Paris Is Burning Over Climate Change Taxes -- Is America Next?

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

1 minute ago, Dan Warnick said:

My read on why a renewables section was added to this site was to address renewables as they affect oil, not how oil is destroying the world and we are all devils for existing.

^ agreed.

The name of this forum is Oil Price Community Forum.

Not the He Man Oil Haters Club.

[Illurion + 894]

2 hours ago, NickW said:

To be fair this is the renewables section which is heavily linked with Climate change which is what this particular thread is linked to although its expanded into different areas of politics. 

True.

I typo'd,   and when i saw it later,  i just left it as it was.   Too tired.

But thanks.

[Red + 252]

2 hours ago, Illurion said:

Both yours,  and Tom's articles are bullseye correct.  A matter of mere opinion.

Because of the bad effects of Globalism,   citizens everywhere feel betrayed by their own Governments.  Well, that would be a lie.  How about you immediately stop purchasing products made overseas and see how your go!

Governments are now seen as the enemy of the people.  Yes, if you are one of the conspiracy believers, that would be true.

In the USA at least,  we citizens have guns.  Yes, and you in the USA have an incredibly high rate of gun deaths compared to the rest of the westernised world

In Europe,   there is no household defense against the government.  Assumes the government will be out to kill you or that you are disenfranchised, or both.

In a post the other day,  RED,  said that the "EU IS NOT A GOVERNMENT."   Well, if you can prove that it is, then I will concede.

I think that your article above shreds that argument.  A matter of mere opinion.

I do not believe the EU will last much longer in any case.   A decade more maybe.  Again, a comment made without evidence.

The various disparate peoples of the various European states no longer trust the EU,  and as islamic immigration into Europe continues unabated,   once they have essentially taken over,  they will discard the EU.  Fanciful ideas devoid of evidence and not supported by a single fact.  Perhaps you can provide immigration figures into the EU over the past 5 years to support your ideas?

But then what do i know.  Whatever it is. I trust it helps you.

 

[Red + 252]

23 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Red is free to say his piece on here the same as anyone else, but the message I got from Illurion's comment was that he is tired of being attacked.  I regularly ask that people provide evidence to support their claims.  In a forum, you note we are all free to comment.  But comments come with "responsibility" or they become somewhat worthless imho.  Red makes any discussion a confrontation and I don't like that either.  That's your sentiment and where people have such views, that's for them - I really do not care about opinions.   Nobody has to agree with everyone else, but there is no real reason to attack either.  Now Jan did several times remind me to do better, but when people continue to make comments which that cannot support, or like Illurion refused to support, I do push harder than I should (and I know that).  But he's got a right to lurk and say his piece as much as anyone else.  We have the option to ask him to tone it down, or we have the option to leave the discussion.  I think we all get that.

P.S. Red has his moments when he makes a comment that is simply informative and pleasant, and those moments are great.  I think we have all had a bad day and it is probably reflected in what we type on here, but it's nice to get back to good natured discussion when possible.  What is a bad day?

 

[Illurion + 894]

8 minutes ago, Red said:

 What is a bad day?

Today apparently.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

7 minutes ago, Illurion said:

Today apparently.

That's funny!  [I am busting my gut laughing!]

[TXPower + 643]

36 minutes ago, Red said:

1 hour ago, Red said:

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Red said:

 

The beauty of freedom in our hemisphere of the world, for now at least, is that there is no obligation to embrace anyone’s opinion.  Some you like, some you don’t.  Easiest to do when you remember the old adage that opinions are like @$$@%£#s, everyone has one and they all stink, to somebody if not everybody.  Point being, disagree without being disagreeable.

Global trade is good, global governance is bad.  The US sentiment toward globalism is deeply rooted in our founding and founding fathers.  "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none." Thomas Jefferson.  

Whether the EU is or is not a government I would point out the following quote from an elite globalist, Mayer Rothschild, "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws.”  Freedom, whether political, religious, or otherwise is inseparable from its true bulwark, Economic Freedom.  You cannot have any freedom when you don’t control your own finances.  Exiting the gold standard has driven this world closer to totalitarianism.  So much more the case for Europe and the march toward a single currency.  It is futile to argue that the EU isn’t a government because it governs the most basic yet powerful of any country’s determinations, their own money and economic policy.  It doesn’t stop there, it begins there.

One need not be a conspiracy theorist to recognize that many world governments have indeed become the enemy of their own people.  When a government becomes unresponsive to the constitutionally expressed will of its citizens, it is an enemy of said people because it has usurped its rightful place and forgotten that all authority is derived from the people, the consent of the governed.  Brexit comes to mind as an example.  I will concede that its unknown yet if Parliament and the PM will finally give up on foot dragging and dispense with the “The people don’t really know what’s good for them, surely they didn’t mean exit, like, exit exit”, attitude. The situation in France and many other locales around the globe certainly support the same point.

It’s not about our government wanting to kill us.  It’s about our ability to stop the goverment.  Our higher rate of death in the US from firearms, the vast majority of which are from suicide, is the cost of having the ability as free citizens to rise up against our government should it become necessary.  One need only look at Venezuela to understand why that is a price we Americans, less convinced of the good nature of our own or any other government, are willing to pay.  To say nothing of the natural deterrence that same fact has to a foreign power considering an incursion here.  

I care about everyone’s ability to freely express their opinion in a respectful way.  I don’t share all of them.  No one, including my goverment, can make me.  That makes for a good day, everyday.

[Red + 252]

14 minutes ago, TXPower said:

 

The beauty of freedom in our hemisphere of the world, for now at least, is that there is no obligation to embrace anyone’s opinion.  Given that I said I do not care about opinions, what are you talking about?

Whether the EU is or is not a government I would point out the following quote from an elite globalist, Mayer Rothschild, "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws.”  Freedom, whether political, religious, or otherwise is inseparable from its true bulwark, Economic Freedom.  You cannot have any freedom when you don’t control your own finances.  Exiting the gold standard has driven this world closer to totalitarianism.  So much more the case for Europe and the march toward a single currency.  It is futile to argue that the EU isn’t a government because it governs the most basic yet powerful of any country’s determinations, their own money and economic policy.  It doesn’t stop there, it begins there.  Quoting an opinion!  Which EU countries have removed  their citizen's freedoms relating to political composition, speech or religion?  Which country in the EU does not control its revenue collection?

One need not be a conspiracy theorist to recognize that many world governments have indeed become the enemy of their own people.  Usually through mechanisms which were never constitutional to begin with.  And other times just pure grabs for power.  And then you have popular uprisings which occasionally turn into a dog's breakfast (apologies to those dogs necessarily excluded).   When a government becomes unresponsive to the constitutionally expressed will of its citizens, it is an enemy of said people because it has usurped its rightful place and forgotten that all authority is derived from the people, the consent of the governed.  If people vote, and their votes count, what exactly are you talking about? Brexit comes to mind as an example.  I trust you realise that Brexit was predicated on a referendum.  I will concede that its unknown yet if Parliament and the PM will finally give up on foot dragging and dispense with the “The people don’t really know what’s good for them, surely they didn’t mean exit, like, exit exit”, attitude. My view (from following closely what has been happening) is that those voting had little idea of the ultimate impact of their choice, as even today it is not clear how exactly Britain will be treated in every regard. The situation in France and many other locales around the globe certainly support the same point. No idea what that means.

It’s not about our government wanting to kill us.  It’s about our ability to stop the goverment.  Ok, so you voted for a government, and now you want to stop it.... from what?   Our higher rate of death in the US from firearms, the vast majority of which are from suicide, is the cost of having the ability as free citizens to rise up against our government should it become necessary.  That is called a non sequitur.  One need only look at Venezuela to understand why that is a price we Americans, less convinced of the good nature of our own or any other government, are willing to pay.  Frankly, I have no idea what that means.  To say nothing of the natural deterrence that same fact has to a foreign power considering an incursion here.  ditto

I care about everyone’s ability to freely express their opinion in a respectful way.   I do not stop anyone from expressing an opinion as it's not something I particularly care about.  But if there are purported statements of fact that seem to be unreasonable, invalid or nonsensical I am curious as to why anyone should want to accept them. I don’t share all of them.  No one, including my goverment, can make me.  Now that's interesting, because I have tried to think of a government - anywhere - that has a requirement that you accept another person's opinion.  Do you know of any?  That makes for a good day, everyday.  

Waking up makes it a good day, every day... and I freely admit that it's just my worthless opinion.

[TXPower + 643]

46 minutes ago, Red said:

Waking up makes it a good day, every day... and I freely admit that it's just my worthless opinion.

Your opinions are worth exactly what they cost me.  I do, however, highly value your freedom to share them.

YeeYee

[Otis11 + 551]

On 12/20/2018 at 2:48 AM, Jan van Eck said:

I would have to agree with Red.  Tom, your intent is to poke fun and jog the reader, but the problem is that it falls flat in this medium.  It comes across as belittling and denigrating.  In your first example, you are denigrating Christian Evangelicals, specifically Hispanic Evangelicals.  I suspect the intention was to nudge readers into recognizing that reliance on the State for social programs results is a loss of self-reliance and personal respect, but it comes across as slapping Hispanic immigrants who hold deep-felt beliefs in their personal relationship to Christ.  Thus it is belittling a set of religious beliefs, and in respectful society we don't do that.  Does not matter what we think; what matters is to be respectful of what others think. 

Your second meme, intended as a jab at Chuck Schumer, is belittling.  Mr. Schumer is a sitting United States Senator, and if you don't want to respect him, because you think his thoughts are no good, then that's fine, you can go disagree.  But we don't disrespect the Office, which is what your meme is doing.   Your meme is a cartoon straight out of 1800's street-rag tabloids, and we have grown up as a nation since those days.  You don't see it that way and consider Senator Schumer a fair-game target, and that posture is, in part, why the political discourse is so fraught with peril, and does not more forward.  First, there is zero evidence to support the notion that Senator Schumer is attempting to advance immigration of a national group in order to further the voting numbers of the Democratic Party.  Second, the implied target, Latin Americans, are not likely candidates for the Democrats.  I suggest that the majority of second-generation Hispanic (but non-Puerto Rican) immigrants vote either Republican or Libertarian.  They tend to be socially quite conservative and the Dems lose out with their Party platform of  Leftist social ideas, including on abortion and homosexuality. So the meme is not even on point.  It is pure denigration of the Senate.

Your third meme takes a swipe at the news media.  While I would agree that cable news is typically not news and has disintegrated into sound bites of political opinion, and thus is both useless and worthless, that is not the case with either the New York Times or the Washington Post.  While in the case of the Post the new owner sometimes leans on the editorial staff to advance his own revenge agenda against people he does not like, still in the main the newsroom is free of interference.  The Times certainly tries to do an exemplary job and, with one glaring failure, carefully vets its news.  You can argue that the news media is fair game,  it probably is, but still the blanket swiping only coarsens the political discourse.  I think your meme is a silly cartoon, it fails. 

And that's the problem with memes in the context in which you attempt to use them:  They cannot convey nuance, as they are too pointed.  So the become rather silly, childish displays of petulance.  Which was likely not what you intended, but that is the way it ends up. 

So, half my family is Hispanic (Some in Mexico/Latin America, some first Generation Americans, Some second, and just starting to have our first third generation from this Hispanic side. Not that it matters, but the other half of the family is 4th Gen or less (to my knowledge) as well - just not from countries of Hispanic origin) and the entirety of my family is made up of devout Christians (either Evangelicals or Catholics) - yet I didn't take any offense to that meme. In fact, I found it to be quite on point (Some of the interviews with Representative Elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, ahem, concerns me... Putting aside actual political beliefs, the lack of functional understanding in someone voting for my future is very concerning). If we are so worried about offending anyone, we can never have a real discussion because I can find someone who has the 'right' to be offended by just about anything. All we can do is be respectful, apologize when we do actually do/say something unintentionally offensive, and try not to be so easily offended as a population (and stop crying wolf on the offensive thing every time we hear something we don't like!).

On Schumer - ok, I see your argument here on respecting the office, and I agree, however this one is quite mild. Some of the things posted about Pelosi, Schumer, Trump, Cruz, Obama, Bush, etc, etc, sure I agree with you. This however, never referenced his role or position - and didn't even attack him as a person. Sure it implied a less than admirable character trait, but again, please reference first point above.

News media - Neither the Post nor the NYT are credible news media any more. They have their moments still, however they have shown time and again their severe bias. I encourage everyone to actually look up studies of bias in the news media, from actual researchers, not other news media. Also, look for bias words in the headlines and throughout the articles - you can probably identify it yourself! Are they giving you facts, or coloring your opinion? 

A (mostly) non political Example:

• Police officer charged in shooting death of unarmed neighbor
• Dallas police officer charged with manslaughter in fatal shooting of unarmed man in his own apartment

While these are both statements of fact, one attempts to color your opinion of the events (by citing facts that sound as bad as possible) rather than to simply inform.

If you look for more, there are an incredible amount of these - and a lot of obvious ones - but I refrain from citing more (and better) examples as they become political quickly.

Also note! Google filters your search results to show you articles that match your history! So if you have a history of searching conservative opinions, you will more likely see conservative results! History of Liberal searches? Liberal results! Even if you type in the same search words today - two people with two different histories will see significantly different results!

(Google also has political agenda of their own - and regularly influence search results to benefit their agenda. This is done by just about every major company and is not special to Google, just something to be aware of.)

[Illurion + 894]

3 hours ago, Otis11 said:

So, half my family is Hispanic (Some in Mexico/Latin America, some first Generation Americans, Some second, and just starting to have our first third generation from this Hispanic side. Not that it matters, but the other half of the family is 4th Gen or less (to my knowledge) as well - just not from countries of Hispanic origin) and the entirety of my family is made up of devout Christians (either Evangelicals or Catholics) - yet I didn't take any offense to that meme. In fact, I found it to be quite on point (Some of the interviews with Representative Elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, ahem, concerns me... Putting aside actual political beliefs, the lack of functional understanding in someone voting for my future is very concerning). If we are so worried about offending anyone, we can never have a real discussion because I can find someone who has the 'right' to be offended by just about anything. All we can do is be respectful, apologize when we do actually do/say something unintentionally offensive, and try not to be so easily offended as a population (and stop crying wolf on the offensive thing every time we hear something we don't like!).

On Schumer - ok, I see your argument here on respecting the office, and I agree, however this one is quite mild. Some of the things posted about Pelosi, Schumer, Trump, Cruz, Obama, Bush, etc, etc, sure I agree with you. This however, never referenced his role or position - and didn't even attack him as a person. Sure it implied a less than admirable character trait, but again, please reference first point above.

News media - Neither the Post nor the NYT are credible news media any more. They have their moments still, however they have shown time and again their severe bias. I encourage everyone to actually look up studies of bias in the news media, from actual researchers, not other news media. Also, look for bias words in the headlines and throughout the articles - you can probably identify it yourself! Are they giving you facts, or coloring your opinion? 

A (mostly) non political Example:

• Police officer charged in shooting death of unarmed neighbor
• Dallas police officer charged with manslaughter in fatal shooting of unarmed man in his own apartment

While these are both statements of fact, one attempts to color your opinion of the events (by citing facts that sound as bad as possible) rather than to simply inform.

If you look for more, there are an incredible amount of these - and a lot of obvious ones - but I refrain from citing more (and better) examples as they become political quickly.

Also note! Google filters your search results to show you articles that match your history! So if you have a history of searching conservative opinions, you will more likely see conservative results! History of Liberal searches? Liberal results! Even if you type in the same search words today - two people with two different histories will see significantly different results!

(Google also has political agenda of their own - and regularly influence search results to benefit their agenda. This is done by just about every major company and is not special to Google, just something to be aware of.)

I agree with everything you have written with the exception that,  even though i am conservative,   google still throws all kinds of liberal crap at me due to their liberal biased algorithms.

happy new year.

[Red + 252]

4 hours ago, Otis11 said:

On 12/20/2018 at 6:48 PM, Jan van Eck said:

I would have to agree with Red.  Tom, your intent is to poke fun and jog the reader, but the problem is that it falls flat in this medium. ....

And that's the problem with memes in the context in which you attempt to use them:  They cannot convey nuance, as they are too pointed.  So the become rather silly, childish displays of petulance.  Which was likely not what you intended, but that is the way it ends up. 

 

4 hours ago, Otis11 said:

I didn't take any offense to that meme. In fact, I found it to be quite on point

Tom uses what he calls "memes" to distraction, and again, my personal take, is that they often lack relevance and fail miserably to be informative although are sometimes funny.  Otis's long response noted that one of the three could be ok, from his particular perspective - is 33.3% a fail?

WRT to the media, occasionally articles have one source and then get syndicated, so fact checking or bias hunting becomes problematic.  We are fortunate in that our national broadcaster has to be seen to be neutral in its reporting, to the point it sometimes necessarily stumbles over information "perspectives" when something is blindingly obvious.  We also have a very handy TV segment called Media Watch which, being produced by the national broadcaster, does not hold back when it sees its boss (the ABC) crossing the line.  

Some people prefer to indulge in confirmation bias in their media sources because it makes them feel comfortable.  It need not, however, prevent them from thinking critically.  Jan writes forthrightly and critically, and if readers are going to down-vote his posts because he hurts their sensibilities and nothing else, it tells me a lot about those individuals.

Edited December 31, 2018 by Red
added "(the ABC)"

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

2 hours ago, Illurion said:

I agree with everything you have written with the exception that,  even though i am conservative,   google still throws all kinds of liberal crap at me due to their liberal biased algorithms.

happy new year.

Try using DuckDuckGo instead.

 

And for those who get annoyed at tame little memes...

[Otis11 + 551]

On 12/29/2018 at 11:49 AM, Jan van Eck said:

Nick, I would venture to say that the "far right" model is actually maximum State control.  It becomes a question of "what" the State ends up controlling.  In the Far Right model, the State will control all political thought and brook no deviation, just as the Communist system brooks no dissension.  Both models will back that up with internment camps of various degrees, either Gulags in the Communist system, or Marion Penitentiary and Guantanamo prisons in the Rightist system.  Overarching in all such systems is the concept of "total compliance."

It is that "compliance" aspect that those who love Liberty find so offending.  On a parochial level, I offer you the example of the State of Connecticut.  After the horrendous murders at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the (Democrat-controlled, compliance-model) State Legislature passed gun laws basically outlawing the Colt AR-15 type of rifle  (for non Americans, that is a civilian version of the M-16 Vietnam-era combat rifle, albeit with different barrel rifling and so forth).  Gun magazines were outlawed above a certain size, and if you already owned an AR-15, you had to go to the State Police Headquarters and "register" the gun.  

The argument by gun owners is that the AR-15 is nothing more than a 22-caliber plinking rifle, of the type previously sold to parents of young boys who would go out and shoot at tin cans or squirrels with it.  That is partially true; what sets the AR-15 apart is that the ammunition is identical to the military version and is designed to produce gaping wounds, that are typically fatal. Although the same approximate calibre,0.22 vs. 0.223,  it is not quite a plinking gun.  Basically, get hit with one round and you are dead. 

The Colt rifles were all manufactured in the Colt factory in Hartford, Connecticut, which armory has been around since the beginning of time.  To no surprise, there are hundreds of thousands of AR-15s in Connecticut.  The Legislature decreed that anyone in possession of such rifle after the deadline date without having registered would be guilty of a felony crime.  On the last day, the State was treated to the spectacle of thousands of men lined up at the State Police Headquarters in huge lines to go register their guns.  

When the dust settled, a back-of-the-envelope calculation was made as to the number of un-registered weapons presumed still in the State.  They came up with 200,000.  Assuming two guns for each owner, that implies that at least 100,000 men chose to be felons rather than register their rifles.  That is a lot of resistance to the Compliance Model of government. 

Since that, the Legislature has directed the State Police to go raid the houses of the non-compliant gun owners and confiscate the weapons and arrest the Refusniks as felons, to be brought before the Court in handcuffs and to be disposed of.  To no surprise, no policeman has much of an appetite to go out to start up a confrontation with a heavily-armed gun owner who is challenging the State.  The total number of such raids attempted to date is precisely zero.  The union made it clear to Management that any attempt to muster a squad to go do that would be met by sick calls.  Nobody would show up.  Police management was wise enough to forget those ideas.  The Legislature is outraged, but then again, that is composed of various levels of communists, albeit not with actual Party membership.  And so goes the world in the United States of America.  Compliance is only possible when the State first disarms the public. And you can forget the idea that the public is going to be disarmed.  Ain't gonna happen. 

I take it you're not much of a gun guy Jan? Because this is not true.

As with anything, location matters. A (very) well placed 0.22 will take down a bear, but a random 0.223 shot is unlikely to be fatal. Now a 5.56 or 7.62 is another story entirely... not to mention a 458 socom. And there's the problem with these arguments - the vast majority of those (that I hear anyway) making them, don't actually understand the very topic they're claiming expertise on. An ArmaLite Rifle style #15 (design later sold to Colt) can be built in numerous different platforms in even more configurations! (in fact, you can make an AR-15 into a 0.22 plinking gun if you wanted - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AR_platform_calibers)

Also, 0.22 hollow points are designed to mushroom on impact, creating a huge, gaping wound designed to cause maximum damage for their size. 0.22 frangible rounds are designed to shrapnel inside the target and make them as difficult as possible to remove safely (thereby increasing lethality). The so called 'military' versions of these ammunition? Full metal jacket. Due to the Geneva convention. Full metal jackets are required for 'military rounds' as they impart the maximum stopping power at the lowest possible lethality (corrected for their stopping power). These are absolutely not designed to produce 'gaping wounds' as you so claim. That is patently false. 

If we're going to hate on anything, lets get our facts right.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Happy New Year everyone.

OpEd from RT, very much fits in with this thread.

It is amusing to me that this Russian RT OpEd is being the adult in the room while Mainstream Media continues its Chicken Little panic narrative.

Soros 'person of the year' indeed: In 2018 globalists pushed peoples’ patience to the edge

"... With no small amount of impudence, Soros has condemned EU countries – namely his native Hungary – for attempting to protect their territories by constructing border barriers and fences, which he believes violate the human rights of migrants (rarely if ever does the philanthropist speak about the “human rights” of the native population).

... The lesson that Western governments should have learned over the last year from these developments is that there exists a definite red line that the globalists cross at risk not only to the social order, but to their own political fortunes. Eventually the people will demand solutions to their problems – many of which were caused by reckless neoliberal programs and austerity measures. This collective sense of desperation may open the door to any number of right-wing politicians only too happy to meet the demand.

Better to provide fair working conditions for the people while maintaining strong borders than have to face the wrath of the street or some political charlatan later. Whether or not Western leaders will change their neoliberal ways as a populist storm front approaches remains to be seen, but I for one am not betting on it."

[shadowkin + 584]

Macron declares the yellow vest leaders a hateful mob in his New Year's address. Merkel recently declared nation states must be prepared to give up their sovereignty today („Nationalstaaten sollten heute bereit sein, Souveränität abzugeben“). In other words, hand over control over immigration and borders among other things. Macron basically said the same thing a few months back. It was always evident based on their actions that this was what the globalists wanted but now they feel bold enough to just come out and say it. I think this is going to be really bloody.

I see Tom Kirkman refrenced this previously. Been away awhile and catching up.

Edited January 1, 2019 by shadowkin

[shadowkin + 584]

On 12/28/2018 at 2:09 AM, AlexF said:

Facts are facts and opinions are opinions. Problems arise when people want to disguise opinions as facts....

An illustration of this fact : Angela merkel never said : “Nation states must today be prepared to give up their sovereignty,”

She said : "Nationalstaaten müssen heute – sollten heute, sage ich – bereit sein, Souveränität abzugeben"

Which (for me) sounds different that your english translation.

You translation seems to imply that European states must give up their sovereignty, although the original sentence seems to imply that European stated must surrender more sovereignty... Devils hides in the details...

 

What exactly is your translation? You're trying to discredit his argument that globalists want nation states to surrender sovereignty but you actually strengthen it by suggesting Merkel said European states must surrender more sovereignty than they already have. This is worse than saying states must be prepared to surrender sovereignty as it suggests they've already surrendered some sovereignty. You have no point here.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

2 hours ago, Otis11 said:

 

Also, 0.22 hollow points are designed to mushroom on impact, creating a huge, gaping wound designed to cause maximum damage for their size. 0.22 frangible rounds are designed to shrapnel inside the target and make them as difficult as possible to remove safely (thereby increasing lethality). The so called 'military' versions of these ammunition? Full metal jacket. Due to the Geneva convention. Full metal jackets are required for 'military rounds' as they impart the maximum stopping power at the lowest possible lethality (corrected for their stopping power). These are absolutely not designed to produce 'gaping wounds' as you so claim. That is patently false. 

If we're going to hate on anything, lets get our facts right.

Contrary to what you say, I do not "hate on anything," excepting the denizens on Wall Street.  As far as your "gun" arguments go, those are inaccurate, which is not surprising.  I am going to decline to discuss this further with you, as (1)  I don't much care, and (2)  you are set in your ways, so it is not going anywhere, and (3) you have this bad habit of doing that red-arrow downvote thingy, which is contrary to the (informal but foundational) etiquette on this forum.  As long as you persist in that conduct, I shall not respond to whatever you write, see if I care. 

[shadowkin + 584]

On 12/27/2018 at 2:13 AM, AlexF said:

HI Tom ! Tom, please.. You can not refer to this kind of website. You will only find opinion sourrounded by lies and fake news... The main and only purpose is to raise people again each other. I see no value in reading this kind of b... s... And even less value refering to them as an argument or as proof of fact.

Regards

The article was from Breitbart but the quote was from a speech Merkel gave before the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, hardly a right-wing hotbed. I don't know of any msm outlet that reported this which tells you all you need to know.

[Red + 252]

4 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Try using DuckDuckGo instead.

Or try to understand that where there a different definitions with varying nuances, then it's important to not just be clear on which one you are using, but also the context of the definition in the real world.

If you were truly interested you could delve deeper, such as here.  As this is an oil forum should we anticipate readers are keen to drill down?

[Red + 252]

3 hours ago, shadowkin said:

What exactly is your translation? You're trying to discredit his argument that globalists want nation states to surrender sovereignty but you actually strengthen it by suggesting Merkel said European states must surrender more sovereignty than they already have. This is worse than saying states must be prepared to surrender sovereignty as it suggests they've already surrendered some sovereignty. You have no point here.

This was not hard to work out, surely!  Did you just read a poorly translated headline without hearing what else she said Merkel's talk.?

Merkel makes it clear that for the EU to be functional, then nations need to be more willing to cede some of their traditional sovereignty.  However, she also explains how nations go about that in a democratic way.  There was a well reasoned context to throughout her speech, and a good analysis is here.  

3 hours ago, shadowkin said:

I don't know of any msm outlet that reported this which tells you all you need to know.

I guess this depends if you access msm in Europe rather than in the USA.  There was nothing remarkable in Merkel's speech - it was effectively a well worked over topic for her and probably never raised an eyebrow to savvy journos and got the attention it deserved.

 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

6 hours ago, Red said:

 

Merkel makes it clear that for the EU to be functional, then nations need to be more willing to cede some of their traditional sovereignty.  However, she also explains how nations go about that in a democratic way.  There was a well reasoned context to throughout her speech, and a good analysis is here.  

I guess this depends if you access msm in Europe rather than in the USA.  There was nothing remarkable in Merkel's speech - it was effectively a well worked over topic for her and probably never raised an eyebrow to savvy journos and got the attention it deserved.

 

Red, keep in mind that there are people who lambast anything and everything without being able to translate "Guten Morgen." 

Nonetheless, they will go mouth off about Merkel. (As you said, nothing remarkable in that speech.  All stock stuff.) 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

The Yellow Vests Aren’t Imported from Russia (Op-ed) Faced with a version of the Yellow Vests, any nation’s elite must look inward.

Dubenskij could well be telling the truth. RT France, founded just a year ago, has more than 320,000 subscribers on YouTube, three times as many as RT U.K., which has been around longer, and half the number of subscribers of RT America. In France, the propaganda channel has been boosted by the authority of Frederic Taddei, a respected and popular TV anchor who joined RT in the fall to produce a talk show called Interdit d’Interdire (Forbidden to Forbid, one of the slogans of the May, 1968 rebellion in France). Taddei, known and often criticized for inviting controversial guests to his shows on French television, has argued that RT has given him the freedom to do whatever he wanted, something no French channel offered.

At the official level, Moscow, of course, denies having anything to do with the Yellow Vests: Putin’s press secretary Dmitri Peskov says the Kremlin respects French sovereignty and doesn’t meddle. 

President Donald Trump showed no such respect last week when he tweeted the riots were a response to French President Emmanuel Macron’s policies on climate change and that the protesters were chanting “We want Trump!” But does that mean, as Kiselyov suggested on Russian state television, that the Yellow Vests’ angry actions “look like a ‘colored revolution,’ exported from America, after President Macron said Europe needed its own army”? 

I seriously doubt it; maybe it’s time for democratic leaders and dictators alike to realize something important about the modern brand of protest, no matter where it takes place – in Cairo, Moscow, Kiev or Paris. If pro-establishment U.S. voices or Russian propaganda channels cheer it on, that doesn’t make it an import. It’s not a conspiracy instigated by foreign enemies even if, outwardly, it appears to serve the interests of Putin, Trump or George Soros.

[shadowkin + 584]

17 hours ago, Red said:

This was not hard to work out, surely!  Did you just read a poorly translated headline without hearing what else she said Merkel's talk.?

Surely you know this is a rhetorical question. Your link simply reinforces what she said previously and, as I said in another post, she essentially echoes Macron. The globalists are attempting to redefine what patriotism and nationalism are.

17 hours ago, Red said:

Merkel makes it clear that for the EU to be functional, then nations need to be more willing to cede some of their traditional sovereignty.

While I agree that in order for the EU to function as an effective single political entity it would require each member to surrender some sovereignty I believe this is the exact reason it will fail. The EU is not the US.

By the way what is traditional sovereignty? You're either sovereign or not. More Euro-weasel phrases. Don't bother trying to answer the question, it's rhetorical.

17 hours ago, Red said:

However, she also explains how nations go about that in a democratic way.

Her explanations on how to go about that are through national parliaments. Perfectly reasonable sounding until an EU member has a parliament or president that rejects open borders or any other policy they favor.

This is Poland now. Their democratically elected president and parliament refuses to take refugees and are reshaping the Polish justice system yet Merkel and Macron refuse to accept that and have threatened Poland with sanctions. Of course, Germany and France are paper tigers so they haven't gone through with this yet probably because they fear it will accelerate the EU's demise.

You’re being disingenuous about the context of Merkel’s statements. The context is populism and migrants. If you bothered to read the website you’d know this. The quotes are from the Konrad Adenauer Foundation before whom she gave this speech. She was singing to the choir.

What Merkel said about sovereignty isn't even the worst part of her speech. She goes on to re-define what it means to be German, French, Italian, Polish, etc  by saying whoever lives permanently (whatever that means, legal, illegal, 10 yrs, 50 yrs?) in a country is German, French, Italian, Polish,… and that being German cannot be defined by a group of ethnically German, Polish,… people.

„Das Volk sind die Menschen, die dauerhaft in einem Land leben und nicht eine Gruppe, die sie als Volk definiert“

In other worlds no German or Pole can say a Syrian ‘refugee’ is not German or Polish so long as he permanently resides in Germany or Poland. Pure nonsense.

17 hours ago, Red said:

I guess this depends if you access msm in Europe rather than in the USA.

I referenced Breitbart, a US website, so obviously I’m contrasting with US msm. I don’t know the extent of coverage in Europe but it should be obvious I’m not disputing that. After all I provided a link to a German website of a foundation before whom she gave this speech in German so any German media can easily access and report on it if they choose. There is no similar coverage in the US except right leaning media PJmedia, washingtonthinker, zerohedge…

17 hours ago, Red said:

There was nothing remarkable in Merkel's speech

This is all unremarkable to someone such as yourself who would just stand around as your wife or daughter was raped and serve the rapist coffee afterwards but I imagine a Pole or anyone with cojones has a different view of the situation.

17 hours ago, Red said:

savvy journos

Nope. Members of state media who share the same agenda. Again she was singing to the choir. Did you expect her to give a speech before AfD members telling them they’re wrong about migrants and nationalism?

Last paragraph deleted at request of Tom Kirkman hehe

Edited January 1, 2019 by shadowkin

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

17 minutes ago, shadowkin said:

While I agree that in order for the EU to function as an effective single political entity it would require each member to surrender some sovereignty I believe this is the exact reason it will fail. The EU is not the US.

Nice set of rebuttals there, @shadowkin.

But I suggest you delete your very last paragraph in your comment above, as ad hom tacked on at the end tends to undermine the earlier logic.