No, I'm pointing out that you view these tyrannical leaders and their actions from the perspective of your childhood experiences.
You recognise the abusive relationship, but your coping strategies are those of a child victim in a skewed family.
It is on topic because the blog is fundementally about an abusive relationship. How we view the conflict and it's develpments depends upon our knowledge and/or personal experience.
Y'know, when mum goes along with whatever dad wants, however unreasonabe his demands. She does it to avoid a beating, or death, or in fear of her children getting hurt.
Maybe dad isn't a big bad wolfie. Maybe he's a weak man who thinks abusive behaviours make him look big and tough. Maybe it's his strategy to avoid any risk of getting hurt himself because he feels too fragile to cope with that.
The trouble is, he fails to understand that in behaving like a tyrant he depletes himself as well as everyone else.
Tiger's comment earlier, the one you said was a nursery story, is how healthy relationships work.
Hmmm...I don't think we have the same aversion to communism that the US has. We might not be as socialist as the Nordic countries, but we're far less right wing and less frightened of equality than the US.
Even with the Russian poisonings in the UK in recent years, Russia is not something we talked about much before the invasion of Ukraine.
Maybe it looks different from the outside, but I was really surprised to hear that I have a 'big problem with Russia'. I guess I have a problem with any oppressive regime, but that includes aspects of the UK.
I read most of Mike Pence's energy pan, but glazed over given the right wing subliminal language and the circumnavigation of environmental issues passed off as reality.
Given that Mike Pence believes that an unmarried man and woman have no need to have dinner together unchaperoned, his reality will not be that people can't find one person to date on here, it'll be that they can't find two.
He's clearly either in cloud cuckoo land, or being economic with the truth through his teeth.
My understanding is that Ukrainian refugees can apply for a three year leave of stay, so even if some were transported to the UK Star Trek style on the day Russia invaded, they still have 18+ months leave left.
I'm not saying their status in the UK is without difficulties. Some have been made homeless by their host families, affordable rented accommodation is difficult to find, some have married British people and started families, etc.
Rishi Sunak, our second generation immigrant Prime Minister who has had a life of elite privilege appears to have a particular problem with other immigrants. I don't expect any of the overseas members of our communities will be treated with dignity and humanity with him at the helm, but I don't think even that muppet of a leader tried to send 100,000 Ukrainian refugees back home last week.
I think maybe Sunak might have stamped his feet reiterating that the three year leave to stay is not a pathway to permenant settlement, three years leave being estimated as enough time for the conflict to end. I can only find this information from a Ukrainian source, however, as there seems to be no recent mention of it in the British media.
Inevitably the situation will have to be reviewed, and I believe parliament is already being petitioned to recognise that the situation isn't that simple for our Ukrainian guests. We cannot send them home regardless of the circumstances without breaking our own human rights laws.
I asked if it was usual in the US to shame people for being unwell. You can't disagree with an opinion I don't have, or a statement I haven't made.
If Mtch Mcconnell wasn't being shamed, why are protesters chanting, "Shame on you!" at him?
It doesn't make sense to me that the protest was about him having that blank moment of unknown origin, when there is controversy with respect to him both supporting and disavowing Trump. He didn't vote to impeach Trump when he had the (second) opportunity, but denounced him and his election fraud claims less than an hour before the insurrection kicked off.
It's a strangely impassioned protest at a picnic over a brain fart moment, unless of course there is some reason why the overt hostility is being downplayed in the news.
Might he be a witness for the prosecution with respect to the latest charges filed against Trump?
What does 'his own district' mean? Wouldn't his district have both Republican and Democrat supporters living in the area?
Presumaby it's extremely unlikely that a mix of Republican and Democrat supporters got together to protest and heckle him, therefore it's likely one, or the other.
And why would protesters chant, "Shame on you!" if it was just about his age and recent alleged health issues?
Surely, 'shame on you' must refer to something he has done. None of us deliberately get old, it just kinda creeps up on us when we blink, or something.
I kinda skipped through the video because it was too cringeworthy t sit through for the full 5+ minutes, but I'm pretty sure I heard a chant break out of "Shame on you!"
Would that be Republican, or Democrat supporters chanting 'retire' and 'shame on you'? Is it really about his health?
The reason accounts get closed so quickly is likely because CS closes them, maybe after they are reported by members.
Personally, I couldn't be bothered to report them. There are so many, they reappear anyway and if CS doesn't vet the new members, I'm not doing their work for free.
Y'know, I was pretty surprised there were two genuine profiles in the first ten of my unopened mail.
Getting mail within minutes of them joining is because you are an active member who appears at the top of lists. I've just opened a batch of mail and I may send a 'Thanks, but only here for the blogs/forums' mail to the two genuine members now I've opened them - that will bump me up some list somewhere and increase the flood of scammer mail.
It's unfortunate that you have to open mail to block and delete.
I was wonderng why my inbox was so full of mail from new profiles, from these areas incidentally.
I aways assume they are scammers, or that at least the majority of them are. It's not uncommon for me to have 200-300 unopened mail in my inbox depending upon CS's clean up rate. I currently have 544.
I thought maybe the recent glitches and maintenance had taken priority over booting scammers off.
Firstly, I hope you're not having an unleasant time with your health and I'm aways glad to see you posting.
Now, what do you think amounts to a lie, Rob?
Donald Trump was found legally liable of s*xual abuse in the E. Jean Carroll case: Two of the many women who have publicly accused him of s*xual misconduct were integral witnesses as their seperate accounts of the pattern of Trump's behaviour were so similar. They also mirror his own account of his behaviour in the Access Hollywod tapes.
It's notable that he wasn't found liable for penetrating Carroll with his p*nis. She had no physical evidence from the retrospective event and the two other witnesses (above) having managed to escape from Trump, could not corroborate that particular pattern of behaviour.
Ivana Trump did indeed recant the allegation that Trump on one occasion raped her. She did not, however, recant that on the same occasion that she felt sexually violated by him. She later said she didn't want her use of lanuage to imply rape in a literal, or criminal sense. Given at the time, Michael Cohen's refutation of the rape allegation was that a wife cannot be raped by her husband (which he also recanted), I don't know what literal, or criminal technicalities Ivana Trump was referring to. None of this detracts from their divorce being granted on the grounds of cruel and inhumane treatment by Donald and that the divorce was uncontested.
In refusing to recognise repeated patterns of Trump's behaviour including s*xual misconduct towards women, you are doing yourself a disservice. I don't understand why this particular man is so important to you.
But hey, I live in the UK. We pressured our Prime Minster (and a number of MP's) into resigning because he broke his own pandemic rules. Had he been found legally liable of s*xual abuse, his feet wouldn't have touched the floor. With a population of 67 million, we have plenty of people to replace hypocritical, abusive and/or criminal politicians with when we catch them in the blatant act.
It amazes me that that you think domestic abuse is not so bad, rather than realising that women stay in abusive relationships for many reasons.
Often it's the fear of losing their children, or not being able to protect them from their abuser. Leaving an abusive relatinship is also when women are statistically most at risk of being murdered.
She didn't stay because being hit by your dad wasn't so bad, Ozzie.
But hey, you passionately support a man who has been found legally liable for one sex offense and has been accused of many, many others. You don't appear to think s*xual offenses are so bad and you don't appear to care about women being violated in that way, either.
It apears that it's only Pyrite who has any understanding of what the charges are and what they mean.
How can anyone support, or refute the charges without knowing what they are, what they mean, or what evidence there is to support, or refute the charges?
jac_the_gripper Blog Comments (2,982)
RE: Russian social media abuzz with the rumor
No, I'm pointing out that you view these tyrannical leaders and their actions from the perspective of your childhood experiences.You recognise the abusive relationship, but your coping strategies are those of a child victim in a skewed family.
It is on topic because the blog is fundementally about an abusive relationship. How we view the conflict and it's develpments depends upon our knowledge and/or personal experience.