Japanese has many allies. There is no need for them to be militarized.
trusting Americans is the worst option in the world. Why? America isn't free. Even assuming your conclusion has merit, how is that relevant to Japan not needing a military? How to be free from amerikis controllers without being able to send them to before writing was invented, they are beast, they understand only force (be it on nuke suit case, or dnamanipulated war virus... ). Domination game. the only way to speak equal to equal with an American is to have the capacity to break it's neck at wimp, otherwise they will take you like their natives (and it goes for all their eyes friends..., but those are little pickers that will fold as soon as the lead is out). I'm fairly certain that didn't answer my question as to why "America not being free" had any relationship with Japan needing a military, so I'm just going to say "OK" so you don't have to come up with another nonsensical answer I won't understand anyway. Don't worry Jay, I am not afraid of none but how God will judge me, the rest is pure bullshit that will be merged in time. In short American People are under the domination of the money printers. those people have only their interest at heart. as such any nation that may have interest diverging from those of the money printer will be at risk of confrontation (be it pmc, cia, color what ever, gmo attack, what ever), as such the only way to keep them at bay, is to be able to threaten them with total annihilation, and be able to deliver it, at what ever the cost, including your own annihilation. Russian Roulette. play or die. I don't expect you to willfully understand, but deep down you know I am right, otherwise you wouldn't be here, but on cnn forum (if they have one  ). Deep down I have no idea what you're talking about, as very little of it makes much sense or is supported by anything that makes sense. Of the things I can be said to "know," you being right is not among them. |
|
|
|
Japanese has many allies. There is no need for them to be militarized.
trusting Americans is the worst option in the world. Why? America isn't free. Even assuming your conclusion has merit, how is that relevant to Japan not needing a military? How to be free from amerikis controllers without being able to send them to before writing was invented, they are beast, they understand only force (be it on nuke suit case, or dnamanipulated war virus... ). Domination game. the only way to speak equal to equal with an American is to have the capacity to break it's neck at wimp, otherwise they will take you like their natives (and it goes for all their eyes friends..., but those are little pickers that will fold as soon as the lead is out). I'm fairly certain that didn't answer my question as to why "America not being free" had any relationship with Japan needing a military, so I'm just going to say "OK" so you don't have to come up with another nonsensical answer I won't understand anyway. |
|
|
|
@Spendulus , those killers have nothing to do with Islam , again "Extremists" . If you read Quran and Hadith of our prophet you would know that for a muslim "killing one person is like killing the whole humanity and saving one person is like saving the whole humanity."
~ Madness
This sounds like the No True Scotsman fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman The truth is that there are many people who commit terrible acts and call themselves Muslims. (Not to single out Muslims - it's true for all religions that teach violence is wrong and have self-identified believers commit violent acts - but Islam was your example, so I'm sticking with it.) It doesn't matter if we say that their actions are not in keeping with their faith, it only matters if they're using their faith to justify their violent actions. And these extremist groups are. The question is how do you get the religious leaders and other members of the faith to reject these people and ostracize them. They're acting for like-minded approval and prestige in their own movement. The world needs to deny them of that. There needs to be no prestige and status for people who kill. |
|
|
|
Japanese has many allies. There is no need for them to be militarized.
trusting Americans is the worst option in the world. Why? America isn't free. Even assuming your conclusion has merit, how is that relevant to Japan not needing a military? |
|
|
|
Maybe we should convince Greece to become a Bitcoin economy.
Greece can't even convince itself to be a functioning fiat economy... it's impossible to have a functioning fiat economy. eco 101 it's by design. Notwithstanding the hundreds of functioning fiat economies on the planet, of course. |
|
|
|
Maybe we should convince Greece to become a Bitcoin economy.
Greece can't even convince itself to be a functioning fiat economy... |
|
|
|
Germany is doing it right. Why would you devote unnecessary money to the wasteful arms industry when the threat of war is so small and the US spends more than enough to defend all NATO allies anyway?
what a fucking joke!!! why do you think those evil german have done everything to have giant auto factory? you know the word retrofitting? anyway it ain't the german scumbag earning less than 3E/h but the sob and mof that want to loot... you will see for the final round. they even put some factory in spain... edit: btw it's them + the French that oppose the arrival of CHINESE CARS... certainly who else... ACT OF WAR. So just to clarify, "giant auto factory" is your proof of what now? When I see a large auto factory that is producing cars, I assume it's for producing the cars it's producing. It sounds like you are trying to tell me the only reason Germans build cars is so they can actually build tanks, which they're not actually doing. it's called latent potential. never played a rts? bent on creating the 4th reich and of course for their elite to fuck everything that is at the eastern border,,, remember they aren't Aryan (you will never met those germans, they aren't in the street of de). Right, just wanted to make sure that building cars was not the primary motivation for having car factories, but actually having a secret arms capability to create the 4th Reich. Glad we got that out in the open. |
|
|
|
The problem is this idea that we can "defeat" them. Why should we believe we would win a fight against DASCH? My entire life I have watched America get it's ass kicked by guys in pajamas. Did we defeat Al-Qaeda? No. The jihadists have become stronger than ever. I wish it were as simple as who has the best army.
God damn, so does America. That's the theory behind spending $600 billion a year on "defense" right? The best army can't be beaten, just quagmired until the public loses the will to support the war and demands withdrawal. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq all ended this way. No victories, just a shift in war objectives over time to make the withdrawal look like it was our idea. |
|
|
|
Good news folks, we don't have to worry about Police Brutality because the media is totally blowing it out of proportion, as this video put together by police brutality apologists will explain: https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=648612035243612(Video is only on Facebook, but it's public so you can view it without being logged in. It is not available on Youtube.) In short, the video explains that police come in contact with millions of people every year, but only brutalize them a couple thousand times. Then it explains that of police brutality complaints, most of them are bogus because they don't lead to any charges against the officer. Things the video doesn't explain: They only consider "credible" cases of police brutality to be cases that lead to charges against the police. They do not mention that the police investigate charges of police brutality against themselves and the Thin Blue Line wraps itself around defenseless officers to protect them from the oppressive calls for accountability from the evil public. Excuse the logic fail too: the video's conclusion is that there are only a couple thousand "credible" cases of police brutality, but implies this is acceptable because of all the contact police have with the public! Sorry people they accidentally killed or beat to paralysis, your pain is justifiable because there was so much more brutality officers could have inflicted on the public, but didn't. Then the video explains that there are only a couple thousand cases of "credible" police brutality, but hundreds of thousands of rapes and murders every year. So again, I guess since it could be so much worse, we should stop worrying about the peace officer who isn't peaceful, cuz at least he didn't rape you, amiright? So in conclusion, stop worrying about police brutality you bunch of silly willies, it's not nearly as bad as it could be! Sincerely, The Police. |
|
|
|
Germany is doing it right. Why would you devote unnecessary money to the wasteful arms industry when the threat of war is so small and the US spends more than enough to defend all NATO allies anyway?
what a fucking joke!!! why do you think those evil german have done everything to have giant auto factory? you know the word retrofitting? anyway it ain't the german scumbag earning less than 3E/h but the sob and mof that want to loot... you will see for the final round. they even put some factory in spain... edit: btw it's them + the French that oppose the arrival of CHINESE CARS... certainly who else... ACT OF WAR. So just to clarify, "giant auto factory" is your proof of what now? When I see a large auto factory that is producing cars, I assume it's for producing the cars it's producing. It sounds like you are trying to tell me the only reason Germans build cars is so they can actually build tanks, which they're not actually doing. |
|
|
|
to look East, as always... And when you will start to engage them, there you will have backing, from the REAL MAINLAND. there is no other path against the "west"... lol. Warmongers, destroyers of the food supply, annihilators of cultures, supporter and defenders of the ctrl+p team. And if you don't you will get wiped out, because how could THE REAL MAINLAND WHERE THE SUN EARTH AND STARS INTERESECT allowed the US to start their pivot to encircle and dominate the Land of the Free... Be aware Amerikis, everyone is NATIVE, fully, the Path can attest, there... not like you and your eyes . Serious question: drunk, high or trolling? I remember Dank used to write gibberish like this. Whoa, this may be unintelligible nonsense, but nothing will ever get as crazy as Dank, who believed he could float and defeat the physical constraints of the Universe. Although, oddly, he still needed handouts. Go figure. |
|
|
|
|
No one is forcing injections. You're free to not get vaccinated in CA still.
|
|
|
|
It looks like a real-life mech warrior. Only a million bucks? My US Prime membership feels inadequate now. |
|
|
|
|
No countries have recognized Sealand and the UK claims the platform as part of it's territory. To the extent that it operates as a self-declared nation is owed to the fact that the UK doesn't care enough to stop them from doing it, but it's because no one takes them seariously anyway. Sealand claims that the UK granted it de facto recognition when a diplomat visited there in the 70's to try to resolve a hostage situation. It's twisted logic. I believe Pirate Bay tried to purchase it at some point.
|
|
|
|
|
Germany is doing it right. Why would you devote unnecessary money to the wasteful arms industry when the threat of war is so small and the US spends more than enough to defend all NATO allies anyway?
|
|
|
|
Judge (Andrew) Napolitano: Executive Amnesty Dealt a Major Blow"This is devastating for the administration,” Napolitano said. “This is a preliminary injunction which means the court viewed the court’s documents and challenger’s documents…and he made two conclusions. 1) At the end of the case, the challengers will probably prevail, meaning the president probably overstepped his bounds and he has ordered the Department of Homeland Security to create new law.
I like Napolitano a lot, but I don't see his analysis of the first conclusion as having much merit. The first judge made a conclusion, not based on how future appeals courts will rule, but on how the first judge saw the law. The judge wasn't ruling that an appeals court will probably rule that Obama overstepped his bounds; he ruled that Obama DID overstep his bounds, and now an appeal court will take that up wholesale. That doesn't translate to me to mean an appeals court is either likely or unlikely to agree. I find it just as likely an appeals court overturns the earlier decision as upholds it, especially in high profile cases. Power tends to side with power, so I'd be more surprised if the appeals court upheld the injunction rather than overturned it. |
|
|
|
Two-thirds of Americans want the U.S. to put some boots on the ground to fight the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, and a majority wants Congress to authorize President Obama’s plan for military action, according to a new NBC News/Maris poll released Friday.
A majority of Americans polled, 54 percent, said their member of Congress should vote to authorize U.S. military action against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), while 32 percent are opposed to it.
Positions on ground troops break down to 40 percent who support a “limited number” of troops on the ground, mostly in line with the president’s authorization. Twenty-six percent want the military to deploy a “large number of U.S. ground forces.”
The authorization request, released Tuesday, allows the president to fight ISIS for three years without geographic limitation but prohibits “enduring offensive ground combat operations.” Congressional resistance to the plan continues to grow on both sides of the aisle and many lawmakers have said they are unsure it will pass as is.
There’s a stark partisan split over the ground troop debate. Thirty-eight percent of Republicans support deploying a “large amount” of boots on the ground, while just 16 percent of Democrats back that strategy. That largely mirrors the debate in Congress: Republicans have panned the strategy for being too restrictive, while Democrats are worried the vague language could give the president too much power.
The American public also shows a partisan split over their confidence in Obama’s plan. In general, the public is about equally split — 48 percent of those polled don’t have much faith in the plan, while 45 percent do. But underneath the surface, that equilibrium comes from 82 percent of Republicans having minimal faith in Obama’s plan, compared to 71 percent of Democrats who trust the president. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/232759-poll-americans-want-congress-to-pass-aumfThe media has outdone themselves yet again in pounding the war drums. Not sure where the money is going to come from, tho. I'm not surprised by this. The media constantly covers mass executions, the brutal tactics, the threats against America, and the logical reaction is people say someone has to stop them. The next logical step is "we" have to stop them. The theory that if we don't stop them now they'll be more able to attack America follows logically, but it also smacks of the Domino Theory during the Cold War: 'if we don't stop communism in Vietnam, it'll spread all over Asia, then Europe, then America.' That theory also made sense and rallied the war hawks, but no one can make a credible argument for it anymore because what we know in hindsight trumps what we thought we knew in the emotional hype of that time. As for how we're going to pay for it, how do we pay for anything? Debt! It's not like we're suddenly going to start concerning ourselves with debt spending. That would be crazy. |
|
|
|
Video report available: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fair-dui-flyers-help-pass-through-drunk-driving-checkpoints/Moral of the story is in all situations, say as little to cops as possible. They're never on your side. Can a legal loophole get you through DUI checkpoints?
A Florida lawyer is offering what he considers a foolproof way to get through DUI checkpoints: don't say a word to police. He's distributing what he calls the Fair DUI Flyer, and his video tutorial on YouTube has been viewed more than 2 million times.
Advocacy groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), however, fear it could allow impaired drivers to bypass the law, reports CBS News correspondent Jan Crawford.
Last New Year's Eve, police waved one driver through a DUI checkpoint in Florida without even asking him to roll down his window. Warren Redlich, the man behind the wheel, believes he has found a legal loophole to dodge sobriety checks.
"What the checkpoints require is that you stop, and typically that you show the police your driver's license. You're doing that," Redlich said. "What you're not doing is going beyond what is required in a checkpoint."
Redlich said he was tired of defending people who were wrongfully arrested after going through checkpoints.
"There are genuinely drunk drivers that need to be taken off the road, but unfortunately the way the system works, a lot of innocent people get caught up in it and the idea of this is to help people protect themselves by not rolling down their window and asserting their rights," he said.
Redlich tailored his DUI flyers to the laws of 12 states so far, and now others around the country are using them and posting their videos online.
"I think you always have people trying to beat the system and push the envelope," former federal prosecutor David Weinstein said.
He said even though the flyers might hold up in court, he doesn't recommend people challenge the police at checkpoint.
"When you sign your driver's license, you're consenting to law enforcement the ability to give you both roadside tests and require you to blow in a breathalyzer, at least in the state of Florida," Weinstein said.
In 1990, the Supreme Court ruled DUI checkpoints were legal. Today, police in 38 states use them to deter drunk drivers. Studies have found that they consistently reduce alcohol related crashes by about 9 percent.
"Sobriety checkpoints and law enforcement are the key thing in stopping drunk driving," MADD president Colleen Sheehey-Church said.
Her son Dustin was killed in a drunk driving accident 10 years ago.
"Sobriety checkpoints are advertised so people know where they are," Sheehey-Church said. "They are not there necessarily there to make arrests. They're there to deter people from driving drunk."
MADD and law enforcement agencies worry that an intoxicated driver could use the flyers to avoid getting caught, but Redlich thinks that's not likely.
"Drunk people are not good at following instructions, they're not good at remaining silent, and they're not good at being patient," he said. "And all those things are required to make this work. So if you're drunk, you're probably not going to pull it off."
Redlich told us he hopes that someone challenges the use of flyers and that it goes to court, paving the way for the Supreme Court to one day re-examine its ruling on sobriety checkpoints.
|
|
|
|
....The mother meets these requirements, so Cruz is a "citizen at birth." I find it likely a court would equate "citizen at birth" with "natural born," but until it's codified in law, it's just speculation.
Interesting to note, until 1978, there was also a residency requirement that foreign-born citizens at birth had to meet within a specified time in order to keep their citizenship. This requirement was scrapped by a new law in 1978, but anyone who did not meet the residency requirement before it passed was not restored their citizenship. This isn't applicable to Cruz, just an aside of how citizenship at birth could be granted and still lost.
Sounds about right....OKAY, GO BACK TO anti-Cruz polemic, I'm sure we're going to hear a lot of it, but that darn "non citizen" thing, that dog ain't gonna hunt. I'm not saying non-citizen. My initial post on that matter was one of confusion as I did not have enough understanding of the circumstances of the situation. I feel I have a better understanding now. I accept he's a citizen, a citizen at birth, and very likely a natural born citizen, leaving open only the possibility that a court might decide otherwise. I'm no fan of Cruz, but I wouldn't support any legal challenge to the legitimacy of his presidential candidacy knowing what I know now. Let's just put it this way: His claim to US eligibility to run for POTUS makes a laughing stock of Elizabeth Warren's claim to be a member of an ancient Indian nation. I'm unfamiliar with her claim. Is it something outlandish, or are there good reasons to question it? |
|
|
|
I call them Kiev-Nazis, because that's who came to power in Kiev through a violent coup d'etat. It's a case of calling a spade for a spade.
Ethnic cleansing... How else would you like me to call killing off of the population of Donbass that is based on the language and nationality attribution? The case that a term is loaded does not deprive it of its describing accuracy. But if you prefer: "premeditated killing of Russian population of Dobass".
13 humanitarian aid convoys are well-documented. The rest of the supposed "Russian actions" are pure speculation, devoid of any evidence. Should such evidence exist even remotely, it would be on the front pages of all the Western papers...
I call for Western propaganda only the baseless, factless accusations coming from Western MSM, who parrot the lies, coming from Kiev and don't bother sending their own reporters to Donbass to see what is going on there for themselves. There are Western reporters who don't toe the line, but they are not given air time in MSM. Wonder why...
Believe me (or don't - it's your choice), I lived in the Soviet Union and was on the receiving end of propaganda. I know how it looks and smells like, and just like many other clear-thinking Soviet people, learnt how to look past it, to filter it out. It's sad to see the same tricks being adopted by the free West.
Now, why don't you come up with your own counter-arguments and facts, refuting my points, instead of just saying that it's "propaganda, move along".
EDIT: If you really want a bit of propaganda, let me try writing the following example:
"Obama, Kerry and Stoltenberg are die-hard commies, supporting the tyranny of the Soviet Union legacy. How else can you explain them fighting tooth and claw for the territorial legacy of the Great October Socialist Revolution of 1917 (the first "colour" revolution - red), where Lenin took out chunks of Russia - Malorossia and Novorossia - and turned them into Ukraine, while Stalin took other bits of Russia - South Ossetia and Abhasia - and gave them to his own Georgia. Both acts in violation of all feasible laws."
Well, how about it? Only the first part of the above turned out to sound like propaganda, while I slipped back into truth in the second part. Sorry. Writing real propaganda is hard.
You haven't stated many things that will pass as facts. Facts are objective. "Kiev-nazis" is not objective. "Ethnic cleansing" is not objective, it's a propaganda phrase both sides use in every almost every conflict to rally outrage. Your posts are heavily subjective (asserting as facts things that aren't), and pointing that out is enough to discredit them. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
