< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 338 OF 338 ·
|Mar-01-17|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <UNITED NATIONS—Russia and the Trump administration clashed in a vote at the United Nations Security Council for the first time on Tuesday, as the Kremlin vetoed a measure backed by the United States and its Western allies to punish Syria for using chemical weapons.|
While the Russians had long signaled their intent to block the resolution, which was supported by dozens of countries, the clash offered insights into the big divisions that remain between the Kremlin and President Donald J. Trump, who has vowed to improve ties.
Russia and China, two of the five permanent members of the council, blocked the measure. It was the Kremlin’s seventh Security Council veto in defense of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria over the war that has been convulsing his country for nearly six years.>
Really bad news. Seems that Trump's administration is still pushing Obama's chemical weapons lie against Syria.
<“It is a sad day on the Security Council,” Haley said after the vote. “When members start making excuses for other member-states killing their own people, the world is definitely a more dangerous place.”
Diplomats said Haley had insisted on putting the measure up for a vote this week, signaling a desire to take a tough stand on Russia. In recent weeks, Haley has condemned what she called Russia’s “aggressive actions” in eastern Ukraine, vowed to maintain sanctions over Russia’s annexation of Crimea and, in her Senate confirmation hearing, went as far as saying that Russia was guilty of war crimes in Syria.
Her comments on Russia have sometimes contradicted the more conciliatory language of Trump, who has made clear his desire to increase cooperation with Russia. Haley, by contrast, has often echoed the talking points of the previous administration, as well as the concerns of Republicans in Congress who distrust the Kremlin. The resolution, proposed by Britain and France months ago and endorsed by the US last week, would have imposed sanctions on a handful of Syrian military officials and entities for having dropped chlorine-filled barrel bombs on opposition-held areas on at least three occasions in 2014 and 2015, according to a UN panel.>
I hope Haley doesn't become another warmongering Samantha Powers. She sure looks like it by the way she talks.
|Mar-02-17|| ||twinlark: <I hope Haley doesn't become another warmongering Samantha Powers. She sure looks like it by the way she talks.>|
Seems like she's Power-Lite or maybe Power-Dumb. She has no experience in this and is probably reading from a script. I wonder if Trump even knows what she's saying?
|Mar-02-17|| ||diceman: <twinlark: I wonder if Trump even knows what she's saying?>|
Trump tweet: Fat chance I dont, twinlark!
|Mar-03-17|| ||twinlark: <diceman>
<Fat chance I dont, twinlark!>
|Mar-03-17|| ||diceman: Released American journalist who was held in Syria.|
|Mar-03-17|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <diceman: Released American journalist who was held in Syria.>|
He uses the word 'Syrian regime', which indicates he probably started as anti-Assad. Most stupidly ignorant Western journalists that go to Syria think this way at first. They go there in order to report on how bad Assad and his government is. He probably thought that the jihadists were freedom-loving rebels out to topple a dictatorship for the sake of democracy. MSM and the Obama administration sure fooled him.
Then he got captured. Notice though that like all people who have personally experienced the nihilism of Wahabbism, he has taken a 180 degree turn, and now is actually supportive of the 'Syrian regime', and he corrects the interviewer's implication that the regime is bad for the people.
I find this typical of ignorant MSM brainwashed readers that keep on talking about how bad the 'Syrian regime' is on the internet.
Even more astonishing are teenage girls (usually daughters of Muslim immigrants) in Western Europe that go to Syria in order to support the jihadists. As far as I can tell every one of them has been raped (forced into legal shariah approved marriages multiple times). They either totally convert to Wahabbism and accept the permanent oppression of their new life's status, and the likelihood that they get to die in the crossfire of the war (and many have), or want out. Those that want out get murdered (also legally under strict shariah laws). Secular Syrians in the internet have utterly no sympathy for these girls, in effect saying 'you got what you deserved for trying to destroy our country and for being jihadist whores.'
You can blame the criminal propaganda of the western MSM for much of the above, having had painted the Syrian government as a brutal 'regime' and the jihadists as star wars type idealistic rebels since 2012.
|Mar-04-17|| ||visayanbraindoctor: Great news. Palmyra has been recaptured by the Syrian Army. Once again, the Russian military has been indispensable in this.|
I do hope the Syrians manage to hold on to it permanently. Too much of humanity's archaeological heritage has already been destroyed by jihadists in Palmyra.
As usual, the deceiver western MSM is under-reporting this event, instead choosing to highlight the Turkish invasion (annexation?) of al-Bab in northern Syria.
Why? Headlining the Palmyra recapture highlights the Syrian army and the Russians as the ones that are really carrying the fight against the jihadists. That simply does not fit into the story line of the corporate media.
|Mar-05-17|| ||twinlark: I'll be on holiday for a week. Back next weekend.|
|Mar-06-17|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <If the recalcitrant Cold Warriors in America’s “power ministries” remain untouched, they will be in a position to create provocations at any time of their choosing to override Trump’s planned détente policies.>|
The above article is essentially a summary of pro-Russian views with regards to Trump.
|Mar-12-17|| ||visayanbraindoctor: Another classic case of CNN doing a dragon lie.|
<On Friday, Bharara was one of 46 U.S. attorneys asked to resign by President Trump. That was a standard move for a new president. But Trump, during his transition, had asked Bharara to stay on. After Bharara refused to resign, he was fired by Trump on Saturday.>
What CNN omits on purpose is that Trump tried to contact Bharara, and the latter not only refused to submit his resignation; he refused to talk to Trump.
In other words, Bharara was grandstanding, to the extent that he insulted the POTUS. That leaves Trump little choice.
The above opinion has nothing to do with Bharara's personal record. I believe he would have been a great asset for the Trump administration had he been retained. It's a pity that he did what he did.
Most commenters on the know say that had Bharara submitted his resignation, Trump would have refused it; and he would continue on his job. It was all just SOP that turned sour when Bharara for his own reasons (which I find either egoistic or idiotic) decided to play the 'noble opposition'.
(Personally, I have never refused to show up or call back if a direct senior or superior called me. Doing otherwise is completely idiotic, unless one has principled reasons to do so.)
It's obvious that media outlets such as CNN are hell-bent on polarizing US society.
Back to the prosecutor mass change, I think it's because Trump wants to file lawsuits on a lot of powerful people in accordance with his campaign promise to 'drain the swamp.' This can only work if the US prosecutors are loyal to him. Thus his move is predictable, and I've been expecting it for some time.
Previously Trump did the same thing to Obama hold-outs in the State Department. AFAIK it's these same people that were responsible for all the wars Obama and HRC engaged in. So I am glad that they're out.
It does not mean that Trump will abstain from replacing them with more warmongers. (For instance, the new US ambassador to the UN, Haley, seems every bit a warhawk as Powers was.) We'll have to wait and see.
|Mar-12-17|| ||twinlark: <visayanbraindoctor>|
It seems Trump had told Bharara initially that he would keep his job, but then changed his mind when he asked the other attorneys to resign.
Bharara hinted in a tweet that he was investigating Trump: https://twitter.com/PreetBharara/st...
It's worth reading the comments.
|Mar-12-17|| ||saffuna: Bharara was definitely investigating Wall Street (and some Democrats as well). Let's see what the new US Attorney does about the Wall Street cases.|
|Mar-13-17|| ||diceman: <visayanbraindoctor:
It was all just SOP that turned sour when Bharara for his own reasons (which I find either egoistic or idiotic) decided to play the 'noble opposition'.>
"Noble opposition" probably offers better, "fill your pockets wih money"
|Mar-14-17|| ||twinlark: Bharara is supposed to be a fearless an honest attorney - at least that is what his reputation is.|
It seems that if Bharara was indeed investigating Trump, then protocols would demand that he not speak to the man he is investigating.
But still, investigating Trump for what? Talking to Russians? Everybody talks to Russians including Clinton and her campaign. http://www.westernjournalism.com/kr... I'm still trying to get my head around why talking to Russians is such a big deal. All US Presidents, including candidates have done so since forever...so why is it suddenly treason?
The whole circus seems to be more about eliminating Trump as an effective force while the various state actors proceed as normal, rather than risk him throwing a spanner in the works with detentes with Russia.
It does seem that nothwithstanding all this, Russian and US forces have met in Manbij and are quietly cooperating in the operation there to rid the place of ISIS.
|Mar-14-17|| ||saffuna: I haven't read that Bharara was investigating Trump. He definitely is investigating Mayor di Blasio and has indicted to top aides to Democratic Governor Cuomo. He's not partisan.|
What he definitely is investigating is the behavior of Roger Ailes and other executives at Fox News, on the sexual harassment issue. Fox is a major supporter of Trump, a key supporter in the press.
|Mar-14-17|| ||diceman: <saffuna:
Fox is a major supporter of Trump, a key supporter in the press.>
Translation: They don't parrot the saffuna/Bartle media narrative.
(By my rough count, 22 hours per day of Trump/Russia narratives)
(2 hours reserved for Trump's evil, and the evil that resides within his wife, children, family.)
Jim any inside dope, if Rachel Maddow is receiving “extra” compensation?
Id imagine “reporting news” with furrowed brow, sick twisted, facial contortions,
she may have demanded physical therapy compensation.
Not to mention retina damage from “eyes out on springs” and high blood pressure.
|Mar-14-17|| ||diceman: <twinlark:
I'm still trying to get my head around why talking to Russians is such a big deal.>
Here's your answer:
As everything from “The Great Society” to “Obamacare” show us.
Liberalism doesn't require truth.
Liberalism doesnt require intellect.
Liberalism doesn't require success.
All it requires is an idiot pulling a handle on election day.
<Russia stuff> obviously she's at the upper echelon of liberal intellect!
She wears it well.
|Mar-15-17|| ||diceman: Twin & VBD should enjoy this:
Who should replace Bashar al-Assad?
Who should we support?
Homina, homina, homina, don't ask me!
I'm just being a partisan hack attacking Trump.
Don't bring the real world into it.
I'm speaking to dumb Democrats.
Obama/Hillary money is my goal.
|Mar-15-17|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <diceman> What idiots!|
|Mar-15-17|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <twinlark> The following article seems to confirm the effect of rising atmospheric CO2 on photosynthetic plants.|
<Recent pause in the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 due to enhanced terrestrial carbon uptake>
It's compatible with the following recent findings:
1. CO2 levels aren't increasing as fast as calculated if one only bases it on fossil fuel burning.
2. O2 levels aren't decreasing as fast as calculated if one only bases it on fossil fuel burning.
3. Satellite studies show that the world has been greening by an equivalent of one continent of new plant growth since the 1980s.
The basic idea is that there must be a CO2 sink that's accounting for the missing CO2. The paper hypothesizes that this sink is probably photosynthetic plants.
Is this enough to offset the CO2 output by human activities?
It does imply the following however.
1. The biosphere possesses a very effective negative feedback system that works against CO2 increase.
2. As CO2 increases, expect more worldwide plant growth and productivity, which in turn would blunt the CO2 increase even more. (This is the way negative feedback mechanisms work.)
3. This mechanism won't stop the over-all increase in CO2 as long as mankind keep on pumping it into the atmosphere; it just slows it.
4. If humanity stops all agro-industrial CO2 output, then CO2 levels will decease toward its pre-industrial level.
|Mar-16-17|| ||diceman: <visayanbraindoctor:
1. The biosphere possesses a very effective negative feedback>
Unlike government, which tends to break into oscillation
due to positive feedback!
...or “clip” as they say in digital lingo.
In politics, “clipping” is running out of money.
|Mar-16-17|| ||visayanbraindoctor: Here is a typical article on CO2 emission.
<The largest human source of carbon dioxide emissions is from the combustion of fossil fuels. This produces 87% of human carbon dioxide emissions. Burning these fuels releases energy which is most commonly turned into heat, electricity or power for transportation. Some examples of where they are used are in power plants, cars, planes and industrial facilities. In 2011, fossil fuel use created 33.2 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions worldwide.1
The 3 types of fossil fuels that are used the most are coal, natural gas and oil. Coal is responsible for 43% of carbon dioxide emissions from fuel combustion, 36% is produced by oil and 20% from natural gas.>
If you look at the chart, it's
-fossil fuels 87%
-land use 9%
-industrial processes 4%
The term land use IMO is not well-defined. Using land for example may cut down trees, and supposedly increase CO2 emission from the decaying wood.
<Land use changes are a substantial source of carbon dioxide emissions globally, accounting for 9% of human carbon dioxide emissions and contributed 3.3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions in 2011.1 Land use changes are when the natural environment is converted into areas for human use like agricultural land or settlements. From 1850 to 2000, land use and land use change released an estimated 396-690 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, or about 28-40% of total anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions.
Deforestation has been responsible for the great majority of these emissions.>
The article in typical manner totally misses out that new growth sucks in a lot more CO2 from the atmosphere than a mature forest ecosystem. This is what happened to Europe's forests. There is no forest more than 300 hundred years old in Europe since they were all cut down to fuel the early stages of the industrial revolution. Now they're back, and as secondary growth are denser than before. Whatever CO2 their cutting down 'emitted' in the 19th century has probably been balanced by the CO2 grabbed by the fast growing new growth.
Naturally, the article completely omits the global greening phenomenon although it was already known to science back then.
It's articles like this that give so-called environmentalists a bad name. They keep on churning out sloppy science or maybe even pseudo science. My personal 'favorite' is the deranged project to sequester CO2 into underground depots. That endeavor itself takes energy and uses fossil fuels, and in the end you just sequester double the oxygen than the carbon.
|Mar-17-17|| ||visayanbraindoctor: There are industrial processes that emit CO2 from sources not directly to fossil fuel burning.|
1. The manufacture of cement and concrete. Essentially, limestone CaCO3 is converted to lime CaO and CO2. The process releases CO2 from carbonate rocks.
2. The smelting of iron oxides and other metal oxides into iron or the elemental metal. Coal (or charcoal) is used not as a fuel, but as a reducing agent that grabs the O from the FeO, producing CO2 and the pure metal.
Every time you grab an aluminum can or see steel girders in a construction site, think- they used to be oxide minerals, that are now in their metal form because of the use of coal, turning it into CO2.
Bad news for those worried about the rise in CO2.
(Although I guess that for plants, it's good news. More 'food' to incorporate into their structures.)
In any case, there doesn't seem to be many studies on just how much the production of cement/concrete and elemental metals contribute to the worldwide CO2 output.
|Mar-17-17|| ||twinlark: <diceman: Twin & VBD should enjoy this:>|
Positively surreal. Starting to look more and more like Bizarro World.
|Mar-18-17|| ||diceman: <Trump Organization will make its first donation to Treasury in 2018: report |
The Trump Organization on Friday said it has developed a policy to identify profits made from foreign officials staying at its hotels but will wait until next year to make its first promised donation to the Treasury Department, Politico reported Friday.>
Lets hope Trump owns trillions, and trillions, and trillions, and trillions, of hotels!
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 338 OF 338 ·