- Jul 19, 2012
- 17,270
- 15,929
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Judaism
- Marital Status
- Married
I'm just saying what the non biased fair and balanced Russian new media reports from President Putin.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I'm just saying what the non biased fair and balanced Russian new media reports from President Putin.You hear yourself right? The "Nazis" led by a Jewish man were going to invade Russia?
I mean - have you been following this area of the world?
There may have been a few far right elements in a few platoons down in that region - driven to extremism by the constant civil disturbance that has been sponsored by Putin for well over a decade. One the one hand, yes, things get complicated when a strong-man government like the USSR or former Yugoslavia or even Saddam Hussein's Iraq collapse - and then the local rival ethnic tensions and grudges can resurface until a new equilibrium is reached.
On the other hand - Putin.
But Nazi's INVADE Russia, led by a Jew?
You're not biased in any way so it doesn't matter to me.
Really? I'm not allowed to post that after what the Republicans said 20,000 times a day about Biden.
Wow. Inconsistent much?
They sure are. Biden is right of Australia's right wing, and no one in America seems to be talking about nationalising healthcare to save $1 TRILLION a year or more while guaranteeing universal coverage.
Yet the Overton Window has moved so far to the right that Trump's new normal is sort of 'ho-hum' to citizens who have not really read about the history of this stuff, but those who know can see huge policy reversals between Biden and Trump.
So if Biden is too right wing for our right, imagine what Aussies make of Trump and his betrayal of western civilisation?
OH - just like that we're snuggling up to Putin and betraying the Budapest Memorandum - forever tarnishing America as a Judas? How much more do you want to confirm what David Brooks said about the rest of the world never trusting America again - even after Trump - because Americans themselves elected that Trump? LIKED and VALUED his betrayal of the west!?
OK - once again!
President Trump does not seem to notice or care that if you betray people, or jerk them around, they will revile you. Over the last few weeks, the Europeans have gone from shock to bewilderment to revulsion. This period was for them what 9/11 was for us — the stripping away of illusions, the exposure of an existential threat. The Europeans have realized that America, the nation they thought was their friend, is actually a rogue superpower.
Talk about trying to close the barn door after the horse has bolted - or in this case coming up with plans to ruin the engagement party and sabotage the relationship - except the 'couple' are already a decade the other side of their wedding and honeymoon!
What are you talking about?
This deal is done!
Russia and China and Iran have annual military exercises together. Russia only has 2 real sectors in the economy right now, energy and arms. They sell their energy to China, and buy in almost everything else. The 2 are wedded to each other militarily and economically.
You pretending Trump is some kind of genius by snuggling up to Putin is not even naïve... but I don't think I'll unpack what it is... because of forum rules!
Wrong again! TRUMP has already ENSURED THAT!
At the fall of the Soviet Union, Ukraine had about a third of their nukes.
In the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, the UK, America, and Russia PLEDGED to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in exchange for Ukraine transferring its nuclear weapons to Russia and joining the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) as a non-nuclear state. PLEDGED! Russia invaded and now Trump is cheering them on!
What nation is ever going to trust the US again after that betrayal? The message is loud and clear. Keep your nukes - or get your own! Trump may have just triggered the largest proliferation humanity will ever seen - until "Oh oh - Armageddon by accident" finally gets us.
And Trump was so ignorant about all this HE had the gall to tell Zelensky - "You're gambling with WW3!"
Do you know how many analysts have predicted would have happened if the west had fully funded Ukraine?
Our economies are so much bigger than Ukraine's that eventually we would have worn Russia down. There are forces in Russia that would eventually have rejected Putinism and moved on him - probably leaving Russia more moderate.
If ONLY Trumpism had hit in a less vulnerable time - and the only country Trump would have REALLY hurt was America!
Are you SURE about that?
How long before the whining starts about the cost of that?
Oh come on! Putin does NOT want to reduce Russia to a radioactive glassed over parking lot!
Sure - there is sabre rattling.
But if we had supplied Ukraine - and not put boots on the ground - we might have burned through Russia's other leadership structures to support Putinism.
Ah - I think you might be dripping with so much sarcasm that I didn't quite comprehend what you were saying in your original post.I'm just saying what the non biased fair and balanced Russian new media reports from President Putin.
Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is utterly impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone won't mistake for the genuine article.
Avoid sarcasm and facetious remarks.Without the voice inflection and body language of personal communication these are easily misinterpreted. A sideways smile,, has become widely accepted on the net as an indication that "I'm only kidding". If you submit a satiric item without this symbol, no matter how obvious the satire is to you, do not be surprised if people take it seriously.[8]
I knew Nathan Poe, he was a friend of mine, and Aryeh Jay is no Nathan Poe.Ah - I think you might be dripping with so much sarcasm that I didn't quite comprehend what you were saying in your original post.
I think I might have been a victim of Poe's law.
Did you know Poe's law originated on these forums?
It's probably better to say what you mean, and mean what you say.
(I mean - I get sarcasm works sometimes but it's got to be obvious - with emojis and explanation even.)
Poe's law is an adage of Internet culture which says that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, any parodic or sarcastic expression of extreme views can be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of those views.[1][2][3]Poe's law is based on a comment written by Nathan Poe in 2005 on christianforums.com, an Internet forum on Christianity. The message was posted during a debate on creationism, where a previous poster had remarked to another user: "Good thing you included the winky. Otherwise people might think you are serious".[4]The reply by Nathan Poe read:[1]
The original statement of Poe's law referred specifically to creationism, but it has since been generalized to apply to any kind of fundamentalism or extremism.[3]Its original conceptualization held that online parodies or sarcasm on religious views are indistinguishable from sincere expressions of religious views.[5] In part, Poe was simply reiterating common advice about the need to clearly mark online sarcasm or parody, otherwise it would be interpreted as the real thing[5] or used by online trolls,[6] extremists, and fundamentalists as sincere expressions of their authors, particularly if they match their own views.[7] Some abuse the law by publishing extremism or defamation without a smiley or other indication of satire, and if there is too much criticism towards it, reply that it was only an irony. As early as 1983, Jerry Schwarz, in a post on Usenet, wrote:
In 2017, Wired published an article calling Poe's Law "2017's Most Important Internet Phenomenon", and wrote that "Poe's Law applies to more and more internet interactions." The article gave examples of cases such as on 4chan forums with the usage of the OK gesture as a white power symbol and the Trump administration where there were deliberate ambiguities over whether something was serious or intended as a parody, where people were using Poe's law as "a refuge" to camouflage beliefs that would otherwise be considered unacceptable.[9] Some treat Poe's law as part of contemporary kitsch culture;[7] another view maintains that Poe's law could lead to nihilism, a situation where nothing matters and everything is a joke.[6]
Really? I'm not allowed to post that after what the Republicans said 20,000 times a day about Biden.
Wow. Inconsistent much?
Internet fame and glory are yours!I knew Nathan Poe, he was a friend of mine, and Aryeh Jay is no Nathan Poe.
First - I blame the Presidential system for serving up to of the oldest candidates in history. You should adopt some of the Westminster party rules. The parties have the power to hold a spill and remove the unpopular and / or crazy from the top job - whether or not they've been medically certified as crazy or not.There were also policies enacted under Biden vis a vis Ukraine which actually did increase the risk of a nuclear war relative to when Trump was in office.
You can find mine on the wiki that is (supposedly) rational.Ah - I think you might be dripping with so much sarcasm that I didn't quite comprehend what you were saying in your original post.
I think I might have been a victim of Poe's law.
Did you know Poe's law originated on these forums?
It's probably better to say what you mean, and mean what you say.
(I mean - I get sarcasm works sometimes but it's got to be obvious - with emojis and explanation even.)
Poe's law is an adage of Internet culture which says that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, any parodic or sarcastic expression of extreme views can be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of those views.[1][2][3]Poe's law is based on a comment written by Nathan Poe in 2005 on christianforums.com, an Internet forum on Christianity. The message was posted during a debate on creationism, where a previous poster had remarked to another user: "Good thing you included the winky. Otherwise people might think you are serious".[4]The reply by Nathan Poe read:[1]
The original statement of Poe's law referred specifically to creationism, but it has since been generalized to apply to any kind of fundamentalism or extremism.[3]Its original conceptualization held that online parodies or sarcasm on religious views are indistinguishable from sincere expressions of religious views.[5] In part, Poe was simply reiterating common advice about the need to clearly mark online sarcasm or parody, otherwise it would be interpreted as the real thing[5] or used by online trolls,[6] extremists, and fundamentalists as sincere expressions of their authors, particularly if they match their own views.[7] Some abuse the law by publishing extremism or defamation without a smiley or other indication of satire, and if there is too much criticism towards it, reply that it was only an irony. As early as 1983, Jerry Schwarz, in a post on Usenet, wrote:
In 2017, Wired published an article calling Poe's Law "2017's Most Important Internet Phenomenon", and wrote that "Poe's Law applies to more and more internet interactions." The article gave examples of cases such as on 4chan forums with the usage of the OK gesture as a white power symbol and the Trump administration where there were deliberate ambiguities over whether something was serious or intended as a parody, where people were using Poe's law as "a refuge" to camouflage beliefs that would otherwise be considered unacceptable.[9] Some treat Poe's law as part of contemporary kitsch culture;[7] another view maintains that Poe's law could lead to nihilism, a situation where nothing matters and everything is a joke.[6]
Sorry - did you coin an internet law? Please - tell me more.You can find mine on the wiki that is (supposedly) rational.
Mine was satirical and basically said that a person’s mind can be changed by obtaining information on the internet and that the nature of this change was from having “no-opinion” to holding a “wrong-opinion”. This was 18 years ago and was absolutely prescient.Sorry - did you coin an internet law? Please - tell me more.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?