NPR

Posted: **Thu Mar 03, 2022 9:03 pm**

Uncle fester wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 8:38 pm
TB63 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 8:10 pm
Uncle fester wrote: ↑Thu Mar 03, 2022 7:46 pm This for real?

Spoiler
Show
Of course not, wanted a laugh, trying to get Convoluted to comment!..

Spoiler
Show
Phew

Spoiler

Show

..

Posted: **Fri Mar 04, 2022 7:32 am**

Trump seems to be scraping the barrel in his appointment of lawyers to act for him.

After Alina Habba-Habba's risible defence against Letitia James, he's being represented by Marie L. Fiala (who?) in his case against Twitter with similar results.

It's either because he can't afford a top flight lawyer, or because any reputable lawyer is aware of the reputational damage they would incur.

Plus, there's a high likelihood that they wouldn't get paid.

Maybe he feels that no Judge would be able to resist a pretty woman.

Posted: **Wed Mar 23, 2022 3:32 pm**

Just seen this:

I think we are all more or less innured to the idea that Trump will never be held to account because of the unwillingness of Garland's DoJ to act against him, but it does seem like something is afoot.

Having said that, if someone was to courier Trump's purloined classified documents abroad, it would be someone a little less high profile than Mamafort.

Posted: **Wed Mar 23, 2022 3:40 pm**

Rinkals wrote: ↑Wed Mar 23, 2022 3:32 pm Just seen this:

I think we are all more or less innured to the idea that Trump will never be held to account because of the unwillingness of Garland's DoJ to act against him, but it does seem like something is afoot.

Having said that, if someone was to courier Trump's purloined classified documents abroad, it would be someone a little less high profile than Mamafort.

He's under indictment for contempt of congress, over his refusal to give testimony on his involvement in Jan 6th.

Posted: **Wed Mar 23, 2022 5:13 pm**

EnergiseR2 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 23, 2022 4:49 pm The best people https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60843262

I've just no idea where to start with idiots like this.

I do not believe that I have committed any crime

He added that he has plans "to move my family here," but noted that the decision would ultimately be up to his wife.

I can imagine she is right on board with all of this. Husband loses his shit so you have to move to Belarus.

Posted: **Thu Mar 24, 2022 9:17 pm**

Just saw this Madeleine Allbright clip on twitter and did not realise that the "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction" talking point was used as far back as 1998. Really shows how scripted and disciplined the messaging is.

Posted: **Thu Mar 24, 2022 9:24 pm**

Hugo wrote: ↑Thu Mar 24, 2022 9:17 pm

Just saw this Madeleine Allbright clip on twitter and did not realise that the "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction" talking point was used as far back as 1998. Really shows how scripted and disciplined the messaging is.

Well he did, didn't he !

And he used them on a number of occasions, against Iran, & more infamously the Kurds.

Posted: **Thu Mar 24, 2022 9:27 pm**

Don't fuk with the Baldies.

Posted: **Thu Mar 24, 2022 9:38 pm**

Hugo wrote: ↑Thu Mar 24, 2022 9:17 pm

Just saw this Madeleine Allbright clip on twitter and did not realise that the "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction" talking point was used as far back as 1998. Really shows how scripted and disciplined the messaging is.

The "Saddam has weapons of Mass destruction" goes back further than 1998, it goes back to when his murderous regime used Sarin, Mustard gas and other chemical weapons against their own citizens.

Ali Hassan al-Majid, aka Chemical Ali -

I went to Sulaymaniyah and hit them with the special ammunition [i.e. chemical weapons]. That was my answer. We continued the deportations. I told the mustashars [village heads] that they might say that they like their villages and that they won't leave. I said I cannot let your village stay because I will attack it with chemical weapons. Then you and your family will die. You must leave right now. Because I cannot tell you the same day that I am going to attack with chemical weapons. I will kill them all with chemical weapons! Who is going to say anything? The international community? Fuck them! The international community and those who listen to them. ... This is my intention, and I want you to take serious note of it. As soon as we complete the deportations, we will start attacking them everywhere according to a systematic military plan. Even their strongholds. In our attacks we will take back one third or one half of what is under their control. If we can try to take two-thirds, then we will surround them in a small pocket and attack them with chemical weapons. I will not attack them with chemicals just one day, but I will continue to attack them with chemicals for fifteen days. Then I will announce that anyone who wishes to surrender with his gun will be allowed to do so. Anyone willing to come back is welcome, and those who do not return will be attacked again with new, destructive chemicals. I will not mention the name of the chemical because that is classified information. But I will say with new destructive weapons that will destroy you. So I will threaten them and motivate them to surrender.

Posted: **Thu Mar 24, 2022 9:48 pm**

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Thu Mar 24, 2022 9:38 pm
The "Saddam has weapons of Mass destruction" goes back further than 1998, it goes back to when his murderous regime used Sarin, Mustard gas and other chemical weapons against their own citizens.

Ali Hassan al-Majid, aka Chemical Ali -

I went to Sulaymaniyah and hit them with the special ammunition [i.e. chemical weapons]. That was my answer. We continued the deportations. I told the mustashars [village heads] that they might say that they like their villages and that they won't leave. I said I cannot let your village stay because I will attack it with chemical weapons. Then you and your family will die. You must leave right now. Because I cannot tell you the same day that I am going to attack with chemical weapons. I will kill them all with chemical weapons! Who is going to say anything? The international community? Fuck them! The international community and those who listen to them. ... This is my intention, and I want you to take serious note of it. As soon as we complete the deportations, we will start attacking them everywhere according to a systematic military plan. Even their strongholds. In our attacks we will take back one third or one half of what is under their control. If we can try to take two-thirds, then we will surround them in a small pocket and attack them with chemical weapons. I will not attack them with chemicals just one day, but I will continue to attack them with chemicals for fifteen days. Then I will announce that anyone who wishes to surrender with his gun will be allowed to do so. Anyone willing to come back is welcome, and those who do not return will be attacked again with new, destructive chemicals. I will not mention the name of the chemical because that is classified information. But I will say with new destructive weapons that will destroy you. So I will threaten them and motivate them to surrender.

Yeah, that is definitely well documented.

But I'm talking about something different - what I'm talking about is the exact terminology of "weapons of mass destruction" as used by the Beltway. I only recall hearing that specific term used in the run up to the invasion, apparently it was being used in foreign policy circles during the Clinton admin.

Posted: **Thu Mar 24, 2022 9:56 pm**

Hugo wrote: ↑Thu Mar 24, 2022 9:48 pm
But I'm talking about something different - what I'm talking about is the exact terminology of "weapons of mass destruction" as used by the Beltway. I only recall hearing that specific term used in the run up to the invasion, apparently it was being used in foreign policy circles during the Clinton admin.

The term was used in the first resolution of the United Nations General Assembly in 1946 (I do not have this information in my head, I had to look it up) but it even predates that -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of ... _this_term

Posted: **Thu Mar 24, 2022 10:14 pm**

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Thu Mar 24, 2022 9:56 pm
Hugo wrote: ↑Thu Mar 24, 2022 9:48 pm
But I'm talking about something different - what I'm talking about is the exact terminology of "weapons of mass destruction" as used by the Beltway. I only recall hearing that specific term used in the run up to the invasion, apparently it was being used in foreign policy circles during the Clinton admin.
The term was used in the first resolution of the United Nations General Assembly in 1946 (I do not have this information in my head, I had to look it up) but it even predates that -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of ... _this_term

Interesting reading. Looks like it was an Archbishop of Canterbury who first coined the term during the 30s.

Posted: **Thu Mar 24, 2022 10:23 pm**

Hugo wrote: ↑Thu Mar 24, 2022 10:14 pm
Tichtheid wrote: ↑Thu Mar 24, 2022 9:56 pm
Hugo wrote: ↑Thu Mar 24, 2022 9:48 pm
But I'm talking about something different - what I'm talking about is the exact terminology of "weapons of mass destruction" as used by the Beltway. I only recall hearing that specific term used in the run up to the invasion, apparently it was being used in foreign policy circles during the Clinton admin.
The term was used in the first resolution of the United Nations General Assembly in 1946 (I do not have this information in my head, I had to look it up) but it even predates that -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of ... _this_term
Interesting reading. Looks like it was an Archbishop of Canterbury who first coined the term during the 30s.

People assume Nukes were the first WMD, but actually they were the last.

Chemical warfare obviously started in WW I, with gas attacks by both sides; then in the inter-war years, a number of Countries worked with Anthrax, & other biological weapons, most horrendously with the Japanese conducting, "experiments", on Chinese villages, & captives.

The nuclear attacks on Japan were just the final example of weapons that were in-discriminant in who they killed, & whose nature made targeting them against solely military targets impossible.

Posted: **Sat Mar 26, 2022 1:45 pm**

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Thu Mar 24, 2022 10:23 pm
Hugo wrote: ↑Thu Mar 24, 2022 10:14 pm
Tichtheid wrote: ↑Thu Mar 24, 2022 9:56 pm

The term was used in the first resolution of the United Nations General Assembly in 1946 (I do not have this information in my head, I had to look it up) but it even predates that -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of ... _this_term
Interesting reading. Looks like it was an Archbishop of Canterbury who first coined the term during the 30s.
People assume Nukes were the first WMD, but actually they were the last.

Chemical warfare obviously started in WW I, with gas attacks by both sides; then in the inter-war years, a number of Countries worked with Anthrax, & other biological weapons, most horrendously with the Japanese conducting, "experiments", on Chinese villages, & captives.

The nuclear attacks on Japan were just the final example of weapons that were in-discriminant in who they killed, & whose nature made targeting them against solely military targets impossible.

Biological warfare happened for hundreds of years before that, catapulting bodies into castles under siege etc.

Posted: **Sat Mar 26, 2022 2:02 pm**

Biffer wrote: ↑Sat Mar 26, 2022 1:45 pm
fishfoodie wrote: ↑Thu Mar 24, 2022 10:23 pm
Hugo wrote: ↑Thu Mar 24, 2022 10:14 pm

Interesting reading. Looks like it was an Archbishop of Canterbury who first coined the term during the 30s.
People assume Nukes were the first WMD, but actually they were the last.

Chemical warfare obviously started in WW I, with gas attacks by both sides; then in the inter-war years, a number of Countries worked with Anthrax, & other biological weapons, most horrendously with the Japanese conducting, "experiments", on Chinese villages, & captives.

The nuclear attacks on Japan were just the final example of weapons that were in-discriminant in who they killed, & whose nature made targeting them against solely military targets impossible.
Biological warfare happened for hundreds of years before that, catapulting bodies into castles under siege etc.

Very true !

Or the Europeans giving the Native Americans blankets infested with fleas

Posted: **Sat Mar 26, 2022 2:38 pm**

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Sat Mar 26, 2022 2:02 pm
Biffer wrote: ↑Sat Mar 26, 2022 1:45 pm
fishfoodie wrote: ↑Thu Mar 24, 2022 10:23 pm

People assume Nukes were the first WMD, but actually they were the last.

Chemical warfare obviously started in WW I, with gas attacks by both sides; then in the inter-war years, a number of Countries worked with Anthrax, & other biological weapons, most horrendously with the Japanese conducting, "experiments", on Chinese villages, & captives.

The nuclear attacks on Japan were just the final example of weapons that were in-discriminant in who they killed, & whose nature made targeting them against solely military targets impossible.
Biological warfare happened for hundreds of years before that, catapulting bodies into castles under siege etc.
Very true !

Or the Europeans giving the Native Americans blankets infested with fleas

Never stayed in a Travelodge?..

Posted: **Sun Mar 27, 2022 3:31 pm**

Hugo wrote: ↑Thu Mar 24, 2022 10:14 pm
Tichtheid wrote: ↑Thu Mar 24, 2022 9:56 pm
Hugo wrote: ↑Thu Mar 24, 2022 9:48 pm
But I'm talking about something different - what I'm talking about is the exact terminology of "weapons of mass destruction" as used by the Beltway. I only recall hearing that specific term used in the run up to the invasion, apparently it was being used in foreign policy circles during the Clinton admin.
The term was used in the first resolution of the United Nations General Assembly in 1946 (I do not have this information in my head, I had to look it up) but it even predates that -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of ... _this_term
Interesting reading. Looks like it was an Archbishop of Canterbury who first coined the term during the 30s.

Oh, I didn't know he was that old.

Posted: **Sun Mar 27, 2022 3:42 pm**

Biden ramping up the rhetoric on twitter in the last 24 hrs

Posted: **Sun Mar 27, 2022 8:26 pm**

meanwhile in fantasy land...

Posted: **Fri May 13, 2022 9:29 pm**

This might be worth it's own thread, but what are the chances that major property appraisers have been systematically helping clients to defraud banks, & under pay taxes, for decades ??

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-a ... ?r=US&IR=T

Global real estate services giant Cushman & Wakefield is appealing a court order from last month that requires them to turn over years worth of property valuations by five appraisers who worked on Trump Organization properties.

The appeal, filed in a New York appellate court in Manhattan, pushes back against recent subpoenas from state Attorney General Letitia James, who is winding up a three-year investigation into the former president's business.

The Cushman records James wants — and which Cushman is fighting against turning over — center on five Cushman employees who did the appraisals for the Trump National Golf Club near Los Angeles, 40 Wall Street in Manhattan, and Seven Springs, a 212-acre estate in New York's Westchester County.

The five targeted appraisers, "have made repeated misstatements in the documents we've seen so far," concerning those three properties, a lawyer for the AG's office, Austin Thompson, argued in a Manhattan court hearing last month.

"We're worried about misstatements contained in [the five employees'] appraisals, and whether they have been repeated more often than we've already identified," Thompson said in court last month, in defending their subpoena.

In the case of the golf club and the Westchester estate, the Cushman appraisers "crafted a development timeline" for the properties and then "falsely attributed it to somebody else" as part of a tax-break scheme, Thompson said.

As for 40 Wall Street, the AG has alleged that Cushman appraisals of Trump's interest in the 70-story skyscraper more than doubled in the three years between 2012 and 2015. Trump used the higher
appraisal
in securing a $160 million loan.

James wants the three Cushman appraisers who handled 40 Wall Street to each turn over all of their other appraisals in the "Downtown Manhattan Office Market" between 2012 and 2015.

She has demanded six years of additional appraisals each from the Cushman employee who appraised Seven Springs, and from the employee who appraised the LA-area golf club.

Cushman attorney Sawnie A. McEntire has said in court hearings that the subpoenas are "outrageous and overbroad," and that complying would violate the privacy of some 1,000 clients unrelated to the Trump Organization.

And the clients would know. Each would have to be told that their appraisals had been subpoenaed, as required by their engagement contracts.

In arguments during a Manhattan court hearing on April 25, McEntire also said that Timothy Barnes, the Cushman employee who appraised Seven Springs, "actually aggressively pushed back" against the Trump Organization's demands.
...

So three appraisers were capable of manipulating the value of thousands of properties across Manhattan, & helping defraud banks. I can see why the company is fighting so hard; Criminal conspiracy, fraud, & a dozen other charges could see the entire board go to prison for Madoff kinds of time, & the company would disappear over night.

The only growth area on Real Estate would be building prisons to hold all the CEOs & CFOs who sought out the bogus valuations. Meanwhile Banks across the US would be frantically looking at the true valuation of the assets they'd set against loans.

Posted: **Fri May 13, 2022 9:37 pm**

If you take that in combination with the upcoming crash in the commercial property market as hybrid working kicks in, a lot of very rich guys could become a lot less so very soon.

Posted: **Fri May 13, 2022 10:02 pm**

Biffer wrote: ↑Fri May 13, 2022 9:37 pm If you take that in combination with the upcoming crash in the commercial property market as hybrid working kicks in, a lot of very rich guys could become a lot less so very soon.

On the plus side; if you're downsizing to a, 6' x 8' property, in a Federal housing institution, & you get free gym, & meals, how much money do you really need ?

Posted: **Wed May 25, 2022 12:24 pm**

EnergiseR2 wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 6:10 am Big fat Don getting his arse handed to him. Makes the morning slightly better

What's this?

Posted: **Wed May 25, 2022 1:22 pm**

Uncle fester wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 12:24 pm
EnergiseR2 wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 6:10 am Big fat Don getting his arse handed to him. Makes the morning slightly better
What's this?

I would guess Georgia republican governor primary.

Posted: **Wed May 25, 2022 3:54 pm**

Unfortunately, a good number of his Big Lie acolytes are in positions where they can refuse to certify any election that doesn't return a goon for the golf trousers soiling narcissist who has never known true love or friendship from anyone in his life.

Posted: **Fri Jun 24, 2022 3:29 pm**

EnergiseR2 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 3:23 pm No more sneaky rides for the yanks https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/liv ... st-updates

US supreme court next wants to ban same sex marriage and contraception?!

What a bunch of lunatics.

This ruling just makes women less safe, they'll still get abortions but won't be safe now. Very sad.

Posted: **Fri Jun 24, 2022 3:49 pm**

And those advisors, backers and think tanks are now firmly embedded in the Conservative Party. Don't think it can't happen here.

Fucking US Taliban.

Fucking lying Supreme Court candidates. Non-political institution my arse.

Fucking Senate shitehawks voting for them. You fucking knew what you were doing, Manchin et al.

Fuck America. Can't regulate guns, gives tax dollars for religious schools, can't defend the right to vote, but it can force a woman to have a baby.

Posted: **Fri Jun 24, 2022 4:45 pm**

The adoration of Wealth over anything else.

Posted: **Fri Jun 24, 2022 4:46 pm**

Line6 HXFX wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 4:45 pm The adoration of Wealth over anything else.

Mostly life ...

Such a backward step

Posted: **Fri Jun 24, 2022 4:53 pm**

EnergiseR2 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 3:23 pm No more sneaky rides for the yanks https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/liv ... st-updates

Christ!!!
That's awful

Posted: **Fri Jun 24, 2022 4:55 pm**

Congratulations to the American people for taking back decision making and policy to the people.

The people must decide, not a bunch of politicians, lobbyists and corporations with vested interests .

Posted: **Fri Jun 24, 2022 5:05 pm**

Wilson's Toffee wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 4:55 pm
The people must decide, not a bunch of politicians, lobbyists and corporations with vested interests .

The people don't decide, its a lobbying based system where the people with the deepest pockets wield the political power.

Posted: **Fri Jun 24, 2022 5:14 pm**

Wilson's Toffee wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 4:55 pm Congratulations to the American people for taking back decision making and policy to the people.

The people must decide, not a bunch of politicians, lobbyists and corporations with vested interests .

You're such a ridiculous right wing parody.

Posted: **Fri Jun 24, 2022 5:26 pm**

The latest polling show that 13% of the American people believe abortion should be illegal in all circumstances.

Anyone who says that is the "American people taking back decision making and policy" needs to go back to some elementary arithmetic lessons.

Posted: **Fri Jun 24, 2022 5:29 pm**

I must admit it does seem daft to me that you would allow this issue to be determined by the judiciary rather than legislating it into law.

Posted: **Fri Jun 24, 2022 5:45 pm**

So the individual State rights are null and void, because Federal politicians wish it so ?

Then the whole USA Constitution is not worth thee paper it was written on...

Posted: **Fri Jun 24, 2022 5:46 pm**

Hugo wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 5:29 pm

I must admit it does seem daft to me that you would allow this issue to be determined by the judiciary rather than legislating it into law.

Indeed. I know there are all sorts of complex legal issues and human tragedies involved but the principle that abortion rights should be decided by legislators seems reasonable to me.

Posted: **Fri Jun 24, 2022 5:47 pm**

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 5:14 pm
Wilson's Toffee wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 4:55 pm Congratulations to the American people for taking back decision making and policy to the people.

The people must decide, not a bunch of politicians, lobbyists and corporations with vested interests .
You're such a ridiculous right wing parody.

Temper, temper .. Other people should be allowed to have an opinion, you know

Posted: **Fri Jun 24, 2022 5:49 pm**

GogLais wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 5:46 pm
Hugo wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 5:29 pm

I must admit it does seem daft to me that you would allow this issue to be determined by the judiciary rather than legislating it into law.
If t

Indeed. I know there are all sorts of complex legal issues and human tragedies involved but the principle that abortion rights should be decided by legislators seems reasonable to me.

States should have the right to decide. They have legislators, let them do their jobs

Posted: **Fri Jun 24, 2022 6:00 pm**

Wilson's Toffee wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 5:49 pm
GogLais wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 5:46 pm
Hugo wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 5:29 pm

I must admit it does seem daft to me that you would allow this issue to be determined by the judiciary rather than legislating it into law.
If t

Indeed. I know there are all sorts of complex legal issues and human tragedies involved but the principle that abortion rights should be decided by legislators seems reasonable to me.
States should have the right to decide. They have legislators, let them do their jobs

Bet you're okay with the supreme court striking down NY gun laws though?

NPR

President Biden and US politics catchall

Re: President Biden and US politics catchall

Re: President Biden and US politics catchall

Re: President Biden and US politics catchall

Re: President Biden and US politics catchall

Re: President Biden and US politics catchall

Re: President Biden and US politics catchall

Re: President Biden and US politics catchall

Re: President Biden and US politics catchall

Re: President Biden and US politics catchall

Re: President Biden and US politics catchall

Re: President Biden and US politics catchall

Re: President Biden and US politics catchall

Re: President Biden and US politics catchall

Re: President Biden and US politics catchall

Re: President Biden and US politics catchall

Re: President Biden and US politics catchall

Re: President Biden and US politics catchall

Re: President Biden and US politics catchall

Re: President Biden and US politics catchall

Re: President Biden and US politics catchall

Re: President Biden and US politics catchall

Re: President Biden and US politics catchall

Re: President Biden and US politics catchall

Re: President Biden and US politics catchall

Re: President Biden and US politics catchall

Re: President Biden and US politics catchall

Re: President Biden and US politics catchall

Re: President Biden and US politics catchall

Re: President Biden and US politics catchall

Re: President Biden and US politics catchall

Re: President Biden and US politics catchall

Re: President Biden and US politics catchall

Re: President Biden and US politics catchall

Re: President Biden and US politics catchall

Re: President Biden and US politics catchall

Re: President Biden and US politics catchall

Re: President Biden and US politics catchall

Re: President Biden and US politics catchall

Re: President Biden and US politics catchall

Re: President Biden and US politics catchall