placeholder

From Aug 25, 2016 Biden warns Europe against dependency on Russia for heating oil and natural gas US Vice President Joe Biden warned European countries against becoming too dependent on Russian oil and gas, saying it would be "bad" for Europe. Biden was specifically referring to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline which is supposed to deliver natural gas from Russia to Germany via the Baltic Sea. He called it "a fundamentally bad deal for Europe," adding that "Europe needs diverse sources of natural gas, not, in our view, a Nord Stream 2 pipeline." https://www.dw.com/en/biden-warns-europe-against-dependency-on-russia-for-heating-oil-and-natural-gas/a-19503334 Biden was actually way ahead of Trump in warning of the dangers of depending on Russia for natural gas.

Just maybe, just possibly perhaps the reason the word unprovoked is mentioned so often is that the defenders of Russia like you for example often describe the war as being provoked, as though Russia bears little or no responsibility for the present situation. Or that the responsibility is somehow shared equally between Ukraine and its allies on the one hand and Russia on the other

Michael Shellenberger is a notoriously unreliable source of information. Book review: Bad science and bad arguments abound in ‘Apocalypse Never’ by Michael Shellenberger https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/07/review-bad-science-and-bad-arguments-abound-in-apocalypse-never/ As he didn't note, 15 years ago the Netherlands were the EU's biggest producer by far but have since depleted most of their gas reserves. https://www.bloomberg.com/professional/blog/europes-biggest-natural-gas-producer-running-fuel/ Shellenberger claimed "we now think there is strong evidence" that Russians are supporting environmentalists.. The evidence is so strong that he only thinks it exists? He doesn't offer evidence to prove it? The truth is that fracking is unpopular with the citizenry of Europe. You don't need claims of Russian support to understand that.

As the article pointed out, only these troops reported that prisoners went for weapons when they accompanied soldiers back into the house. No where else in Afghanistan was this reported. Forensic experts also noted the downward trajectory of bullets fired on homes. Not consistent with a firefight. But I'm sure you read the article and noted these peculiarities.

A US proxy war that not only Ukraine, but countries on Russia's borders such as Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland enthusiastically support. How condescending can you be? You might ask yourself what these border nations know about Russia that you don't.

From the article: "But senior officers became concerned by the frequency with which the squadron's own accounts described detainees being taken back inside buildings and then grabbing for hidden weapons - an enemy tactic not reported by other British military forces operating in Afghanistan."

Look up paleoclimatology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology

The current spike in temperature is unprecedented for millions of years. So, no, it hasn't been borne out by scientiric records. Paleoclimatologists have come to exactly the opposite conclusion of what you claim. As for using that ridiculous photo of Sidney Harbor. Have you ever heard of something called "tides". Unless that is accounted for, that photo is completely worthless as evidence of anything. In addition, land rises or sinks at different rates around the world. So unless that is taken into account, data is lacking to come to conclusion. It's amazing what garbage people with an axe to grind and no use for science will fall for. Fact Check-Side-by-side comparison of two photographs cannot accurately determine sea level change "It is not possible to gauge sea level rise simply by comparing two images of a location side-by-side, experts told Reuters, despite claims made online. A widely shared post compares two images of Fort Denison, Sydney, with a caption that reads: “Unprecedented climate change has caused sea level at Sydney Harbour to rise approximately 0.0cm over the past 140 years” (here)." https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-sydney-sea-level-idUSL1N2RL1Q4

Is this from the same incident? Another General Killed as Russian Leak Admits ‘Big Shot F***ing Command’ Was Obliterated Ukrainian forces took out yet another Russian general in a massive counterattack in Kherson, local authorities said Tuesday. A general and five Russian military officers were killed in a Ukrainian strike on Russian headquarters using the U.S.-supplied M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARs), according to Serhiy Bratchuk, a representative of the Odesa regional military administration. “After a strike by HIMARS on the headquarters in the Kherson region, Major General [Artyom] Nasbulin, the head of the 22nd Army Corps of the Russian Armed Forces (military unit 73954, Simferopol), was killed https://www.thedailybeast.com/another-general-killed-as-russian-leak-admits-big-shot-<deleted>-command-was-obliterated

Because it's a matter of frequency. Event's viewed in isolation are about weather. Events viewed in context are about climate. But the way you three think, a record hot day is just a day with no significance beyond that. But when viewed in context, that record hot days in Australia now outnumber record cold days by a margin of 12 to 1, it's about climate.

Thanks for your thoughtful analysis of the evidence.

Germany specific? The Euro is not the Deutschmark which no longer exists.

The likelihood of a deal is good. But your claims about twitter's liability for fraud are clearly nonsensical. You clearly don't have a clue about the law in cases like this. Twitter has always been careful to comply with SEC regulations in its filings. It always stated that its figures were accurate to the best of its belief. What makes your argument even more ridiculous is that one of the tasks that Musk explicitly and publicly set for himself once he purchased Twitter was to clean up the bots which he claimed was a far more serious matter than Twitter let on. So he's going to sue Twitter for a problem he knew about in advance of the purchase? On what grounds? That he's got a split personality?

Which comment takes no account of the specific performance clause in the contract signed by Musk which guaranteed the premium price that Musk agreed to.

Sure. He's said for months that he wants to lead a mission there and it hasn't yet happened. How disingenuous are you?

What you failed to mention is that Russia is denying the IEAE access to inspect the plants. Are the Wall St. Journal and Reuters mainstream enough for you? U.N. Atomic Agency Chief Presses for Access to Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Plant U.N. atomic agency chief Rafael Grossi said he is pressing for access to the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in Ukraine, which is Europe's largest such facility containing six reactors. “We hope to go there to be able to prevent...a problem, or we end up finding that there are a few hundred kilograms of nuclear weapon-grade material going missing. This is what keeps us awake at night at the moment,” Mr. Grossi said at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Wednesday. The Zaporizhzhia plant has been under the control of Russian forces since the early days of the Ukraine invasion but Ukrainian staff continue to operate the facility. https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/russia-ukraine-latest-news-2022-05-25/card/u-n-atomic-agency-chief-presses-for-access-to-zaporizhzhia-nuclear-plant-g7vHkGVBMtlvYgYQPakd IAEA voices concern for staff at Ukrainian nuclear plant, demands access VIENNA, June 6 (Reuters) - The U.N. nuclear watchdog is working on sending an international mission of experts to the Russian-held nuclear power plant at Zaporizhzhia in Ukraine, Europe's largest, its chief Rafael Grossi said on Monday. International Atomic Energy Agency chief Grossi has for months said that the situation at Zaporizhzhia, where Ukrainian staff are working under Russian orders, poses a safety risk and said he wants to lead a mission there. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/iaea-chief-working-mission-russian-held-zaporizhzhia-nuclear-plant-2022-06-06/

The meme is ridiculous and utterly false. I guess the need to believe in Musk is so strong that any lie, no matter how improbable, will serve to shore up the desperate need to believe in Musk the superhero. I guess the genius also foresaw the collapse in the price of Tesla stock? "Corporate-law experts say Twitter appears to be on sounder legal footing than Mr. Musk. The filing didn’t provide evidence to back up his assertion that the estimate was inaccurate or an alternate calculation. “This isn’t even in the ballpark,” said Zohar Goshen, professor of transactional law at Columbia Law School, adding that the impact on a company’s value needs to be so dramatic that its value would be halved, for example." https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musk-twitter-strange-legal-fight-11657488572?mod=hp_lead_pos5

My post was in response to the varying claims of how much of Thai GDP tourism was responsible for. Not to establish that 2020 was a bad year for tourism.

Rarely have I seen so pronounced a case of willful ignorance. Can you cite anyone with expertise in such matters who says differently? Anyone? Anyway, before due diligence became an issue, it was already reported that Musk had waived his right to it. All the way back in April when the deal was announced. This article in Bloomberg appeared a couple of days after the deal was made public. How would it even have been suspected that Musk was going to renege? "It is worth noting that Elon Musk’s offer to buy the company was not contingent on customary due diligence, and given the timeline he basically didn’t do any. Davis and Baker report that “the transaction came together at breakneck speed in part because Musk waived the chance to look at Twitter’s finances beyond what was publicly available.” https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-04-26/elon-got-his-deal https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-26/twitter-takeover-was-brash-and-fast-with-musk-calling-the-shots?srnd=premium Keep in mind that at the time he actually was going over the heads of Twitter management to appeal to stockholders directly to accept his offer. This article in Bloomberg appeared a couple of days after the deal was made public. How would it even have been suspected that Musk was going to renege? Keep in mind that at the time he actually was going over the heads of Twitter management to appeal to stockholders directly to accept his offer.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1143467/thailand-share-of-tourism-to-gdp/

What don't you understand about the fact that Musk waived his right to due diligence? And no, they didn't lie in the SEC filings. They always noted that their estimate could be substantially off. And to make his case, Musk would have to prove that these figures had a "material adverse effect" on the deal. The Delaware courts set a very very high bar for something to qualify as a material adverse effect. . And please, tell us where it's been contradicted that musk waived his rights to due diligence. I don't need a good nose for BS to smell that your comments are full of it.

As I noted in my reply, I quoted myself. But apparently for some inexplicable, the person I replied to doesn't not read all my posts. So for their benefit, I quoted it.

You kind of left out who Ukrainians blame most of all and by far, didn't you? And the group that Ukrainians blame the least, ultra rightiest, are the ones Russia used as an excuse for the invasion https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/WSJ_NORC_Ukraine_Poll_June_2022.pdf

If 1 billion was all Musk stood to lose, I don't think he'd have a problem paying it. However, to quote myslef: "It's about a clause in the contract called a "specific performance" clause. "How it works: Section 9.9 of the Musk-Twitter merger agreement says that the company "shall be entitled to specific performance or other equitable remedy to enforce [Musk's] obligations," assuming various other conditions are satisfied. The key precedent is IBP Inc. v. Tyson Foods Inc, with Don Tyson of Tyson Foods playing the role of Elon Musk. He tried to back out of an agreed acquisition of IBP, but in 2001 was forced to buy the company anyway by the Delaware Chancery Court." https://www.axios.com/2022/07/09/twitter-elon-musk-specific-performance Keep in mind that Musk's position is even weaker because he gave up the right to due diligence."