Yeah I thought of that too.

Maybe neither but we don't know yet. There may have been a personal angle (I mean about the government, not these two guards). He worked with USG forces (including CIA) in Afghanistan.

@Mik said in Ah the beautiful words from our President: The pendulum swings in ever wider arcs, sadly. But I do not find his statements more offensive that the feelgood, ignore reality fucking lies the other side tries to pawn off. Good point about the wider arcs. The politician lying spectrum goes from spin to exaggerations to lying to vulgar lying. Trump has clearly shown where he’s at. It’s funny misspelling potato used to be controversial, and calling someone a macaca used to destroy political hopes.

@jon-nyc said in Thanksgiving memes 2025: https://x.com/seckennedy/status/1994099827861241862?s=46 Speaker of the House has no seat at the table. Sad.

[image: 1764335000449-img_8971.jpeg]

That was great.

https://x.com/interesting_ail/status/1994081820279730641?s=46

Witkoff’s main qualification for this job seems to be that he’s Trump’s friend, has had extensive business connections with Russian tycoons, and knows how to flip luxury properties. But he’s managed to do something Putin couldn’t pull off in almost four years of brutal full-scale warfare: undermine Ukraine’s position before real negotiations even start. https://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/65128

An interrogation of the passive voice in writing: Link to video

@Horace said in Germany's plan for war with Russia: Does Russia have any hope against NATO? Depends what the war aims are. If Russia’s aims are narrow and confined to territories that were former Soviet republics it could result in a protracted war of attrition on those territories accompanied with hybrid warfare and targeted special forces/espionage operations on NATO member states beyond the battlefields of Eastern Europe. If Russia’s war aims are to expand into Central Europe with the objective to reconstitute Stalin’s post WWII cordon sanitaire, the risks of crossing the nuclear threshold increase tenfold. On the other hand, if NATO prevails on the battlefield but shows zero interest or intent to pursue a retreating Russian army beyond the current recognised Russian borders, I think the risk of a nuclear exchange - at least in the short term - becomes unlikely. I get the concern over nuclear war, but assuming Russia is not suicidal, what is the real risk here? The obvious dilemma both NATO and Russia face is the real risk that one of the nuclear capable belligerents begins thinking the unthinkable for one or more reasons and crosses the nuclear threshold at some point once hostilities commence. Bad enough if the threshold is crossed at the tactical level; much worse if it escalates to the theatre level (that is, European industry and civilian infrastructure); apocalyptic if it results in a strategic exchange. It is a real risk and one that has been debated throughout the period of the Cold War and into the present. There is no definitive answer to thinking the unthinkable.

They've been very loyal to me as well. Did really well with Garmin, too. They pivoted nicely once GPS was ubiquitous.

The market is forward-looking.

I still haven’t used all my pumpkin spice crime scene tape yet.

@Horace But I didn't hear much in those two videos that seemed totally indefensible. Frankly speaking nor did I. However, Carlson seems to equate Zionism with Netanyahu and his current coalition’s policy towards Palestinian Arabs. I on the other hand, would suggest Netanyahu has hijacked and distorted Zionism in order to justify his ultra nationalist policies towards Arabs and Muslims in general. Despite his professed disdain for leftist political ideology that holds Zionism to be a form of racism, Carlson appears paradoxically in agreement with the Left on the matter of Zionism.

I recently had to sit through a retirement speech by one of our senior Executives. He droned on for what seemed like hours with lists of these kind of aphorisms. As I left, I overheard somebody say 'Thank God he's retiring'.