Broads Thread on the Abroad

..et d'autres discussions ennuyeuses
User avatar
Germz
Registered Broad
Posts: 15886
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 3:48 pm
Location: USA
Has given rep: 99 times
Received rep: 67 times

Post #1 by Germz » Tue Mar 05, 2013 5:09 pm

Americans killed him.
senate wrote:As goes the Canadian Senate, so go the Ottawa Senators.
senate
Registered Broad
Posts: 6775
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 11:36 am
Has given rep: 251 times
Received rep: 215 times

Post #2 by senate » Tue Mar 05, 2013 8:51 pm

The entire country of Cuba is a CIA plot to lure dictators to its hospitals so they can be implanted with terminal cancer.

You don't want to know the horrifying CIA plot behind the existence of St. Kitts.
User avatar
Craig
Registered Broad
Posts: 38071
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Toronto
Has given rep: 23 times
Received rep: 180 times

Post #3 by Craig » Wed Mar 06, 2013 9:38 am

iPads and Apple don't dominate the market like PCs and Windows did or continue to do.

Which is irrelevant, since Microsoft got the fine for not following up on their agreement with EU regulators. If they got fined out of the blue, they're victims. By being fined after a warning and plenty of time to see it coming, they're idiots who are being punished for thinking they could ignore a rule that's sorta stupid.
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17066
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 8 times
Received rep: 74 times

Post #4 by jester » Wed Mar 06, 2013 10:06 am

The real crime is that there are significant advantages to marrying OS and software packages, which all the people bitching about Microsoft (even at the time) really didn't understand. There are also real advantages in software development with platform standardization--yes, there are also drawbacks to it. However, if we had uniform browsers I wouldn't have problems viewing certain pages (specifically flash pages) on my iPhone.

While Microsoft was and is a douchebag organization, the assault on them was a largely ham-fisted one by people that didn't actually understand what the fuck they were talking about. Which was demonstrated once again during the SOPA crap, when none of those asshats could coherently discuss the internet to save their lives.

That being said, if they agreed to do something... they should have done something, and just put a link to go and download IE on the desktop. I suspect most people would (and would do anyway) download a different browser given the fall of IE in recent iterations, but if you make agreements you should stick to 'em.
User avatar
Craig
Registered Broad
Posts: 38071
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Toronto
Has given rep: 23 times
Received rep: 180 times

Post #5 by Craig » Wed Mar 06, 2013 10:10 am

The biggest problem with the dominance of IE 5 and 6 was that it didn't conform to browser standards. If IE hadn't been so dominant in the day, you would probably find that most websites work just fine on your phone now.
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17066
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 8 times
Received rep: 74 times

Post #6 by jester » Wed Mar 06, 2013 10:15 am

Craig wrote:The biggest problem with the dominance of IE 5 and 6 was that it didn't conform to browser standards. If IE hadn't been so dominant in the day, you would probably find that most websites work just fine on your phone now.


No, flash websites don't work on the iPhone because Steve Jobs declared jihad against the software. He wasn't necessarily wrong, but that's a limitation born entirely of lack of standardization.
Useful Idiot

Post #7 by Useful Idiot » Wed Mar 06, 2013 10:39 am

Most rudimentary Internet users know that Internet Explorer versions 7–9 are far behind the market. There is no need to bully Microsoft into removing its substandard product.

Now, if Microsoft controlled the W3C standards that browsers are supposed to conform to, then we would have a real argument. Microsoft was head and shoulders above any other vendor when IE 6 came out (2001). Other vendors teamed up and mobilised on W3C standards, thereby leaving Microsoft in the dust.

What most developers and laypeople do not know, however, is that Microsoft invented many of the client-side features that we know today. DOM Events, innerHTML, et al. were implemented far ahead of any other vendor.

IE 10 is supposed to be a very sophisticated browser, but only time will tell.
Useful Idiot

Post #8 by Useful Idiot » Wed Mar 06, 2013 10:52 am

Big#D wrote:microsoft had 80+% of the os market and something like 98% of the internet browser market.


The suit at the time, I recall, was filed by Opera ASA, the browser vendor operating out of Norway. Microsoft had a competitive advantage because of its existing OS and technical capital.

Today, Opera has a superior browser and a respectable company. No bullying was required.

Big#D wrote:they designed ie to work well with windows and didn't release their code to competitors, so their products would be less stable. they used their market dominance and "discounts" to ensure that their products were bundled on almost every single computer before delivered to the end consumer.


#D, you know what proprietary software is, right? Why did Microsoft need to release its code? This took place before the “Open Source Revolution” (circa 2000) when the Linux kernel took over.
User avatar
mayoradamwest
Registered Broad
Posts: 29438
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:38 pm
Has given rep: 201 times
Received rep: 122 times

Post #9 by mayoradamwest » Wed Mar 06, 2013 11:09 am

Image

Is this outrageous because it shows a picture of a military hospital or because he suggested things like healthcare and water are basic human rights?

That said, it is hard to believe that a south-american leader could distrust the United States.
User avatar
mayoradamwest
Registered Broad
Posts: 29438
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:38 pm
Has given rep: 201 times
Received rep: 122 times

Post #10 by mayoradamwest » Wed Mar 06, 2013 11:17 am

lol, people being able to drink water. What was that guy on?
User avatar
SidorkiewiczsPeter
Registered Broad
Posts: 2664
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 11:48 pm
Location: Michigan
Received rep: 1 time

Post #11 by SidorkiewiczsPeter » Wed Mar 06, 2013 11:51 am

Yeah, I completely agree with Chavez on that healthcare quote, don't see how it's outrageous at all. Apparently the author's of the article must think so.
senate
Registered Broad
Posts: 6775
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 11:36 am
Has given rep: 251 times
Received rep: 215 times

Post #12 by senate » Wed Mar 06, 2013 11:52 am

mayoradamwest wrote:lol, people being able to drink water. What was that guy on?


It's Buzzfeed. They probably found that quote "outrageous" because it used so many multi-syllable words.
User avatar
Craig
Registered Broad
Posts: 38071
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Toronto
Has given rep: 23 times
Received rep: 180 times

Post #13 by Craig » Wed Mar 06, 2013 3:31 pm

jester wrote:No, flash websites don't work on the iPhone because Steve Jobs declared jihad against the software. He wasn't necessarily wrong, but that's a limitation born entirely of lack of standardization.


The lack of standardization came about because Microsoft flaunted the standards. In a market with several players, everyone would realize eventually that for the internet to work at all, they would all need to adhere to some basic rules. Microsoft thought they were so big they could just do what they want and everyone else can go fuck themselves. It turns out they were wrong, but mostly because they failed to innovate like everyone else.
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17066
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 8 times
Received rep: 74 times

Post #14 by jester » Wed Mar 06, 2013 3:39 pm

Craig wrote:The lack of standardization came about because Microsoft flaunted the standards. In a market with several players, everyone would realize eventually that for the internet to work at all, they would all need to adhere to some basic rules. Microsoft thought they were so big they could just do what they want and everyone else can go fuck themselves. It turns out they were wrong, but mostly because they failed to innovate like everyone else.


That doesn't have much to do with Jobs deciding that flash was shit and he wasn't going to allow it on his technology if he could help it. If you have one browser that everyone is coding for... then the content creators have a single mark to shoot for and you don't need to worry about someone deciding certain content isn't worth supporting. These are two different things. Microsoft was certainly doing their own thing, but you can have all the standards in the world... if platform developers decide to lock out certain content (for whatever reason) then that's that.
User avatar
edgar_dong
Registered Broad
Posts: 37146
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 7:51 am
Has given rep: 346 times
Received rep: 413 times

Post #15 by edgar_dong » Wed Mar 06, 2013 4:44 pm

Re: Chavez

It is all well and good for him to say people deserve necessities like water, but he should probably go about ensuring his people have access to clean water. :colbert:
User avatar
Haddock
Registered Broad
Posts: 9117
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 9:14 am
Location: Moulinsart
Received rep: 1 time

Post #16 by Haddock » Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:15 am

That picture was taken about one second before he gives here the double thumps up.

Image
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21099
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 57 times
Received rep: 177 times

Post #17 by Dr_Chimera » Sat Apr 13, 2013 10:39 pm

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/14/world/europe/russia-bars-18-americans-in-tit-for-tat-on-rights.html?_r=0

Russia is such a fucking joke. They are even more insecure than Canadians.
User avatar
mayoradamwest
Registered Broad
Posts: 29438
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:38 pm
Has given rep: 201 times
Received rep: 122 times

Post #18 by mayoradamwest » Sun Apr 14, 2013 9:52 am

Dr_Chimera wrote:
Russia is such a fucking joke. They are even more insecure than Canadians.


Our beer and coffee commercials say otherwise. :maw:
User avatar
Ismellofhockey
Registered Broad
Posts: 1707
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:52 pm
Has given rep: 26 times
Received rep: 12 times

Post #19 by Ismellofhockey » Sun Apr 14, 2013 1:23 pm

dempsey_k wrote:Hugo Chavez left Venezuela better than when he found it, and defeated Yanqui Imperialia ...hahahahahahahaha, yeah, no.


I don't know about the Yanqui bit, but poverty declined from 50% to 29%, debt lowered to around 50% of GDP, lower inflation (though still high), free public education, a slew of new hospitals and schools, and according to the UN, the lowest levels of inequality in South America, and HDI increased under his regime.

Yeah, he was lucky to have struck oil, but that's not a bad record even when the negative factors are added.
- Unwittingly ruining this board since December 2008
User avatar
Macbeth
Registered Broad
Posts: 47568
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 12:06 am
Location: Montréal, Québec
Has given rep: 306 times
Received rep: 243 times

Post #20 by Macbeth » Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:03 am

dempsey_k wrote:This man was deported from Saudi Arabia for being too tempting to its women folk.

http://blog.asiantown.net/-/17945/ladies--for-your-treat--the-man-who-is-deported-from-saudi-arabia-for-being-too-handsome

Image


He looks tempting to me.
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21099
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 57 times
Received rep: 177 times

Post #21 by Dr_Chimera » Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:04 am

He's gayer than George Michael.
User avatar
Macbeth
Registered Broad
Posts: 47568
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 12:06 am
Location: Montréal, Québec
Has given rep: 306 times
Received rep: 243 times

Post #22 by Macbeth » Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:13 pm

Dr_Chimera wrote:He's gayer than George Michael.


Which one ?
User avatar
HS
Registered Broad
Posts: 13053
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 8:27 pm
Received rep: 1 time

Post #23 by HS » Thu Apr 25, 2013 5:28 pm

dempsey_k wrote:This man was deported from Saudi Arabia for being too tempting to its women folk.

http://blog.asiantown.net/-/17945/ladies--for-your-treat--the-man-who-is-deported-from-saudi-arabia-for-being-too-handsome

Image


Jihad me at hello.
User avatar
Germz
Registered Broad
Posts: 15886
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 3:48 pm
Location: USA
Has given rep: 99 times
Received rep: 67 times

Post #24 by Germz » Mon Apr 29, 2013 4:38 pm

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/when-a-modern-indian-marriage-clashes-with-ancient-rules/article11602559/

This is a depressing article. Yes yes, I know, not surprising, nothing new, yadda yadda yadda. Still depressing.

When a modern Indian marriage clashes with ancient rules
senate wrote:As goes the Canadian Senate, so go the Ottawa Senators.
User avatar
Fruity Pebbles
Registered Broad
Posts: 2135
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 11:33 pm
Location: Ottawa
Has given rep: 2 times
Received rep: 8 times

Post #25 by Fruity Pebbles » Mon Apr 29, 2013 5:28 pm

There's a really funny quote in there you left out - she apparently threatened her husband when she thought he might be wavering.

She's throwing out threats left and right.

It's a backwards shithole - there are tons of backwards shitholes everywhere. Even a handful in North America.
User avatar
Macbeth
Registered Broad
Posts: 47568
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 12:06 am
Location: Montréal, Québec
Has given rep: 306 times
Received rep: 243 times

Post #26 by Macbeth » Sat May 11, 2013 4:43 pm

dempsey_k wrote:Nawaz Sharif and the Pakistani Muslim League, a center-right party with a power base in the Punjab province, have declared victory and will see a return to power. Sharif led in the early '90s and again in the late '90s, following Benazir Bhutto both times after her governments were dismissed or collapsed on corruption charges.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2013/05/201351022440635591.html



Most importantly, this election was a giant middle finger to both the Army and the Taliban, and it's seen Imran Khan's groundswell party replace the PPP as the left/populist party. Biggest of all, this election will see a massive disruption of the oligarchical power networks, despite a return of a leader from the '90s.


GO PAKISTAN!!!!!1
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21099
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 57 times
Received rep: 177 times

Post #27 by Dr_Chimera » Thu May 16, 2013 2:52 pm

I'll put this here.

Paul Krugman's Misguided Moral Crusade Against Austerity
BY MICHAEL KINSLEY

Feeling perhaps that columnist Paul Krugman hasn't made the point emphatically enough, The New York Times Monday published an op-ed shocker by two academics with the title, "How Austerity Kills." Kills? Yes, kills.

"Austerity" is the label for one side of the current debate over what to do next for the economy. People who favor austerity are “austerians,” a clever Krugman coinage that makes adherents sound like aliens from another planet. Krugman and his followers are anti-austerians, or sometimes “Keynesians.”

It’s easier to describe what the anti-austerians believe than the austerians themselves. Anti-austerians believe that governments around the world need to stop worrying about their debts for a while and continue pouring money into the economy until the threat of recession or worse is well and truly over. Austerians want the opposite. But what is the opposite? Is President Barack Obama, for example, an austerian? To Republicans and conservatives, no: He pushed through a stimulus package of almost a trillion dollars early in his first term, and remains a symbol of “big spending.” To liberals and Democrats, yes: They feel we need a second and much larger stimulus and Obama has let us all down.

This debate has been going on enjoyably since about 2008, with Krugman almost single-handedly swatting away one feral-looking austerian after another, maddened by their failure to do as he says. He did not write the paper about how austerity kills, but it fits comfortably with everything else he’s been writing on the subject.

The paper at issue, by social scientists from Stanford and Oxford, uses statistics, anecdotes, and international comparisons to demonstrate an unsurprising correllation between unemployment and suicide. They predict that the "sequester" resulting from the most recent budget crisis will increase infant mortality because it cuts off money for child nutrition programs. Prescriptions for antidepressants are up, and 750,000 people, mostly young men, have taken up binge drinking. The authors say that in the United States there were 4,750 "excess" suicides—suicides over and above the number you would expect based on earlier trends.

Meanwhile in Greece, there has been a "public health disaster" because of a 40 percent reduction in medical spending. Thirty-five thousand Greek doctors and other health care professionals have lost their jobs. The authors attribute these upsetting numbers not just to the recession but specifically to the austerity response.

By contrast in Iceland, according to the authors, they held a couple of votes about how to spend IMF bailout money. "Icelanders voted overwhelmingly to pay off foreign creditors gradually, rather than all at once through austerity." That is one of the least remarkable poll results of all time. But Iceland is better off, they say, than if its citizens had voted the other way.

Bottom line: Austerity is immoral.

What’s more, the authors of this paper are right, in a way. And Krugman is right: Bad economic times are bad for your health. People get depressed and commit suicide. They drink and ruin their livers. They don’t buy their prescription drugs or see the doctor when they should in order to save money. They lose their jobs, come home, and murder their spouses. And austerians fairly expliticly favor bad times. Or at least they favor worse times in the short run than do their rivals, the anti-austerians or (why deny him the glory?) Krugmanites. So austerity does kill in this sense.

But only in this sense. Austerians believe, sincerely, that their path is the quicker one to prosperity in the longer run. This doesn’t mean that they have forgotten the lessons of Keynes and the Great Depression. It means that they remember the lessons of Paul Volcker and the Great Stagflation of the late 1970s. “Stimulus” is strong medicine—an addictive drug—and you don’t give the patient more than you absolutely have to.

I'm not sure how relevant the experiences of Greece and Iceland, as described in this paper, are to the United States. No one here is proposing anything like a 40 percent cut in overall health care spending. On the other hand, "to pay off foreign creditors gradually" sounds more or less like what the austerians in this country have in mind. And no one is suggesting that we start right away, just as no one on the non-austerian side of this debate is proposing that we can run up the national debt forever and we never have to pay any of it back, although they can be hard to pin down on exactly when the payback starts.
Krugman now says that what he is against is “premature” fiscal austerity. So is everybody. They just disagree on what is “premature.” You know what they say: Disputes in academia are especially vicious because the stakes are so small. The stakes in the austerity debate—the actual differences of opinion—get smaller and smaller even while the argument itself gets larger and louder.

Krugman sometimes writes as if, right or wrong, his view is the courageous one, held by folks willing to stand up to the plutocrats and their lackies. But his message to all classes is: party on. It’s your patriotic duty. How much courage does that take? The really tough message—once again, right or wrong—is the one the austerians have to deliver, which is that the party is over. And this leads to a question that Krugman finally addressed in a recent column: What’s in all this for the austerians? If Krugman is right that the results of austerity are harmful and potentially catastrophic, why should the elites who he says have the real power be pushing it so hard? No one on either side of this debate actually wants the economy to tank, surely. But before you can have an ulterior motive, you’ve got to have a motive. What is the austerians’ motive?

Krugman’s answer isn’t bad. He writes:

Some [powerful people] have a visceral sense that suffering is good, that we must pay a price for past sins (even if the sinners then and the sufferers now are very different groups of people). Some of them see the crisis as an opportunity to dismantle the social safety net. And just about everyone in the policy elite takes cues from a wealthy minority that isn’t actually feeling much pain.

There’s something to this, though not enough. There may be a Snidely Whiplash out there somewhere who is willing to take a recession if that’s what is required to rip apart the social safety net. But surely the Obama administration is not filled with people secretly trying to repeal the New Deal, although it’s the Obama administration whose policies Krugman finds so disturbing.

Krugman also is on to something when he talks about paying a price for past sins. I don’t think suffering is good, but I do believe that we have to pay a price for past sins, and the longer we put it off, the higher the price will be. And future sufferers are not necessarily different people than the past and present sinners. That’s too easy. Sure let’s raise taxes on the rich. But that’s not going to solve the problem. The problem is the great, deluded middle class—subsidized by government and coddled by politicians. In other words, they are you and me. If you make less than $250,000 a year, Obama has assured us, you are officially entitled to feel put-upon and resentful. And to be immune from further imposition.

Austerians don’t get off on other people’s suffering. They, for the most part, honestly believe that theirs is the quickest way through the suffering. They may be right or they may be wrong. When Krugman says he’s only worried about “premature” fiscal discipline, it becomes largely a question of emphasis anyway. But the austerians deserve credit: They at least are talking about the spinach, while the Krugmanites are only talking about dessert.


http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113220/paul-krugmans-misguided-moral-crusade-against-austerity#
User avatar
Craig
Registered Broad
Posts: 38071
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Toronto
Has given rep: 23 times
Received rep: 180 times

Post #28 by Craig » Thu May 16, 2013 3:08 pm

The Economist had a relevant article yesterday: http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/05/government-borrowing?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/fiscalconsolidation

Fiscal consolidation, American style
May 14th 2013, 18:47 by R.A. | WASHINGTON

THE Congressional Budget Office released an updated budget outlook today. Here's the big news:

If the current laws that govern federal taxes and spending do not change, the budget deficit will shrink this year to $642 billion, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates, the smallest shortfall since 2008. Relative to the size of the economy, the deficit this year—at 4.0 percent of gross domestic product (GDP)—will be less than half as large as the shortfall in 2009, which was 10.1 percent of GDP.
The 4% of GDP deficit forecast for 2013 is even more remarkable when one notes that the figure for 2012 was 7%. That's a breathtaking pace of fiscal consolidation. CBO reckons that the deficit will continue to fall and will drop to 2.1% of GDP in 2015. Public debt as a share of the economy is also forecast to begin falling from next year. The CBO thinks that deficits will begin rising again from 2016 through 2023, and they might. But CBO guesses that the biggest cause of increasing deficit will be the impact of rising interest rates on interest costs. It forecasts that the yield on the 10-year Treasury will average 4.5% between 2015-2018. That doesn't seem unreasonable looking at Treasury rates over the past generation. But yields have rarely been anywhere close to that level over the past decade. Overall one has to conclude that pundits and politicians alike dramatically overstated the challenge of bringing down American borrowing and stabilising American public debt.

One wonders how this news will be received in London. Since 2010 (when the coalition government took charge) Britain's growth performance has diverged sharply from America's. There was supposed to be a point to that pain; for its trouble, Britain was supposed to take the fast road back to fiscal rectitude. Instead Britain is badly lagging behind America on that score as well. There has been virtually no change in public borrowing as a share of GDP in Britain from 2011; it remains at about 7.5% of GDP. A very interesting contrast.


The contrast to England at the being what's relevant.

US deficit as a share of GDP went from 10.1% in 2009 to 7% in 2012 to 4% this year to a forecast 2.5% next year. That's actually pretty quick, I'm not sure adding more austerity to speed that up is a good idea.
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21099
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 57 times
Received rep: 177 times

Post #29 by Dr_Chimera » Thu May 16, 2013 5:43 pm

Some criticism of the Kinsley piece about Krugman and austerity:

1) No Republican or conservative, anywhere in the United States, will claim that Barack Obama is an austerian. I'm just gonna assume that this is a typo and move on. [Editor's note: The typo has been cleared up on the New Republic's website, and the block quote above has been corrected.]

2) Stagflation in the 1970s was caused primarily by an inward shift of the aggregate supply curve due to a surge in commodity prices, particularly energy. Some central banks responded with accommodating monetary policies that accelerated inflation even further. Fiscal policy was an innocent bystander to this whole shebang. So I honestly don't know what the hell Kinsley is talking about.

More importantly, the current macroeconomic climate is really, really different from the 1970s. Inflation was a Big Bad Problem during that decade. It is not a problem right now. If inflation were spiking, then a genuine debate could be had on macroeconomic policy options. But that's not the case.

3) In his final paragraphs, Kinsley has managed to epitomize the exact critique that Krugman has served up.

The irony of this whole thing is that the Congressional Budget Office's recent figures put the lie to Kinsey's hidden assumption that the federal budget deficit is getting bigger and bigger. Right now it's shrinking at the fastest rate in postwar economic history.

The CBO also warns that the deficit will start to balloon up again due to entitlement spending, which suggests that Kinsley has half a point about thinking through entitlement reform. The thing is, that's a structural problem, not a business cycle problem. Kinsley et al. are acting as if the current fiscal climate demands immediate budgetary actions. And it doesn't -- it really, really doesn't.

Look, I think Paul Krugman has a few policy blind spots. His method of argumentation alienates as many people as it attracts. But he's not wrong when he's talking about austerity. In his response, Michael Kinsley has managed to embody the conventional wisdom in Washington -- and in doing so, embody every policy caricature of Paul Krugman's worldview.


http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/05/16/the_worst_piece_of_conventional_wisdom_you_will_read_this_year
senate
Registered Broad
Posts: 6775
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 11:36 am
Has given rep: 251 times
Received rep: 215 times

Post #30 by senate » Wed May 22, 2013 4:46 pm

It is also the third night of "youth" (i.e. race) riots in Stockholm. Looks like it's going to be a good summer for right wing/nationalist parties in Europe.
User avatar
Macbeth
Registered Broad
Posts: 47568
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 12:06 am
Location: Montréal, Québec
Has given rep: 306 times
Received rep: 243 times

Post #31 by Macbeth » Wed May 22, 2013 5:56 pm

Ugh...

I could really use some hydromorphone just now.
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21099
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 57 times
Received rep: 177 times

Post #33 by Dr_Chimera » Fri May 24, 2013 2:17 am

Yeah, Seagal has a bit of Russian in him, I've read.

I have pretty much decided that I am no longer going to be Russian. Nothing good comes of it.

Gerard Depardieu is a fucking retard. He fits in so well.
User avatar
Macbeth
Registered Broad
Posts: 47568
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 12:06 am
Location: Montréal, Québec
Has given rep: 306 times
Received rep: 243 times

Post #34 by Macbeth » Wed May 29, 2013 2:11 pm

dempsey_k wrote:EDL anti-Sharia protestor:

Image


Grit Britian.
User avatar
RTWAP
Posts: 10974
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 1:01 am
Location: O-town
Has given rep: 25 times
Received rep: 27 times

Post #35 by RTWAP » Thu May 30, 2013 1:25 am

I think he's got the identical tattoo on the other side. It would explain why the copper is susfing.
RIP Old Broads v2. Long live New Broads v3.
User avatar
mayoradamwest
Registered Broad
Posts: 29438
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:38 pm
Has given rep: 201 times
Received rep: 122 times

Post #36 by mayoradamwest » Sat Jun 01, 2013 4:26 pm

Doug Saunders
Canada doesn’t negotiate with terrorists. Until it does

“The government of Canada does not pay ransom,” Foreign Minister John Baird’s spokesman Rick Roth said Wednesday, moments after the publication of a lengthy internal leaked memo from al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) which revealed that $1.1-million in ransom had been paid, at the behest of the Canadian government, to the terrorist organization for the release of captured Canadian diplomats Robert Fowler and Louis Guay.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/canada-doesnt-negotiate-with-terrorists-until-it-does/article12293766/
User avatar
RTWAP
Posts: 10974
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 1:01 am
Location: O-town
Has given rep: 25 times
Received rep: 27 times

Post #37 by RTWAP » Sat Jun 01, 2013 5:00 pm

mayoradamwest wrote:(negotiating with terr'ists)

That shit just pisses me off.

How many more people are going to die because they got an extra $1.1M? Is it safe to say it is more than 2?

So basically it's our government buying the lives of specific Canadians with the lives of more future unknown others, some of who could very well be Canadian.
RIP Old Broads v2. Long live New Broads v3.
User avatar
RTWAP
Posts: 10974
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 1:01 am
Location: O-town
Has given rep: 25 times
Received rep: 27 times

Post #38 by RTWAP » Sun Jun 02, 2013 12:40 pm

dempsey_k wrote:Image


Justified. As Maggie Thatcher proved, a handbag can be a formidable weapon.
RIP Old Broads v2. Long live New Broads v3.
User avatar
Captain Roy Bringus
Registered Broad
Posts: 1755
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 7:30 pm
Received rep: 1 time

Post #39 by Captain Roy Bringus » Wed Jun 05, 2013 2:42 pm

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-05/egyptian-politicians-caught-in-on-air-ethiopia-gaffe/4733544

Egyptian politicians - including president Mohamed Morsi - have been caught live on air discussing plans to sabotage an Ethiopian dam project.

Ethiopia has begun diverting the Blue Nile, a major tributary to the Nile River, 500 metres from its natural course to construct a $4.7 billion hydroelectric project known as Grand Renaissance Dam.

It has sparked fears of a major impact downstream in Egpyt and Sudan.

Without knowing their comments were being aired, Egyptian politicians at a meeting chaired by Mr Morsi began to suggest ways to stop the project - including backing rebels to sabotage it.

Ayman Nour, head of the liberal Ghad Party, suggested spreading rumours that Egypt was buying military planes in order to create the impression that it was planning an airstrike to destroy the dam.

He also suggested Cairo send political, intelligence and military teams to Addis Ababa because "we need to intervene in their domestic affairs".

Yunis Makhyun, who heads the conservative Islamist Nur Party, said the dam constituted a "strategic danger for Egypt", requiring Cairo to support Ethiopian rebels "which would put pressure on the Ethiopian government".
Custom graphic of Grand Renaissance Dam project in Ethiopia

An aide to Mr Morsi later apologised for not letting the politicians know that their comments were being aired.

"Due to the importance of the topic, it was decided at the last minute to air the meeting live," Pakinam El-Sharwaki, the presidential aide for political affairs, wrote on Twitter.

"I forgot to inform the participants about the changes.

"I apologise for any embarrassment caused to the political leaders."

The meeting, a huge embarrassment both for the presidency and the opposition members who attended, caused a storm of ridicule and anger in the media and prompted even those who did not attend to apologise on behalf of Egyptians.

"Sincere apologies to the people and governments of Ethiopia & Sudan for the irresponsible utterances at the president's "national dialogue"," wrote leading dissident and former UN nuclear watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei on Twitter.

"A scandal in front of the world," read the headline of the independent daily Al-Tahrir.

Popular talk show host Reem Magued, who aired parts of the meeting on her show, said: "It's true that we asked for transparency from the government but not like this, not to the point of scandal."

Ethiopian water and energy minister Alemayehu Tegenu said he had not heard about the incident, but insisted Ethiopia's relationship with Egypt remained "healthy".

He insisted water levels would not be affected by the construction of the dam.

"Why diversion is a headache for some groups, I am not clear about. Any layman can understand what river diversion means," he said.

Egypt believes its "historic rights" to the Nile are guaranteed by two treaties from 1929 and 1959, which allow it 87 per cent of the Nile's flow and give it veto power over upstream projects.

But a new deal was signed in 2010 by other Nile Basin countries, including Ethiopia, allowing them to work on river projects without Cairo's prior agreement.

The first phase of the project is expected to be completed in three years.
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21099
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 57 times
Received rep: 177 times

Post #40 by Dr_Chimera » Sun Jun 16, 2013 6:18 pm

This is great for diplomacy.
User avatar
mayoradamwest
Registered Broad
Posts: 29438
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:38 pm
Has given rep: 201 times
Received rep: 122 times

Post #41 by mayoradamwest » Sun Jun 16, 2013 6:44 pm

Oh good, somebody cares enough about Canada to listen to what we have to say. :D

Return to “Le mur de messages”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests