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

[Red + 252]

18 minutes ago, Epic said:

Some people who might be less familiar with guns do sometimes have a difficult time telling these two kinds of individuals apart.  So I thought I'd put together a few images to make the distinction clear.  That distinction?  Just watch where they put their trigger finger.  (first 6 images are the nutjobs; the rest are the responsible gun users).  

Responsible gun ownership has other dimensions which are relatively safe ...

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

mthebold (Paul) asked:  My knowledge of Jewish history is limited to the Old Testament, which I realize could be biased.  Do you recommend another source?

Paul, you might try something politically dry, such as books on Egyptian archaeology, and discussions of the Dead Sea Scrolls.  One interesting aspect that comes out of archaeological studies is that nobody can find a single Jewish cemetery anywhere in Egypt, as relates to ancient times.  Let us assume that the Pharaoh had (pick a number) 50,000 Jews as slaves.  Those slaves would not be useful except as servants, thus in close proximity to the Egyptian cities.  Yet, by definition those 50,000 would all die each generation.  Over 500 years you would have easily 450,000 corpses.  The protocol for the dead in ancient times was burial.  They did not do cremation.  Well, if you are going to bury 450,000 dead, then you would have to be able to find some bones somewhere, some evidence of that.  And there is none. 

How can Pharaohs have slaves and no graveyard for them?  That is not possible.  So, if the archaeology crowd cannot find even a single Jewish grave, you have to conclude that there were no Jews as slaves in Egypt.  There is no other conclusion. 

The implication of that is that all that glory about Moses parting the waves and the slaves fleeing Egypt for the Promised Land is all myth.  Those ancient myths are manufactured to sustain a narrative, in this case about the glory of the Jews. Except, of course, there is no glory, there is no "Chosen People," there is no Jehovah to "smite the Canaanites" with his mighty sword, and Cecil B. DeMille makes great movies for the popcorn set, but his vision of historical truth is a bit off the wall. 

This is the big problem with Jews in the Middle east.  You have this entire society that is imbued with these myths of the glories of the ancient past, and they get the idea that this somehow translates into some form of "Divine Right" to murder the locals and steal the land for themselves.  That land-stealing is at the heart of animosity towards Jews, and has been for centuries,  and it the root cause of all the problems that so plague the Middle East today.  Had Israel remained within the land borders of the 1948 Partition, you would not have these intractable problems today.  At one time, a good number of Jews inside Israel were perfectly prepared to make that accommodation, and to relinquish the occupation of the West bank, but the hardline crazies from the Likud blocked that, and now with all the settlements and the wall-building, you have this frozen war that is not going to get resolved, ever.  

For a perspective on  modern times, I wold look at the writings of Franklin D. Roosevelt and historical critiques there, with a focus on his reaction to petitions to bring Jewish refugees to the USA.  The case of the steamship St. Louis makes interesting reading on that perspective.  You would also do well to study the writings of Hanan Ashrawi and of Noura Erakat, two Palestinian women who are prolific writers and, in the case of Ashrawi, a Palestinian legislator.  They provide a revealing perspective on Jewish behavior in the Middle East. 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

This video does indeed tell a story.  Basic human beings, saying it's time for the Bullshxx to stop.  It takes a minute or so to get to the subject, but then this Wolff fellow seems to say what many of us struggle to put into words at times.

Richard Wolff | Masterfully Explains France's Yellow Vest Movement

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

12 hours ago, mthebold said:

In this case, crying complexity is particularly unforgivable because we've understood riots for centuries: people want to keep the fruits of their labor.  They want to earn respect.  They want a reasonably comfortable life.  They want to contribute to something meaningful - and watch that thing grow.  They want their children to live better lives.  This is not complex, arcane knowledge reserved for scholars and kings; it's hardwired into the DNA of every healthy, sane human being.  It's f***ing obvious.  The solution is also obvious. 

It really isn't hard, is it.  Go out and look.  Not a poll; a look, a talk, a walk around.

I think the "upper crust", if you will, gets wrapped up in themselves and looks for other ways to show how wonderful they are, or their life (more to the point), is.  Then they start to dream of legacy and making difference, and what do the serfs know anyway?  Nothing wrong with wanting to make a difference, so long as the difference one tries to implement meets people's immediate needs first and can be supported by their pocketbooks.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

Was doing a search for something completely unrelated, and then this came up:

[Rodent + 1,424]

6 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

This video does indeed tell a story.  Basic human beings, saying it's time for the Bullshxx to stop.  It takes a minute or so to get to the subject, but then this Wolff fellow seems to say what many of us struggle to put into words at times.

Richard Wolff | Masterfully Explains France's Yellow Vest Movement

no offense, but hogwash.

#1 big bailouts for flailing companies or Industries is not a predetermined facet of capitalism. it actually goes against capitalism which spells out a system in which the market is left to balance itself. to blame the government's ineptitude in decision-making in this area on capitalism is ridiculous. True capitalism is devoid of state interference. Obama decided to intervene, contrary to capitalism. 

#2 wolf states "the richest people got the bailouts, and the rest of us got austerity". I neither got a bailout or austerity. GM's Union employees, however, benefited from the bailout. I guess if you're including GM employees in " richest people" category that makes sense.

#3 the people hurt by the crash were people who were in debt or people who found themselves upside down when their property values fell. That's what happens when you borrow 100% of your house value, or more.  That is not a knock on capitalism, that is a knock on people spending money they don't have. 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

4 minutes ago, Rodent said:

no offense, but hogwash.

#1 big bailouts for flailing companies or Industries is not a predetermined facet of capitalism. it actually goes against capitalism which spells out a system in which the market is left to balance itself. to blame the government's ineptitude in decision-making in this area on capitalism is ridiculous. True capitalism is devoid of state interference. Obama decided to intervene, contrary to capitalism. 

#2 wolf states "the richest people got the bailouts, and the rest of us got austerity". I neither got a bailout or austerity. GM's Union employees, however, benefited from the bailout. I guess if you're including GM employees in " richest people" category that makes sense.

#3 the people hurt by the crash were people who were in debt or people who found themselves upside down when their property values fell. That's what happens when you borrow 100% of your house value, or more.  That is not a knock on capitalism, that is a knock on people spending money they don't have. 

Fair enough.  I didn't see it as an all out bash on capitalism, but against government actions in recent decades.  On other than your 1st point, I noted a bit of a European slant to his opinions.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

5 hours ago, Rodent said:

no offense, but hogwash.

#1 big bailouts for flailing companies or Industries is not a predetermined facet of capitalism. it actually goes against capitalism which spells out a system in which the market is left to balance itself. to blame the government's ineptitude in decision-making in this area on capitalism is ridiculous. True capitalism is devoid of state interference. Obama decided to intervene, contrary to capitalism. 

#2 wolf states "the richest people got the bailouts, and the rest of us got austerity". I neither got a bailout or austerity. GM's Union employees, however, benefited from the bailout. I guess if you're including GM employees in " richest people" category that makes sense.

#3 the people hurt by the crash were people who were in debt or people who found themselves upside down when their property values fell. That's what happens when you borrow 100% of your house value, or more.  That is not a knock on capitalism, that is a knock on people spending money they don't have. 

I am acutely sorry to say this, Rodi, but your statements and conclusions are not fact-based.  The actual fact pattern is entirely different. 

My initial reaction is that you are too far removed from the cadence on Wall Street to appreciate just how cynical that "crash" really was.  As to your comment that "Obama decided to intervene," I will preliminarily respond that, when the inter-bank loans froze due to a crisis of confidence (brought on mostly by the Lehman Bros. problems), it was the execs of Goldman and JPMorgan Chase that went to the Secretary of the Treasury, himself a former Goldman guy, and then they all went to George Bush and persuaded him to effectively socialize the losses, by having Treasury via Fannie Mae purchase the debt, and issuing bailout funds to American International Group to in turn fund the losses of Goldman and Chase.  George released $128 Billion to AIG, which in turn disbursed that in 24 hours to the purchasers of the insurance products on mortgage-backed securities issued as phantom certificates on loan products that were never actually deposited into the "trusts" that were supposedly insured.  Goldman walked away with billions, which explains why they were able to pay million-dollar bonuses to just about everyone in the place while the rest of the planet was flat broke.  It is a slimy story, to be sure.  George was badly misled and cynically manipulated. Incidentally George is an old personal friend of mine, going back to fraternity days at Yale.  I ended up knowing a good number of these players, long story. 

Privatizing profits and socializing the losses is now the Wall Street maxim.  It traces back to Geither and Jamie Dimon, for pure hubris.  More later. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

2 minutes ago, mthebold said:

It's a shame we can't have these discussions in person over a drink.  Would be fascinating to hear the full stories. 

I will try to find the time to write you and Rodi a memo on how it all went down, but very long story.  Lots of little people got ruined, mostly by the fraud of the legacy bankers on the Street.  Really sordid story. 

George is a perfectly nice guy.  He was badly misled by some seriously cynical, OK depraved, people.  In short, in my view he got suckered by the bank crowd. They lied to him. 

[Rodent + 1,424]

3 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

I am acutely sorry to say this, Rodi, but your statements and conclusions are not fact-based.  The actual fact pattern is entirely different. 

My initial reaction is that you are too far removed from the cadence on Wall Street to appreciate just how cynical that "crash" really was.  As to your comment that "Obama decided to intervene," I will preliminarily respond that, when the inter-bank loans froze due to a crisis of confidence (brought on mostly by the Lehman Bros. problems), it was the execs of Goldman and JPMorgan Chase that went to the Secretary of the Treasury, himself a former Goldman guy, and then they all went to George Bush and persuaded him to effectively socialize the losses, by having Treasury via Fannie Mae purchase the debt, and issuing bailout funds to American International Group to in turn fund the losses of Goldman and Chase.  George released $128 Billion to AIG, which in turn disbursed that in 24 hours to the purchasers of the insurance products on mortgage-backed securities issued as phantom certificates on loan products that were never actually deposited into the "trusts" that were supposedly insured.  Goldman walked away with billions, which explains why they were able to pay million-dollar bonuses to just about everyone in the place while the rest of the planet was flat broke.  It is a slimy story, to be sure.  George was badly misled and cynically manipulated. Incidentally George is an old personal friend of mine, going back to fraternity days at Yale.  I ended up knowing a good number of these players, long story. 

Privatizing profits and socializing the losses is now the Wall Street maxim.  It traces back to Geither and Jamie Dimon, for pure hubris.  More later. 

I was addressing the claim about GM bailout specifically, per the video. although in theory, my comments are reasonably applicable to any bailout. my point is that any company that can't make it should be allowed to fail. period. and to insinuate, as the guy in the video tried to do, that this notion of bailing out companies is the fault of capitalism is just silly. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

19 hours ago, Epic said:

 

Some people who might be less familiar with guns do sometimes have a difficult time telling these two kinds of individuals apart.  So I thought I'd put together a few images to make the distinction clear.  That distinction?  Just watch where they put their trigger finger.  (first 6 images are the nutjobs; the rest are the responsible gun users).  

Yup, this one is seriously dangerous. Kinda looks like Nancy Pelosi, could be wrong. Watch our for women sporting a Thompson with a 90-rounder canister of .45 ammo.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Getting past Santa and his gun nut supporters with that BAR and ammo belt, here, for our foreign viewer/readers, is the far more dangerous All-American Total Gun Nut Nutjob Psycho Freak.  This woman, and you will meet her on the street, in the coffee shop, and at the mall, is one of the most dangerous people in America today - because she has no control over her emotions.  This woman worked (now fired) as a middle school teacher. 

Take a good look, tourists, and cross the street to the other sidewalk if you see her coming:  [that is her with her attorney, going into Court]

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

An amusing, satirical skewering of the Elites and their reaction to the French protests (hint, it was ZOMG! Russian Hackers)

The Indiscreet Charm of the Gilets Jaunes

... By Sunday, the corporate media were insinuating that diabolical Russian Facebook bots had brainwashed the French into running amok, because who else could possibly be responsible? Certainly not the French people themselves! The French, as every American knows, are by nature a cowardly, cheese-eating people, who have never overthrown their rightful rulers, or publicly beheaded the aristocracy. No, the French were just sitting there, smoking like chimneys, and otherwise enjoying their debt-enslavement the privatization of their social democracy, until they unsuspectingly logged onto Facebook and … BLAMMO, the Russian hackers got them! 

 

 

... Nothing scares the Identity Politics Left quite like an actual working class uprising. Witnessing the furious unwashed masses operating out there on their own, with no decent human restraint whatsoever, Identity Politics Leftists feel a sudden overwhelming urge to analyze, categorize, organize, sanitize, and otherwise correct and control them. They can’t accept the fact that the actual, living, breathing working classes are messy, multiplicitous, inconsistent, and irreducible to any one ideology. Some of them are racists. Some are fascists. Others are communists, socialists, and anarchists. Many have no idea what they are, and don’t particularly care for any of these labels. This is what the actual working classes are … a big, contradictory collection of people who, in spite of all their differences, share one thing in common, that they are being screwed over by the ruling classes. I don’t know about you, but I consider myself one of them. 

 

... Count on the global capitalist ruling classes to intensify their ongoing War on Dissent and their demonization of anyone opposing them (or contradicting their official narrative) as an “extremist,” a “fascist,” a “Russian agent,” and so on. I’m certainly looking forward to that, personally.

 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 12/13/2018 at 6:12 AM, Illurion said:

agreed

The United States may be unique in that we have a Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Liberals are undermining the Second Amendment without repealing it, which they cannot. If they continue along that line violence will ensue. 

 

Edited December 15, 2018 by ronwagn
error

[Illurion + 894]

1 hour ago, mthebold said:

Speaking of which...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDVVo14A_fo

watched the video

dangerous concept

leads to 1984

[Epic + 390]

4 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

^Mrs. Smith here is quite dangerous.  The way she assaulted that child by forcing him to stand!  She should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law!

...meanwhile in Belgium...

So, there's that beautiful young lass who you have been eyeing lately, but she keeps telling you things like "No!" and "Get out of here, Jerk!"  Well, have you considered 'rape'?  If so, then you're in luck!  As long as you have an otherwise clean record, there will be no prison time for you!  Woot!  

https://www.hln.be/regio/leuven/celstraf-met-uitstel-na-verkrachting-op-trappen-stadhuis~ab6172a6/

Meanwhile, should you decide that you don't like the idea of being raped, well then you've got another thing coming!  Namely: PRISON!  Yes, you had better not complain about being gang-raped, because that kind of hate speech will not be tolerated!  And those judges over in the UK are serious!

And I mean seven-years serious:

https://www.politicalite.com/exclusive/exclusive-brit-man-53-who-spoke-out-against-rape-gangs-on-trial-for-hate-speech/

...

What I really want to know is what the hell is going on in this world?!?  I'm in the matrix, right?  The Truman Show is playing and the joke's on me?  Can anyone confirm this for me?  Elon, are you out there!?  SpaceX me back to the mothership, please?  

 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

The War Against Globalism

... The unrest witnessed in a number of places is focused on some specific demands but it represents much broader anger. The French yellow vests initially protested against proposed increases in fuel taxes that would have affected working people dependent on transportation disproportionately. But when that demand was met by the government of President Emmanuel Macron, the demonstrations continued and even grew, suggesting that the grievances with the government were far more extensive than the issue of a single new tax. Perhaps not surprisingly, the French government is seeking for a scapegoat and is investigating “Russian interference.” The US State Department inevitably agrees, claiming that Kremlin directed websites and social media are “amplifying the conflict.”

... What has been occurring in Belgium, France, with Brexit in Britain, in the recent election in Italy, and also in the warnings coming from Eastern Europe about immigration and European Union community economic policies are driven by the same concerns that operated in America. Government itself is becoming the enemy.

... There have been windows in history when the people have had enough abuse and so rise up in revolt. The American and French revolutions come to mind as does 1848.

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

1 hour ago, Tom Kirkman said:

The War Against Globalism

... The unrest witnessed in a number of places is focused on some specific demands but it represents much broader anger. The French yellow vests initially protested against proposed increases in fuel taxes that would have affected working people dependent on transportation disproportionately. But when that demand was met by the government of President Emmanuel Macron, the demonstrations continued and even grew, suggesting that the grievances with the government were far more extensive than the issue of a single new tax. Perhaps not surprisingly, the French government is seeking for a scapegoat and is investigating “Russian interference.” The US State Department inevitably agrees, claiming that Kremlin directed websites and social media are “amplifying the conflict.”

... What has been occurring in Belgium, France, with Brexit in Britain, in the recent election in Italy, and also in the warnings coming from Eastern Europe about immigration and European Union community economic policies are driven by the same concerns that operated in America. Government itself is becoming the enemy.

... There have been windows in history when the people have had enough abuse and so rise up in revolt. The American and French revolutions come to mind as does 1848.

Tom, 

Just yesterday I was having beers with UK friend. He is fisherman (not an elitist). He says there is a big drive for another referendum in the UK. Reason being that the deal that is on the table is not the deal they voted for. I have also wondered if you have seen numbers of how many actually protest in France? It is not the majority of the population I can tell you. Eastern Europe not wanting immigrants is about, nothing else. 

There is a huge silent majority in Europe that sooner or later will kick back against this. Just watch. 

ps. There is huge silent majority in the states as well. I recently spoke to an old friend. A southern, christian, parent, her husband is an airforce captain. She said : Thank God you know we are not like all you see portrayed in the news. 

 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

12 hours ago, Rodent said:

I was addressing the claim about GM bailout specifically, per the video. although in theory, my comments are reasonably applicable to any bailout. my point is that any company that can't make it should be allowed to fail. period. and to insinuate, as the guy in the video tried to do, that this notion of bailing out companies is the fault of capitalism is just silly. 

Hi Juli.  I appreciate your comments on the video I posted.  Wolff mixes issues and events together (however I note that the interviewer stated right at the beginning that he understood that Wolff needed to go and so he would make this his last question(s), meaning the old fellow was in a hurry and not given sufficient time to clearly set out his case).  A case in point is how he went from the U.S. Government's bailout of GM, right into the austerity measures inflicted, mainly, on European "states" (my quotation marks ), making it seem as if the bailout of GM led to austerity, which we know is not the case.

Your point above is well taken, and usually I would wholeheartedly agree.  But in this case the loss of jobs of people who had nothing to do with the shxxxy decisions GM management had been making for decades, that led to the insolvency, aided by the financial crisis, were going to lose everything.  That meant (sorry, I don't mean to imply that you don't know these things; they are just for discussion) that every town/city and every resident of those towns/cities were going to be dramatically affected in devastating ways.  You want to see what a load of crap the "management" of GM was pedaling back then, look at the link below, including photos at the end of the report that should clearly have been posted on every post office "Wanted" wall across the nation.  They make it sound like their beloved company was some sort of victim and there was nothing wrong with what THEY had been doing; WE ALL were and are victims of GM's shxxxy decisions (if, as Wolff claims, GM has to date only paid back 40 of the $50 Billion dollars they were given, leaving the taxpayers $10 Billion in the hole).

Feb 28, 2008 - General Motors Corporation 2007 Annual Report

Anyway, back to Mr. Wolff's comments.  He states right about here, at 03:41 in the video, that "the capitalists of the world, the big bankers, the big corporations, who were mostly responsible...." were the ones at fault.  My view here is that he is not attacking capitalism, but rather he is attacking certain capitalists, and he is "using the term loosely" as we say where I come from, because they ought to be called crooks or at least incompetent.  That is my feeling anyway.  You may have a different view of what he is saying.

Later in the video, at about the 05:00 minute mark, he states that bailing them out was "not the only either/or", and that they/we should have gotten something back from GM.  I don't know about how we could have gotten give-backs, and his list of possibilities don't help me in that area, although others may find them acceptable (no-layoff guarantees, pay higher corporate taxes, etc.), but I got the gist of what he's driving at.  He actually makes a somewhat confusing statement where he says that Obama gave them the money, which I believe is accurate since the cash actually went out under Obama, but as @Jan van Eck pointed out, it all was mostly structured, I believe, under Bush, but that is neither here nor there for this discussion.

He goes on to say, "so, yeah, we can bail them out, maybe, but we have to get some conditions".

What he does get right, in my opinion, is the chain of events that were/are unacceptable:  After bailing them out back then, most recently they give us a Christmas present announcing they were firing 15,000 workers a couple of weeks ago.  So, we (the taxpayers, and here is where he changes gears and starts to mean "worldwide" taxpayers and also starts to tie in austerity, other companies and governments) get to bail them out, costing Trillions of dollars, then announce to the citizens that we now have to have austerity because we (the governments) had to borrow the money to bail out the banks and corporations that were failing, so we can't provide you with supports, we're going to have to lay off public employees, the richest people got the bailouts and the rest of us got austerity (or lost our jobs and/or our homes in the mortgage scandal that, as Jan also points out, is still going on today).  He goes on to say that the masses understand at this point that they have been taken for a real big ride here, which I think is spot on.

Respectfully, I don't think he is attacking capitalism so much as he is attacking the intrinsic (his word) weakness of capitalism to prevent these down cycles and recessions, large or small.  As far as I could see he wasn't advocating for a different system; just pointing out a glaring problem with our current form of capitalism that allows these crashes to occur.

Our government in the U.S. also had/has responsibility for parts of the crash (and others) when they did not/do not reign in corporate fraud, misrepresentation of what happens to public funds in the form of public shares, and outright theft, which they appear to continuously fail to do.

What do you think?

Edited December 15, 2018 by Dan Warnick

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

8 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

An amusing, satirical skewering of the Elites and their reaction to the French protests (hint, it was ZOMG! Russian Hackers)

The Indiscreet Charm of the Gilets Jaunes

That article is great, and the links are priceless if not terribly troubling/sad.  But is it really satirical?  I mean, so much of it reads like a true telling of the events as they unfolded.

This excerpt was especially well written:

The English-language corporate media, after doing their best not to cover these protests (and, instead, to keep the American and British publics focused on imaginary Russians), have been forced to now begin the delicate process of delegitimizing the gilets jaunes without infuriating the the entire population of France and inciting the British and American proletariats to go out and start setting cars on fire. They got off to a bit of an awkward start.

Edited December 15, 2018 by Dan Warnick

[jaycee + 348]

3 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Tom, 

Just yesterday I was having beers with UK friend. He is fisherman (not an elitist). He says there is a big drive for another referendum in the UK. Reason being that the deal that is on the table is not the deal they voted for. I have also wondered if you have seen numbers of how many actually protest in France? It is not the majority of the population I can tell you. Eastern Europe not wanting immigrants is about, nothing else. 

There is a huge silent majority in Europe that sooner or later will kick back against this. Just watch. 

ps. There is huge silent majority in the states as well. I recently spoke to an old friend. A southern, christian, parent, her husband is an airforce captain. She said : Thank God you know we are not like all you see portrayed in the news. 

 

I live in the UK and you have taken a story and heard what you wanted to hear. The fact is the UK is very evenly spilt on leaving EU and staying literally 49/51% and those that want the UK to stay want to have another go at it to see if they can get the 'right' result in a new referendum in true European ‘democratic’ fashion. They have been campaigning for this since the result of the last referendum. If they get their wishes the UK will see riots like France as the democratic wish of the people is not being heeded. The fact is the deal on the table is actually what nobody wants due to poor negotiating skills by our divided politicians who in many cases have been undermining our negotiating  position in the hope of forcing another vote. There is no popular mandate for another referendum apart from the liberal left who believe in democracy as long as the result is what they want. It is a terrible situation brought about by a political system run for the politicians and their backers.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

3 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Tom, 

Just yesterday I was having beers with UK friend. He is fisherman (not an elitist). He says there is a big drive for another referendum in the UK. Reason being that the deal that is on the table is not the deal they voted for. I have also wondered if you have seen numbers of how many actually protest in France? It is not the majority of the population I can tell you. Eastern Europe not wanting immigrants is about, nothing else. 

There is a huge silent majority in Europe that sooner or later will kick back against this. Just watch. 

ps. There is huge silent majority in the states as well. I recently spoke to an old friend. A southern, christian, parent, her husband is an airforce captain. She said : Thank God you know we are not like all you see portrayed in the news. 

Rasmus, it seems we view things differently on some topics. No problem.

I'm a proponent of Nationalism and not of Globalism.

The EU is looking increasingly like a failed experiment of a "Globalist Europe".  Seems the EU may eventually break up again back into its separate, individual countries.  Will wait and see.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

36 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

That article is great, and the links are priceless if not terribly troubling/sad.  But is it really satirical?  I mean, so much of it reads like a true telling of the events as they unfolded.

In my view, it was pretty factual, as well as humorous.  But I know my views tend to fall a wee bit outside of mainstream views, so I wasn't quite sure how to introduce the article to others.

Amazing the Russian Hackers narrative is still being peddled.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

3 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Tom, 

Just yesterday I was having beers with UK friend. He is fisherman (not an elitist). He says there is a big drive for another referendum in the UK. Reason being that the deal that is on the table is not the deal they voted for. I have also wondered if you have seen numbers of how many actually protest in France? It is not the majority of the population I can tell you. Eastern Europe not wanting immigrants is about, nothing else. 

There is a huge silent majority in Europe that sooner or later will kick back against this. Just watch. 

ps. There is huge silent majority in the states as well. I recently spoke to an old friend. A southern, christian, parent, her husband is an airforce captain. She said : Thank God you know we are not like all you see portrayed in the news. 

 

Sorry, Rasmus, I know you addressed this to Tom, but I would like to address your post. 

I'm not going to say too much on Brexit because I'll get blasted by our Brit friends if I do: The people voted "exit"; not the BS they've been subjected to over the last 2 years.

Number of French protesters:  It is rare for a majority of eligible voters to come out during an election, but the people that do vote tend to speak the will of the overall population.  Same thing applies for protesters.

Nothing but immigrants?  Please open your mind to the concept of the people being more complex than that.  The fact that they may not be overly organized means, to me at least, that the major parties no longer represent what the masses feel they can identify with.  They'll organize soon enough, or they will indeed dissipate and die out after getting what they believe are enough, or all they can get, concessions.

A huge silent majority in Europe that will kick back?  As in, against the protesters?  You mean like going out into the streets to fight against the protesters?  Really?  Let's revisit this one in a month or two.

ps. You are correct, there is a huge silent majority in the States as well.  They are called Donald Trump supporters (or anti-regular-establishment) and they have already acted and will continue to act for at least the duration of Donald Trump's eligibility to be President.  These people, as deplorable as we may be, are by and large educated, hard working, family people who care where our country is going and are now prepared to push back against forces in government, or forces that want to ascend to government, to make sure they are acting in our interests and with our blessing.  After Donald's tenure is completed there may be no candidate of similar qualifications to take over and we will grudgingly vote for some other Yahoo.  However, we will remain active in our government and push back on what has been exposed to be going on.

Your quote from "A southern, christian, parent, her husband is an airforce captain. She said : Thank God you know we are not like all you see portrayed in the news." is an endorsement of all that I have stated above, because what is portrayed in the "news" is a huge distortion of what most Americans really are.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

13 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

In my view, it was pretty factual, as well as humorous.  But I know my views tend to fall a wee bit outside of mainstream views, so I wasn't quite sure how to introduce the article to others.

Amazing the Russian Hackers narrative is still being peddled.

Oh, I don't know, Tom: I'm actually quite sure Russia is involved with social media and every other avenue of influence they can get their hands on.  Putin, and the vast ex-Soviet/current Russian "intelligence" services are trained in creating division.  Something to always keep in mind.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

10 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

Oh, I don't know, Tom: I'm actually quite sure Russia is involved with social media and every other avenue of influence they can get their hands on.  Putin, and the vast ex-Soviet/current Russian "intelligence" services are trained in creating division.  Something to always keep in mind.

Yes.  But so is the U.S.  And so is China.  And so is Saudi Arabia.  The list is endless.

Blaming Russia for the French yellow jackets protests is simply absurd.