Last Commented Politics Blogs (944)

His exact wording is: We couldn't convince a section of farmers that the three laws (farmers call these laws Draconian) were for their welfare.
.......
Then he apologized for it.
.......
And lastly he announced that the said laws would be repealed on 29th. instant, the first day of coming parliament session.
........
Now all the three things are self contradictory.
If the agitating farmers are only a small fraction of the total farming community.
Then why to care for that small fraction at the cost of the welfare of the whole community...
Then if the laws are beneficial to the farming community in general, then why to repeal...
And lastly if you did nothing wrong, then what you are apologetic for....
Then the clown and now the joker, they are good event managers because of the support of the corporate. But, in the changed scenario, politics must deliver or get replaced. Though it takes time but the devil has to go.
.......
As for as the farmers movement is concerned, your theatrics won't work. It would be taken to its logical end.
The guarantee of the minimum support price, that is, MSP is the farmers second most wanted demand.
UP assembly elections, popularly termed as the the preliminary test of parliamentary elections, compelled him to repeal the draconian three laws.
Now it remains to be seen, when would the MSP be guaranteed...

27 States Have Filed Lawsuits Against the Biden Administration Over Vaccine Mandates




Louisiana, South Carolina, Texas and Utah all joined a lawsuit in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which issued a temporary block on the vaccine mandate citing potential “grave statutory and constitutional issues” raised by the plaintiffs. South Carolina is under the jurisdiction of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals and Utah is under the 10th Circuit.

If someone wants to come and live in your country, shouldn't you be flattered, and thank them for the compliment , rather than treat them with hostility?

So sentimental that the thought of Mom's home baked apple pie brings a tear to their eye, yet able to put a man in a gas chamber without it causing the slightest conflict in their sensibility. This is the stuff that builds a truly great nation.

Everybody has a bedtime routine. Turn off all the lights, turn off all electrical appliances, check that all the doors and windows are closed and securely locked, and only then brush your teeth. But there's one more important thing you should always do before getting into bed: Check underneath to make sure you haven't got a communist lurking.

Do the Right thing.

It drives me mad, after 10 years of intense search of a wife on this site, that I see the following scheme in almost every female profile:
The better they look, the less they write - They mustn't, why should they ...
I once heard that there were apps, able to decide over beauty and attractiveness, what means to give a note upon beauty, (how I see it, key competence of women = key decision criteria of men upon women).
My bet is that if I asked 100 men what the most they searched in women so the vaste majority would say "beauty". And that, by way and work of evolution, is what they get. A partner half his weight and and with professions like "hair stylist / nail studio", "bureau" and "finance". As I see it, all jobs (I speak of the vaste majority as far as I could observe it) - all jobs of an inferior practical value, compared to strenght oriented jobs of men. I wondered how smalll was the number of women here on this site, using tags at all, and next to none would come up with a longer list of own tags. Maybe this is why this site doesn't advertise tags well enough. And maybe because women, the prettier they are, the less work they invest in thinking about what exactly they search. Or it could be that they know by instinct that no man would want a women that he could not shape and mould alongside his own values, so it would not be wise for a women to advertise her own preferences in detail. Most women's profile have an identical 3 or 4-line text. I would like to make a science, a field of research about that. In my eyes, all these texts are bullshit, - or I have a completly different idea of what is essential in life and partnership.
Other things than "Good sense of humor", "Layed back" and what the most used tags say here.
.
I have a problem with the whole western society in terms of equal rights granted to women.
I saw in my youth only women jumping from one love and bed into the other, because their beauty, given temporarily by their youth, allowed them that. I admit that is no scientific statement, just how I saw it.
.. I continue my writing later.

Rajiv Dixit, Pushpendra Kulshrestha, Sadh Guru, Ramdev, Ravi Shankar...the list is long who propagate a false narrative, an alternate reality in the name of nationalism. The nationalism is the weapon, false narrative is the instrument and grabbing absolute power is the objective.
That's the drama played on the screen remotely managed by the RSS in the background. That's the axle.
Picking one player and conclude that its a misdeed of an individual would be misleading.

Factcheck.org -- A Fraudulent "Fact Check" Site Funded By Biased Political Group
theswash.com ^ | 8/27/2012 11 | matchdoctor
Factcheck.org -- A Fraudulent "Fact Check" Site Funded By Biased Political Group

If you wanted to use a devious method to deceive people who are trying to differentiate between truth and lies on the Internet how would you do it? If you were extremely devious and had no conscience, you might set up a Web site with some official and unbiased sounding name that claims to be the encyclopedia of truth to be used as a tool for anyone who has the same biased view and wants to make believe to "back it up" with what they would like you to think is "indisputable fact."

That is exactly what Web sites like factcheck.org are. They are biased, politically motivated propaganda Web sites, manned and funded by biased political organizations who set up the sites for the sole purpose of deviously "backing up" the political arguments of those who hold the same views that they do. It's kind of like you have a friend who is in on your lie, and you use him to back up your story and don't tell anyone else he is your friend.

Just because they use a name that implies unbiased assessments, doesn't mean that they provide them. You can call your Web site anything you want. I can set up a web site called thetruth.org or realfacts.com or stopthelies.org and post any kind of biased political propaganda I want on it. The name means nothing. And in the case of sites like factcheck.org, the name is intentionally misleading and deceptive. But it isn't the only so called "fact check" site that is a fraud. There are others.

Think about it. Would you rely on any particular Web site to get the "truth?" Anyone honest would tell you that you should NOT rely solely on them to get your facts. You should get them by considering many different and sources, with different points of view and opinions and arrive at what you believe to be the truth by using your own God given senses. Only con artists purport to be the de facto source of truth.

If you look behind the scenes at these phony "fact check" sites, you find that they are funded by organizations with political biases. You must always ask yourself. Who is writing about this so-called "truth." Who funds the site and pays their expenses. What are the origins and history of the funders and who are they associated with. In the case of factcheck.org they receive their funding from the liberal Annenberg Foundation.

The Annenberg Foundation was originally founded by Walter J. Annenberg, a conservative who supported Ronald Reagan. However, when Walter Annenberg died, his family took over the management of the foundation and it took a turn to the far left and has ties to radical left individuals such as Bill Ayers and his friend and fellow left wing radical collegue Barack Obama. How is factcheck.org associated with these people:
....
Ayers co-chaired the organization’s Collaborative, which set the education policies of the Challenge. Oddly enough, Obama was the one who was authorized to delegate to the Collaborative in regards to its programs and projects. In addition to that, Obama often times had to seek advice and assistance from the Ayer’s led Collaborative in regards to the programmatic aspects of grant proposals. Ayers even sat on the same board as Obama as an “ex officio member”. They both also sat together on the board of the CAC’s Governance Committee. Obama and Ayers were two parts of a group of four who were instructed to draft the bylaws that would govern the CAC. Keep in mind that the “A” in CAC is for Annenberg, the owners of FactCheck.org. The funding for Ayer’s projects and those of his cronies was approved by Board Chair, Barack Obama.

Italians are fed up with government’s vaccine passport initiative, Covid lockdowns and restrictions, and mandatory vaccinations.
...

Footage out of Italy purports to show Italian police taking off their equipment to stand in solidarity with a group of lockdown protesters.

The viral video circulating on social media appears to show a line of cops policing a protest event, before removing their gear to raucous applause.


Heartwarming (if this is accurate).

Remember the closing days of East Germany? The dreaded Volkspolizei ("VOPOS"), doffing their helmets and standing aside to let others attack the Berlin Wall with sledgehammers, even joining in.

"Montags" from Fahrenheit 451.

I want to jump onto the bandwagon; I want to start ranting about the Orwellian tyranny we find ourselves living under. I want to, but I can’t figure out how to make it sound justifiable. I want to be seen as someone who is fearless in standing up to the establishment. A champion of the people, willing to put myself in personal danger to fight for their rights and freedoms. Others have achieved it, and I long to be among their ranks, but I just can’t seem to find anything to warrant making a big fuss about.

I thought my chance had arrived when it became a requirement to wear a mask in public places. Off I went to my local supermarket, fully intending to perform a proper song and dance about being forced to cover my mouth with this vile piece of cloth. Little did I suspect that they had measures in place to undermine my action. When I got there, I was confronted with a polite request to please wear my mask, and there was not a single armed guard to be seen. How in God’s name are you supposed to start a riot over that?

It’s not that I couldn’t think of anything to rant and rave about; I surely could. They were telling me to wear a mask in the interest of public safety; well what about my safety? Does it not matter about my glasses steaming up and putting me at risk of bumping into something? That argument sounded solid at the time of its conception, but when it came to the point of shouting it out publicly, it had somehow lost most of its potency, and I was left unable to speak, lest I might be seen as a big sissy.

What other denial of right or freedom could I demonstrate defiance over, I wondered. What about the restrictions on my freedom of movement? Even when our “lock down” was at its most severe, I found I could come and go pretty much as I pleased, without interference from anybody. So, again, the state had pulled the rug out from under me.

When they were ready to role out the vaccine programme, I thought I’ve finally got them this time. I waited until my call up for vaccination came, thinking that’s when I would make my stand, but when it did come, it was only a bloody invitation to have it. I could just not bother going if I didn’t want to. I think this is when I began to realise I had been defeated. I had been beaten by the lack of state heavy handedness.