Well that's obviously a hyperbolic statement, but it is true that Trump has had a concerningly cavalier attitude towards the use of nukes. One statement in particular was very concerning IMO, which was that Donald stated he wanted to be "unpredictable'" with the use of nukes. That is exactly the wrong position to take towards potentially making that fateful decision. The only sane position when faced with potential nuclear apocalypse is clearly not to use them unless they are used on you. Being unpredictable with such power and not taking extreme care with their use is a great way to lose friends and make enemies very quickly, not to mention teeter on the edge of Doomsday. Trump's comments on mukes shows how little he understands what the hell he's talking about. It's awful and very scary that he could ever be put in charge of the big red button. https://thinkprogress.org/9-terrify...about-nuclear-weapons-99f6290bc32a#.kzw4g773t
Donna Brazile - fck you, you POS. Keep in mind, she is still the chair of the DNC. Whatever it takes to win....right Dems? Great ethics you got going there while you look down on everyone else. Not even an ounce of remorse. Unreal. “My conscience — as an activist, a strategist — is very clear,” the interim chair of the Democratic National Committee said Monday during a satellite radio interview with liberal activist and SiriusXM host Joe Madison. She added that “if I had to do it all over again, I would know a hell of a lot more about cybersecurity.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...debate-questions-to-hillary-clinton/#comments
Both Trump and Clinton are unacceptable choices for those who don't want to see the US dragged into a major war. In Trump's case, that is partly because of the unpredictable nature of his character, and partly because his support base includes a lot of jingoistic elements that have been fed a good bit of propaganda and are quite trigger happy. In Clinton's case, that is because she will be working on a script that is already in place and, if carried out, could very well trigger such a war.
Talking about nuclear war, even though you would have to learn to decipher the code and navigate through the propaganda while reading between the lines, the following article might be instructive in terms of the heightened risk that we will see the nuclear genie out of the bottle again. The truth is that a war with Iran will be so messy and costly and that the only way it could end in favor of those who will be starting such a war is to resort to using nukes against Iran. Note also: the prediction isn't about a nuclear war in or around Israel. Rather, the reference is in fact to Israel using nukes against Iran. http://yournewswire.com/john-podesta-wikileaks-nuclear-war-persian-gulf/ WikiLeaks: Podesta Warns Persian Gulf ‘Nuclear War’ Is Coming
I just explained to you. There was no "other" guy They are two different efits of the same suspect. i.e. one person You should try returning to reality based living
Your railing against the MSM is tedious. And wrong. Thanks to the very wonder of Trump himself, we get him, pretty much unfettered. And that's what is so frightening. Trump didn't know when this election started what the nuclear triad is. He admitted that. Openly. There's no propaganda there, just Trump's ignorance.
Opa became a pacifist on account of his shocking experiences in 1945 during the death throes of the Wehrmacht Not necessarily an easy position to hold in cold war Germany. It's often expressed more as a philosophical position than a political one. So had he been called back to the Wehrmacht he would have refused to pick up a rifle. Indeed he did not allow toy guns in the house, or any violent TV programmes!
The trouble with Orwell is he writes from his own world view e.g. on the front lines of the Spanish Civil War as part of a socialist uprising. But as was common at the time, idealistic socialists did not factor in being pro-stalinist. Ditto it was hard to see how Germany's pacifists were being pro-fascist. Many quite the opposite. Interestingly my grandfather, in the brutal campaign of Crete, came around to the quite socialist idea that he had much in common with the german paratroopers the kiwis were slaughtering. Indeed a moment that stuck in my head as a lad was he lent me John Keagan's book on WWII and I was commenting on the destruction of the Westheer at the Falaise Pocket His comment? "Poor bastards" Because he knew the personal terror of being bombed by the Luftwaffe from Greece to North Africa So surely the even more important idea is that ordinary men from Germany or New Zealand refuse to travel to North Africa to kill each other?
Like Orwell - you see pacifism through a political lens. In 1945, an 18 year old german boy saw his entire squad killed around him in his first action. He decided to walk home and never pick up a weapon again. Do I need to experience his personal horror myself to understand the logic?
It's that really thick thing with the very thin pages that isn't the Bible and that very strong Icelandic men tear in half.
Seriously? I remember about 25 years ago I was living in Cleveland and somebody wrote to the Plain Dealer about Family Circus, "Stuff those no neck maggot kids into a bag and throw it off a bridge." That pretty much sums up my feelings.
I think there's a super-creepy "mashup" which renders Family Circus without the captions. It's amazing how just removing the words so that the images are the only things you see changes what your mind sees. Sort of like Garfield Minus Garfield, but creepier. It's been a while, though, so I don't have a link handy.
I had several books of Family Circus collections as a kid. Garfield too for that matter. IDK, they were cutesy and everything, but I enjoyed the humor. And let me say I've always had very good taste in comic strips. I had every single Don Martin book.
I got the complete Don Martin collection - two massive volumes. My other favorite as a kid was Peanuts. I had every book, one in three languages - Snoopy Come Home, Reviens Snoopy, and Snoopy, Vuelve A Casa! The Peanuts reruns in the Washington Post now are from back when Schultz was "in a rich vein of form" as the footie commentators say. Right now, the Post does not carry Hi and Lois, I skip the no neck maggot kids, but I do read Garfield and Dilbert. Maybe a future Gynostar story line could a quest to figure out what in the hell Prince Valiant is about. I have been not reading / not understanding that for my entire life. A lifelong WTF.
Well, I'm glad I went looking for this thread in page two. I feel less alone in the world knowing that the whole Prince Valiant thing isn't some highly personal form of aphasia that afflicted only me.
I always felt it was a poor mans Ivanhoe No not Ivanka! I liked the artwork but it never went anywhere.