villakram

1 hour ago, maqroll said:

57 dead in Buffalo, Jesus 

I think that is for the winter storm nationally or perhaps NY state... only ~30 in Buffalo alone.

https://buffalonews.com/news/local/blizzard-death-toll-at-33-military-police-state-troopers-coming-to-town-for-traffic-control/article_1f182792-85ea-11ed-a377-bf3cbe7d6c4b.html

"More people in Western New York have died due to this storm than died as a result of the Blizzard of '77."

For comparison, I read that ~20 died in Japan due to blizzard conditions over the last week or so. One would expect Buffalo to be doing way better given how often they get slammed. The post event analysis will be interesting.

80s/90s were weird with politicians regularly having to resign due to scandal when I was growing up. Quaint apparently.

Santa calm and did a stellar job, not that the little lad understands a bit of mom & dads nonsense, brought loads of stuff and stuff and this and that etc. etc...... and a proper size 1 football. Ran into it like a champ  

On 16/12/2022 at 09:13, Genie said:

BMW with a late entry into the “Ugliest car of the year” competition.

BMW X7 2022

Looks like it was designed with A"I" input.

49 minutes ago, TheAuthority said:

Isn't there a rule about posting Russian propaganda on VT?

I didn't mind Ron Paul who seemed to have some interesting ideas. Rand is a paid Russian asset.

Why can't it just be a politico making a fool of himself with minor sprinkle of mirth.

Ahh... late night budget season

It's interesting all the posting here and elsewhere regarding the shiny things but nothing regarding his censorship/section 230 policy proposals/platform, which would actually matter. Less and less media org servers/corp would live in the US I suspect and who knows what sort of explicit segmenting of the internet would follow. Though, it's unclear that they would meaningfully impact the path the tech monopolies are taking us on anyway.

12 hours ago, blandy said:

Like Taiwan and Ukraine?

10 hours ago, Vancvillan said:

Tim's got bought out a couple of years ago by... the Americans.

Vice (I know) did an article a while back on what a US invasion of Canada would look like. You can read the full article if you want but the following pretty much sums it up:

"However, barring a Canadian insurgency, after that initial 24 hours, Canada would be conquered, surrender would be imminent and the US would quickly attempt to co-opt the Canadian military."

https://www.vice.com/amp/en/article/9aa9az/what-would-happen-in-the-minutes-and-hours-after-the-us-invaded-canada

 

They go straight for starbucks HQ... it's just business!

17 hours ago, sidcow said:

What does that even mean? It's like talking to a riddler. 

You are using the idea of an implied Russian or Chinese invasion (because, what else would such evil types want to do other than smite those annoying freedom lovers) as a backing for a point of view. This is a strawman, in argument construction speak. Much like all of the things those lovely Tories want to do, because of the children, the rapist/murderer/fanatic foreigners etc., etc.

Ah, the joys of virtual talking past each other.

16 hours ago, Vancvillan said:

Mate we've got 76 active fighter jets sprawled across the second largest country on earth. We couldn't invade Seattle.

I'm sure Tim Horton could chuck in a few cuppas for the patriotic cause!

3 hours ago, sidcow said:

Nothing of the sort. 

I'm mainly just glad that their aren't Russian or Chinese troops marching down my road rounding me, my family and my neighbours up for relocation to our new dwellings of an uncertain type in an uncertain location to await our fate. 

Nice strawman you have got there.

1 hour ago, limpid said:

I've learnt to wait for the papers when it comes to fusion.

I also heard that this was net energy production, but I'll wait for the peer reviews.

^ It is not clear how they measured the energy of the resulting reaction. The shape of the pellet/chamber is complex and measuring the energy output presents a significant challenge and how this is accounted for is complicated. Clearly a step forward with this type of technology, which will be useful for studying fusion plasmas, but details, details.

13 hours ago, TheAuthority said:

Empires fall - whatever. My question was and still is, who should be the world's authority on security? Should we all be taking our lead from China? Iran? Russia?

The subtext to my point is, obviously, that American Imperialism (which you appear to be against) brings stability. So , if it is no longer there, who do you @villakram want to be the leading government with the most military power? (As you are so disgusted by it being America)

Why does the world/humanity require an authority on security? What principled ruleset will be enforced and not corrupted by those humans running it, e.g., see the behavior of these freedom and democracy loving societies/countries post WWII... stability for some.

You are for American imperialism as you see it as a global and local good. There are nice tales about morals and ethics that make you feel good about yourself and your position in local society and the broader world. That is all well and good, but others exist in the world and they have experiences, cultures and opinions too. Which is superior, who decides and by what ruleset.

I don't think that American or any other grouping having supremacy is a good thing. Of course, this is the real problem right now, the old post WWII order is slowly decaying as the world reverts to some form of mean. The winners of said war are as happy about this as the others were about being told how to live and behave. Such as it always was in a way.

10 hours ago, bickster said:

And the death of a nation?

You mean some specific nations, others meh. 

On 09/12/2022 at 21:35, TheAuthority said:

OK I'm probably going to regret this......

It's 2026, the US has imploded into, civil war or economic collapse or something. Anyway, they no longer have a functional government and the US armed services are in disarray.

Who do you @villakram , want as the world's leading authority on security? China? Russia? Iran? Just complete anarchy?

I'm really interested as to how you see a world Utopia would be set up without the evil US (that is of course assuming that you've grown up past your late teens having read 2 or 3 Chomsky books and thinking that you now understand how the world works.)

I really would have thought if the last 9 months has taught us anything, it's that a large part of the world is quite happy that the US can throw military aid into other parts of the world to stop the spread of authoritarianism.

Again - disclaimer -  having been burnt by trying to engage you before, I will probably regret asking this, but as ever the optimist, I hope to have an engaging discussion.

That's an interesting premise for a discussion. Would us mid-westerners be the rebels or the bad guys. What sort of folks would occupy the mountain fortress of Denver? Would D.C. fall into the sea? 

Where would treacherous furryners be interned? Would Canada invade?

There's the kernel of an Amazon Prime series there, go for it. 

Was there and a whole bunch of people sitting around us all reached a sorta joking Vegas consensus that Paddy was probably going to get the decision... lol.

One wonders if the individual judges are really over-interpreting the damage aspect of the recent-ish rules guidance. Hopefully Paddy gets a good slot in the London card and a real test which should see what he is actually made of. Basically shit the bed here and got away with it.

The title fight was a tough call and I could have seen it go either way. Perhaps more draws would be the correct way to score fights, even as unsatisfying as that is. I do like that Dana went right ahead and booked a new title eliminator right away, karma for Glover. The final 2 fights sucked all the energy from the arena, from what had been a real solid night of fights to that point.

You are all welcome. It is much more soothing to head off into the land of mirth than think about the issue at hand.

I could have been really nasty and stuck the boot into @Mandy Lifeboats for saying the silent part out loud, i.e., that Russia is no threat to the awesome and overwhelming power of [an expansionist and adversarial] NATO. 

The empire must continue, freedom for all!

"The U.S. House of Representatives backed legislation on Thursday paving the way for the defense budget to hit a record $858 billion next year, $45 billion more than proposed by President Joe Biden.

The House passed the compromise version of the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, an annual must-pass bill setting policy for the Pentagon, by 350-80, far exceeding the two-thirds majority required to pass the legislation and send it for a vote in the Senate."

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-house-backs-sweeping-defense-bill-voting-continues-2022-12-08/

2 hours ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

Just to add to the post from @bickster

We are not heading into WW3. That would require at least 2 powerful military alliances.  There is only 1.  China and Russia combined would probably be less effective than China.  

Nuclear strikes do not happen quickly regardless of what Hollywood tells you.  Nukes need to be transported, maintained,  fueled , armed and deployed. NATO has the world's best intelligence network.  NATO would know if something major was in preparation.  You would see preparations.  There are none.  

There is no such thing as a tactical nuke.  People use this to refer to small yield weapons which have enough power to destroy military targets without taking out nearby cities.  They take out tactical targets not strategic ones.   But they still release radiation and radioactive fallout.  Ukraine is surrounded by Russia and NATO.  They are not going to risk fallout hitting themselves or NATO. 

Whoever fires a nuke first is at a massive disadvantage.   If Russia uses a nuke in Ukraine it would probably face a conventional attack without precedent from NATO, China and many other countries.  Their ability to launch a second nuke would be massively degraded in days.  

Russia starting WW3 by using nukes to retain Crimea is as ridiculous as the UK using nukes on France to retain the Channel Islands.  

Russia's ability to take out incoming nukes is at an all time low.  They have expended huge amounts of missiles and their air defences are clustered around Ukraine.  Their air defences have proven to be below average at best.  

Russia is not a credible threat to NATO and will not become one for many years. 

You are right, NATO is a credible treat to Russia. 

Trump only came down the stairs in ~May 2015.

November 2022 is an awful long way before November 2024.

20 hours ago, CVByrne said:

Is America really a functioning democracy anymore? I'm too used to Europe where we just vote in Governments and then they pass the laws they need to. 

In USA you can barely pass any laws even if you hold both houses and Presidency. 

Anyway, Biden wins of he faces Trump and loses if he faces DeSantis. Republicans know this. 

You are not allowed to ask that question.

Trump is a danger to democracy. Hence, democracy exists. QED.

5 minutes ago, TheAuthority said:

Clear and polite as ever 

Phew, I thought you would have a go at my driving again.

On 19/11/2022 at 03:47, Panto_Villan said:

You sound ill informed. Turkey controls the Black Sea whether or not Russia controls Crimea. They control access through the straits and their fleet is much larger and more capable than the Russian one. There’s no territory that Crimea gives access to that Russia’s other Black Sea ports like Novorossiysk do not.

The only reason Russia wants Crimea is for prestige, to screw with Ukraine, and for the existing military infrastructure in Sevastopol (which could be rebuilt elsewhere if they wanted).

That's an astonishingly naive post.

On 17/11/2022 at 13:35, sidcow said:

A win for bullying and violence. 

You support entrenched power and the patronage networks that accompany it?

She should have been retired/fired from that position many years ago, but the gravy is too tasty I guess.