Elerond
-
Posts
2620 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Elerond
-
-
That only leaves you with having to prove that suffering artists produce art more efficiently than happy artists.
Efficiency is the wrong word, but rather quality and creative impulses.
Still only seeing an assertion with no proof.
I can not offer any personal story, but pretty much high marks music, art and litterature (Milton's Paradise Lost, The Beatles, Van Gogh, Tolstoy's Anna Karenina, T.S. Elliot, etc) were made during times when the artists were depressed or suffered. Anti-depressants as such alleviates such strong emotions required for a work of artist to be as visceral as it is. It doesn't shut the door to the dark inner world, but it muddles it's meaning to something grey not worth allocating to an idea.
That being said, it works wonders on people who need it to be able to work everyday work.
Artists stories are often big part of their work, which is why those artists that are known by everybody often have quite colorful lives.
But also suffering is relative, like for example Van Gogh, one could argue that he was artist suffering from mental illness that drive him to self destruction and self harm who sold only one painting during his life. But he was also man who didn't actually earn a cent during his life and was still able to travel around Europe, go to brothels, bars, and so on regularly, because his life was paid by others who for various reasons supported his hippy life style.
And there is also artists like Picasso, who found their greatness and thing that marks them in history books after they have gained fortune and good life. As Picasso become rich with good quality portraits other paintings, but he is remembered by painting style that he invented after he was already rich and respected artist.
And there are artist like Tolkien whose path to world fame was in middle of suffering and good life. Tolkien fought in WWI, which is the suffering part, but then he was respected English professor with steady income that let him to write books that he wanted to write.
-
Quite lot Trump supporters seem to be quite generous and are willing to take even 700% increase in their premiums in order to give mainly Clinton voters cuts in their premiums.
-
Okay? Obamacare had failed and had to be voted on what like 54 times in under 4 years before it passed.
Weren't those 54 votes by House of Representatives to repeal the Affordable Care Act either in full or in part.
-
a day ago the criticism o' trump were that he shared classified info with the russians. wh categorical denied such sharing.
Again, that's a blatant lie.
The narrative was from the Fake News newspaper that Trump LEAKED a CLASSIFIED information he SHOULDN'T.
The libtards claiming that US president shouldn't have contact with Russia are comical.
The libtards claiming that intel shouldn't be shared with allies in a war are comical.
The libtards claiming that AMBASSADOR is not a person who you inform when you want to pass intel to an ally are comical.
But I guess that everything will fly as long as the outrage at the president doing what he should do would cover the fact that DNC killed a man because he leaked info on them to Wikileaks.
HA! Good Fun!
These are all false statements
HA! Good Misleading
-
3
-
-
So what is that big fuss, he told Russia who/were the badies are in Syria and its wrong why? Its seems like big win for USA as they don't have to get their hands dirty while russians just don't give a f*ck and will just murderkill them
I would guess that it is because of these parts and that people don't know what was actually shared as it is highly classified.
"The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said that Trump’s decision to do so risks cooperation from an ally"
"“This is code-word information,” said a U.S. official familiar with the matter, using terminology that refers to one of the highest classification levels used by American spy agencies. Trump “revealed more information to the Russian ambassador than we have shared with our own allies.”"
Also it may play in that Russia is ally with Syrians (Syrian government) that USA and even Trump generally counts to be bad guys, so there is always question what intel you can give to state that fights against your agenda in the region that intel is about.
But mainly I would suspect that fuss is about timing of and events themselves leading to this. In other words fuss is because of sum of things not because of singular thing.
-
I am sorry but what did he shared with Russia? Sounds like some info about terrorists? That doesn't sound bad at all?
Hard to say as it is classified in such extend that USA doesn't share it with their so called allies.
As President I wanted to share with Russia (at an openly scheduled W.H. meeting) which I have the absolute right to do, facts pertaining....
...to terrorism and airline flight safety. Humanitarian reasons, plus I want Russia to greatly step up their fight against ISIS & terrorism.
-
There's also a consistency problem. Papers like the WaPo have claimed that Trump isn't a 'detail' man and have even said that he doesn't take intelligence briefings, neither of which meshes well with him giving away information likely to compromise sources. That requires the knowledge of both details and having been briefed on them.
You don't necessary need to give much of details to compromise sensitive source.
General details like type of action and general area in world may be enough in some cases as there isn't that many actors in that area of world with ability to give that type of intelligence. Because Russia and other players have their own intelligence gathering efforts that let them fulfill missing pieces fast when they get general direction where to look. So bragging, for example, about such intelligence actually tells that bragger most likely has not actually listened details abut intelligence briefings and isn't very detail oriented and up to date about things.
-
"President Trump revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting last week, according to current and former U.S. officials, who said that Trump’s disclosures jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State.
The information Trump relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said.
The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said that Trump’s decision to do so risks cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State. After Trump’s meeting, senior White House officials took steps to contain the damage, placing calls to the CIA and National Security Agency.
“This is code-word information,” said a U.S. official familiar with the matter, using terminology that refers to one of the highest classification levels used by American spy agencies. Trump “revealed more information to the Russian ambassador than we have shared with our own allies.”"
Trump seems to go by old saying "keep friends away and enemies closer"
-
Great Wall of China actually worked great for a very long time. China fell through betrayal, not because the wall was breached. Much like we're daily betrayed by our own government.
It didn't prevent Oirats getting defending Ming army's or did it prevent Mongol raiding parties looting settlements in Ming's empire, although after defeat for Oirats Ming dynasty build more heavily fortified wall in some areas, with lots of watch towers build all over it to give warnings about approaching raiding parties as Mongols continued to raid Ming settlements. Although when Manchu invasions that began in early 1600s, it let Ming troops held invasion forces reaching Chinese heartland. But efforts to held invasion forces demanded lots of troops which left capital city Beijing weak and which gave opportunity for rebel leader Li Zicheng and his troops to take control over it. This lead Ming general Wu Sangui to ally with Manchu forces and let them through in hopes that they take Beijing back from the rebels, which they did, but they then established their own ruling dynasty Qing, which lead to Chinese expansion beyond the wall and annexation of Mongolia. And the Great Wall was discontinued, although then Qing empire build their own wall Willow Palisade, which was not meant for defense but for migration control, in sense that Qing dynasty tried to prevent Han Chinese settling in Manchu and Mongol lands and in no man lands in near Korean border. Their palisades system failed to prevent Han migration and official constantly lamented how system don't prevent illegal migrants and eventually whole palisade system become just tax collection system (people that passed through the gates had to pay taxes) which was ended in 1920.
-
Id rather not squander resources treating other countries societal problems. Give a choice between that and a wall, I choose the wall. Not that that will work either without drone swarms.
so, squandering billions of dollars on an ineffectual wall is ok? unforgiving terrain, rivers and private property make a secure border near impossible
China probably didn't get the memo
Great Wall of China is great example of putting lots of resources in ineffectual wall that failed to make their borders safe.
-
It's funny, I don't recall the wailing and gnashing of teeth when Bill Clinton fired the FBI director in '93. Of course the FBI had taken an interest in Clinton's real estate dealings much the same way as they have the Trump/Russia connections. The difference is Clinton (a Democrat) does it and no one (in the media) complains. Trump (a sort of Republican) does it and it's the second coming of Nixon.
I keep telling you guys there isn't a nickel's worth of difference between the Republicrats and the Democans. Only in who the cheerleaders cheer for.
Don't blame me I voted for Johnson.
Watching old news clips about Bill Clinton firing William Sessions, gives indication that was much better orchestrated firing and reason that was given didn't go against what Clinton had in past said about Sessions. Also Clinton was more popular when he did his move than Trump has ever been. Meaning that it shows that Clinton was much better in political games than Trump and he was quite successful in putting Sessions in bad light and himself in good light.
-
Le Pen isn't nazi because she is pro French (like Macro), but because she wants to take rights away from some citizens of France because she don't like them.
Evidence?
Are her own promises enough evidence?
French presidential hopeful Marine Le Pen said that she would bar dual citizenship with non-European Union countries if elected.
Earlier this week, the far-right leader reiterated her longstanding support for banning the wearing of yarmulkes in public spaces, as part of an overall ban on religious (mostly Muslim) attire. “The struggle against radical Islam should be a joint struggle and everyone should say, ‘there, we are sacrificing something,’” she told Israel’s Channel 2. “Maybe they [Jews] will do with just wearing a hat [instead of a yarmulke], but it would be a step in the effort to stamp out radical Islam in France.” Conveniently, Le Pen has never called to ban wearing crosses in public, having previously claimed that “the Catholic religion doesn’t have conspicuous symbols.”
https://www.breakingisraelnews.com/87177/marine-le-pens-muslim-slaughter-ban-targets-kosher-meat/
While campaigning at a meat market near Paris, Marine Le Pen, the right-wing candidate in the ongoing French presidential elections, announced that, if elected, she would ban ritual slaughtering of animals. This announcement caused even more concern about the presidential candidate, whose anti-Muslim platform will also harm Jews.
Read more at https://www.breakingisraelnews.com/87177/marine-le-pens-muslim-slaughter-ban-targets-kosher-meat/#1Y54RPY5HlOZzp6f.99
In Le Pen's campaign promises
https://www.marine2017.fr/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/projet-presidentiel-marine-le-pen.pdf
"Buried midway through the lengthy document at number 87, Le Pen promises to create an “improved” form of civil unions in the country to “replace” the equal marriage law passed under the current Socialist government in 2013.
It would be a return to the former status quo for France, which only permitted same-sex couples to enter a contractual form of civil union (PACS) from 1999 until 2013.
As well as plans to tamper with equality laws, Le Pen also outlines plans to restrict fertility services, ending assistance for gay couples wanting to have children."
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/02/14/frances-marine-le-pen-quietly-pledges-to-end-same-sex-marriage/
-
1
-
-
"Let's not forget that the new French leader married the woman who had sex with him when he was a teenager. LMAO At least, rape vcitims cna be leaeers so that is good. He was able to overcome being a victim of sexual assault... and, he married the peretrator."
Age of consent is 15 in France, so in eyes of French people there was nothing criminal in their relationship. Although that is logic that we also use to accept child marriages in Saudi Arabia and some other countries which we see as friendly nations.
-
"Why would I want nazis to have power.? The EU is an organization founded on bullying and intimidation."
At least it isn't founded on genocide of nations like some nazi countries that are EU's allies .
-
Le Pen isn't nazi because she is pro French (like Macro), but because she wants to take rights away from some citizens of France because she don't like them.
-
I think you got it wrong, they are not thin skinned. It wasn't about the joke, it's about causing damage.
The right is taking every move from the leftist handbook and subverting it, this is what the left has been getting away with for years and now you begin to complain. Besides, its not even the first time that someone tries to shut Colbert down, it just the first time that the right tries to.
But when you do what you say is reason why you hate certain group of people, you actually become same as those you are complaining about. Which means that right has become left (and left has become right) It is new world order, where people don't seem to realize that they are upside down.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_1wUwzVuIs
‘Nobody dies because they don’t have access to healthcare’
That explains lot
-
1
-
-
The average American has pretty decent insurance from his employer, which means he's no worse off than a millionaire in getting healthcare. Obviously that still leaves a lot of people in less than ideal conditions.The situation is completely different if you're a multi millionaire, of course, then the US has the best healthcare bar none. But then if you're a millionaire elsewhere you have better prospects as well and can go private either locally or internationally. Certainly the average american is far closer to being denied coverage and going bankrupt trying to cover costs than they are to the latest and greatest proton gun for tackling that hard to target cancer.
Millionaires can buy healthcare that average person can't get even with very good insurance. Because they can afford to pay for treatments that insurance companies don't approve (because of cost, feasibility or some other reason), they can afford to pay get front in lines, they can afford to pay for most efficient drugs in every case instead of going with best price/efficiency ratio and you are able to get better doctors to treat you and so on. But that is just inevitable thing in any system where people can buy better service, because millionaires are much smaller pool of people than general population and they are able to pay even most expensive services from their own pocket, which gives them flexibility in tendering out services that most people can't just afford to do.
-
Wow. The Supreme Court did two good things in to weeks. I'm surprised. Especially since the majority opinion in one of those was written by Ruth Bader Ginsburg who I usually have nothing good to say about.
In Nelson v Colorado they decided 7-1 (WTF Thomas?) that the state was not entitled to assets seized as proceeds of a crime where the conviction had been overturned. You see there is one thing and one thing only that government loves. Any government. All of them. Money. They love money. Governments are far more venal than these "big corporations" so many of you seem to be terrified of. Only the governments have police powers and can just take things from you. As I've said a miilion times the biggest company in the world could not take a single penny from my checking account without my approval. The smallest level of government right here in my home state can take all of it including my home, my dogs and my freedom. Ugh. There I go ranting again. Anyway. In Nelson v Colorado defendant Shannon Nelson was convicted of four counts of child abuse and sentenced to 20 years in prison. After a witness recanted she got a new trial and was acquitted. But the state kept all the money it seized even though technically no crime was ever committed. http://reason.com/blog/2017/04/21/scotus-says-states-have-no-right-to-mone
The other good thing they did was decline to take up Illinois Transportation Trade Association v. City of Chicago. It seems the cab companies in Chicago don't like competition from Uber and Lyft and were trying to shut them down. http://reason.com/blog/2017/04/24/supreme-court-lets-stand-7th-circuit-vic
I would point out that bank where your checking account is could absolutely keep all you money if they want. And it isn't even hypothetical scenario but thing that has happened many times in history. Meaning that it is absolutely possible for biggest company in world can buy the bank where your account is and seize your money.
I don't know where the heck you got that idea but in the US at least, no they cannot. And even if the bank failed the accounts are insured (up to a point). They may withdraw fess and other expenses and these are all things you agree too when opening the account. And that is the key, that account is an agreement, a contract between them and the account holder. They have to live up to their end and vice versa. So if I overdraft my checking account and they hit me with a $20 overdraft fee (or however much it is) I agreed to the rules when I opened the account so that is not taking money without my permission either.
When you give them you money they are in control over it. It is government that gives you assurance that bank can't arbitrarily without consequences to do so, at least not without permission from the government (usually meaning that they have court order that gives them right to seize your money to pay your debts, or something similar).
Meaning that even though you have agreement with bank about them holding your money with certain term it does not mean that they can't break those terms and just keep your money.
And I would say that in case of bank failure bank has already mishandled money that you and others gave them and insurance exists because such mishandling can happen, even on level that threatens worlds economy.
I would point out that governments have power that people give them, where big companies power is restricted by governments (world where there is no governments, who would be there to assure that big companies follow through agreements that they have made with you? You can just look how many big companies work in countries that have weak governments).
-
Wow. The Supreme Court did two good things in to weeks. I'm surprised. Especially since the majority opinion in one of those was written by Ruth Bader Ginsburg who I usually have nothing good to say about.
In Nelson v Colorado they decided 7-1 (WTF Thomas?) that the state was not entitled to assets seized as proceeds of a crime where the conviction had been overturned. You see there is one thing and one thing only that government loves. Any government. All of them. Money. They love money. Governments are far more venal than these "big corporations" so many of you seem to be terrified of. Only the governments have police powers and can just take things from you. As I've said a miilion times the biggest company in the world could not take a single penny from my checking account without my approval. The smallest level of government right here in my home state can take all of it including my home, my dogs and my freedom. Ugh. There I go ranting again. Anyway. In Nelson v Colorado defendant Shannon Nelson was convicted of four counts of child abuse and sentenced to 20 years in prison. After a witness recanted she got a new trial and was acquitted. But the state kept all the money it seized even though technically no crime was ever committed. http://reason.com/blog/2017/04/21/scotus-says-states-have-no-right-to-mone
The other good thing they did was decline to take up Illinois Transportation Trade Association v. City of Chicago. It seems the cab companies in Chicago don't like competition from Uber and Lyft and were trying to shut them down. http://reason.com/blog/2017/04/24/supreme-court-lets-stand-7th-circuit-vic
I would point out that bank where your checking account is could absolutely keep all you money if they want. And it isn't even hypothetical scenario but thing that has happened many times in history. Meaning that it is absolutely possible for biggest company in world can buy the bank where your account is and seize your money.
-
I meant they're coming over here to get medical treatment, I wasn't talking about immigration. Edit: Btw, my healthcare is fine, and so is most people's.Funny how foreigners keep coming over here to partake in the "unmitigated catastrophe".
Clearly, if people prefer to live in a country where they can earn five times as much as they could in their homeland, it's a sign that literally no problems could possibly exist in that country.
Healthcare system and being able to get good medical treatment aren't same thing even though they are connected.
As healthcare system is usually used when people are talking about people's ability access medical treatment they need.
So country may have world best medical treatment facilities, but if only handful people are actually able to use them country's healthcare system maybe bad for most of the citizens of that country. Meaning that if rich foreigners come and buy those treatments that most people in country can't access it really don't tell anything about country's healthcare system.
-
That's the first I heard of use in the Soviet Union. Do you have a source?
Chris Bellamy, Absolute War: Soviet Russia in the Second World War (Knopf, 2008).
Israelyan, Victor. On the Battlefields of the Cold War: A Soviet Ambassador's Confession. p. 339.
Merridale, Catherine, Ivan's War, Faber & Faber: pp. 148-150.
Kuban thing is from Russian source
-
1
-
-
Spicer's comment was dumb and historically ignorant, but the reaction to it is way overblown, just another way to attack Trump. Clearly Spicer was referring to battlefield use of chemical weapons, and was trying to attack Assad, not defend hitler.
Clearly the person you want in a crisis: http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/328405-clinton-campaign-plagued-by-bickering
But Nazis actually used chemical weapons on battlefield against Soviet Union (at least in Sevastopol (where they gassed city's defenders that had hidden in tunnels under city and in Kuban where they drop gas mountain range in order to kill soldiers fortified there). But mainly all sides avoided to use them in fear of that other side also starts to use them, although Japanese used them against Chinese, probably because there was no fear that Chinese would do counter attacks in Japan. But one thing where Spicer was right was that Nazis didn't use chemical weapons against their own citizens same way as Assad, meaning that they didn't bombarded their own cities with them they just gathered citizens in concentration camps where they gassed them. But I agree that Spicer tried to attack Assad, but he really picked bad way to go with it.
-
It is operative income from which they pay taxes to Germany if they pay taxes to Germany. Taxes from revenue related things are paid to Czech.
Revenue is what they get from selling cars they make, operative income is profit that they make from those sales. Difference goes to salaries, sales taxes, components/materials, etc. from which taxes are paid to Czech and which generally increase Czech's economy, as most of the cars they make are exported out from Czech, which means that those sales bring more money to Czech's economy. So that money mostly goes to Czech, although they may buy materials/components from China or some other even cheaper country, as for example Czech trade deficit with China is only little bit less than their trade surplus with Germany. By looking numbers alone you could make simplification that it is like taking money from Germany and sending it to China.
Trump thing is because he just happens to talk about how similar situation is bad for USA, US companies produce goods, like cars, in Mexico and then bring them to be sold in US, meaning that he sees that it benefits Mexico.
Why are tax heavens than so popular if you are obligated to tax where you originaly created product which you sold much more expensive somewhre else?
I would guess that those owners getting for example that 1.23 billion dollars profit tax free is reason to use tax heavens. Even if that isn't that big sum in comparison whole GDP of single country it is quite big sum when it is only shared by some thousands of people. And getting that profit amount bigger is reason why owners move production of goods in cheaper countries, so that they get bigger portion of that revenue to themselves (as they can sell product about same price even though production costs are lower, so company makes more profit, which mean that they pocket more money, and with getting more money they need to pay more taxes which increases attraction of tax heavens in order to cut those taxes down).
Terror attack in Manchester...
in Way Off-Topic
Posted
In past 15 years it has mostly been to fight terrorism, which ironically has increased amount of terrorism and terrorists (at least most radical form which is the thing seen in the news).