patrick.net

zzyzzx says

Do you have an example of this happening? Russians are thieves who just want to steal it.

Louisiana purchase comes to mind. There are others in our history where we did not kill people to get a tiny or big swath of land.

This is a classic machismo war that was totally unnecessary. Also, if you build a military you need to use it sometimes. That's really all this is. This could have been handled diplomatically before the first bullet or rocket was fired. It's a proxy war. Didn't need to happen.

WookieMan says

This is a classic machismo war that was totally unnecessary. Also, if you build a military you need to use it sometimes.

I think the problem with the United States is that when all you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The US doesn't have any competent diplomats, because it spends a trillion dollars a year on the military. The military is our hammer.

In the 1950's if some nation wanted something the US wanted, diplomacy was used, we'd scratch their back, they would scratch ours - mutual benefit, UNTIL the fucking CIA realized they could just overthrow the government, bribe or blackmail the assholes they installed, and get the same thing. We had a brief period of time of greatness, but perhaps may have been the greatest greatness of any nation ever.

I want us to be competitive, and fair, but extremely competitive.

Mutual benefit, OBVIOUSLY, benefits us all. Don't crush your partner, and your partner won't likely try to crush you. Cooperation is better than elimination. It's just game theory, and we understand game theory, but we don't practice it.

WookieMan says

Also, if you build a military you need to use it sometimes.

Sweden and Switzerland. They never need to use their militaries, even during WWII when all nations around them were at war. The US should copy that practice.

richwicks says

Whatever.

You did not provide any links which you constantly demand from others, and you have been very wrong about that part of world way too many times. Hence, one can not take your statements about E. Europe seriously.

richwicks says

She's the most popular "news" reporter in the United States.

False as well.

https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/here-are-the-top-rated-cable-news-shows-for-may-22/508248/

Tucker Carlson Tonight remains the top cable news show among adults 25-54. In May, the program averaged 522,000 viewers from the demo and 3.23 million total viewers at 8 p.m., the latter of which is No. 2 in cable news.

The Rachel Maddow Show (known as MSNBC Prime Tuesdays-Fridays) was MSNBC’s most-watched show for May (1.95 million viewers at 9 p.m.), No. 8 overall.

Senator Seward bought Alaska from the Russians.
They called it “Seward’s Folly.” With this deal the USA bought Alaska (more than 3 times the size of texas) from Russia for the small sum of $7million.

Don’t tell me land can’t be sold between countries. It’s always just a matter of the currency being gold or blood.

Bd6r says

You did not provide any links which you constantly demand from others

Yes I did, I provided this:


original link


Our "news media" is complete propaganda, childish propaganda at that. Why do you trust anything from our "authorities"? They are jokes.

Bd6r says

Tucker Carlson Tonight remains the top cable news show among adults 25-54. In May, the program averaged 522,000 viewers from the demo and 3.23 million total viewers at 8 p.m., the latter of which is No. 2 in cable news.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2021/03/30/rachel-maddow-has-most-watched-show-in-first-quarter-cable-news-ratings/?sh=d97457750543

I just don't care about who is the most listened to propagandist. Let's see Tucker Carlson talk openly about the Ukraine conflict. It's called the "propaganda box" for a reason.

If you're on television it's for propaganda purposes, whether you realize it or not.

richwicks says

Yes I did, I provided this:

Maddow is not a credible source as you mention in your rant above, so link with her talking nonsense does not count. Do better, find an original article/news report. Or you can't?

Bd6r says

richwicks says

Yes I did, I provided this:

Maddow is not a credible source as you mention in your rant above

There is nobody allowed on television that isn't a propaganda vector at this point.

It's the propaganda box.

richwicks says

https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2021/03/30/rachel-maddow-has-most-watched-show-in-first-quarter-cable-news-ratings/?sh=d97457750543

Yes, lets start bringing up most watched news shows of 1954.

richwicks says

There is nobody allowed on television that isn't a propaganda vector at this point.

It's the propaganda box.

Hence, your link is meaningless in supporting your claim.

Bd6r says

Yes, lets start bringing up most watched news shows of 1954.

That would be interesting. I doubt you can provide it, but it would be fascinating if you could.

richwicks says

That would be interesting. I doubt you can provide it, but it would be fascinating if you could.

I tried to find it and could not.

Bd6r says

richwicks says

There is nobody allowed on television that isn't a propaganda vector at this point.

It's the propaganda box.

Hence, your link is meaningless in supporting your claim.

I'm just pointing out that anything you point to on television is not to believed.

Philo Farnsworth invented the television. He thought his invention would bring education and art to the entire world, but he is reported to have said to his child, when he refused to allow it in his home:

There's nothing on it worthwhile, and we're not going to watch it in this household, and I don't want it in your intellectual diet.

I really have respect for that genius. He was really brilliant.

I expect that Farnsworth would have been disappointed with the Internet, but not entirely. It's just a slow fight, but over time, the right side will win, but it's a very slow fight. It's a real struggle for knowledge.

I didn't predict or expect government propagandists, after all, I live in the United States. I never expected them to be allowed into portals, publishers, like Google, or Facebook. How naive I was. They are a disease of disinformation, they prevent resolution and common goals. They are a cancer.

Provided we can communicate, I think we can find resolution. Government won't allow that. I should have known.


original link

I'm always kind of surprised I'm not cynical enough and that video is over 40 years old. How can I be so naive at this age?