Cameroni

It does if you believe in the survival of your nation and culture, if that is threatened but a nuclear strike gives you a slim chance to survive, then a nuclear war can make sense. But again, the risk of nuclear war is so serious, neither Russians nor Americans are that dumb to unleash it, we can see already that the Americans are extra careful not to unleash a hot war with Russia. Neither does Russia want it.

Feminism and motherhood have a complicated relationship. Radical feminist Shulamith Firestone articulated this most starkly in her argument that women would never truly be free of patriarchy until they were freed from the yoke of reproduction. She imagined wistfully a day when babies could be created in mechanical uteruses, freeing women from the physical subjugation of childbirth. While white feminists often painted motherhood as the ultimate apparatus of patriarchy, many activist women of color saw in motherhood not only freedom but also agency. motherhood has once again become a bogeyman for feminists. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/26/is-motherhood-the-unfinished-work-of-feminism That is vile and sick. I'm actually disgusted. Blah blah blah...bye.

You just don't get it. There will only be nuclear war if the US makes it a hot war. If Russia uses a nuclear bomb in Ukraine there will be no nuclear war. However, is there a hot war between the US and Russia then both will be wiped out. Not just Russia.

Russia does not want a genocide of is Slav brethren in Ukraine. Russia merely wants a neighbour that is not pro American, pro Western and is not a member of NATO. It's a national security issue, not an ideology or racial issue. They have not indicated they want the rest of Ukraine. Whatever happens Russia will keep Donbass and Crimea. The only question is how many Ukrainian soldiers and civilians have to die. The sooner the Ukraine negotiates the better it will be for the Ukrainians.

Yes, that was a mistake by Russia, they wanted to leverage the threats, This was done too much. However, this exchange illustrates how dangerous the people in charge in the US are. No matter how powerful the US military is, the Russians have 5000 nuclear weapons and can wipe the US from the earth, plus all NATO countries. Rather than "who's got the biggest stick" the Americans should have been incorporating Russia into a negotitated safety framework since the 90s. This "bigger stick" delusion is the road to disaster. Remember how WWI and WII happened? By accident, nobody wanted it. Both times.

He does want to end it, question is if he actually can.

I did not post anything about sports or physical attributes. You seem to be confusing me with someone else.

No, it's Kamala propaganda. She said it in the debate, remember? Unqualified, unlimited, total support for Ukraine to fight Russia. So she wants to pour gasoline on the fire. Net result, if Russia is forced to use a nuclear device at some point, the US and NATO response will determine if we all live or die. I can guarantee you now if the US or NATO make it a hot war Russia would use nuclear bombs if her survival is threatened. So clearly, Trump's option to end the UKraine war is an option that is safer for all of us. Including, above all Ukrainians. As President Pavel reminded Zelensky, if you kill half the population of Ukraine it will never be a victory, no matter what happens. Zelensky does not seem to get it. Reward Russia for "villainy"? Declaring war is the right of every state, it is no way "villainous". The lies and deception NATO served Russia for decades was villainous. Whether Russia's threats of nuclear bombs is a bluff or not is not something you want to find out, Jinghthing. Trust me. Let's end the war instead. It's safer.

He is of course highly reluctant to use nuclear weapons. He would use them if Russia's souvereignty is seriously in danger, but no sign of that. It must be very tempting to use them in UJkraine though, because Putin, sharp brain that he is, knows the Americans could not retaliate against Russia with a nuclear weapon. But why create more problems for Russia, when they can win without nukes anyway? Time is on their side.

No. There are a few nuns in buddhist monasteries who are feminist activists, but overall feminists extremists are confined to the fringes of society in Thailand. For instance there are only two "Women's Studies" courses in the whole of Thailand. Apart from this pervasive Buddhist feminism there is little sign of feminism in Thai society today. That you would try to adduce two female head of government as evidence of feminism is particularly amusing, because of course the first female prime minister only got the job because she was the sister of Thaksin, and the second because she was the daugther of Thaksin. Their ascent in politics actually says more about the power of one man, than anything else. Equally trying to claim working women for feminism does not work in Thailand. Ask any working woman in Thailand if she is a feminist and you will be greeted with a puzzled look or firm denial. The permissiveness in terms of sex in Thailand has more to do with Buddhism than feminist Dogma. In fact there is a near total absence of feminist activism in Thailand in day to day activities. No "Me Too" here, apart from South Korean visitors. Such a blessing, this absence of feminism. Why? There are so many evil sides to feminism. Where to start. First of all, feminism parts from a fundamental error, it seeks to make women more like men in the mistaken belief that mens' lives are easier. A belief that is of course untrue. Feminism promotes the idea that children and husbands are obstacles to happiness. Again, a fundamental mistake and error. The later feminists tried to make women into workers and succeeded, much to the cost of women, and of course men. All this came of course at the expense of the mother-child relationship and especially at the expense of the woman-man relationship. Feminism has been one of the key factors eating away at the fabric of society. If today we have mal-adjusted, rude, lazy, incompetent children, then in large part because Feminism came at the expense of the mother-child relationsihp. But it did not stop there, feminism also targeted its former idol, the male, and we saw now where feminism culminates, the Me-Too witchhunt, an all out attack on male-female relationships. Life at universities is now intolerable, gone are the carefree days, instead, cue "relationship contracts" to ensure you will not be accused of rape post-facto. Ultimately, Feminism also comes at the expense of women though, because the moral authority they once enjoyed which enabled them to ban alcohol, is now completely gone. After all, if women are equal, they have no greater moral authority. Feminism is a cancer eating away at society, relatioinships, mother-child, male-female, it is hard to imagine a more destructive ideology. Pepetuated not only by misguided females, but also misguided men, it has become all pervasive, even a Daily Telegraph editor now thinks he has to have a feminist extremist writing for the paper for good reputation. Your self-professed feminism is no doubt also part of your own virtue signalling, like so many here, a cheap road to follow. But in reality, make no mistake, feminism is a force for evil now. At one point it was useful, but it has become a completely destructive force. Abhorrent that men subscribe to this, but such are the times we live in.

My God, no wonder she was terrified. A kiss on the cheek, that sounds almost like inhuman torture, no human being should have to go through that. I hope some day there will be enough feminists in Thailand to prevent such shocking affronts to human dignity. A kiss on the cheek, the humanity....

What really matters about taxes and spending is "who" pays for them and who receives them. "The near unanimity in public discourse about the evil of deficits might seem to suggest that economists are similarly unanimous. In fact, however, they disagree fundamentally about whether deficits matter, and, if so, then why." The main distinction is that the federal government, with its power to raise taxes and print money, faces less default risk than would a household that regularly spent more than it took in. In addition, our debt is mainly internal: owed by American taxpayers to American bondholders (two groups that overlap). https://press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/751120.html There is, fundamentally, no economic issue with the US deficit, that we know of currently. The US is fantastically wealthy, more wealthy than God. The US could pass a tax and wipe out the deficit in a short time. The US deficit only matters in terms of who pays for it, ie future generations, to enable current generations to spend. It has political significance, but in economic terms we do not know if it has any. We do not know for instance what savings rate is appropriate. Is deferring spending for consumption in the future desirable? These are questions we cannot answer.

I'm not intimidated in the slightest by any woman. Living in Afghanistan seems a bit extreme and completely unnecessary. I live in Thailand where feminism is, thankfully, still held in check by the local men. But this influx of feminist men from Australia, UK, US etc, can only have a negative effect in the future. Very regrettable.

Fair point, son of a Lord. Incredibly the father is a Zionist on steroids. Should make for interesting family dinners.

So half naked ladyboys on Soi 6 - Not obscene Discreet brown package - Obscene. It's not an easy place to understand, Thailand.

You seem to fail to understand that there is a general principle involved here. Spain can only point to a legitimate grievance if occupying another nation's land is objectionable in principle. However, Spain is doing the exact same thing herself! So this is like a woman that's cheating complaining of being cheated on!

That's good going. Anyway, I guess I should clarify. In instances where one or two parties are in economic need, they may well pool resources, as there is otherwise no way to meet bills and living expenses. However, where both parties have a sufficient income, or one party has a relatively high income, it is common for the party with the highest income to meet the cost of daily necessities like rent, food etc, particularly if that is a man. If a woman then makes an additional salary, the man normally has no issue if she keeps the money for herself, and she certainly is inclined to do so. The fantasy of a true "partnership" where both parties pay all costs exactly equally, is quite rare, and when it happens more a matter of necessity than desire from both parties. In your particular case of course the lady probably has no additional cost in letting you live in the house, so this is a mutually beneficial relationship.

I'm really keen to try Chennai to Rangoon, South Indian should be worth the trip.

We're not talking about apples or oranges, we are talking about the occupation of a territory. And if Spain is herself occupying another nation's territory that's rather relevant to her complaint of another nation occcupying hers. If you have a woman complaining about cheating, it is rather relevant if she is cheating herself.

They really do, I especially like their lychee starter. But it is a bit out the way, true.

You do not understand how it works. If Russia uses a nuclear weapon in Ukraine the US and NATO cannot retaliate by using a nuclear weapon on Russia. Since Russia has over 5000 serviced nuclear weapons it can not just wipe out all NATO countries but the entire planet in a short time. Since Americans like to live they are avoiding a hot war with Russia like a cat a hot tin roof. You can learn from them.

You're doing the right thing, I also wouldn't divulge my favourite island. Crowds are the worst.

So it's not Ko Chang then?

The debt is a non-issue according to a large number of economists.

No, it's not. Spain's sense of grievance on Gibraltar has to be put into perspective. Since Spain is doing the same with Melilla and Ceuta, this rather weakens Spain's case on Gibraltar, surely?