Posted on 01/01/2022 1:44:52 AM PST by weston
“This young man’s voice is amazing....”
My oldest grandson called me at Christmas and since he lives in California I hadn’t heard his voice in a long time. I heard the deepest voice coming out of him and I was thinking I wish he could sing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Erkv1-_xR7U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2FEHHHDMRI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzlT80jQ3lo&list=RDfzlT80jQ3lo&start_radio=1
CottonBall are you also a blonde? I am really outnumbered on this thread.
ROFL
Opps! I guess I can not count, I was not born when Roosevelt was President.
So I will correct my statement by saying I am a proud member of the 14 President’s Club.
But I won’t correct what my Grandfather said, he lived with us, and I don’t know what pension he was talking about but I do know it was taken away by Truman and he was furious.
Good morning to everyone except Democrat presidential regimes who destroy the country then tell you to go have a margarita.— Catturd ™ (@catturd2) January 22, 2022
I would like to issue an Honorary Kiss My Ass Degree to that pisoshito Rhode Island school that went woke on mi Rudy and mi Mike Flynn.— il Donaldo Trumpo (@PapiTrumpo) January 22, 2022
This was the turnout for this year’s March for Life.
The mainstream media won’t cover this.pic.twitter.com/9nM7umTszD— Benny (@bennyjohnson) January 22, 2022
Sheriff Lamb of Arizona has a message to all the LEOs enforcring Mask & Vaxx Mandates:
"The only way these ridiculous & unconstitutional mandates & orders, which are NOT laws are going to continue is if you continue to enforce them"👇 pic.twitter.com/GfLKG6vNX9— EPSTEIN's SHEET 🧻🍊 (@johnpecco1) January 21, 2022
NEW: @peoplefor/@ppppolls (D)
Joe Biden Favorability (WV)
Favorable 27%
Unfavorable 69%
Sen Manchin (D) Favorability
Favorable 54%
Unfavorable 39%
Donald Trump Favorability (WV)
Favorable 63%
Unfavorable 34%
550 RV | 1/17-1/18
State Sample: D35/I25/R40https://t.co/odzN6ctIck— PPUSA (@PollProjectUSA) January 21, 2022
Jen Psaki: "My advice to everyone out there who's frustrated, sad, angry, pissed off, feel those emotions, go to a kickboxing class, have a margarita..."
UNREAL. How is this the "advice" that is now coming from the White House?pic.twitter.com/ENphGJCryZ— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) January 21, 2022
Ugh. Minus 10 this morning. The high will be 14 degrees BUT the sun will be out. That will help a little.
Amen. Thank you.
Good morning, lysie!
Love the cup, BACON sure does make EVERYTHING better.
Wonder if the Liar in Chief has had any lately? He sure needs it to make himself feel better after all the losing.
The waffles are yummy, but could I have some of your hubby’s homemade syrup?
Thanks for the delicious breakfast.
We didn’t get any snow like was forecast, booooooo!!!
Do you have to get out in that frigid weather?
Stay warm and bundle up!
We have to go to the Legion around 5.
Good morning, lysie!
I was waffling on what to have for breakfast this morning, but you solved that problem with all that BACON!
Nice mug, too!
Thank you!
Lauren Boebert
@laurenboebert
·
24m
Jen Psaki says that if we’re having a hard time in Biden’s America we should go to a kickboxing class or just go have a margarita.
It’s the new “Let Them Eat Cake”.
The conventional wisdom is that we're headed for a second Cold War with Russia.
I disagree. We're flirting with a hot war.
It could involve nukes. Billions of people could die. 🧵— Clint Ehrlich (@ClintEhrlich) January 21, 2022
Just like before the Iraq War, there is a pro-war lobby pushing Biden to attack Russia.
They want to put together a "coalition of the willing."
Russia will be attacked if it does not surrender the territory it acquired in 2014.
The call for war is not coming from fringe people in lonely corners of the internet.
That op-ed is from Obama's deputy assistant secretary of defense.
She says that we should, "if necessary, prepare for war" with Russia.
Under what conditions would war be necessary?
If Russia does not end its "illegal occupations" of Ukraine and Georgia.
In other words: Russia must respect our version of international law, or we attack.
The problem is that the territory Russia acquired in 2014 includes Crimea.
The Russia hawks claim that is the problem: because we let Putin have Crimea, now he's demanding more.
They want to "roll back" Russia from that territory, "even at risk of direct combat."
This is a far more aggressive strategy than the U.S. pursued during the Cold War.
America primarily employed a "containment" strategy, as I described in my thread on George Kennan.
It never tried to "roll back" Russia inside the Soviet Union itself.
This was all foreseen by the architect of U.S. grand strategy during the Cold War.
George Kennan was the diplomat who devised our plan to "contain" the Soviet Union.
After the USSR collapsed, he warned that expanding NATO would lead us towards war with Russia.
In this instance, direct combat could easily escalate to all-out nuclear war.
From Russia's perspective, this new "coalition of the willing" would be invading its homeland.
The Kremlin views Crimea as just as much a part of Russia as Moscow.
My summary of the Russian government's attitude towards the territory is not an understatement.
It is informed by my time as a Visiting Researcher at MGIMO, where I had the opportunity to speak to Russian officials and strategists.
Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that war advocates are correct that their anti-Russia coalition would have conventional superiority.
The question is whether Russia would use nuclear weapons to defend its territory.
It is the official policy of the Russian federation that certain conventional attacks deserve a nuclear response.
Specifically, Russia has retained the right to use nuclear weapons against conventional attacks that threaten the existence of the state.
In response to a succesful invasion, Russia could interpret this policy as allowing it to use nuclear weapons to defend Crimea.
The technical legal criterion would arguably be met – and, even if it weren't, the policy could be stretched.
It is useful to consider what the U.S. would do under similar circumstances.
Imagine if Russia invaded Texas and defeated the U.S. military conventionally.
Would we give up our land? Or would we use our most powerful weapons to defeat the hostile occupiers?
There are other scenarios, short of a U.S. attack on Crimea, that could also spark nuclear war.
Russia is already threatening to deploy forces to Venezuela and Cuba.
The goal would be to impose costs on the U.S. comparable to the NATO threat in Ukraine. https://t.co/YCznMw35CY— Clint Ehrlich (@ClintEhrlich) January 21, 2022
Most people have no idea how close we came to global nuclear war during the original crisis.
It was a fluke that the planet wasn't destroyed.
This time we might not be so lucky.
When the Soviet Union deployed missiles to Cuba, America imposed a "quarantine" of the island.
It didn't matter that Moscow was responding to U.S. missile deployments in Turkey and Italy.
The Navy was authorized to attack any Soviet ship that refused to be searched.
Depth charges were dropped on a Soviet submarine, B-59, which was armed with nuclear torpedoes.
The captain and the political officer voted to fire one of those weapons in retaliation.
It is widely agreed that, if this command had been executed, global nuclear war was likely.
The two votes would ordinarily have been enough to launch the attack.
But, by chance, the Soviet flotilla's chief of staff, Vasili Arkhipov, was also onboard B-59.
He voted against launching the nuclear attack. The others listened, and extinction was averted.
To a sane person, this incident shows how close the world came to complete annihalation during the Cold War.
It was pure luck that prevented the conflict from going hot and crossing the nuclear threshold.
If we recreate the same scenario, we may easily get a different result.
On its own, that evidence would be enough to make us take the risk of nuclear war seriously.
But there is an added dimension of urgency due to probability theory and computer models.
They discredit the main argument "debunking" nuclear war.
What is that argument?
It's that, because prior crises with Russia didn't trigger nuclear war, this one won't either.
Here is a typical, obnoxious example of this line of thinking. "We didn't die then, so we'll be safe now."
It neglects the fact that global nuclear war is an existential risk.
A danger that threatens the existence of all humans cannot be evaluated using standard intuitions about probability. https://t.co/mbDhwnd1wE.— Clint Ehrlich (@ClintEhrlich) January 21, 2022
Specifically, one has to engage in anthropic reasoning.
What does that mean?
That you have to adjust your probability estimates, based on the limits to what you can observe while alive.
To analyze this puzzle at the level of civilizations, we have to use complex terminology. (e.g., "the Self-Sampling Assumption.")
But we can make the problem intuitive if we describe it at the level of an individual.
Imagine you have a friend who engages in reckless activities.
For fun, he runs across freeways and plays Russian roulette.
He tells you, "I haven't died a single time, so I'm confident I'll be safe."
The problem with this line of reasoning is obvious.
Your crazy friend *can't* observe any instances where his dangerous gambles kill him.
His pool of past experiences is filtered: it's a biased sample, since it excludes death as an outcome.
We are facing the same problem as a species.
Our collective experience excludes scenarios that produce human extinction.
By definition, we never get a "second chance" with them. The first time is the last time. We all die.
Does nuclear war qualify as this kind of risk? Yes.
There was a period in the late 1980s when scientists began to doubt whether it would actually cause human extinction.
It was theorized that nuclear winter might actually be more like "nuclear autumn" – bad, but survivable.
However, the best available computer models now indicate that nuclear winter would be *even worse* than originally estimated.
The sun would be blotted out for years upon years.
Most humans would starve to death.
Given that a nuclear exchange could eliminate our species, the absence of such an experience in our past is not a surprise.
People who invoke the absence of such an exchange to lobby for war with Russia are irresponsible.
Like your crazy friend who plays Russian roulette.
Kicking and drinking is their new ‘solution’, eh?
Ginger Goebbels strikes, again, with more distraction/projection propaganda.
Good morning, Gran!
Good morning, LG!
Thank you for posting all that information.
NATO is wholly unprepared for a land war in Europe.
Russia would be in Prague in about a week, and in Paris in 2-3 weeks.
Perhaps this is what Q told us is “The Precipice”.
The purpose of any such war right now is not to fight Russia.
The purpose would be to weaken America, so the Elites can strip it of its assets.
The last two years are instructional.
It is not about a virus.
It is not about saving lives.
It is about raw power.
We fought WW1, WW2 and the Cold War because we got sucked into Europe’s problems.
For which we received nothing in return.
Evelyn Farkas and her ilk can suit up and ride into glory in the Donbas for all I care.
If Biden blunders into war, it is time for the military to step in and save the country.
That is, unless Milley can get off the phone with his Red Chinese BFF counterpart long enough to do his job.
Good morning,exit. You are welcome.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.