Cameroni

Unfortunately JK Rowling lost a lot of credibility when she went on a tweet rampage after the Khelif fight, calling that boxer a "man" repeatedly, when in fact it's an intersex dudette with a vagina and probably testes as well. Her LGBTQ opponents will no doubt crucify her for this error.

It may well be that Khelif, like Caster Semenya, is neither a man nor a woman, but rather "intersex", basically a case of nature misfiring. Caster Semenya admitted she had testes and a vagina, but no fallopian tubes and did not menstruate. I suspect, Khelif, like Caster Semenya, also of a very male appearance, is a similar case. Now, just because Intersex people exist, and obviously choose to be designatd one or the oher sex, does not mean they should be allowed to compete against women. Obviously Intersex people are a very rare abnormality in nature, so unfortunately the Olympcs can not grant them their own category. But if they are allowed to compete in women's sports it makes a mockery of the competition and in boxing risks women's lives over and above normal boxing risks. It was tried with Caster Semenya to force her to take testosterone reduction medication to level the playing field, but she complained this ruined her life. And she had to be tested repeatedly, which also proved unpleasant for all parties concerned. Hence IOC don't want to do that anymore. But to just allow these Intersex abnormalities to compete with women is also wrong and should not be allowed. It's tragic for the Intersex people, but in the end we can not let abnormalities have a detrimental effect on the lives of the great majority.

It's interest rate. Everyone anticipated the Fed will cut interest rates soon. This weakens the dollar. Perfectly normal market situation anticipated by most people.

Agreed, Japan is ice cold in winter, think 6ft snow walls. Whilst most people rave about Japan who've just gone on holiday, those who live there long term often hate it. Tiny rooms, overcrowding, earthquakes and tsunamis. Nah, I'll stay in Thailand.

It was expressly articulated by James Baker, you can read the actual documents here: "There would, of course, have to be iron-clad guarantees that NATO’s jurisdiction or forces would not move eastward. And this would have to be done in a manner that would satisfy Germany’s neighbors to the east." https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early See also Mitterand writing to Bush: Mitterrand immediately wrote Bush in a “cher George” letter about his conversation with the Soviet leader, that “we would certainly not refuse to detail the guarantees that he would have a right to expect for his country’s security.” (See Document 20) https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early The Russians were told expressly that NATO will not expand eastwards. They were deceived and lied to.

Wrong. "On 10 June 2013, former Dutch prime minister Ruud Lubbers confirmed the existence of 22 shared nuclear bombs at Volkel Air Base.[22] This was inadvertently confirmed again in June 2019 when a public draft report to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly was discovered to reference the existence of US nuclear weapons at Volkel, as well as locations in Belgium, Italy, Germany, and Turkey." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing Poland is not out of the question, the US and Poland are discussing including Poland in nuclear sharing. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2024/04/22/polish-president-wants-nato-nukes-for-deterring-russia/ The Russian actions in Crimea came AFTER 2008 when NATO had revealed it was breaking its "iron clad guarantee" to Russia not to expand NATO. Russia had long before then repeatedly marked a line in the sand that NATO expansion in Georgia and Ukraine is unacceptable. Lol, yes only a "defensive system" pointing nuclear weapons at you from many countries and encircling you, creeping ever closer. So very defensive, lol. No, you're plain wrong, on literally everything. Putin is only interested in taking a part of the Ukraine, the Donbass region. This is what Putin has said repeatedly and what the military operations show. As you well know the Kiev convoy halted and did not attack Kiev. All the real fighting was elsewhere. Possibly it was a dstraction to fool the enemy that Russia was about to strike Kiev, to confuse the enemy. It certainly succeeded in confusing everyone since to this day there is just speculation about this convoy. But the real fighting was elsewhere.

Not at all confused, nuclear sharing has been going on for a long time, the Netherlands confirmed 22 nuclear weapons in 2013 at the Volkl base and Poland has publicly stated that they have been in discussions with the US to receive nuclear weapons "for some time". Obviously these talks are held behind closed doors and nobody knows when they really started, but the fact that Poland is pushing hard and the US is prepared for Poland to host nuclear weapons is well documented. Putin is incredibly popular in Russia and no opposition leader had any hope of taking his place. He had no reason to invade Ukraine for popularity, that idea, I think is a bit fanciful. Look, we don't know what Putin thinks, you don't and I don't either. However, you can be sure of one thing, he could drop a nuclear weapon in Ukraine and easily defeat Ukraine that way. In return the US would never retaliate, nor would Britain or France, because they would risk nuclear annihilation. So this war is already lost for Ukraine. It is just a question of what the peace agreementwill look like. But a peace agreemen there will be. And Russia will win this war.

It is true that James Baker's promise of "iron clad guarantees" that NATO would not expand eastwards was first given to the then USSR, but of course later Warren Christopher repeated the same to Yeltsin, then leader of the new Russia. Whilst Christopher lied about it, and the transcripts of his meeting were classified in the West, they have now been declassified and lo and behold: "Declassified documents from U.S. and Russian archives show that U.S. officials led Russian President Boris Yeltsin to believe in 1993 that the Partnership for Peace was the alternative to NATO expansion, rather than a precursor to it, while simultaneously planning for expansion after Yeltsin’s re-election bid in 1996 and telling the Russians repeatedly that the future European security system would include, not exclude, Russia." https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2018-03-16/nato-expansion-what-yeltsin-heard It is no true that the US has never shown intent to put nuclear weapons in Poland, in fact Poland requested this and there have been negotiations to share US nuclear weapons with Poland. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2024/04/22/polish-president-wants-nato-nukes-for-deterring-russia/ It is true, however, that Russia's economy is smaller than Texas' economy. That is precisely the reason why this proganda of Putin invading Europe to reconstitute Imperal Russia or the Soviet Union is so silly. Military might is built on economic foundations. For this reasonalone Putin could never invade European countries and occupy them long term. Even occupying Ukraine would be beyond Russian capabilities, which is also why they can't do it. However, to argue that Putin squandered Russian resources in orde to gain popularity, when he was already the most popular man in Russian politics is not really convincing. The alternative that Putin really considered Ukrainian accession to NATO an existential threat is far more convincing to explain the invasion. Equally, Russia is wasting more resources than it is gaining, it has made no attempts to invade and occupy the Western Ukraine, and some of the juicier areas full of resources are not occupied by Russia. Again, the alternative, that Russia felt misled, deceived and afraid of Western encirclement by NATO expansion is far more likely an explanation.

NATO has moved ever closer to Russia, by expanding eastwards. Something America and Germany promised Russia NATO would never do. Falsely as we know now. By expanding NATO membership eastwards beyond Latvia, Estonia, Czech Republic and Poland, but right into the underbelly of Russia, into Georgia (which at one point was given very detailed negotiations to join NATO), Crimea and Ukraine, Western politicians laid the foundations for the Ukraine war. Even America's most eminent academic of international relations, Chicago Professor John Mearsheimer, says this. https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/why-john-mearsheimer-blames-the-us-for-the-crisis-in-ukraine Obviously you first have to move Nato closer and only then can you move the missiles closer. But that America is now going to deploy additional nuclear missiles in Germany and Great Britain leaves no doubt his could happen in Georgia and Ukraine, if they too join NATO. Invading part of the Ukraine could easily destabilise Ukraine to such an extent that should it join NATO it would be meaningless because of the conditions in Ukraine. Obviously this would be preferably to Russia than a strong, stable, Ukraine, that invites the US to place nuclear missiles on the Russan border. You argument is incoherent, why do you think Russia invaded part of Ukraine? To establish a new Imperial Russia? If that were the case where is the evidence for that? Apart from American think tank propaganda twisting Putin's words on Russian history to imply that is a blueprint for Imperial Russia, there is nohing in real word actions or statements by Russia that would imply Putin wants an Imperial Russia and will annex Poland, Sweden, Latvia etc. This is nonsense. So what is your explanation for Russia invading Ukraine, candide? If it is not NATO's eastward expansion, what is the reason for the invasion of Ukraine?

It is very much a fact that NATO member states have nuclear weapons pointed at Russia. And it is equally very much a fact that NATO is a military alliance designed to increase military co-operation with the aim of intimidating, threatening, and if need be, fighting Russia. Had Georgia and Ukraine joined NATO it would have been very likely indeed that the US would have stationed nuclear weapons here. Your premise does not make sense. IF NATO expansion eastwards had not been a threat to Russia, then why would Russia have invaded UKraine? The sole aim is to incorporat parts of the Ukraine and to weaken the country so it cannot join NATO. Why would Russia do this if there were no threat from NATO? We have already established that this notion of Putin being a new Hitler intent on incoporating Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Sweden is devoid of any facts, and pure propaganda. There is absolutely no evidence for this. If Russia invaded Ukraine, think why it would do so. Because of the threat of NATO and Ukraine joining it. ".. in 1998, the New York Times editorial board warned: “The most important foreign policy decision America has faced since the end of the Cold War… could prove to be a mistake of historic proportions.” And this: “It is delusional to believe that NATO expansion is not at its core an act that Russia will regard as hostile.” "George Kennan—intellectual architect of the Cold War containment doctrine, a former ambassador to the USSR, and one of America’s wisest students of Russian affairs—spoke for the many dissenters in 1997 when he warned that NATO expansion “would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era.” https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/australianoutlook/why-nato-expansion-explains-russias-actions-in-ukraine/ To state that America's military budget or military forces decreased is naive beyond belief. America is armed sufficiently to destroy the world many times over, a percentage increase in spending or personnel is likea drop in an ocean. Just as it is naive to believe NATO encroaching on the borders of Russia with Georgia, Crimea and Ukraine is not a threat to Russia. Especially since we've had advance warning of Russian sensibilities on this since the 1990s. Ukraine happened because of the false decisions taken by recent Western politcians.

I don't know if you follow the news at all, but NATO member Germany has just announced that new American nuclear weapons will be stationed in Germany by 2026. Before that the US announced that it had plans to station more nuclear weapons in NATO member Great Britain. NATO is a military aliance and it is patently clear that increased military cooperation between NATO members includes the possibility of stationing nuclear weapons in NATO member's territories. Sadly it's not fantasy, but a fact. And as everyone knows both Georgia and Ukraine have been governed by rabidly anti-Russian politicians before. The possibility of the US stationing nuclear weapons in Ukraine is very real. Indeed many Ukrainian politicians have demanded the Ukraine develop nuclear capability. And we all know that the US has already delivered weaponry to the Ukraine specifically intended to kill Russians, including tanks, missiles and more. This is particularly sad, because we had a time of rapprochement in the 1990s when Russia agreed to allow German unification, after receiving a promise and "iron clad" guarantees that NATO would not expand further eastwards than East Germany. At that time Russia bent over backwards to develop friendship with the west, even aiding American space exploration and there were many, many other areas of co-operation between Russia and the West. Many EU countries at the time considered scrapping visa requirements for Russians. Russia signalled clearly it hand friendly intentions, but alas, Russia was progressively deceived, insulted and threatened with military expansion by NATO contrary to the "iron clad" guarantees it received from the US. Russia extended a hand of friendship but was slapped in the face.

When it dangled the NATO carrot in front of Georgia and substantive steps were taken to allow Georgia membership of NATO, which Russia always made clear was unacceptable and provocation. Of course it was far more than that because if Georgia had become a member of NATO that would have implied close mlitary cooperation, including the possibility of stationing nuclear weaons, as NATO member Germany is doing now. If nuclear weapons were stationed in Georgia or Ukraine, that's as if Russia would station nuclear weapons in Belgium or Luxembourg in the case of France, or in Wales in the case England, or in Cuba in the case of the US. This was shown to be unacceptable to the US in the 60s, but Russia was expected to just accept it. It is quite clear that the Western politicians did no do their homework and have to take substantial blame for th current crisis in Ukraine and the previous one in Georgia.

The Atlantic Council, lol. A US disinformation think tank linked to the US government. You may want to get proper sources. You're kidding yourself. That article refers to the interview Putin gave with the Fox Journo, where Putin said parts of Ukraine were Russians and stressed the shared history with Ukraine. This is taken by this ludicrous propaganda article as implying Putin wants an imperial war to return russian land. Makes you laugh at least, such childish propaganda.

I'm guessing you're not aware that Putin has made clear he is only annexing a part of the Ukraine, not the whole country. And that there is zero evidence that he's intending to annex Poland, or any other state. Latvia, Estonia and Moldova are not independent states? What evidence is there Putin will annex them? Zero. Same with Georgia and Ukraine. Those were only replies to US threats to put missiles there threatening Russia's existence. Like Ukraine, the fault of our Western politicians' incompetence.

Totally poppycock. Russia is absolutely not trying to expand. As evidenced by the fact they do not claim the whole of Ukraine. There is ZERO evidence they want Poland or any other country.

This article is terribly flawed, it claims Russia has waged an aggressive campaign against the West. In fact all Putin did was claim a part of Ukraine in reponse to a Western campaign to incorporate East European countries into Nato, in direct contravention of promises and "iron clad guarantees" that were given to Russia that this would not happen. Russia is not waging any campaign against the West, it doesn't even want all of Ukraine, or Poland or any of the other nonsense that's constantly thrown out by way of misinformtion. In the final analysis Russia has alreay won this war againt Ukrain anyway. Even if conventional weapons would fail Russia could unleash nuclear weapons on Ukraine, but the US and the West could never retaliate because they would risk nuclear annihilation. So this idea hat you should pour more oil into the fire to win a war that can't ever be won anyway, is pure stupidity.

That's true, however, only because the IOC is not doing tests that would prove it or is not making the tests it does public knowledge. Pretty hard to prove it if the tests are hidden by the IOC. Maybe Khelif is a biological woman, all appearances notwithstanding, however, there are failed tests in the past, and the tests used by the IOC and the results should be made public before women have to face Khelif.

It is very clear the IOC is ideology driven as it has recently emphasized that boxing has reached "gender parity" with 124 boxers of male and female gender. However in the case of Khelif there are real doubts if she is a man or a woman, and they are not helped by the IOC keeping the gender tests SECRET. Nobody knows what was tested and how. The Mark Spitz argument doesn't hold any water, since then you might as well enter a Cheetah in the 100 metres, oh it's not problem it it has a genetic advantage. You have male and female categories, and you have to decide if an athlete qualifies for one or the other competition.

She didn't know she had Herpes Type 2, she had no idea it existed and no idea the Ukrainian gave it to her.

I did of course. Some people here have been very helpful though

It's not for me to say really. I didn't say I required perfection though

In hindsight I'd have to agree. Though I'm not sure what's worse, type 2 or wearing condoms.

Actually no, she refuses to do threesomes.

You'd think HSV2 is nothing. It only flares up now and then. But when it does you can't have sex for 8 days. Or longer. It's a major annoyance when it happens. Testing is the way to go.

What's "multi"?