How often do you take Tolerance Break. Is it even worth it Lol.

[Cameroni]

1 hour ago, candide said:

Small magnitude? You're kidding, aren't you? 😀

 

Not at all. The real reasons for Russia's steallar economic performance currently is Putin's genius fiscal policy. He saved  yesterday to spend today, when he needs it. Yes a small part is spent on the military, but the overwhelming majority of the spending goes to other areas. Infrastructure is one. Then they are attracting investment from India and China.

 

Like I said, many factors, most not related to military spending.

 

 

 

 

[RayC]

5 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Well, this is disappointing on so many levels. I thought you had read the Economist article, but there are none so blind as those who refuse to see. The facts are there. if you want to rather believe bull<deleted> articles written by beautician with no knowledge of reality, up to you. China now owns Russia, lol, people write some nonsense on here.

 

This was only to be expected when someone is unable to offer points to directly counter an argument.

 

Rather than critique the pieces written by Dr. Foucart - who holds a PhD in Economics and lectures at the University of Lancaster - you adopt a patronising tone and dismiss him insultingly as "a beautician". Sad really. I thought that you were better than that.

 

(Note to any beauticians reading: In no way am I insulting your profession. You have your skill set but I doubt that it extends to an economic analysis of a war-torn economy).

 

I have read the Economist article. It is much more nuanced than you suggest with your cherry picking of sections. It can be summarised as stating that the Russian economy has been surprisingly resilient, but it questions whether this resilency can be sustained in the medium/long term.

 

Incredible how some people can become so blinded by their own prejudice. 

[RayC]

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

 

As of 2023, the military expenditure share of Saudi Arabia's GDP was about 7.09 percent. So would you say military spending drives the Saudi economy, that Saudia Arabia is a war economy?

 

Algeria's military spending is 8.2  percent of GDP. Is Algeria's economy drivien by military spending? Is Algeria a war economy?

 

10% of GDP is minimally above levels other nations spend in peace time. It is most definitely not the reason why Russia's economyis blooming. The reasons for this are explained in the Economist article. Since you can read it, don't forget to read those parts. I've kindly pasted them above.

 

Nice bit of cherry picking again with a dose of deflection and a falsehood thrown in for good measure.

 

The average worldwide defence spend by nations is around 3.5% of their GDP, significantly - not minimally - below Russia's 10%.

 

Saudi Arabia is not a war economy. Presumably, it spends a relatively large 7% of its' GDP on defence as it perceives a threat from Iran (and perhaps, Israel?). Its' economy is built on petroleum exports. It runs a budget surplus of +/-3% GDP: It can afford to finance its' defence spending in the medium/ long term. Russia can't.

 

I know little about Algeria and, frankly, have neither the time nor interest to research it further. (Apologies to any Algerians reading. No insult is intended). However, I don't know what point you think Algeria's relative high defence spend proves?

 

You have posted The Economist article so many times in so many different places that imo all that needs to be said about it has been said. By way of a change, perhaps you could offer a more detailed analysis of the attached article by "a beautician", and explain how Russia will be able to afford to rebuild its' own infrastructure (and that of the Crimea and Donbass should it gain control of those regions)?

 

https://theconversation.com/russias-economy-is-now-completely-driven-by-the-war-in-ukraine-it-cannot-afford-to-lose-but-nor-can-it-afford-to-win-221333

[Cameroni]

1 hour ago, RayC said:

 

This was only to be expected when someone is unable to offer points to directly counter an argument.

 

Rather than critique the pieces written by Dr. Foucart - who holds a PhD in Economics and lectures at the University of Lancaster - you adopt a patronising tone and dismiss him insultingly as "a beautician". Sad really. I thought that you were better than that.

 

(Note to any beauticians reading: In no way am I insulting your profession. You have your skill set but I doubt that it extends to an economic analysis of a war-torn economy).

 

I have read the Economist article. It is much more nuanced than you suggest with your cherry picking of sections. It can be summarised as stating that the Russian economy has been surprisingly resilient, but it questions whether this resilency can be sustained in the medium/long term.

 

Incredible how some people can become so blinded by their own prejudice. 

I like how you apologise to the beauticians of the world, they are very easily offended. Good job,

 

That piece by Renaud is not worthy of any critique. To say China owns Russia is obviously the product of a sick fantasist mind.

 

The second article, even the title is already a failure. Russia can't afford to lose and can't afford to win? What??? Because Russia can't rebuild the infrastructure? Has this part time non-tenured  Lancaster lecturer ever set foot in Russia?  They've built structures only matched by New York, if there's one thing the Russians can do is build giant  infrastructure.

 

If he had ever been to Russia he would know that the last concern Russia has is a crumbling infrastructure. It's ludicrous. Russia is fighting for its very survival as an independent nation. As a unique and proud culture, unbeholden to the US, like the slaves in Europe. We should all support Russia in this glorious aim. If there's no money to build a bridge this year, do you think they care? They'll build it in 2 or 3 years. It's a non-issue.

 

Besides, the very notion that Russia could lose this war is laughable. There is absolutely no conceivable possibility that Russia could lose this war with things as they stand. Russia is winning. And Russia will win this war.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 13 hours ago by Cameroni

[RayC]

13 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

I like how you apologise to the beauticians of the world, they are very easily offended. Good job,

 

👍 Thanks.

 

13 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

That piece by Renaud is not worthy of any critique. To say China owns Russia is obviously the product of a sick fantasist mind.

 

Cut and paste is so useful:

 

"This was only to be expected when someone is unable to offer points to directly counter an argument."

 

13 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

The second article, even the title is already a failure. Russia can't afford to lose and can't afford to win? What??? Because Russia can't rebuild the infrastructure? Has this part time non-tenured  Lancaster lecturer ever set foot in Russia?  They've built structures only matched by New York, if there's one thing the Russians can do is build giant  infrastructure.

 

The author wasn't commenting on Russia's ability to built the physical structures but questioning how it will be financed. But then I  suspect you know that and choose to defect rather than answer the question.

 

You seem to know a lot about Dr. Foucart's conditions of employment.

 

13 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

If he had ever been to Russia he would know that the last concern Russia has is a crumbling infrastructure. It's ludicrous.

 

So there has been no physical damage to Russian infrastructure- or that in the Crimea and Donbass - as a result of this war? 

 

13 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Russia is fighting for its very survival as an independent nation. As a unique and proud culture, unbeholden to the US, like the slaves in Europe. We should all support Russia in this glorious aim. If there' no money to build a bridge this year, do you think they care? They'll build it in 2 or 3 years. It's a non-issue.

 

Besides, the very notion that Russia could lose this war is laughable. There is absolutely no conceivable possibility that Russia could lose this war with things as they stand. Russia is winning. And Russia will win this war.

 

Nice rant. Lifted from RT or Rossiyskaya Gazeta?

[thaibeachlovers]

13 hours ago, Cameroni said:

You could handpick a group from Asean now who would govern the EU better than this amalgam of incompetents.

A group of school kids could probably come up with better policies.

[save the frogs]

This guy is the craziest leader of them all.

He makes Trump and Kamala look sane.

Not because of his policies, which I know nothing about.

But because he's married to a much older woman.

Who in their right mind who has so much power and money marry a much older woman?

Someone tell this guy about Thailand!

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, Cameroni said:

I like how you apologise to the beauticians of the world, they are very easily offended. Good job,

 

That piece by Renaud is not worthy of any critique. To say China owns Russia is obviously the product of a sick fantasist mind.

 

The second article, even the title is already a failure. Russia can't afford to lose and can't afford to win? What??? Because Russia can't rebuild the infrastructure? Has this part time non-tenured  Lancaster lecturer ever set foot in Russia?  They've built structures only matched by New York, if there's one thing the Russians can do is build giant  infrastructure.

 

If he had ever been to Russia he would know that the last concern Russia has is a crumbling infrastructure. It's ludicrous. Russia is fighting for its very survival as an independent nation. As a unique and proud culture, unbeholden to the US, like the slaves in Europe. We should all support Russia in this glorious aim. If there's no money to build a bridge this year, do you think they care? They'll build it in 2 or 3 years. It's a non-issue.

 

Besides, the very notion that Russia could lose this war is laughable. There is absolutely no conceivable possibility that Russia could lose this war with things as they stand. Russia is winning. And Russia will win this war.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Had you omitted "We should all support Russia in this glorious aim." I could have agreed with the rest.

 

However, I don't support dictators, or regimes run by dictators.

[RayC]

51 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Had you omitted "We should all support Russia in this glorious aim." I could have agreed with the rest.

 

However, I don't support dictators, or regimes run by dictators.

 

Then perhaps you too could explain how Russia will finance the rebuilding of its' own infrastructure and - should it win the war - that of Crimea and the Donbass.

[Lancelot01]

20 hours ago, Watawattana said:

Why not let GB back in? That should help accelerate the collapse… 

Fact check, GB were never members.

[JonnyF]

15 hours ago, RayC said:

 

Hardly whataboutism. You claim that immigration is a 'leftist' plot. I pointed out the obvious flaw in your contention (rant).

 

The Tories are ostensibly right wing but adopted a left wing policy on immigration whihc is why they lost their support base and we have the current shower of muck. 

 

15 hours ago, RayC said:

 

Wrt rapes in Paris. Maybe a bit of context is needed. 97 rapes were reported in a year in a city of 6m. Now 97 is 97 too many, but it hardly conjures up an image of a lawless city where immigrants run amok raping and pillaging the locals. Secondly, of those 97 rapes, 28 out of 36 solved cases were proven to have been committed by foreign nationals. Again, that is 36 too many rapes but the 28 is not 77% of the total as you imply.

 

Stop trying to downplay the rape of Parisian women by immigrants. I suppose you think the women in the unsolved cases were lying for attention do you? Or maybe "asking for it" by uncovering their faces? 

[JonnyF]

14 hours ago, newbee2022 said:

Unfortunately VDL is the wrong person for a change.

 

Vote her out then.

 

Oh... wait a minute.

[herfiehandbag]

16 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

Of course, garbage in, garbage out. You can't expect the EU to be competent body if the home governments are full of kindergarten teachers, ravers and party girls.

 

This is not a video of  first year uni students high on drugs, this is the prime minister of Finland:

 

 

Good Lord, she is a woman!

 

Knew one once, soft and lumpy as far as I remember!

[herfiehandbag]

Macron warns that the EU is failing to be competitive because of over regulation and centralisation.

 

So he is calling for a Central Banking package, greater Integration in defence, foreign affairs and such like.

 

Right...

[JonnyF]

Could we be seeing more and more tit for tat tarriffs on goods between the EU and China? A trade war even? 

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn8jz39xl19o

 

[Watawattana]

1 hour ago, Lancelot01 said:

Fact check, GB were never members.

Not interested in arguing on this, but I thought they were.  A quick look on the European Parliament website confirms they were.  Maybe a semantic thing, but if you can could you explain your comment?

 

The United Kingdom (UK) joined the European Union in 1973, having maintained a long-standing relationship with the bloc since its founding. In 2016, following a referendum, it became the first Member State to end its EU membership.

 

The last part of the copied text is why I think they were.

 

From this web site - https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/216/the-united-kingdom

[Card]

22 hours ago, Watawattana said:

Why not let GB back in? That should help accelerate the collapse… 

The eu is desperate fir a defence abd security agreement with the UK, the country with the strongest military abd intelligence capabity in Europe, abd the UK should leverage that advantage for concessions on the trade front instead if giving into the eu on all fronts.

[Card]

19 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Whataboutism aside, yes the tories let everyone down on immigration which is why we have the current shower which are far worse. 

 

 

You might not be so blase if you were a woman walking the streets of Paris.

 

https://www.gbnews.com/news/world/france-migration-rape-cases-paris-foreigners

 

'Foreign nationals' doesn't always indicate illegal immigrants, as is often implied. The perps could be foreign tourists, or any other legal foreign nationals.

[Card]

19 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Whataboutism aside, yes the tories let everyone down on immigration which is why we have the current shower which are far worse. 

 

 

You might not be so blase if you were a woman walking the streets of Paris.

 

https://www.gbnews.com/news/world/france-migration-rape-cases-paris-foreigners

 

'Foreign nationals' doesn't always indicate illegal immigrants, as is often implied. The perps could be foreign tourists, or any other legal foreign nationals.

[Card]

19 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Whataboutism aside, yes the tories let everyone down on immigration which is why we have the current shower which are far worse. 

 

 

You might not be so blase if you were a woman walking the streets of Paris.

 

https://www.gbnews.com/news/world/france-migration-rape-cases-paris-foreigners

 

'Foreign nationals' doesn't always indicate illegal immigrants, as is often implied. The perps could be foreign tourists, or any other legal foreign nationals.

[BruceWayne]

18 hours ago, BritManToo said:

EU is a united Europe under German rule.

 

EU is a united Europe under globalist rule *funded by Germans*

 

The EU is the re-incarnated Soviet Union, only perhaps even more in love with centralised control and arbitrary decisions by the Brussels apparatchiks.

 

Is the Marxist's dream coming to life?

 

Who is this 'European Movement“, and who is funding it? This little-known organisation were financially powerful enough to drop a high-quality print booklet into every household in the entire UK in 2016.

The declassification of formerly secret records has solved both mysteries. For as it turns out, they are connected. In the words of Nottingham University academic Richard Aldrich:

"The use of covert operations for the specific promotion of European unity has attracted little scholarly attention and remains poorly understood. … the discreet injection of over three million dollars between 1949 and 1960, mostly from US government sources, was central to efforts to drum up mass support for the Schuman Plan, the European Defence Community and a European Assembly with sovereign powers. This covert contribution never formed less than half the European Movement’s budget and, after 1952, probably two-thirds. Simultaneously they sought to undermine the staunch resistance of the British Labour government to federalist ideas…. It is also particularly striking that the same small band of senior officials, many of them from the Western [note: this means US] intelligence community, were central in supporting the three most important transnational elite groups emerging in the 1950s: the European Movement, the Bilderberg Group and Jean Monnet’s Action Committee for a United States of Europe [ACUE]. Finally, at a time when some British antifederalists saw a continued ’special relationship‘ with the United States as an alternative to (perhaps even a refuge from) European federalism, it is ironic that some European federalist initiatives should have been sustained with American support.“

 

There is much more to read in this explosive piece of scholarly research (Richard J. Aldrich (1997), OSS, CIA and European unity: The American committee on United Europe, 1948-60, Diplomacy & Statecraft,8(1), pp. 184-227, online at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09592299708406035#.V2exrU36voo )

 

UK journalist and former Brussels correspondent Ambrose Evans-Pritchard was the only journalist to report on such academic research findings, in two articles in 2000 and 2007:

"DECLASSIFIED American government documents show that the US intelligence community ran a campaign in the Fifties and Sixties to build momentum for a united Europe. … US intelligence secretly funded the European Movement, paying over half its budget. Some of Europe’s founding fathers were on the US payroll….

 

"The documents confirm suspicions voiced at the time that America was working aggressively behind the scenes to push Britain into a European state. Lest we forget, the French had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the federalist signing table in the early 1950s. Eisenhower threatened to cut off Marshall aid unless Paris agreed to kiss and make up with Berlin. France’s Jean Monnet, the EU’s mastermind, was viewed as an American agent – as indeed, he was. Monnet served as Roosevelt’s fixer in Europe during the war and orchestrated the failed US effort to stop de Gaulle taking power.

 

"One memorandum, dated July 26, 1950, gives instructions for a campaign to promote a fully fledged European parliament. It is signed by Gen William J Donovan, head of the American wartime Office of Strategic Services, precursor of the CIA. …

 

Washington’s main tool for shaping the European agenda was the American Committee for a United Europe [ACUE], created in 1948. The chairman was Donovan, ostensibly a private lawyer by then. The vice-chairman was Allen Dulles, the CIA director in the Fifties. The board included Walter Bedell Smith, the CIA’s first director, and a roster of ex-OSS figures and officials who moved in and out of the CIA. The documents show that ACUE financed the European Movement, the most important federalist organisation in the post-war years. In 1958, for example, it provided 53.5 per cent of the movement’s funds. The European Youth Campaign, an arm of the European Movement, was wholly funded and controlled by Washington.

"The leaders of the European Movement – Retinger, the visionary Robert Schuman and the former Belgian prime minister Paul-Henri Spaak – were all treated as hired hands by their American sponsors. The US role was handled as a covert operation. ACUE’s funding came from the Ford and Rockefeller foundations as well as business groups with close ties to the US government.

 

"The head of the Ford Foundation, ex-OSS officer Paul Hoffman, doubled as head of ACUE in the late Fifties. The US State Department also played a role. A memo from the European section, dated June 11, 1965, advises the vice-president of the European Economic Community, Robert Marjolin, to pursue monetary union by stealth.

"It recommends suppressing debate until the point at which "adoption of such proposals would become virtually inescapable“.

"Fifty years after the Treaty of Rome, the architects of post-war US policy would be quite pleased, I think, if they were alive today. …

 

https://professorwerner.org/eu-basics-your-guide-to-the-uk-referendum-on-eu-membership/

 

Edited 1 hour ago by BruceWayne

[josephbloggs]

3 minutes ago, BruceWayne said:

 

EU is a united Europe under globalist rule *funded by Germans*

 

The EU is the re-incarnated Soviet Union, only perhaps even more in love with centralised control and arbitrary decisions by the Brussels apparatchiks.

 

Is the Marxist's dream coming to life?

 

Who is this 'European Movement“, and who is funding it? This little-known organisation were financially powerful enough to drop a high-quality print booklet into every household in the entire UK.

The declassification of formerly secret records has solved both mysteries. For as it turns out, they are connected. In the words of Nottingham University academic Richard Aldrich:

„The use of covert operations for the specific promotion of European unity has attracted little scholarly attention and remains poorly understood. … the discreet injection of over three million dollars between 1949 and 1960, mostly from US government sources, was central to efforts to drum up mass support for the Schuman Plan, the European Defence Community and a European Assembly with sovereign powers. This covert contribution never formed less than half the European Movement’s budget and, after 1952, probably two-thirds. Simultaneously they sought to undermine the staunch resistance of the British Labour government to federalist ideas…. It is also particularly striking that the same small band of senior officials, many of them from the Western [note: this means US] intelligence community, were central in supporting the three most important transnational elite groups emerging in the 1950s: the European Movement, the Bilderberg Group and Jean Monnet’s Action Committee for a United States of Europe [ACUE]. Finally, at a time when some British antifederalists saw a continued ’special relationship‘ with the United States as an alternative to (perhaps even a refuge from) European federalism, it is ironic that some European federalist initiatives should have been sustained with American support.“

There is much more to read in this explosive piece of scholarly research (Richard J. Aldrich (1997), OSS, CIA and European unity: The American committee on United Europe, 1948-60, Diplomacy & Statecraft,8(1), pp. 184-227, online at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09592299708406035#.V2exrU36voo )

UK journalist and former Brussels correspondent Ambrose Evans-Pritchard was the only journalist to report on such academic research findings, in two articles in 2000 and 2007:

„DECLASSIFIED American government documents show that the US intelligence community ran a campaign in the Fifties and Sixties to build momentum for a united Europe. … US intelligence secretly funded the European Movement, paying over half its budget. Some of Europe’s founding fathers were on the US payroll….

„The documents confirm suspicions voiced at the time that America was working aggressively behind the scenes to push Britain into a European state. Lest we forget, the French had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the federalist signing table in the early 1950s. Eisenhower threatened to cut off Marshall aid unless Paris agreed to kiss and make up with Berlin. France’s Jean Monnet, the EU’s mastermind, was viewed as an American agent – as indeed, he was. Monnet served as Roosevelt’s fixer in Europe during the war and orchestrated the failed US effort to stop de Gaulle taking power.

„One memorandum, dated July 26, 1950, gives instructions for a campaign to promote a fully fledged European parliament. It is signed by Gen William J Donovan, head of the American wartime Office of Strategic Services, precursor of the CIA. … Washington’s main tool for shaping the European agenda was the American Committee for a United Europe, created in 1948. The chairman was Donovan, ostensibly a private lawyer by then. The vice-chairman was Allen Dulles, the CIA director in the Fifties. The board included Walter Bedell Smith, the CIA’s first director, and a roster of ex-OSS figures and officials who moved in and out of the CIA. The documents show that ACUE financed the European Movement, the most important federalist organisation in the post-war years. In 1958, for example, it provided 53.5 per cent of the movement’s funds. The European Youth Campaign, an arm of the European Movement, was wholly funded and controlled by Washington.

„The leaders of the European Movement – Retinger, the visionary Robert Schuman and the former Belgian prime minister Paul-Henri Spaak – were all treated as hired hands by their American sponsors. The US role was handled as a covert operation. ACUE’s funding came from the Ford and Rockefeller foundations as well as business groups with close ties to the US government.

„The head of the Ford Foundation, ex-OSS officer Paul Hoffman, doubled as head of ACUE in the late Fifties. The State Department also played a role. A memo from the European section, dated June 11, 1965, advises the vice-president of the European Economic Community, Robert Marjolin, to pursue monetary union by stealth.

„It recommends suppressing debate until the point at which „adoption of such proposals would become virtually inescapable“.

„Fifty years after the Treaty of Rome, the architects of post-war US policy would be quite pleased, I think, if they were alive today. …

 

https://professorwerner.org/eu-basics-your-guide-to-the-uk-referendum-on-eu-membership/

My eyes hurt.

[BruceWayne]

6 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

My eyes hurt.

 

Your brain and soul will hurt too if/once the penny drops

 

 

Edited 1 hour ago by BruceWayne

[thaibeachlovers]

10 minutes ago, BruceWayne said:

Fifty years after the Treaty of Rome, the architects of post-war US policy would be quite pleased, I think, if they were alive today. …

Perhaps they are cryogenically frozen and awaiting the banishment of death ( only for the "right" people of course ) to be brought back to run their monstrous creation.

[RayC]

5 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

The Tories are ostensibly right wing but adopted a left wing policy on immigration whihc is why they lost their support base and we have the current shower of muck. 

 

Now that IS 'whataboutism'!

 

How can recent Tory governments be absolved of accountability and responsibility for its' failure?

 

Simples. We just label the failed policies 'left wing'. 

 

5 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Stop trying to downplay the rape of Parisian women by immigrants. I suppose you think the women in the unsolved cases were lying for attention do you?

 

I'm downplaying nothing. Which part of "97 rapes is 97 too many" is unclear?

 

I have stated nothing that could remotely be construed as suggesting that the unfortunate women in question were "lying (sic) for attention".

 

5 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Or maybe "asking for it" by uncovering their faces? 

 

And along comes the sly innuendo for good measure.

 

The fact remains that the overwhelming majority of immigrants (and native-born Muslims) are law abiding. 

 

At least, you now appear to have dropped your previous pretence that, "I'm not against immigration", and are now showing your true colours: Your most recent rants make no distinction between legal and illegal migrants when it comes to assigning blame.