Debt Rattle January 16 2022
- This topic has 92 replies, 30 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I’ve got a thought experiment for ya (presuming that you still can).
The vaccinators finally jab that final needle into the last arm. Done ! 100% of humankind is fully vaxxed.
Then what?
The vaccinators finally jab that final needle into the last arm. Done ! 100% of humankind is fully vaxxed.
Then what?
Then what? You people just find something else that makes you fall onto your fainting couches.
The people still engaging with disruptive commenters at this point have equal responsibility for degrading the dialogue. What the hell are you trying to prove at this point. Fucking stop already.
@Maxwell Quest: … God help us if Russia backs down.
I don’t believe back down is an option for Russia. If one has been paying a close attention to the most recent batch of messages from Russia, … Russia will not back down! Latest message from Russian FM Lavrov reinforces that further. Here is a translation of just one question asked Lavrov the other day by the media:
Question: You have already spoken about the outcome of the talks concerning Russian proposals on security guarantees in Brussels and Geneva. We are now waiting for formal answers, from the United States next week, and from NATO, within a week. At the same time, we can see that our partners are critical and sometimes overtly negative about the provisions that are important to us. What actions will Russia take if the US and NATO reject the proposals?
Sergey Lavrov: We are waiting for a written response. We have reason to believe that our partners have realised the need to do this quickly, with specificity, and in writing. We won’t wait forever. There are plans to drag out this process. Frankly, everyone knows that reaching an agreement depends on the United States. Whatever they are telling us about the need to consult with their allies and involve all OSCE members in the talks, those are excuses and attempts to drag out the process.
When Russia and NATO were establishing relations, when they signed the Founding Act and reached a decision to establish the Russia-NATO Council – Moscow and the North Atlantic Alliance reached some political agreements in the process, which had to do with how we would behave in terms of the configuration of armed forces and weapons going forward – no one had to be consulted. It never occurred to anyone. Neither with the OSCE, nor with the European Union, which now gets bitter whenever it feels left out (as conveyed by Josep Borrell). This is a whole new topic for discussion.
We want to see their position on paper, to get a specific comment on each of our points in both documents – which of them are acceptable, which aren’t and why. If something needs to be added, they could formulate amendments.
You have mentioned something that tops the headlines across the media – the Western reaction has consisted primarily of a categorical rejection of ending NATO’s open door policy. But Russia is not bound by any agreements within NATO. We, the Americans, Europeans, NATO members, and neutral states, are firmly bound by agreements and political commitments within the OSCE framework. In this context, OSCE provides us with a legal framework solely because in the 1990s, an agreement was reached to the effect that undermining indivisible European security and strengthening one’s own security at the expense of others is unacceptable. Those documents (in particular, the Charter for European Security signed at the highest level in 1999 in Istanbul) contain three components. Everyone shared them and signed off on them.
The first of them, which the West loves talking about now, is the right to freely choose how to ensure one’s own security, including treaties of alliance. After all, these documents say that each state has the right to be neutral. This should not be forgotten, either. Then follows a paragraph that is an inalienable part of this compromise, notably, the agreement binding each state to respect the rights of other countries and not to bolster its own security at the expense of the security of others. There is a special stipulation that no single state, group of countries or organisation can be primarily responsible for the maintenance of peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic region and cannot view any part of it as a sphere of its influence.
Pocketing the first part of this inseparable package (the right of each state to choose alliances), our US and NATO colleagues then try to cross out all the rest, without which the first part is invalid. We are not bound by this norm (respect for the right to choose alliances) if it is applied in flagrant violation of the other parts of this inseparable package. We have explained this in sufficient detail. Now we are awaiting responses in writing, after which this issue will move to the fore if it becomes clear that it makes sense to resume the talks.
We will insist that our partners clarify how they view their commitments, especially those adopted at top level. If our proposals are rejected, we will evaluate the situation and report to President of Russia Vladimir Putin. He said at the annual news conference that we will make decisions with due account of all factors, primarily in the interests of reliably ensuring our security. I am not going to engage in any of the guesswork that our partners attempt. I consider it counterproductive. It is important for us to receive a detailed response or counterproposals on the issues raised in our documents. These issues are key to preventing negative developments in our common region – in Europe. The response of our colleagues will show us how serious they are.
The chief US negotiator in Geneva, Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, said in an interview that it was more about evaluating positions rather than talks. This is telling. We arrived at these talks with the positions that we formulated in writing a month before the meeting in Geneva. During this month, the Americans failed to study our proposals in order to arrive at a specific position. They limited themselves to questions and verbal explanations. We are past that stage.
… rest is in following vid:
Best,
F.S.
Cancel culture:
The people still engaging with disruptive commenters at this point have equal responsibility for degrading the dialogue. What the hell are you trying to prove at this point. Fucking stop already.
Fucking whiner.
@absolute galore
You wrote, ” The people still engaging with disruptive commenters at this point have equal responsibility for degrading the dialogue. What the hell are you trying to prove at this point. Fucking stop already.”
You want to take away one of the few remaining free entertainments in my life? Besides, poking fun at deflacionista is not devoid of purpose. How else would his (her, its, whatever) true nature be so transparently revealed?
Had we instead applied the common remedy (“don’t feed the trolls”) there might stilll be enough doubt or reservation that the trolling could occasionally achieve its intended effect. That certainly isn’t the case now.
Nevertheless ( and at great personal sacrifice ) I will refrain as per your request . . . for a while . . . and see how it goes.
If I could do an audio format, I would probably enjoy reading back Deflationista’s comments in my “annoying old bat” voice.
Union Pacific Official Blames L.A.’s Far-Left Policies For Massive Train Thefts, Considers Leaving L.A.
“Since December 2020, UP has experienced an over 160% increase in criminal rail theft in Los Angeles County. In several months during that period, the increase from the previous year surpassed 200%. In October 2021 alone, the increase was 356% over compared to October 2020. Not only do these dramatic increases represent retail product thefts – they include increased assaults and armed robberies of UP employees performing their duties moving trains.”
Over the last three months, “over 90 containers [are] compromised per day.”
“This increased criminal activity over the past twelve months accounts for approximately $5 million in claims, losses and damages to UP. And that value does not include respective losses to our impacted customers.”Guerrero then slammed the city’s far-left politics, saying that they are enabling the criminals who he says brag about being let off easy for their crimes.
Dimitri:
Not sure if you saw “my parents said know”s response to your blood transfusion problem. She said for you to pre-donate your own blood a head of time. That seems like the perfect solution to your dilemma!
“The people still engaging with disruptive commenters at this point have equal responsibility for degrading the dialogue. What the hell are you trying to prove at this point. Fucking stop already.”
The bot version of delationista is only capable of cutting and pasting tweets and adding insults. No surprise there — the bot is designed to be divisive and to provoke a response. That’s part of its programming. That’s why there is no humility, no conceding a point, no empathy, and no appreciation for nuance — that’s not part of its programming. I sometimes respond, briefly, but without any expectation of honest engagement. Why do I do it? Some of these things should not go unanswered.
noirette: “Canadian all-cause mortality – basically there wasn’t any”
well, there are excess deaths now:
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/211206/dq211206a-eng.htm
posted by those darned kids.
Yes, it seems so. I wasn’t agreeing +++ with that analyst, but whatever. One has to look at the dates and so many details .. it becomes well-nigh impossible to actually form a ‘clear’ picture…and that is done on purpose by Gvmts / Corps / PTB who reserve the right to sway and manipulate ppl with all kinds of scare numbers.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.