On Sun, 4 Aug 2024 23:49:19 +1000, "Andrew W" <space@defense.com>
wrote:

>"Malte Runz" wrote in message
>news:l8juajp9dha1d8b5all957av9di14atbu7@4ax.com...
>>
>>On Sat, 3 Aug 2024 23:05:29 +1000, "Andrew W" <space@defense.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>"Malte Runz" wrote in message
>>>news:pkopaj52j96ca8smvhb70ag1iviq2d30ev@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>On Fri, 2 Aug 2024 10:47:36 +1000, "Andrew W" <space@defense.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Malte Runz" wrote in message
>>>>>news:65qnaj9h7jtrc497e90qtb9f5a54dmallf@4ax.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 1 Aug 2024 15:47:38 +1000, "Andrew W" <space@defense.com>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Malte Runz" wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:9pphaj51bc9ak2q24n79p8rujfcktl3mn5@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Tue, 30 Jul 2024 09:07:07 +1000, "Andrew W" <space@defense.com>
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Malte Runz" wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>news:t0pfaj5tvefcvlsq3femilk94lr7hn94md@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 29 Jul 2024 14:49:18 +1000, "Andrew W" <space@defense.com>
>>>>>>>>>>wrote:

(snip)

>>https://tinyurl.com/25zc7whc
>>Putin's speech right before the attack.
>>"... We have been left no other option to protect Russia and our
>>people, but for the one that we will be forced to use today. The
>>situation requires us to take decisive and immediate action. The
>>people’s republics of Donbas turned to Russia with a request for help.
>>
>>“In this regard, in accordance with Article 51 of Part 7 of the UN
>>Charter, with the approval of the Federation Council of Russia and in
>>pursuance of the treaties of friendship and mutual assistance ratified
>>by the Duma on February 22 with the Donetsk People’s Republic and the
>>Luhansk People’s Republic, I decided to launch a special military
>>operation. ..."
>>
>>Do you understand the words "I decided to launch a special military
>>operation."?

Did you get it?
>>
>>See what a little google research can uncover!
>>
>>> ... It could have been a General.
>>
>>I know you don't believe that, and now I know that you know it was
>>Putin who "decided to launch a special military operation".
>>
>>Another example of you not doing your own research but decided to spew
>>blather instead.
>>>
>
>Putin ordered an attack on key locations where the enemy resides. He didn't
>order an attack on the whole country of Ukraine and its people like the MSM
>claims.

First you claim that it is unknown who ordered the attack on Ukraine.
Now you claim to know where he ordered his army to attack. You're full
of shit. No one believes you know a damn thing about this.
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The deep state is what Putin is trying to eradicate, not the people of
>>>>>Ukraine, fool. ...
>>>>
>>>>Do you believe Putin when he explains how Ukraine is really a part of
>>>>Russia and has no right to exist as a sovereign nation? Do you need me
>>>>to link to his 'manifesto' again? Last time I did so, you claimed to
>>>>already have read it. Okay... once more:
>>>>http://www.en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181
>>>>
>>>>"I am confident that true sovereignty of Ukraine is possible only in
>>>>partnership with Russia.
>>>>
>>>
>>>A partnership sounds alright.
>>
>>To someone like you, yes, I'm sure a partnership with Putin sounds
>>alright. Together you can get rid of the troublemakers, right.
>>>
>
>You don't know as much about Putin as you think. ...

I know he sees Russians and Ukrainians as one people, and I know he
signed an order to attack Ukraine.

> You only hear about him ...

I just quoted his own words to you.

>from the real enemy that the MSM never talks about, because the same enemy
>controls them.

Paranoid conspiracy theory.

>And you can't see purpose of all this - to create another world war.

Ditto. You have no knowledge about what goes on:

"It's unknown who the order came from."
"Putin ordered an attack on key locations..."

QED.

>
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Our spiritual, human and civilizational ties
>>>>formed for centuries and have their origins in the same sources, they
>>>>have been hardened by common trials, achievements and victories. Our
>>>>kinship has been transmitted from generation to generation. It is in
>>>>the hearts and the memory of people living in modern Russia and
>>>>Ukraine, in the blood ties that unite millions of our families.
>>>>Together we have always been and will be many times stronger and more
>>>>successful. For we are one people."
>>>>
>>>
>>>That sounds okay. Nothing aggressive there.
>>
>>Of course it sounds fine to you. The talk about 'blood and soil' and
>>'one people'. You love that shit.
>>>
>
>You love the lying MSM, the mouthpiece of the real enemy.

No. I gave you Putin's own words.

>>>
>>>>
>>>>>... Why do you believe the MSM lies?
>>>>
>>>>"For we are one people." Putin's words, motherfucker.
>>>>
>>>
>>>That's unity. ...
>>
>>No, it isn't. It's assimilation. The Ukrainians do not want to be "one
>>people" under Putin's Russia.
>>
>
>You've been completely brainwashed.

Do you think the Ukrainians want to be assimilated by Russia?
>
>
>>
>>> ... You prefer division and conflict? I think you have mental
>>>problems.
>>
>>I prefer people being able to choose for themselves, and not having
>>the big neighbor telling them they are "one people", and in order to
>>prove it Big Brother is laying waste to their country..
>>>
>
>The crooked MSM tells you all this.

No. That's my opinion.

(snip)

>>>>>No I don't follow the MSM and political left.
>>>>
>>>>Another keeper. Yes, I know you don't know what 'MSM and the political
>>>>left' actually say. One thing you are getting completely wrong is that
>>>>you think the political left is aligned with MSM. I'll let you in on a
>>>>little secret. Leftist dislike MSM just as much as you do.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Why do they say the same things then?
>>
>>They don't! Prove me wrong. Links, quotes, the whole spiel.

Gryllidae.

>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Do you still believe the global warming scam that's for taxing people
>>>>>with
>>>>>carbon credits and limiting travel?
>>>>
>>>>Global warming is real and travel is not limited.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>Global warming and cooling has been happening for billions of years. The
>>>temp goes up and down.
>>
>>So, you accept the science that shows the temperature is rising?
>>
>
>In some countries its falling. Here in Australia we are having some of the
>coldest and longest winters ever.

Local climates may wary. All predicted by the models. The globe as a
whole is warming thereby creating a more dynamic climate, with
extremes in both ends. No doubt about it. Even you accept it. You just
say it's 'natural'.

>
>
>>
>>>Years ago Al Gore and others claimed that we are doomed, but today we're
>>>no
>>>closer to that.
>>
>>Yes, we are. Every year is hotter than the previous year.
>>
>
>It's the media that's been claiming that. Australia is mostly a tropical
>country and our summers are now intermittent with only a few hot days and
>the hottest days are not hotter than decades ago. You've been gaslighted.
>
>
>>
>>Deserts are
>>spreading rapidly.
>>
>
>Not true.

You're denying facts. Desertification is a huge problem in more and
more places:

https://tinyurl.com/4y4hda4h
***
A third of the world’s land surface is threatened by desertification
Over 4 million square kilometers of land is being degraded every year.
120,000 square kilometers are turned into actual desert.

“Desertification is a phenomenon that ranks among the greatest
environmental challenges of our time. Yet most people haven't heard of
it or don’t understand it”.
***

They're talking about you!

Are you going to provide data that proves me wrong, are we going
straight to 'you only believe MSM'?
>
>>
>>Storms are more frequent and stronger.
>>
>
>The enemy are using weather manipulation technologies.

So, you admit that there are more frequent and more powerful weather
events these years?
>
>
>>
>>Sea levels
>>are rising.
>>
>
>Not true.

Yes, true.
https://tinyurl.com/mwt9zwtb
***
Highlights
Global average sea level has risen 8–9 inches (21–24 centimeters)
since 1880.

In 2022, global average sea level set a new record high—101.2 mm (4
inches) above 1993 levels.

The rate of global sea level rise is accelerating: it has more than
doubled from 0.06 inches (1.4 millimeters) per year throughout most of
the twentieth century to 0.14 inches (3.6 millimeters) per year from
2006–2015.
***

Are you going to provide data that proves me wrong, are we going
straight to 'you only believe MSM'?
>
>
>>
>>Your Great Barrier Reef is dying.
>>
>
>'Global warming' as it's being put forward isn't necessarily the cause of
>that. Storm damage and Crown-of-thorns starfish are the main causes.

Ignorant fool.
https://tinyurl.com/uezev3sz
"Climate change is the greatest threat facing the reef and a challenge
we must all tackle together.

The growing combination of rising water temperatures, poorer water
quality from sediment run-off and pollution, as well as more severe
cyclones and crown-of-thorns starfish outbreaks, are just some of the
threats creating a perfect storm for our reef and the iconic animals
that depend on it."

>
>
>>
>>>The crooks in power want to bring out yet another tax.
>>>Battery powered cars are another way to limit our travel ...
>>
>>Utter bullshit.
>>
>
>You've been fed bullshit.

You're certainly trying to. Why are more and more charging stations
popping up? Why are companies trying to increase range, lower charging
times, improve the energy density of batteries?
>
>
>>
>>> ... and keep us in
>>>cities. ...
>>
>>Nonsense.
>>
>
>Says an MSM believer.

You're denying facts.

>
>
>>
>>> ... You've heard of the 15 minute cities?
>>
>>Yes. A concept that is meant to reduce the need for unnecessary
>>commuting.
>>
>
>Who's doing unnecessary commuting?

Many people in cities.

>What about people who have to travel because of the nature of their
>business? Or have relatives out of town?

That's not unnecessary commuting.
>
>
>>
>>Or, do you think it's good that millions of people spend
>>hours stuck in traffic every day? 'Rush hour is happy hour'?
>>>
>
>You think the WEF has the big solution? You believe them?

What does the WEF have to say about 15-minute cities?
Google, google, google...

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/11/15minute-city-falls-short/

"... Such experiments are unprecedented and exciting, and they stand
on long-established planning principles. Since the crisis of
monofunctional modernism in the post-war era, urban planners and
designers have proposed mixed-use developments, where residences,
schools, and shops stand side-by-side in diverse neighborhoods. The
15-minute neighbourhood provides a specific spatial scale and suggests
a new model for the larger city, which is devolved into small,
repeating parts.

What’s not to like?

It turns out, the concept is not always a fit. For one, the 15-minute
neighbourhood doesn’t work so well for a suburban nation, like the
United States. While it is easy to envision Paris, Copenhagen and
Barcelona in small repeating parts – or even in certain places in the
US like Manhattan and Brooklyn, or big slices of Boston and Cambridge
in Massachusetts – it is harder to imagine this kind of reinvention of
far-flung sprawling suburbs where the majority of Americans live."

Pros and cons. A somewhat interesting article.

And here is where you come in:
https://www.ucem.ac.uk/whats-happening/articles/15-minute-city/

"... According to Bloomberg, these cities have ‘been positioned by
conspiracy theorists and far-right influencers as a totalitarian
plot’. It’s also been suggested that the idea both a precursor to
‘climate lockdowns’ and ‘part of a broader scheme by international
bodies like the World Economic Forum (WEF)’."

You have no idea what the WEF has to say about the concept. But your
side, "conspiracy theorists and far-right influencers", seem to
coalesce around the idea that 15-minutes cities are part of the
cabal's evil plan to control us all and you're simply repeating the
talking points.

(snip)

>>Of course I have. Remember when you tried to lecture me on what goes
>>on in Denmark on that front? But that is only partly relevant here. We
>>were talking about regulations of the amounts and kinds of material
>>you can release into the environment. CO2 is only one of them.
>>
>
>The corporations are releasing high amounts of toxic chemicals into the
>environment including water ways but they don't want to talk about that
>because then they have to spend a lot of money. ...

Luckily there are a lot of activists, especially on the political
left, who are creating a lot of debate and awareness. That's probably
how you know about the corporations and the pollution the create.

> ... So they put the blame on us,
>cows etc. ...

No one blames the cows. They just do their cow thing.

> ... And you just believe them.
>CO2 is a red herring. CO2 is needed, especially by plants.

That's Trump logic at its finest! 'Windmills cause cancer and kill all
the birds'. Do you buy all the idiot's talking points?

Yes, Einstein, plants need CO2, but just because plants need CO2 that
doesn't mean more is better.
(snip)

>>>Conspiracy theory: Anything the MSM won't discuss.
>>
>>Conspiracy theory: MSM won't discuss it!
>>
>>https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/02/us/video/pfas-forever-chemicals-farmland-food-biosolids-digvid
>>https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/new-way-destroy-pfas-forever-chemicals-rcna43528
>>https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68671731
>>https://apnews.com/article/forever-chemicals-pfas-pollution-epa-drinking-water-1c8804288413a73bb7b99fc866c8fa51
>>https://www.foxnews.com/us/why-epa-regulating-pfas-what-forever-chemicals
>>https://www.npr.org/2024/04/12/1198909666/epa-pfas-forever-chemicals-limits-drinking-water
>>https://abcnews.go.com/US/pfas-entering-americas-water-supply/story?id=98479678
>>
>>QED
>>
>
>They put those stories on other pages that most people never see unless they
>specifically search for them.

And the goal posts have dropped into overdrive. Going, going, gone!

>I just checked and there's no word of this major problem on the main pages
>of any of those news sites.

You want it to be front page news all the time? Like there is nothing
else going on in the world these days?

>
>
>>
>>>>>Are bureaucrats the ones who've been taking this action for years?
>>>>
>>>>They enable the implementation.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>...in a perfect world.
>>
>>Who else can do it?
>>
>
>A government for the people instead of for itself.

They are doing it for the people. How does a government 'profit' from
banning leaded fuel or reducing the use of PFAS?
>
>
>>
>>>>>>>The corporations and gov know about it and have for a long time. ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The use of PFAS was never held secret from the public.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Did the MSM and gov talk about it to the public? If not then it's
>>>>>basically
>>>>>a secret like the others subjects I talk about.
>>>>
>>>>We are many who do not need the government to talk about things for us
>>>>to know about them.
>>>>
>>>
>>>If it wasn't for the internet you wouldn't know.
>>
>>So what. The important thing is that I know. How do you get your
>>information, if not from the internet?
>>>
>
>You think you know stuff but you have to use your discernment and common
>sense and wide research to piece together what is true and what is not.

How do you get your information, if not from the internet?

>
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>If you go to a politician about this they will stonewall you or tap
>>>>>dance
>>>>>around it.
>>>>
>>>>Have you tried?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Do you not know anything about what politicians are like?
>>
>>Okay. You haven't tried. You go by what you hear... on the internet.
>>
>
>I use my brain.

I'd be careful relying on that, if I were you. We both know where that
leads to.
>
>
>>
>>>>>>Like with many
>>>>>>other products, we don't know about the, possibly detrimental, impact
>>>>>>they can have when they are created and taken into use. It's what we
>>>>>>do when we find out that counts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The detrimental effects have been know by doctors and scientists for a
>>>>>while.
>>>>
>>>>And there has been talk about the effects for a while.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Talk is not action.
>>
>>Moving the goal posts again. You asked if "the MSM and gov talk about
>>it to the public". The answer is yes. The links I provided above prove
>>it.
>>
>
>They don't talk about it on TV and radio. ...

How do you know? You're on record saying you don't follow MSM.

> ... Unless you specifically search for
>it on the net you most likely will never see it.

Do you want MSM to force feed people with their stories? We all have a
duty to stay informed, in my opinion. You can't blame the MSM for
people like you not knowing about the information the provide because
you choose not to follow them.

>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Same was the case with glyphosate which was based on agent orange ages
>>>>>ago.
>>>>
>>>>Have you asked yourself why no one uses Agent Orange anymore? Maybe
>>>>it's because the bureaucrats and politicians did some meddling.
>>>>But glyphosate has relatively low toxicity for people,
>>>>
>>>
>>>Say the corporations and their yes men.
>>
>>Show the scientific studies that prove them wrong.
>>
>
>There's not so much need for new scientific studies ...

Old ones will do just fine.

> ... when people have been
>getting sick and dying for many years from poisoning.

Even from small doses that fall within the recommended limits? That's
what were debating here, not whether or not glyphosate is harmful if
swallowed or if one is exposed to it in large amounts over long
periods of time.

>
>
>>
>>>>and if we
>>>>observe the guidelines set up by the bureaucrats and politicians it
>>>>poses very, very little risk. Dihydrogen monoxide, on the other hand,
>>>>is like everywhere! They add it to most of the foods we consume, and
>>>>the MSM and corrupt politicians have known about it for decades, but
>>>>they never talk about it!
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ... Is that not
>>>>>>>high corruption?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>How is that corruption? Who is paying whom, and for doing what? The
>>>>>>corporations pay the governments for not meddling in their dirty
>>>>>>business?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Excuse me? The corruption is knowing that the population is being
>>>>>poisoned
>>>>>but continuing to sell the products to the public for profit. ...
>>>>
>>>>That's not corruption.
>>>>
>>>
>>>You're ok with people being poisoned for profit??
>>
>>Strawman.
>>
>
>You have a strange idea of corruption then.
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ... Are you dumb?
>>>>
>>>>Look up the definition of corruption.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>Ok.
>>>"dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving
>>>bribery."
>>
>>I ask again. Who is bribing whom? Why do I need to guide you through
>>your own arguments all the time..
>>
>
>You honestly don't know anything about the bribery and other kinds of
>corruption going on and who's involved?

Who is paying bribes to whom, and what is the 'quid pro quo', so to
speak? Simple question.

>You're a bad research, or you don't care too much about the biggest problems
>in the world.

Why don't you answer the question? And no, I'm not too lazy to find
out myself.

>
>
>>>
>>>And so?
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If you want to get rid of those chemicals, how do you suggest we do
>>>>>>it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You really don't know? ...
>>>>
>>>>No, I don't know what /you/ think.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Never mind what others think. ...
>>
>>Yeah, a strawman is much easier.
>>
>
>You are so slimy.

It's ridiculous that you find it wrong that I prefer to know what your
point of view is, rather than assuming something that might not be
true.
>
>
>>
>>> Is what other think all that's important to
>>>you?
>>
>>See what I mean? Of course I want to know what you think when I'm
>>debating you.
>>
>
>Debate the corrupt governments and corporations instead. ...

Like you do?

> ... Get your priorities
>right.

Here in a.a. it's mano a mano.

>>>>> ... Use more natural alternatives. ...
>>>>
>>>>How do you enforce that?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Ask the governments. I don't work for them.
>>
>>We're slowly getting somewhere. Yes, the government makes the rules
>>and the bureaucrats can enforce them.
>>>
>
>And you think they're not corrupt and stacking cards in their own favour?
>You don't know that they make one set of laws for us and another for
>themselves?

You insists that there is always an ulterior motive behind everything
a government does. So, explain how the individuals making up
governments and bureaucrats benefit from regulating the production and
emission of toxic products in a way that goes against the economic
interest of corrupt corporations.

And no, I'm not too lazy to find out myself. I'm interested in /your/
opinion.

>
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ... They exist but they
>>>>>bring less profit for the corporations.
>>>>
>>>>And how do you make the corporations change their behavior?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Clean out the corruption, how do you think? ...
>>
>>Make laws and enforce them. Cleaning out corruption is part of the
>>enforcement.
>>
>
>Then how come there's more corruption happening as time goes by?

Is there? Where? In DC? I thought Trump fixed that on day, what was
it, one?

(snip)

>>>>Who made the laws that went against the economic
>>>>interests of the big, bad, corrupt corporations?
>>>>
>>>
>>>What a dumb question.
>>
>>You're getting the point! If the governments didn't make laws and
>>enforced them the corporations would run amok.
>>
>
>They are running amok. So how did that happen then?

Some governments don't have enough power to stop it. Some governments
don't give a fuck. Like in Russia:

https://tinyurl.com/mps464ys
"... A Toxic Legacy
According to official regulatory data, 35 to 60 percent of drinking
water reserves in Russia fail to meet safety standards. For surface
water and spring water. 40 and 17 percent is impotable, respectively.
In total, 11 million Russians do not have access to safe drinking
water.

The widespread water pollution is largely due to Soviet-era dumping.
Enormous amounts of chemicals and sewage were deposited into Russia’s
rivers, including radioactive wastewater in some places. The impact on
Russia’s water resources, in Moscow and elsewhere, is immense. In a
2009 survey, Russians named water pollution as the country’s most
serious environmental issue.

Troublingly, large-scale industrial dumping continues today. A handful
of Russian companies are taking steps to improve the quality of their
wastewater, but the incentive is low."

Are you going to provide data that proves me wrong, are we going
straight to 'you only believe MSM'?

>
>>
>>Neither of us think
>>that is a good idea. Is there still corruption and are people breaking
>>the laws? Of course, but we have a system that enables us to go after
>>the bad guys and it is happening. Sorry to burst your bubble.
>>
>
>The corporations have billions to keep the best lawyers to get themselves
>out of trouble. ...

I know.

> ... Plus they bribe and threaten people. They are well
>protected. ...

I know.

> ... And the governments do little unless they're made to do
>something.

And only a strong government can take them on.

--
Malte Runz