Flying

One of the things on your list is not like the others. One of the things on the list is done because of a serious disorder. The rest are common crimes that anyone is susceptible of doing. In war zones, normal people have murdered. Normal ppl have robbed. But no normal person ever molested a kid because they were in a war zone

equate preference with action. They pursue titles but not skill. I think that when such a person hears the word "pedophilia" they immediately think it implies having molested a child, much in the same way they hear the word "mother" and assume some mothering was done. I don't think it's a cop out exactly to call one disorder evil over the other. Children fall under a different moral category than adults, they're not responsible for their actions in the same manner an adult is. The responsibility of making the choice to have sex falls equally between two people of the same moral category, i.e. two adult gays having sex. In contrast to this, because a child cannot be fully responsible for their actions the responsibility for sex between an adult and child falls fully on the adult. Thus the adult makes the choice for the child. This is not evil in itself but if you consider the choice is just made for the adult's gratification then the child is objectified as just being a means to an end and not the end itself. We can safely say that molestation is never in the best interest of the child. Pedophiles are the most likely people in the world to molest children, why wouldn't a society ostracize them? It's triage. If we don't want to get sick we have to identify the sick and avoid them as much as possible. When someone has an illness that is permanent and it affects the spreading of your genes negatively, the repulsion we feel towards pedophiles is understandable. People only started accepting homosexuality when they learned it's not contagious and it does not affect them in a negative fashion. Psychopathy might also be an inherent disease and people are just born that way. Should we accept psychopathy in the same way we accept homosexuality? The main reason why gays have (maybe rightly) been afforded pretty much the same rights and heterosexuals is because it has been accepted that they are born that way. So a precedent is set. The precedent is that you cannot discriminate against someone who cant help it because they were born a certain way. Or do you think it is a different reason why gays are more accepted these days ?

First off I don't think that there is tons of child molesters that aren't pedophiles. Is child molestation not an act of pedophilia ? I understand that you are making the distinction between pedophiles that act on it compared to the ones that don't. But just because they didn't act on it does not make them normal. Just as a homosexual isn't a heterosexual until he commits a homosexual act. I should not have said media. What I mean is, societies generally accepted perception of something. Societies generally accepted perception of pedophilia is that it is criminal or evil behavior. Just as the religious class thinks that of homosexuals. But now society says that homosexuality is normal and gays are born that way. But are pedophiles not born that way too ? Double standard no ? As I can see it, is that both homosexuals and pedophiles are not normal. They are both disorders. But society says that gays are perfectly normal and pedophiles are just criminals. Thats a cop out. The PC class treats pedophiles like ISIS treats gays. When they are both born that way. I just think the playing field should be leveled off a bit. A bit less praise for homosexuals and some understanding toward pedophiles. If the PC class didn't treat pedophiles like this, maybe there would be less stigma and these men would seek ways to deal with their disorder properly. But imagine some pedophile therapy place opened up. I bet it would get vandalized.

Is it true that circumcision is popular in religions because it makes masturbation less enjoyable ?

Porn hoes do it for money. Just like you probably do something that isn't ideal for money. Not saying i disagree. But when you go to Wall Mart and get a deal on something and some 60 year old man is helping you find what you need at isle 3 for minimum wage, are you not taking advantage of this persons poor decisions in life ? Maybe if it was a huge thing in your life. I use it once and awhile when needed. If my wife is on the rag or working late, its not practical to have sex. So I just use porn in those cases. I see no reason to cut it out of my life. I find the opposite effect. The less I get my rocks off, the harder I find it to consentrate on more useful thing, Especially when I was single. And I hated feeling that surge of hormones just from seeing some wide hipped or big chested woman walk by. If I get my rocks off enough, I can walk by that woman without being distracted.

Rape is whatever the woman wants it to be these days. Another day... another high profile man getting charged with rape. And getting acquitted after the woman lost track of her lies. Rinse repeat Why Patrick Kane rape case investigation may take months ...www.si.com/nhl/2015/08/21/patrick-kane-rape-case-investigation Aug 21, 2015 - It's possible that Chicago Blackhawks star Patrick Kane could play the 2015–16 season under the cloud of a rape allegation. Patrick Kane -- 'Stolen' Rape Kit Was an 'Elaborate Hoax ...www.tmz.com/.../patrick-kane-rape-case-news-conference-district-attorn... Sep 25, 2015 - The D.A. for the Patrick Kane rape investigation says the alleged victim's lawyer was flat out lying and creating a "circus" when he claimed the rape kit was stolen from police custody. ... Well, D.A. Frank Sedita III is now unloading on the attorney ... who said the rape kit was in a ... No Charges For Patrick Kane After Rape Investigationwww.huffingtonpost.com/.../no-charges-patrick-kane-rape-investigation... 4 days ago - BUFFALO, N.Y. -- Prosecutors announced Thursday that they will not bring rape charges against Chicago Blackhawks star Patrick Kane, citing ...

What I mean by common crime is this. Bank robbery for example. We could theoretically say that we are all susceptible to committing bank robbery in some way. Maybe we were in some country with an oppressive regime committing genocide and all we had to do to get ourselves out is rob a bank. Bank robbery is an evil act because you are holding people hostage at gunpoint and stealing. Now think about when you see some reporting on the news that "some evil bastard" raped or molested a kid. Or you see some protest about some "evil criminal" pedophile getting let out of prison. By classifying this behavior as a crime or as an act of evil (like bank robbery) it implies that we are all susceptible to the behavior. When obviously we are not. Pedophilia is obviously a mental disorder. But who would know it the way it is reported in the media ? Could it be that this might get too messy for politically correct movement and its relation to gays ? If gays were born that way, are pedo's not born that way too ? Or are pedo's just criminals ? Normal men but just evil ? Its ridiculous.

And you have to take in to account people like me. Who drink excessively when they see how much taxes they pay. I use drugs to help sedate myself to the insanity of this socialist hell hole I live in. We have the middle east as an example.

Mrcapitalism is suggesting a govt may have done it. I am suggesting that if a govt did it, it was the Ukraine govt. Not the Russian govt. Not a chance in hell. The US seems to have a lot of satellite footage of Syria and what Russia is doing there. But none of Ukraine. Probably because Russia has no troops in Ukraine and is not even helping the pro Russian rebels. Just look at what the Bill Kristol of US politics had to say: Aleksandr Gelyevich Dugin (Russian: Алекса́ндр Ге́льевич Ду́гин; born 7 January 1962) is a Russian political scientist known for his fascist views. He has close ties with the Kremlin and the Russian military. Dugin stated he was disappointed in Russian President Vladimir Putin, saying that Putin did not aid the pro-Russian insurgents in Ukraine after the Ukrainian Army's early July 2014 offensive.[36] This gets swept under the conspiracy rug so quickly but Putins plane flew across that area on the same day. You would not entertain the idea that some rogue Right Sector leaning Ukraine army elements weren't trying to assassinate Putin ? Why is this so far fetched ? Malaysian Airlines MH17 plane was travelling almost the same route as Russia’s President Vladimir Putin’s jet shortly before the crash that killed 298, Interfax news agency reports citing sources. LIVE UPDATES:Malaysia Airlines MH17 plane crash in Ukraine “I can say that Putin’s plane and the Malaysian Boeing intersected at the same point and the same echelon. That was close to Warsaw on 330-m echelon at the height of 10,100 meters. The presidential jet was there at 16:21 Moscow time and the Malaysian aircraft - 15:44 Moscow time,” a source told the news agency on condition of anonymity.

Yep. The sad part is, its only the Right Sector that has a drive to fight. Not the US puppet govt in Kiev. The next violence in Ukraine will probably be RS vs the current govt. This is similar to why the govt in Iraq's military had no fight. The ppl in the army were there for a paycheck. This interview is worth a watch. The title is not objective but the content is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KHCNk9BYy4

The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin By John J. Mearsheimer According to the prevailing wisdom in the West, the Ukraine crisis can be blamed almost entirely on Russian aggression. Russian President Vladimir Putin, the argument goes, annexed Crimea out of a long-standing desire to resuscitate the Soviet empire, and he may eventually go after the rest of Ukraine, as well as other countries in eastern Europe. In this view, the ouster of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014 merely provided a pretext for Putin’s decision to order Russian forces to seize part of Ukraine. But this account is wrong: the United States and its European allies share most of the responsibility for the crisis. The taproot of the trouble is NATO enlargement, the central element of a larger strategy to move Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit and integrate it into the West. At the same time, the EU’s expansion eastward and the West’s backing of the pro-democracy movement in Ukraine -- beginning with the Orange Revolution in 2004 -- were critical elements, too. Since the mid-1990s, Russian leaders have adamantly opposed NATO enlargement, and in recent years, they have made it clear that they would not stand by while their strategically important neighbor turned into a Western bastion. For Putin, the illegal overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected and pro-Russian president -- which he rightly labeled a “coup” -- was the final straw. He responded by taking Crimea, a peninsula he feared would host a NATO naval base, and working to destabilize Ukraine until it abandoned its efforts to join the West. Putin’s pushback should have come as no surprise. After all, the West had been moving into Russia’s backyard and threatening its core strategic interests, a point Putin made emphatically and repeatedly. Elites in the United States and Europe have been blindsided by events only because they subscribe to a flawed view of international politics. They tend to believe that the logic of realism holds little relevance in the twenty-first century and that Europe can be kept whole and free on the basis of such liberal principles as the rule of law, economic interdependence, and democracy. But this grand scheme went awry in Ukraine. The crisis there shows that realpolitik remains relevant -- and states that ignore it do so at their own peril. U.S. and European leaders blundered in attempting to turn Ukraine into a Western stronghold on Russia’s border. Now that the consequences have been laid bare, it would be an even greater mistake to continue this misbegotten policy. Full article: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russia-fsu/2014-08-18/why-ukraine-crisis-west-s-fault

Just remember... The sanctions against Russia only happened after the airliner incident. The Ukraine army has lots of BUKS.

Unreal how he got life. But he was really naive the way he went about his business.

Money as most know it today is supposed to function as a medium of exchange, a unit of account and a store of value. Right now we have the hard money camp and the soft money camp. Socialists, debtors, R selected ppl like soft money and productive ppl, savers and K's like hard money. This is the age old conflict. The debtors vs the savers. The solution is not to make soft money a little harder (gold standard) or hard money a little softer. The solution is to split the functions of money. The "store of value" function has to be split from the unit of acct and medium of exchange. To make a very long story short, this is already happening. Physical gold will take its place as the store of value par excellence. And digital/paper money will retain its place as the medium of exchange par excellence. Gold is for saving. Digital money is for commerce. The Euro architects anticipated this in the 1960's. They understood the inherent flaws in the US dollar/gold standard and how it would end. This is why they have physical gold on the first line of their balance sheet on the asset side. And they mark their physical gold holdings to market every quarter at the floating market price. They float it. Now look what happens to their balance sheet when gold moves. Now imagine what will happen when we have another bond market blowup in the US like the 1980's and gold goes up 2300% ? As their cash equivalent holdings fall , their gold reserve value rises. This just shows the quarterly marked to market function. Compare this to the Fed, who has no gold but has promissory notes from the treasury for gold market at $42 an ounce ! There is a ton of anti Euro propaganda out there and the Fed scum is trying to take control of the Euro because they know its the biggest threat to them. But it is wrong to lump the Euro in with the Fed scum and its wrong to over simplify this. Stefan is not aware of the original design of the Euro and how it is made for a post Fed world either.

If it wasn't for Islam, multiculturalism could just exist with its upsides and downsides. But since Islam is an ideology that happens to be practiced as a religion by some, it cannot and will not assimilate the same way Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and Jews can. Religions don't have their own court system and banking system. Thats what differentiates Islam from the rest. The worst part is, most socialist western states are not calling Islam for what it is. Immigration should just be excluded to Muslims.

I lifted this from the FOFOA blog. FOFOA is the best out there at explaining these concepts and goes way beyond the typical Austrian. I am schooled in FOFOAs work http://fofoa.blogspot.ca/2011/11/moneyness.html Have you ever wondered what money really is? You'll notice that everyone you read has a strong opinion about what money actually is, but who's right? Is money really just one single thing and then everything else has varying levels of moneyness relative to real money? Is gold real money? Or is money whatever the government says it is? Or is it whatever the market says it is? Is silver money in any way today? Are US Treasury bonds money? Is real money just the monetary base? Or is it all the credit that refers back to that base for value? Is money supposed to be something tangible, or is it simply a common unit we use to express the relative value of things? Is money really the actual medium of exchange we use in trade? Or is it the unit of account the various media of exchange (checks, credit cards, PayPal) reference for value? Should the reference point unit itself ever be the medium of exchange? Some of the time? All of the time? Never? Is money a store of value? And if so, for how long? Is money supposed to be the fixed reference point (the benchmark) for changes in the value of everything else? Or is it simply a shared language for expressing those changes? So many questions, right? And how often have you seen these questions even asked, let alone answered? Is money something that changes over time? Or is money's true essence the same concept that first emerged thousands of years ago? And probably the most important question: Does the correct view of money produce answers that are vastly superior to the blind conjecture prescribed by all other views? Answers I wonder if it's even possible to answer all these questions in one post. It's a neat challenge in any case, isn't it? As I said at the top, everyone has a strong opinion about what money actually is. So "everyone" will probably disagree with what I write. But that doesn't mean they are right and I am wrong. I want to challenge you to use your own mind and see for yourself. Take what I say and then take what they say, compare, contrast, analyze and then decide for yourself. The prescription produced by my view is quite simple. And only you can decide if it is vastly superior to their blind conjecture. The Pure Concept of Money According to Webster's the word 'money' emerged in the English language sometime during the Medieval period in Europe, maybe around the late 1200s. Wikipedia suggests a possible etymology originating with the Greek word for 'unique' or 'unit'. The Western term for physical coins that emerged sometime around the late 1500s was 'specie' from the Latin phrase for "in kind" or "payment in kind," meaning "payment in the actual or real form." The word 'currency' came a little later from the Latin word for current or flow, and was married to the money concept in 1699 by the philosopher John Locke who described the "circulation of money" as a flow or current of monetary payments made in specie. Etymology is important, because with money or "the moneyness of things" we are talking about a vital concept that predates the word by thousands of years. And it's only by understanding the pure concept that we can see the ways the word has been bastardized by the two camps over centuries. The meaning we commonly assign to words may change over time, but that never changes the original concept underlying the emergence of the word in the first place. Case in point: Is 'money' equal to 'wealth'? Is "gathering wealth" the same as "gathering money?" In the 1950s a Seattle engineer named Howard Long was deeply distressed that his beloved King James Version of the Bible just didn't seem to connect with people when sharing the Word of God. Long felt he needed a new translation that captured the truths he loved in the language that his contemporaries spoke. It took a couple of decades, but Long's passion became the New International Version (NIV), a completely original translation from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts that was finally released in 1978. The King James Version had been translated into English and released 367 years earlier, in 1611. Here is one verse as it appears in each version: Proverbs 13:11 (KJV) Wealth gotten by vanity shall be diminished: but he that gathereth by labour shall increase. Proverbs 13:11 (NIV) Dishonest money dwindles away, but whoever gathers money little by little makes it grow. I use this only as an example of how we sometimes change words to fit our modern understanding, not as any kind of a criticism of the NIV. To be fair, there are many more verses where the NIV does not remove or replace the word 'wealth'. Here are a few other translations of the same verse, which I think will help to illustrate my point about words and concepts: Proverbs 13:11 (English Standard Version 2001) Wealth gained hastily [or by fraud] will dwindle, but whoever gathers little by little will increase it. Proverbs 13:11 (Wycliffe Bible 1395) Hasted chattel, that is, gotten hastily, shall be made less; but that which is gathered little and little with hand, shall be multiplied. Proverbs 13:11 (Young's Literal Translation 1862) Wealth from vanity becometh little, And whoso is gathering by the hand becometh great. And, just for fun: "Think now, if you are a person of "great worth" is it not better to acquire gold over years, at better prices? If you are one of "small worth", can you not follow in the footsteps of giants? I tell you, it is an easy path to follow!" --ANOTHER (THOUGHTS!) 1/10/98 The point is, your modern understanding of 'money', and the pure concept of money that emerged long before the word, may be substantially different things. I'll go even further to say that the modern understanding of money is so confused and disputed by the two opposing money camps that the only way we can hope to have a clear view of what is actually happening today is by reverting our understanding to the original concept, before it was corrupted by the two camps. So now let's go back to the etymology at the top of this section because, while it does not set the pure concept, it does reflect it from a time more proximate and a meaning less corrupted than now. And I should note that etymology is a somewhat subjective and inexact science, kind of like interpreting what you find at an archeological site. So I'm using it only as a tool that helps me share with you a concept, not as proof of the correctness of my concept. There is no proof at this time. There is only the use of your own discerning mind. If we look at the specific etymology I highlighted, we are pretty close to the pure concept which I will confirm from a couple different angles. 'Money' is a "unique unit" that we use as a kind of language for expressing the relative value of things other than money. The modern example would be "dollar". Not "a dollar," not a physical dollar, but the word "dollar" as it is used to say a can of peas costs a dollar, or my house is worth 100,000 dollars, or you owe me a hundred dollars. If you give me two grams of gold you won't owe me a hundred dollars anymore. You don't have to give me actual dollars. That's just the unit I used to express the amount of value you owed me. That's the pure concept of money. This is where it gets a little tricky and mind-bending. The actual physical dollar, that physical item we call "a dollar," is not money in and of itself. In other words, it is not intrinsically "money". It is only money because we reference it when expressing the relative value of goods, services and credit. If we stopped referring to it, it would cease to be money even though it would still be a dollar. Can you see the difference? Like I said, it's tricky. A dollar is just a thing, a tradable item. And it will continue being that same thing even if we stop referring to it when expressing relative values. It will still be a dollar, it just won't be money anymore. Therefore it is not money in and of itself. It is just a thing. Take the old German Reichsbank marks from 1923. Some of them still exist. They are still marks with lots of zeros. But they are no longer money. We can still trade them. I might trade you a few Zimbabwe notes for an original mark, but that obviously doesn't make them money. The same goes for gold. Gold is just a tradable item. We could be using seashells as money. If we were, then all the seashells available for trade would be the monetary base. That's the base to which I would be referring when I said you owed me one hundred seashells. A single seashell would be the reference point, the unique unit, but the whole of all available seashells would be the base around which money flowed. You could pay your debt to me with either an item that I desired with a value expressed as 100 seashells, or with 100 actual seashells. So if the total amount of seashells available (the monetary base) suddenly doubled making them easier for you to come by, I'd be kinda screwed. Of course I'd only be screwed if the doubling happened unexpectedly between the time I lent you the value of 100 seashells and the time you paid me back. Getting back to our etymology, the concept behind the term 'specie' meant actual units of the monetary base. In the 1500s, that was the total of all metal coins-of-the-realm available for trade. That was the monetary base of the day and the term 'specie' arose as a way to express payment in the monetary unit itself rather than payment in bulls, or hats, or anything else. But original concept aside, the meaning of the word became married to coins and stuck to this day: Specie: 1610s, "coin, money in the form of coins" (as opposed to paper money or bullion), from phrase in specie "in the real or actual form" (1550s), from L. in specie "in kind," ablative of species "kind, form, sort" Notice it says "coins… as opposed to… bullion." That's because while gold coins were referenced in the use of money at the time the word 'specie' emerged, gold bullion was not. "Gold" was not money in and of itself. It was just a thing; a tradable, barterable item. Notice also that it says "money in the form of coins." The coins themselves were also not money in and of themselves. They were only called money because, in that coin form, they were the monetary base that was referenced when expressing the relative value of everything else at that time. Some of those gold coins from the 1500s and 1600s still exist today. Today they are not money, but they are still gold coins. Can you see the difference yet? Now remember, there's no right or wrong at this point. There's only the usefulness of a perspective in delivering the correct analysis of what's actually happening today and the best prescription for your personal action. But you can't use a perspective until you get it. Then, and only then, you can use your own mind to decide if it is the correct perspective and then act upon it. Later it will be proved correct or incorrect, just as Another said: "time will prove all things." But in support of this particular view of the money concept, I'd like to direct your attention to Gold Trail Three where FOA went to great length explaining the historical precedents for this view found in the archeological record. Some of this history has been rewritten in hard money text books to fit the modern meaning of words, while the actual historical record—and FOA—tell a different story about the underlying concepts. Continued in the link...

David Stockman sized up this woman quite well recently. Clueless Carly - Crony Capitalist Warmonger With Flash Cards Carly Fiorina proved at least one thing last week. Namely, you don’t have to be a career GOP politician to come across as a war-mongering neocon and abortion-bashing statist demagogue. She took the stage fully formed as a frightul modern-day Torquemada, threatening to bring fire and brimstone down on anyone running afoul of her righteous indignation and crystal clear grasp of the Truth. That included about everyone on the world stage, save for the presumably sainted Bibi Netanyahu. As for the others, Putin was to be given the silent treatment and a stiff dose of NATO encirclement, while Iran was to be occupied by US inspectors at “every military and every nuclear facility…….. anytime, anywhere……” In trying to sound like she actually knows something about national security policy there was not a single neocon shibboleth that she didn’t name check, nor any possibility for bolstering Washington’s military might she failed to mention: Having met Vladimir Putin, I wouldn’t talk to him at all. We’ve talked way too much to him…….What I would do, immediately, is begin rebuilding the Sixth Fleet, I would begin rebuilding the missile defense program in Poland, I would conduct regular, aggressive military exercises in the Baltic states. I’d probably send a few thousand more troops into Germany. Vladimir Putin would get the message…..We could also, to Senator Rubio’s point, give the Egyptians what they’ve asked for……..We could give the Jordanians what they’ve asked for…bombs and materiel. We have not supplied it…We could arm the Kurds. Yada yada. If you thought Fiorina was actually running for CEO of the military-industrial complex, you would not necessarily be wrong. After the above riff, she was just getting warmed-up: We need the strongest military on the face of the planet, and everyone has to know it. And, specifically, what that means is we need about 50 Army brigades, we need about 36 Marine battalions, we need somewhere between 300, and 350 naval ships, we need to upgrade every leg of the nuclear triad…….we need to reform the Department of Defense, we need as well… …to invest in our military technology, and we need to care for our veterans so 307,000 …aren’t dying waiting for health care. Ok, Carly has a distinct facility for memorizing flash cards. But here’s one she missed. Contrary to her suggestion from the debate transcript below, the Russians did not just show up in Syria last week because Iranian General Suleimani recently flew to Moscow. Actually, the Russians have been in Syria since the CIA’s abortive coup attempt in 1958. That was exactly one year after the General was born and while his country was being ruled by the brutal tyrant the CIA installed on the Peacock Throne to keep watch on the Persian oilfields: By the way, the reason it is so critically important that every one of us know General Suleimani’s name is because Russia is in Syria right now, because the head of the Quds force traveled to Russia and talked Vladimir Putin into aligning themselves with Iran and Syria to prop up Bashar al- Assad……….Russia is a bad actor……. the only way (Putin) will stop is to sense strength and resolve on the other side, and we have all of that within our control……We could rebuild the Sixth Fleet. I will. We haven’t. Had enough? It’s not just that Fiorina didn’t get the memo that the Cold War ended 25 years ago, and that the massive military build-up she name checked would blow the current generous $523 billion sequester caps on Pentagon spending sky high. By my estimate, Fiorina’s senseless armada and new force deployments would cost at least $800 billion per year. But that is just plain nuts. After all, at the peak of the cold war in 1960, the great General Dwight Eisenhower not only warned the nation about the dangers of the military-industrial complex, but also affirmed that a defense budget of $400 billion in today’s (2015) dollars of purchasing power was more than enough to contain the Soviet Union. And that’s when the latter was run by an erratic dictator who said he would bury us; had taken the lead in the space race; had 4 million men under arms, upwards of 50,000 tanks and an immense nuclear arsenal at its disposal; and had not yet eviscerated its economy during the final decades of socialist plunder and asphyxiation. So why in heavens name would a quasi-bankrupt America need to spend 2X more than Ike’s budget? That is, in a world in which the Soviet empire is no more, and in which we have no industrial state enemy left on the planet, why would you propose to pour hundreds of billions more into that swampland of waste otherwise known as the Pentagon? Surely it is not because Putin’s Russia is a threat to the safety and security of Lincoln NE or Worcester MA or any other place in America. For crying out loud, the Russian GDP at $1.86 trillion last year was 25% smaller than the $2.3 trillion GDP of California. Moreover, the kleptocracy that Putin has built is every bit as disabling as the rickety façade erected by the Soviet commissars. In fact, nearly the entire Russian economy is a bloated artifact of the central bank driven global credit boom that is now coming to a screeching halt. Subtract oil and gas, minerals and metals, fertilizer and wheat, and like and similar natural resources and industrial commodities from the Russian economy, and you do not have much left. Stated differently, the Soviet Union perished not because Ronald Reagan threatened a bad joke called Star Wars or wasted countless billions on a 600-ship Navy, 10,000 new tanks and fighting vehicles, 18,000 new aircraft and helicopters and hundreds of billions more on weapons of power projection like cruise missiles and amphibious landing craft. No, the Evil Empire collapsed on its own weight; it was a victim of the very central planning and socialist statism that Fiorina claims to oppose. Yet Putin’s kleptocracy is now falling victim to just another form of statism and its deflationary aftermath. That is, monetary central planning as it has been practiced by the Fed and most of the world’s central banks for the past two decades. The fact is, the Russian ecomomy is sinking like a stone, and has no prospect for recovery in a world in which $35/bbl oil and $0.70/ lbs aluminum are here for an extended duration. Besides that, if Fiorina wants to wonk it up about alleged “aggression” she needs to review her flash cards on Russian history. The fact is, Catherine the Great paid the Ottomans good money for Crimea; and that was 65 years before Washington “annexed” California at the end of some bayonets in 1846. The Russian “black sea fleet” has been home ported in Crimea ever since at the Russian built naval base in Sevastopol—–under czars and commissars alike. It ended up in Ukraine only after Kruschev gifted it to his fellow Ukrainian apparatchiks during a drunken night of map-jiggering in the old Soviet Union. And Putin appeared to be happy to make payments on his 40-year rental agreement on Russia’s naval equivalent of San Diego until he was unexpectedly called from his box at the Sochi Olympics in February 2014. Thereupon he learned that a Washington funded coup had deposed the constitutionally elected President of the Ukraine, and that the latter had been replaced by a putsch consisting of anti-Russian, neo-fascist political adventurers, ruffians and plutocrats. There was surely some “aggression” involved in all of this, but it originated with Fiorina’s neocon tutors, not the current incumbent of the Kremlin. Indeed, the flash cards which apparently fell out of Fiorina’s briefing deck also failed to mention that Crimea has been the epicenter of Russian nationalism since the Charge Of The Light Brigade in 1854, and was 90% populated with Russian speakers who were not about to be ethnically cleansed by the upstart regime in Kiev. Likewise, another missing flash card failed to note that the Donbas was Russian, not Ukrainian, and that the history was painted in iron and blood. The Donbas was Russian after the 1930s because Stalin sent its native Ukrainians and Cossacks to the Gulag in order to make room for “reliable Russians” in the coal mines, steel mills, chemical plants and machinery works located there and which were the backbone of Soviet heavy industry. And it was temporarily Nazi controlled after Hitler’s Wehrmacht, along with the Ukrainian nationalist collaborators, brutally occupied it on the way to Stalingrad—–only to have the carnage revisted upon the west of Ukraine when the Red Army came through in hot pursuit of the retreating Germans. The inhabitants of the Donbas and Crimea thus have reasons for enmity and distrust of the Ukrainian nationalist who have seized power in Kiev—-deep historical reasons that couldn’t have been put on a simple flash card, even if Fiorina had memorized it. Indeed, the dangerous untruth of Fiorina’s bluster—–and that of the rest of the GOP candidates except for Rand Paul——is that Moscow has invaded an innocent neighbor. In fact, the Ukrainians and their Russian-speaking countrymen have resumed a civil war that has been underway for centuries, most of which time no such nation as the Ukraine even existed. It could be solved with no more risk to America’s security than the partition of the Czech Republic and Slovakia are few years back. So in proposing that American spend itself silly arming-up for threats that even Eisenhower couldn’t have imagined, who else did Fiorina have in mind? Surely, not the red capitalists of Beijing. They long ago gave up Chairman Mao’s doctrine that communist party power comes from the barrel of a gun in favor of Mr. Deng’s theory that it can be better had from the end of a printing press. Having pursued Mr. Deng’s path for 25 years now, they have succeeded in erecting the greatest Ponzi in human history. The resulting $28 trillion pyramid of debt and the vast excess of everything which it funded will collapse on itself as surely as did gray statism of the Soviet Union. In any event, the suzerains of red capitalism may have no compunction about stealing intellectual capital from Intel or constructing pointless artificial islands in the South China Sea, but they are not even remotely stupid. They know that were they to bomb America’s 4,000 Wal-Marts, China would plunge into an economic dark age, and not before the entire central committee of the CPC was hung from the rafters of the Imperial Palace Museum. So exactly who is it that is threatening to invade the Mediterranean Sea and that necessitates the “rebuilding” of the 6th Fleet? On the order of the President any day of the week, it can already be pulsed to an armada of two aircraft carriers, 40 escort ships, 175 aircraft and 21,000 people, which is to say, a mini-navy with more lethal power than any other navy in the world, except for America’s eight other carrier battle groups. What is this soap-box warrior talking about? And hasn’t the 6th fleet already done enough damage in its purportedly under-funded condition? The failed states of Libya and Iraq are among its recent accomplishments—–so what other middle eastern nations need to be bombed and tomahawked into anarchy? Surely not Syria. There is already nothing left after the regime-changing neocons in Washington and their allies in the Persian Gulf financed and armed the sundry armies of the Sunni jihad. That is, savage fanatics who promise to rid the world of Bashar al-Assad, his Alawite heresy and the sundry Christian, Druse, Kurd and Yazidi minorities, among others, that have been aligned with Syria’s secular rulers for 40 years. The point is, there is already massive 6th Fleet firepower off the coast of Syria. What is missing is any reason of American national security whatsoever to bring it to bear in a civil war between the Sunni and Alawite/Shiite confessions of Islam, which have been warring for 13 centuries. And most especially not in behalf of the grasping gluttons of Qatar, who are looking for gas pipelines across Syria, or the Wahhabi coddling tyrants of Riyadh, who behead citizens for insulting the King. Then there is always Iran. Never mind that its entire defense budget is just $14 billion or the amount that the Pentagon spends in a week, not counting Sunday. Ignore the fact that even the US intelligence agencies confirm that it has had no nuclear weapons program since abandoning a small research effort in 2003, and that its entire defense force and doctrine is strictly defensive. And forget that Iran has invaded no one in the last 100 years and has supplied fewer lethal arms to its Shiite allies in Syria and Hezbollah-Lebanon than the Pentagon left behind in Mosul and elsewhere for ISIS. No, Carly said that on day one in the White House she would tell the Aytollah and Planned Parenthood a thing or two and all in the same breath: I would like to link these two issues, both of which are incredibly important, Iran and Planned Parenthood……..One has something to do with the defense of the security of this nation. The other has something to do with the defense of the character of this nation. No they don’t—not in the slightest. In linking rank demogouery about an issue the Supreme Court settled 43 years ago, and which is a matter of personal liberty, not state edict, with a mindless trashing of the Iranian nuclear deal, which is the best chance for peace in the middle east in a generation, Fiorina proved why she was an abysmal failure in business. Namely, that she is a whiz at memorizing flash cards, but has no clue as to what they really mean. And that gets to her flimsy reason for even being in the race for the White House. Fiorina claims to be roaring business success and thereby the very CEO that America needs. C’mon. Fiorina was a bubble finance rider at both Lucent and Hewlett-Packard, and to this day has no clue about the reasons for the carnage she left behind. But in what is surely an unintended bit of irony, she explained to Jake Tapper during the debate why her business experience is exactly the last thing America’s debt and bubble besotted economy actually needs. Like the politicians she ridiculed, she didn’t know she was a fish, either. Jake, I’ll tell you — I’ll tell you why people are supporting outsiders. It’s because you know what happens if someone’s been in the system their whole life, they don’t know how broken the system is. A fish swims in water, it doesn’t know it’s water. The truth is that Fiorina was a once and failed CEO only because she rode the Lucent Bubble to undeserved fame during the blow-off phase of the massive 1990s tech bubble. Its peak market cap of $250 billion at the time of her departure for Hewlett-Packard in 1999 was not due to her business prowess as head of its major division or that ATT’s gussied up maker of prosaic equipment like switchgear had invented anything new under the sun. Lucent’s giant but fleeting market cap was entirely a product of the Greenspan Bubble and the fact that its leadership including Fiorina had no compunction about goosing its sales by lending billions to its customers, many of who were tech era start-ups rapidly burning off their VC supplied cash. In any event, Lucent’s stock crashed and eventually plummeted to less than $10 billion after it took multi-billion write-offs for its bad debts, laid off more than 50,000 employees and confessed to the SEC that it had doctored its accounting. More importantly, Fiorina had gotten out of dodge just in the nick of time. In a book about her disastrous tenure at HPQ, Rakesh Khurana, a Harvard professor who studied her Lucent years minced no words: “It’s unlikely she would have been considered for the HP job once it became clear that Lucent’s success had more to do with loose credit terms and creative accounting than any reinvention of the company as the Second Coming of Cisco”. But it was at HPQ that her immersion in the destructive financial engineering that has become endemic in the C-suite of corporate America went full frontal. Even Donald Trump called Fiorina on her phony claims about the company’s spectacular growth during her tenure—–claims which the company’s SEC filed financial results don’t remotely support. Despite those difficult times, we doubled the size of the company, we quadrupled its topline growth rate, we quadrupled its cash flow, we tripled its rate of innovation. As shown below, what the company actually doubled on Fiorina’s watch was its debt. By contrast, its net income remained dead in the water for five years: HPQ Total Long Term Debt (Quarterly) data by YCharts But the above mismatch is not the half of it. Fiorina was a C-suite huckster, constantly appearing on CNBC and elsewhere in the financial press touting HPQ’s stock based on its non-stop financial engineering and deal-making. As her most trenchant critic, Yale Professor Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, noted, It was Fiorina’s failed leadership that brought her company down. After an unsuccessful attempt to catch up to IBM’s growth in IT services by buying PricewaterhouseCooper’s consulting business (PwC, ironically, ended up going to IBM instead), she abruptly abandoned the strategic goal of expanding IT services and consulting and moved into heavy metal. At a time that devices had become a low margin commodity business, Fiorina bought for $25 billion the dying Compaq computer company, which was composed of other failed businesses. Unsurprisingly, the Compaq deal never generated the profits Fiorina hoped for, and HP’s stock price fell by half. The only stock pop under Fiorina’s reign was the 7 percent jump the moment she was fired following a unanimous board vote. After the firing, HP shuttered or sold virtually all Fiorina had bought. That’s the patented story of corporate America in the age of cheap tax-deductible debt and the serial falsified stock market bubbles generated by the Federal Reserve. Trillions of M&A deals are made at vastly inflated prices that provide Wall Street’s fast money traders with 25-50% windfall rips on takeover announcements—–market moving events which they have an “uncanny” ability to sniff out in advance. Then in a few years the advertised synergies are lost in the shuffle and the expected economies of scale become diseconomies of clashing corporate cultures, product and market incompatibility and countless other frictions and shortfalls. But never mind. Giant goodwill and asset write-offs are taken and the CEO is paid $100 million to disappear and flush his or her failed acquisition strategy down the corporate memory hole. Meanwhile, Wall Street’s sell side analysts dismiss the resulting destruction of corporate resources as non-recurring expense, and get on with their two-year forward ex-items hockey sticks that everywhere and always point steeply higher. That’s exactly what happened with Fiorina’s disastrous tenure at HPQ, including the $100 million walkaway. What’s worse she also pioneered the toxic financial engineering strategy which is rampant in corporate America today. Namely, the expedient of flushing more cash into the stock market than companies actually earn in order to goose stock option winnings in the C-suite, especially through massive stock buybacks with borrowed funds. Thus, during the approximate six years of her tenure between 1999 and 2005, HPQ earned net income of $12.6 billion, but pumped $16.4 billion back into Wall Street in the form of stock buybacks ($11.7 billion) and dividends ($4.7 billion). Needless to say, distributing 130% of net income to shareholders is a mathematically unsustainable strategy, but most especially in the investment and innovation driven world of big tech. Indeed, distributions to shareholders greatly in excess of net income are rarely a formula for long-term financial health, but in this case were especially counterproductive because Hewlett-Packard was also underfunding its fixed-asset base and sharply curtailing R&D expense relative to its acquisition bloated sales. Thus, HPQ recorded $12 billion of depreciation and amortization charges during Fiorina’s tenure, compared to just $11 billion of capital expenditure, notwithstanding that it was the largest high tech equipment manufacturer in the world and faced brutal East Asian competitors who did not usually play by capitalist rules, and spent drastically higher amounts on CapEx relative to sales. HPQ Total Depreciation and Amortization (Quarterly) data by YCharts At the same time, R&D investment dropped by one-third——from 5-6% of sales to barely 4% by the end of Fiorina’s term as CEO. HPQ fell behind its ferocious global competition and never caught up. HPQ R&D to Revenue (TTM) data by YCharts As it happened, the Board eventually got rid of Fiorina, but not the financial engineering strategies by which she launched one of America’s storied tech companies on the road to Wall Street driven ruin. In fact, HPQ became a serial M&A and stock buyback machine that rewarded executive with periodic options winnings and fast money traders with endless opportunities to front-run stock buyback and deal announcements. To that end, HPQ spent $76 billion on stock buybacks and dividends during 2005 through the most recent quarter of 2015, but that amounted to nearly 160% of what it earned. Not surprisingly, rising debt and under-investment in its operating business made up the shortfall. In all, America’s once premier technology engineering company was ruined by corporate fish swimming in a bubble they did not even recognize, which enabled financial engineering strategies that defy logic and common sense. During the entirety of the period 1999 to 2015, HPQ spent $93 billion on stock buybacks and dividends, but only earned a cumulative $61 billion in net income. At least it can be said that Fiorina comes from a corporate deficit finance school that is well suited for Washington duty. Likewise, during those same 16 years HPQ spent upwards of $70 billion on M&A deals including the allegedly giant transformative deals in the form of Compaq, Electronic Data Systems and a British company called Autonomy. The abysmal failure of Hewlett-Packard’s serial M&A deals became starkly evident, however, when it was recently forced to write-off nearly $20 billion of goodwill and assets for just the last two of these acquisitions. What was also evident is that in massively overpaying for bad deals, the company had wrecked its balance sheet. During the last decade long spree of financial engineering, Hewlett Packard has spent nearly $120 billion on shareholder distributions and M&A deals, but has generated only $83 billion in operating cash flow after capital expenses. Notwithstanding all this destructive financial engineering enabled by the falsified financial markets of modern central banking, the proof is in the pudding. The market cap of Hewlett-Packard is no greater in nominal terms than it was 17-year ago in 1998——even before Fiorina showed up to launch its relentless decline as a leader in the global technology market. HPQ Market Cap data by YCharts Here is powerful testimony against the Fed’s “wealth effects” policy and the consequent propping and juicing of the stock averages attendant to it. Owing to these machinations, the stock markets are now crawling with speculators capable of powerful hit-and-run forays that encourage CEOs and boards to do their bidding; that is, feed the speculative mob with another stock buyback or M&A deal. Great companies like Hewlett-Packard are now being run not by adult professionals but day-trading punters. Carly Fiorina was one of the latter. She excelled at mastering her flash cards and pitching financial bubbles from the time of the misbegotten Lucent IPO, to her campaign for the Compaq acquisition, to her final days at Hewlett-Packard. What she didn’t excel at was learning a single thing that qualifies her to be President of the United States—-not the least of which is humility. Indeed, having helped to destroy two once great American companies based on flash card salesmanship, it is unthinkable that she should be given the opportunity to try her flash cards again—this time with charge of the lethal power of Washington’s massive imperial machinery of war and intervention. Fiorina needs to shut-up, sit down and flush her flash cards. The furtherance of liberty, prosperity and peace are not what Torquemada’s do.

If anything, your post about this Dugin character sure puts to rest the claim that Russian troops are in eastern Ukraine. It even calls into question the claim that Russia is supporting the rebel forces. From Dugin's Wikipedia page: Dugin stated he was disappointed in Russian President Vladimir Putin, saying that Putin did not aid the pro-Russian insurgents in Ukraine after the Ukrainian Army's early July 2014 offensive. According to Alexander Nevzorov, Dugin and Kurginyan do not have the slightest impact on what is going on in the Kremlin and do not even get coaching there.[42] He is the Bill kristol of Russian politics.

Obama spends most of his time raising money and campaigning. Is that "standing for his grip on power" too ? That statement makes no sense. And the expanse of Russia.. I am guessing you are taking about Crimea and Syria. Well Russia has always had army bases and internationally recognized treaties in those 2 places. So that is not expansion at all. It is protecting your own interests. Which every country does. Do you have any evidence that Putin himself said this ? Because he probably said the opposite. He thinks that the west, nato and the US is destroying conservative beliefs. And he is right. You are trying to tie this to something about the "free market when he was saying something about politics. Not markets. Russia has lower taxes then the US. And no net debt. Which makes it more capitalist then most western states and for sure the US.

It is mainly because the majority of men are a bunch of R selected fem boys who seem to be attracted to masculinity. They think its cool when women act like men. They think its cool when they curse and swear or even burp. Look at how many women drive trucks these days. Nothing makes me more sick then seeing a woman act like this. And they are the majority. The man I look up to for these issues is Marc Rudov. He sets it stright. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8V1s-NVOhY&list=PLSRJuw714FtI8fZMOcZqjiCtXn2ktQliE&index=9

Before the original Russia sanctions vote, Merkel had a relatively independant posture on policy. But half way through those negotiations, she did a complete 180. All of her decisions since then, look as if they are being made by the Obama administration. And this decision, to flood the streets with Muslim refugees has the Obama admin written all over it . She does not look comfortable as a leader anymore. I wonder what happened.. This is going to lead to the rise of right wing parties in Europe.