metalslug

Members
  • Content

    1,153
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by metalslug

  1. Nothing that hasn't already been covered by previous posts, unless it helps you if I add a "So what ?"
  2. Allow me to spell it out then; I had 'corrected' it to read as "people who only read their own sources", as in the context of exclusively referencing typically biased media sources who decline to publish anything that disturbs a left (or right) world view narrative; Righties: "The lefties are only reading left-wing biased media." Lefties: "Not true! I read widely from sources A, B, C, D ...." Righties: "Really? The you've missed this factual event reported in source C" Lefties: <silence> To be fair, both sides do this, so neither can be sanctimonious about it. There are regular news events that would make lefty politics feel awkward to discuss that never make it into SC, it's rather surprising that the 'trolling' is actually so limited considering the abundance of available material. It's then also automatic that none of these events would be posted by the lefties themselves as they are likely never even reported in their focused media of choice.
  3. Then perhaps... without folks like myself, brent, winsor, & whoever.. then members here might experience the same echo chamber monotone.
  4. Utter nonsense and deflection. This was a questioning for a judicial position, she was quite logically being asked her legal opinion on a legal definition and did not offer any definition at all, other than to assert that only a biologist could possibly provide a definition. There's no amount of woke spin you can put on that. Nope. Witness #3 would be the most useless as they had the worst view, from behind. The witness with the best view gets the higher regard. Did they all see a man in drag? It's not the witnesses' obligation to make that determination, the courts and the investigators do. They should hope their presiding judge knows what a woman or a man is.
  5. And yet an actual legal expert, on questioning for a judiciary position, deferred the question in it's entirety to expertise in biology. Absurd sporting outcomes by trans participants , non-transitioned men using women's public facilities. 'knowing that something is wrong' does not only apply in the context that you've used it. I would agree that it doesn't seem fair to permanently deny such participants the ability to ever compete in sports again and there may yet be a method to include these participants fairly, it's just not happening reliably enough yet.
  6. Hmm.. we might require a special qualification to know the answer. It's a hard question ! According to at least one member of the judiciary; one needs to be a biologist to know (to their credit they thereby acknowledge that gender is biological), in the same way that only a veterinarian or zoologist would know what a horse is and only a botanist could define an apple...
  7. Perhaps I'm a little naïve but I'd still like to believe that the US justice system still works on the presumption of innocence and that courts of law can prevail over courts of public opinion. How many cases have we already seen, against defendants on the left and right, in which the prosecutors had stated that they had 'overwhelming evidence' only to be undone by insufficient evidence or a failure to properly understand the actual law. For this reason I'll take any politically tainted claims of 'overwhelming evidence' with a pinch of salt. Therefore, in these future cases too, vs Trump and now vs Hillary, I'd be keen to see how both would fare. Bragg wont have his position forever and unless there's a statute of limitations on the charges then there will surely be opportunities later for it ?
  8. Forgive my previous acerbic comment to you. Is this perhaps better? Now compare that to "Hunter didn't deny that Putin ordered Trump to try to discredit his father". With all the effort from the left in attempting to debunk the laptop it would be really easy for Hunter to deny the laptop as his, would indeed be one of the strongest testimonies per his personal knowledge of it. By comparison; I didn't deny it was my laptop and you didn't deny it was yours. Yet if either of us were asked the same question it would be an unequivocal response easily proven. Yet Hunter doesn't, keeping his options open for when it awkwardly comes clean.
  9. Nope. My very first sentence was "Returning to the OP.." which is "Hunter Biden's laptop". I intentionally made no mention of the DOJ probe which, I agree, is a separate issue. I was however referring to the 'so what?' line you've had since the laptop was authenticated. I'm unable to say with certainty, in my independent capacity, that the laptop content indicates anything directly negative towards Joe Biden, but these 50 officials seem to believe that perception by association merits concern. You seem to be of the opinion that (alleged) dirt on Hunter has zero impact on US voter thinking and you're welcome to believe that. By contrast, these 50 officials do. If you trust their acumen and judgement that the laptop content is a Russian fabrication but distrust the same people on their opinion of it's influence on the election, then I find that to be curiously convenient for you. For the left (including NYT) to fight so hard to debunk the laptop before the election and then have NYT concede it's legit after the election, is also rather convenient.
  10. Right, totally the same thing. Hunter is just as familiar with Putin as his own laptop. I can always count on you for insightful comment, bill...
  11. Returning to the OP and because I'm generous to a fault, I have bolded the piece you missed earlier regarding 50 former intelligence officials who wrote “..this is Russia trying to influence how Americans vote in this election..." . These former officials (as no current official worth their salt would put their name to it) believe that the laptop content could have influenced the election outcome, it's implied in that very statement. You're welcome to hold an opinion that you disagree with these officials (as none of them have said 'so what?'), although to disagree with them would also imply that you don't believe it's a Russian fabrication. Can't have it both ways. Hunter himself certainly hasn't denied it's his.
  12. Other than the US; refugees would then go to China, Russia,... Do I detect a mean streak in you, Wendy ?
  13. So 50 former intelligence officials have written “..this is Russia trying to influence how Americans vote in this election..." . Evidently these 50+ people believe that the laptop content could have been damaging to the Biden family and consequently the election outcome. With the tin-foil ushanka now removed....
  14. You mean the 'evidence' from Michael Sussmann, Igor Danchenko and the Steele document' ? I'm no Trump supporter, but I like horseshyte smear campaigns even less.
  15. There are aspects of the ongoing conflict that have me mildly puzzled; Zelensky has recently said that Russia's terms of negotiation are now sounding 'more realistic' and include terms such as; Ukraine must remain outside of NATO forever. Crimea must be recognised as Russian. Eastern provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk must be independent. These terms are not much different from the practical reality of 3 weeks ago before the fighting started. Sweden and Finland seem to be doing OK (outside of NATO) and both Germany and France have indicated in the past that they will oppose Ukrainian membership, so NATO membership was always unlikely for Ukraine anyway. The other two terms are not fantastic for Ukraine, but to resist them prolongs the conflict arguably longer than it needs to. With those terms accepted Putin can get his 'win' without decimating more of Ukraine. Unless Ukraine truly believes it can win this war alone, then these terms merit consideration. Furthermore, a future less autocratic Russian leader may well revoke the NATO condition in future decades. Few things are 'forever'. Zelensky keeps repeating his request for a NATO no-fly zone and I expect it has been repeatedly explained to Ukraine why NATO will not agree to it. Most of the civilian and urban damage has come from land-based artillery strikes, significantly more than from the air, therefore the limited benefit of a no-fly zone is even weaker now relative to the risk of WW3. While I empathise with Zelensky's desperation, the repeated calls seem illogical at this point. Poland has called on NATO for a 'peace-keeping' mission to Ukraine at a time when there is no peace to keep and should surely be aware that such forces are only relevant before or after a war. Would I be alone to think that some of the political positions (taken by these respective leaders) above are a bit odd ?
  16. Her courage is admirable although I hope she finds it worth it balanced against the reach of the message. This lady now potentially faces 15 years in Siberia or worse. There have been indications that a great many Russians already know the truth via a huge increase in VPN subscriptions to bypass internet restrictions within Russia, a growing awareness of truth albeit still unwise to protest publicly.
  17. It's a discussion often raised and often answered by "Cant save every puppy in the pound." and "Cant be the world's police force forever" and both of these are very valid positions. I can't reliably say where the line should be but do think I know where it is and where it will be; For the USA, and likely for other NATO members, it's down to Article 5 of their membership that they all signed. It's an obligation that's politically unsurvivable for members who don't honour it. It's also politically unsurvivable for a country to join an avoidable war if they have no mandate from their voting citizens to do so. I believe this is also why Taiwan will be taken by China before 2028, with zero direct military intervention by 'the west' because Taiwan too is not an actual NATO member and because China is significantly stronger than Russia.
  18. Actually the record low was more than 6 years ago, and curiously still required an icebreaker vessel to find it now. A great find though !
  19. With all that planning, things haven't quite gone Putin's way. I expect he would have had to rethink a lot of things in the last two weeks. I doubt he has the resources to go further, not for a while, for all the reasons you mentioned yourself earlier, the cost of the Ukrainian engagement and the bite of sanctions. If Putin does invade Finland (an unlikely but theoretical scenario) ; NATO have been clear that they won't escalate for the benefit of a non-NATO member, it would be seen as a double-standard if they did escalate for Finland but not for Ukraine. I rather expect that Russia will eventually take Ukraine and stop there for a long time. They will hold it until they gradually go broke (and if sanctions persist to get them there), facing.guerilla-style attacks from whatever is left of the Ukrainian forces for months or even years. I do actually believe that there is no nuke risk if NATO remains passive during this time.
  20. I suspect that's a minority opinion, certainly not shared by NATO. They have repeatedly cited concerns over 'escalation', which is synonymous with provocation in this context. When this happens, what do you suppose Putin may do next? Pack up his troops and withdraw? ...maybe launch a nuke? Would you expect that direct military action by NATO within Ukraine right now would change Putin's action decisions either way ? ...if you believe that provocation absolutely doesn't factor into his decision making.
  21. It does seem odd to me that they would be not be on same page before making any promises of this magnitude. Is there a chance that this was always to be a token gesture to placate a desperate request?; "Hey, we tried, but the other guys said no. The US almost got you jets." The 'madman with multiple nukes' scenario is what separates this from 1939. If Putin is bluffing then his bluff is strengthened by the likely expectation that western nuclear powers would hesitate to return fire with WMDs to punish the actions of one man, hence M.A.D. is now also less of a deterrent. 'Tip-toes' might be only way to go for quite a long while still. The Putin ambition may certainly spread beyond Ukraine but, if unprovoked, I'm less convinced at this stage that the war will. Not anytime soon, not without help from his friends. To Olof's earlier comment; I suspect the Ukrainian engagement has cost him and weakened him much more than he expected and he still has to hold that ground after, while the sanctions bite down.
  22. Interesting that you think .50 cal was used for those kills. You don't suppose Ukrainian snipers are more familiar with their own smaller caliber weapons in much longer service? The .50 cal M107 variants might look great in movies but are typically applied as anti-materiel rifles rather than anti-personnel. A recent report of a Ukrainian sniper (allegedly of some renown) now entering the conflict carries a Zbroyar Z-10 rifle in a comparatively modest 7.62x51mm caliber.