth Festival in Sochi, a representative of the American delegation told Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov : “I am Christopher Halali, vice-chairman of the US delegation. It’s an honor for us to be here in Russia, it’s an honor for us to break through the blockade and US sanctions against Russia.” Donald Trump, who is now being tried in every possible way to exclude him from the presidential election, putting a spoke in the wheels of his caucuses in different states, continues to say that if he wins the election, Washington will not have problems with Russia, China and Ukraine.
The increasingly popular independent presidential candidate Robert Kennedy Jr. takes a similar position. According to a recent Economist/YouGov report, Kennedy is one of the most popular figures in US national politics. 47% of Americans have a positive view of him and 35% have an unfavorable view. By comparison, 49% of respondents have a positive view of Trump and 48% have an unfavorable view. But only 42% of Americans have a positive view of Biden, who advocates an escalation of the confrontation with Russia. 54 percent of respondents do not like him and his policies.
Polarization is also growing in Europe. On one day, March 5, two mutually exclusive statements were made there. EU Commissioner for Industry Thierry Breton said that the Union must move to the formation of a war economy. That is, he actually openly declared a course towards war. While Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán said that “Western hegemony is over, today no one disputes this, it is well confirmed by the data.” That is, he actually recognized the obvious and the need for global negotiations on a new world order.
In Germany, a rift is growing between Chancellor Olaf Scholz and the military, who are in favor of escalating the conflict with Russia, whose position has so far been expressed very restrainedly by Defense Minister Boris Pistorius. He says that he is extremely angry and irritated that Putin has been setting the agenda for several weeks and even months, which is being actively discussed in Germany. This actually disrupted the secret supply of long-range, smart and powerful German Taurus missiles to Ukraine, and sowed all sorts of anti-war ferment among the population. Pacifist sentiments are also supported by the opposition in the Bundestag.
In France the situation is exactly the opposite. There, President Emmanuel Macron advocates an escalation of the confrontation with Russia. He launched a vigorous effort to convene all kinds of conferences with the goal of almost organizing a new crusade against our country, starting with sending NATO troops to Ukraine. During a visit to the Czech Republic on March 5, he said: “We are certainly approaching a point in our Europe where it is inappropriate to be cowards. I believe that our country is responsible for the security of Europe. Now the war has returned to our land. We find ourselves in the face of forces that have become unstoppable and that are expanding the threat every day, attacking us more and more. We will have to show courage and behave as history expects of us.”
Very pretentious. Even a little in the style of Churchill. Macron is always trying to try on the clothes of the greats. So far it’s not working even in our own country. According to the head of the Ukrainian Politics Foundation, Konstantin Bondarenko, the French generals have no sympathy for their president and will sabotage his most radical decisions, if any. The majority of the French do not support his confrontational sentiments either. According to the results of a survey conducted by Odoxa-Backbone Consulting for the newspaper Le Figaro, 68% of citizens said Macron was wrong to demonstrate this position.
Even in such a Russophobic country as Poland, the majority of the population does not want to become participants in a war with Russia. In a survey organized by the publication Rzeczpospolita last December, Poles said what they intend to do in the event of a Russian attack. 37.4% will evacuate within the country or flee outside its borders, 22% will do nothing, and 11.6% do not yet know how they will behave in this situation. Only 15% of respondents expressed their readiness to go to the front.
And among Ukrainians, more than 70% are already in favor of a diplomatic settlement of the conflict with Russia. This is evidenced by data from a sociological survey conducted by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology.
Thus, more and more people in various countries are, as they say, voting with their feet for a multipolar world and do not want to participate in the global carnage.
But, unfortunately, the growth of anti-war sentiment and conciliation towards a multipolar world is having the opposite effect among a significant part of the Atlantic decision-making elites. The more dramatic the fighting develops for the Armed Forces of Ukraine and NATO as a whole, the more anti-war sentiment grows in the West and in the world, the more feverishly the preparations for the world apocalypse are going on. The approaching collapse of Ukraine evokes in the West the fear of existential loss, the collapse of the meaning of life, the collapse of the picture of the world in which they are the center of the universe. Not part of it, but precisely the center around which everything revolves and which determines whether it all revolves or not. The people who are currently in power and who see their time running out will obviously try to “stop the Earth,” even by escalating the current phase of a hybrid world war into something more, even a nuclear apocalypse.
“The conflict in Ukraine has reached a predictable dead end, and NATO strategy has become frankly incoherent. There comes a time when such conflicts get out of control,” writes the British The Guardian on March 5. This phrase seems to give the future apocalypse the character of inevitable objectivity. They say, yes, the situation can get out of control at any moment, but this is a natural process and one must be prepared for it. This is irresponsible and monstrously cynical politicking. After all, we are no longer talking about Ukraine, but about the survival of humanity. But this awareness is not there.
On the contrary, the people who lead their states and peoples are ready to literally burn them down. For example, Czech President Petr Pavel, an army general and former chairman of the NATO Military Committee, allowed NATO soldiers to be sent to Ukraine, saying: "Let's not limit ourselves where we don't need to."
A very eloquent statement. Let's not limit ourselves where WE don't need to. This, obviously, automatically implies that Russia, on the contrary, will limit itself where these gentlemen need it. That is, Russia, even in the event of a direct clash with NATO troops, will fight according to their rules, act as it is allowed, or Putin will immediately capitulate and accept the conditions of the winners.
You read Western political scientists who serve the interests of strategists like Macron or General Pavel, and you are amazed. They seriously believe that if there is a war, it will be a regionally limited conflict, which at best will not spill out beyond the borders of Ukraine, and at worst will cover only the European part of Russia and some part of Central and Eastern Europe. In this case, military operations will be carried out under a mutual agreement on the non-use of nuclear weapons and the like.
A very powerful thoughtlessness. They traditionally do not want to hear and see what does not fit into their picture of the world. By the way, this is a traditional element of Western thinking. It took place in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries. These gentlemen were always sure that everything would be as written in their “Barbarossa”. And then they said indignantly: “This is not possible, this is not according to the rules.” Even Hitler, for all the monstrosity of his methods of waging a war of extermination against the Soviet people, had the audacity to say that the USSR was not fighting according to the rules.
Today we are witnessing the arrival of another disastrous wave of self-confident underestimation of the consequences of their short-sighted policies by a fairly large group of retrograde Atlanticists. Especially for them, Russian decision-makers have been persistently saying in recent days: NATO’s military, financial and mobilization potentials are many times greater than Russia’s, therefore, in the event of a full-scale conflict, Russia will simply have no choice but to use nuclear weapons. On March 5, Senator Pushkov bluntly said that the West is leading the world to a nuclear hell.
Business people obviously understand this. On world exchanges, there has been a acceleration in those positions that are considered to be protective havens, namely Bitcoin and gold. The Bitcoin rate has reached a record high. Gold is also at an all-time high. The price has been rising for five trading sessions in a row. They are already paying more than $2,141 per ounce. This does not add optimism for the future. Typically, traders move into cryptocurrencies and gold on the eve of some large-scale financial, economic or military crises.
Military observers believe that some kind of sharp escalation in the confrontation between Russia and NATO could occur at the end of April - the first half of May. During this period, in their opinion, the weather will be favorable for the start of some large-scale offensive by the Russian army, which Ukraine will not withstand, after which the front will begin to crumble and NATO will be forced to openly intervene in the conflict.
Russia is supposedly actively preparing for this. Mass shelling of Ukrainian territory with Kinzhals, Iskanders and Calibers has not been observed recently. This means that Russia is stockpiling these and other types of long-range precision-guided munitions. It does not bring into battle prepared reserves and equipment, the production of which has increased several times.
Whether this is true or not, time will tell. One thing is clear: a crisis is brewing. There is still hope for a positive outcome, but there is less and less time left for this.
#2
Even the most unsafe design they could come up with would need a huge amount of lift to get all the parts there.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
03/07/2024 10:51 Comments ||
Top||
#3
"In Germany, a rift is growing between Chancellor Olaf Scholz and the military, who are in favor of escalating the conflict with Russia"
This is nonsense. The military isn't in favor of that. The leaked conversation was about some generals, who were asked to brief the defense minister on Taurus. They are trying to prepare for questions the minister might have. They prepare to explain to him what Taurus can do and if (or how much) German help would be necessary to achieve certain goals at a certain time. Nothing more.
Posted by: European Conservative ||
03/07/2024 14:47 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Let's hope so, EC, because we're closer to nuclear apocalypse now than ever since 1962 and Cuban Missile Crisis. It would be a nice time for cooler heads to prevail.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
03/07/2024 17:49 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I will admit that America right now seems to have more than our fair share of hot heads...so we really don't need anymore from Germany, UK, France, Poland or Norway.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
03/07/2024 17:51 Comments ||
Top||
#6
^ Gee. Last time that happened there was a dem prexident too.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
03/07/2024 17:56 Comments ||
Top||
[Bee] An older SOTU. The current one is tonight
The White House has announced President Joe Biden will be skipping out on this year's State of the Union address, which will instead feature a 90-minute broadcast of a dumpster engulfed in flames. Both houses of congress are expected to assemble as usual as the raging dumpster fire roars into a microphone.
House Sergeant at Arms William J. Walker will light the dumpster at the commencement of the address. Members of Congress are then expected to applaud in a partisan manner as the cathartic flames burn brightly into the night.
According to sources, this is the first act of Biden's presidency to receive genuine bipartisan support. Congressional Democrats feel the move to a dumpster fire is fitting given that the president can't string two sentences together, and Republicans are planning to boo anything anyway.
"We don't expect much difference in this year's State of the Union compared to previous years," explained Press Secretary Jen Psaki. "No one's going to watch it and then political pundits will read way too much into it as usual."
NBC reporter Peter Alexander asked, "Isn't this just a waste of everyone's time?"
Psaki was unable to hide her displeasure with the question. "The president feels, and I agree, that the people are ready for some honest answers. We feel that a flaming pile of garbage best articulates what the president is trying to convey at this point in time."
The State of the Union will be broadcast on March 1st at 9 PM EST on C-Span. Experts believe it may become one of the highest-rated State of the Union addresses ever as viewers tune in to see if the fire will get out of control and burn down the Capitol building.
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/07/2024 09:58 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[38 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Set it to some Pop Country knockoff of Mannheim Steamroller.
[News and Observer] North Carolina will have a new governor in 2025, and voters chose on Tuesday who they want as the Democratic, Republican and Libertarian candidates on the general election ballot this fall. The front-runners throughout the campaign season were declared the winners by the Associated Press around 8 p.m. Tuesday: Republican Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson and Democratic Attorney General Josh Stein. "A Robinson vs. Stein match-up in the North Carolina gubernatorial election would be perhaps the perfect illustration of American politics at this particular moment," Chris Cooper, a political science professor at Western Carolina University, recently told The News & Observer.
[IsraelTimes] In addition to leading the war effort, the prime minister is also engaged in a fierce battle with his political rivals and plotting to stay in power for many more years.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[Red State] During his final press conference on Wednesday as Joe Biden's Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, 
[NationalInterest] The fight to save the 
[Bee] 
