https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
Friday, February 19, 2016
the americans broke or withdrew from every one of those treaties under the clinton or bush administrations, and have not adhered to any of them under obama, either. so, the russians no longer feel obliged to abide by rules that the americans are clearly refusing to abide by (there's a direct causal link between the invasion of iraq and the occupation of crimea, in terms of the validity of the international law that banned both actions). the feasibility of this is unclear, but the international law that you're referencing simply does not exist anymore.
www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/whats-up-in-space-russia-wants-to-nuke-asteroid-apophis/63838/
Ryan Norton
what is the word that TWN redacted in your comment? Was it B-u-s-h or R-e-a-g-a-n? I mean really (exasperated sigh), I find Republicans generally offensive too but that's no reason to put them on our 'swears' list of banned words, is it Weather Network?
jessica murray
recent presidents, in order: clinton, bush, obama. they're clearly using a very conservative algorithm.....
strange. it didn't get cancelled, there. the redacted word was "bush". reagan, for all his other faults, was actually pretty pro-active about following international law.
(and, sorry - that came out poorly. i meant that reagan was fairly pro-active about arms treaties, such as the one mentioned in the article, rather than broadly pro-active about international law. the 80s were a period when a lot of these kinds of agreements were signed, carrying on from the 60s and 70s. they were systematically dismantled and ignored in the 90s and 00s, as a corollary of the perceived american victory in the cold war. russia's decision to reciprocate is more recent, and really only cemented after the invasion of libya)
www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/whats-up-in-space-russia-wants-to-nuke-asteroid-apophis/63838/
Ryan Norton
what is the word that TWN redacted in your comment? Was it B-u-s-h or R-e-a-g-a-n? I mean really (exasperated sigh), I find Republicans generally offensive too but that's no reason to put them on our 'swears' list of banned words, is it Weather Network?
jessica murray
recent presidents, in order: clinton, bush, obama. they're clearly using a very conservative algorithm.....
strange. it didn't get cancelled, there. the redacted word was "bush". reagan, for all his other faults, was actually pretty pro-active about following international law.
(and, sorry - that came out poorly. i meant that reagan was fairly pro-active about arms treaties, such as the one mentioned in the article, rather than broadly pro-active about international law. the 80s were a period when a lot of these kinds of agreements were signed, carrying on from the 60s and 70s. they were systematically dismantled and ignored in the 90s and 00s, as a corollary of the perceived american victory in the cold war. russia's decision to reciprocate is more recent, and really only cemented after the invasion of libya)
at
13:33
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to the realization that she's being actively censored
i wasn't crying censorship before, but i'm noticing that a lot of my posts disappear when i log out. meaning only i can see them. see, that's sneaky - it means i don't actually know that i'm being censored.
and that i don't know how long i've been being censored for.
listen: i don't want my content on somebody else's channel. that was never my intent. my intent was always to have a feed of content.
comments are content.
the cross-link was just incredibly useful.
i've explained this already: i'll be vlogging my comments. yes, it's stupid. but, don't look at me, i'm just adjusting to a stupid system.
but, i'm not just figuring out that the videos are down and the content is evaporated - i'm figuring out that i'm not getting posts through. it's pretty random. and, when something like this is random there are two possible causes:
1) error. which is exceedingly unlikely. this is youtube.
2) active censorship.
i wanted to avoid that conclusion. i really did. but it's unavoidable.
i've been posting comments here for the last several months, hardlinked to google. flip through the page (or the koalas page), open a few links and tell me - how many of the links bring you somewhere other than the comment they're hardcoded to?
it's probably not google, exactly.
google has probably allowed full control over my profile to somebody at some ministry of information.
i'm not sure if my status as a canadian gives me more or less rights, here.
and that i don't know how long i've been being censored for.
listen: i don't want my content on somebody else's channel. that was never my intent. my intent was always to have a feed of content.
comments are content.
the cross-link was just incredibly useful.
i've explained this already: i'll be vlogging my comments. yes, it's stupid. but, don't look at me, i'm just adjusting to a stupid system.
but, i'm not just figuring out that the videos are down and the content is evaporated - i'm figuring out that i'm not getting posts through. it's pretty random. and, when something like this is random there are two possible causes:
1) error. which is exceedingly unlikely. this is youtube.
2) active censorship.
i wanted to avoid that conclusion. i really did. but it's unavoidable.
i've been posting comments here for the last several months, hardlinked to google. flip through the page (or the koalas page), open a few links and tell me - how many of the links bring you somewhere other than the comment they're hardcoded to?
it's probably not google, exactly.
google has probably allowed full control over my profile to somebody at some ministry of information.
i'm not sure if my status as a canadian gives me more or less rights, here.
at
03:14
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to the unelectability of hillary clinton
harsh truth?
if hillary clinton wanted a lock on the female vote, maybe she shouldn't have spent the better part of the last ten years proving to wall street that she's a war criminal.
it boggles my mind that anybody could look at her foreign policy record and suggest it's an asset. it's the cock-swinging, testosterone-addled, old boys network status quo.
hillary is every bit as rough and tumble and morally bankrupt as any of the other boys that are running.
and, she tried really, really hard to make sure we all understand this.
i don't see somebody that made tough choices.
i see somebody that made a lot of wrong choices - and who won't retreat from those wrong choices, let alone even admit they were even wrong.
gloria steinam is whatever. but, madeline albright's endorsement isn't exactly a gold ticket if you're looking for female voters.
why not just call up thatcher's ghost while you're at it?
hopefully, this is the last time i say this.
hillary has some experience. but it doesn't qualify her for the job so much as it disqualifies her for the job.
you don't just have to have been in the room. you have to have also had good ideas. and, if you were in the room and had bad ideas? that means your experience is evidence that you're a bad choice.
if you're looking to promote a head chemist, and somebody comes in with a long resume that includes a five year stint running a building that burned down three times, that experience is not an asset - it's a reason to disqualify the candidacy.
it's one thing to question why nobody has explained this to her.
it's another thing to point out that she actually needs it explained to her, as though she has no idea of the disastrous (catastrophic, really) long term implications of her department's policies in libya and syria.
ask smiley dmitri about that.
the removal of ghadaffi put russian-amerian relations back decades, and for no good reason.
it was a political stunt to make her look "tough".
you think that deserves a promotion?
i don't. i think it bars her from consideration for future office.
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/14401-hillary-clintons-legacy-as-secretary-of-state
if hillary clinton wanted a lock on the female vote, maybe she shouldn't have spent the better part of the last ten years proving to wall street that she's a war criminal.
it boggles my mind that anybody could look at her foreign policy record and suggest it's an asset. it's the cock-swinging, testosterone-addled, old boys network status quo.
hillary is every bit as rough and tumble and morally bankrupt as any of the other boys that are running.
and, she tried really, really hard to make sure we all understand this.
i don't see somebody that made tough choices.
i see somebody that made a lot of wrong choices - and who won't retreat from those wrong choices, let alone even admit they were even wrong.
gloria steinam is whatever. but, madeline albright's endorsement isn't exactly a gold ticket if you're looking for female voters.
why not just call up thatcher's ghost while you're at it?
hopefully, this is the last time i say this.
hillary has some experience. but it doesn't qualify her for the job so much as it disqualifies her for the job.
you don't just have to have been in the room. you have to have also had good ideas. and, if you were in the room and had bad ideas? that means your experience is evidence that you're a bad choice.
if you're looking to promote a head chemist, and somebody comes in with a long resume that includes a five year stint running a building that burned down three times, that experience is not an asset - it's a reason to disqualify the candidacy.
it's one thing to question why nobody has explained this to her.
it's another thing to point out that she actually needs it explained to her, as though she has no idea of the disastrous (catastrophic, really) long term implications of her department's policies in libya and syria.
ask smiley dmitri about that.
the removal of ghadaffi put russian-amerian relations back decades, and for no good reason.
it was a political stunt to make her look "tough".
you think that deserves a promotion?
i don't. i think it bars her from consideration for future office.
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/14401-hillary-clintons-legacy-as-secretary-of-state
at
00:33
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)