Mr Fixit

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Mr Fixit

  • Rank
    Council Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  1. Of course it's fake news. Have you read Herman's and Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent? It's what these guys do. Democratic establishment decided that the Russia angle is a great way to deflect attention from the real culprits for disastrous losses at federal, state, and local levels all across the country. They can't talk about policy substance that their base wants -- single payer, financial regulation, income inequality, etc. -- because donors wouldn't like it, so Dems have to gaslight and manipulate and shift attention to Russia! Russia! Russia! As if it's Russia's fault that 50% of US wage workers are at the poverty line, that number one cause of bankruptcy are medical bills, that student loan debt surpassed 1.3 trillion dollars, or that, economy aside, over 1,000 people are killed by police each year. If you want more on this, just read this well-documented article.
  2. I don't have the time for a thorough research, but just go ahead and type Russia or Russia Baltics in Google and see where it gets you. You will see close to ZERO neutral or positive news articles on whatever subject or issue. For example I found these headlines on the first 2 pages of Google News in the last month: Russia's Secret Weapon to Invade the Baltics and Crush NATO: Soldiers Falling from the Sky Russian activist: If Putin regains Ukraine, the Baltics are next US Special Forces deployed at Russian border to defend Baltic states ‘scared to death’ by Vladimir Putin U.S. Lending Support to Baltic States Fearing Russia Baltic states like Latvia are wary of where Trump’s overtures to Russia could lead Why Russia's military adventures worry Europe How Russia could sweep NATO from the Baltic Sea NATO: RUSSIAN AIRCRAFT INTERCEPTED 110 TIMES ABOVE BALTIC IN 2016 US stations troops in Baltic states facing 'threat' from Russia A NECESSARY RESPONSE TO RUSSIAN AGGRESSION IN THE BALTICS Yeah, I'd say propaganda is in full swing.
  3. Well, that's part of the game. Those who perpetuate mass hysteria count on the fact that many people won't read carefully enough or between the lines. And your damn right I don't trust liberal media. Or any mainstream media for that matter. Those guys can't really be trusted to cover a political or economic issue without bias.
  4. And that is all well and good. No one is suggesting NATO shouldn't defend their members. What I was talking about is the media-perpetuated paranoia started and induced by what passes for political class these days that WE MUST DEFEND BALTICS PUTIN ATTACK DANGER DICTATOR OMG QUICK! I am not American, so I ask you people who are in good faith. If you did a professional poll today among ordinary Americans on the likelihood of Russian invasion of the Baltics, what answers would you get? Last I heard, over 50% of Clinton voters actually believed the Russians hacked the VOTING SYSTEM. Do you honestly believe my proposed poll would fare any differently? That's the danger of biased media that uncritically disseminates establishment talking points. We all need to think for ourselves first and foremost. So yes, NATO has a legal obligation to defend their member states. They would do well to make that sufficiently clear to all potential adversaries, Russia included. It doesn't follow that it means we need to start a manufactured hysteria to prove our point. In fact, such irresponsible behavior will only ensure the continued instability. Then again, seems certain actors want such an outcome.
  5. Does Putin want to weaken NATO as his current adversary? Sure. Would he cry if NATO disbanded? Nope. Would he like increased influence in eastern Europe? Yeah, I'd say so. Pretty much things that every country with geopolitical aspirations would want. I mean, would US like to weaken Russia? Would they like to weaken Russian ties to regimes Putin is cozy with? Would it be nice if the West had a stronger influence in internal Russian politics? We're talking Politics 101 here. None of that means that Russia intends to invade eastern Europe. And you know what? European leaders also don't believe it (no matter what they publicly say). If, say, Germany or France really believed that there is a reasonable chance of war with Russia in the foreseeable future, you could be damn sure their military expenditures would skyrocket from currently anemic 1.x% of GDP. It's all pure propaganda BS.
  6. Ummm... I have a functioning brain? Russia has clearly and openly indicated many years ago that, following NATO expansion to their borders, Georgia and Ukraine were their "red lines". We can agree or disagree with their policies, but that is a fact. We all know what sadly happened in those two countries. Extrapolating that onto the Baltic states or even more ludicrously Poland is fearmongering perpetuated by people who need eternal enemies to justify their policies. Russia isn't interested in attacking eastern Europe any more it's interested in attacking Jupiter. It's up to those who claim the opposite to sufficiently support those claims with credible evidence.
  7. Which he doesn't want. Gotta love this warped media-induced frenzy. First confabulate that Putin is about to invade Baltic countries, Poland, and such. Then rush to their defense. Then maintain "we're not for Cold War, we just gotta stop Russia".
  8. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!11111111111!!!!!!!!!1 In the golden era of lobbying, where every US politician earns huge sums on de facto legalized bribery, are you seriously proposing that public service (at the top level in US at least) is about making sacrifices? The median net worth of a member of Congress was $1.03 million in 2013
  9. I know next to nothing about Ireland, so excuse my ignorance, but it was always my impression that it was the economy that had a chief role in Northern Irish peace process. Huge economic growth, particularly in Ireland, must have had something to do with it, right? Once people start living decently, they are less likely to fall back on petty nationalism and violence. Again, total outsider here just offering his opinion.
  10. 1. Assad hasn't committed genocide as defined under Convention for Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. Shall we stop naming every single US foreign policy enemy a genocidal maniac? How many have there been already in the last 20 years alone? Four? Five? I lost count. 2. The war in Syria has been prolonged by money, weapons, training, and political support provided to the terrorists by neighboring countries like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar with an ambivalent quasi-approval from the US and their allies. Also, this: It's really something to see the recurring pattern among so many people: the only way to make the world safer is to be more hawkish! Apparently Obama's 7 foreign "interventions" (love the euphemism) aren't enough. Let's make it 8!
  11. And honestly, he'd do well to do it. This bottom-drawer BS just shows how US intelligence community is way beyond political control. These guys are a government unto themselves. The moment someone out of political mainstream comes in, good or bad, they seem to start losing their shit.
  12. How is it incorrect? If you have a segregated society where one set of people live with all their rights respected and the other set are living under martial law, and have been for 50 years, what is it if not apartheid? Where Israel is concerned, West Bank *is* part of their state. They have annexed it in all but name and yet refuse the Palestinians almost any rights that belong to rightful citizens. There your rights and obligations literally and exclusively depend upon your ethnic/religious origin. I am sorry man, but what is it? Languages across the globe have a word for it.
  13. Let me get this straight. (1) You say that a two-state solution won't be on Bibi's watch (presumably because he wouldn't allow it) (2) You further say that Bibi is illegally grabbing ever more land to improve Israel's position in any future negotiations (3) And then you call these two points Land for Peace. That is some warped definition, I have to admit. The original meaning of Land for Peace is related to UN Security Council Resolution 242 which involves the various Arab factors in the region recognizing Israel's right to exist in exchange for Israel withdrawing back to its internationally-recognized borders. Hence, it's on Israel to give up land it occupied and up to Arabs to make peace with Israel. Your definition turns it around, as far as I can see. Now, if Palestinians want peace, they need to give up *their* land and what's more, with settlements constantly expanding, with each passing year they'll have to give up even more land.
  14. Twice you wrote this. Care to provide evidence for your statements? When has Israel offered a 2-state solution in good faith and not only with wink-wink to pretend they're all for negotiations? They hold all the cards. They have almost unconditional support of the most powerful country on Earth. Had Israel wanted a peaceful solution, they'd *have* a peaceful solution or at least we'd be well on our way towards finding it. But sure, Israel wants "land for peace" while they construct hundreds of new settlements in the Occupied Territories. Also, I urge people to find a map of the settlements. It's not hard. Google it. It's not just that Israel is illegally taking over ever-increasing parts of the West Bank, they build their settlements in such a way to completely criss-cross the land with them, often separating Palestinian areas into dozens of non-linked pockets so that if they were to give some kind of independence to Palestine, it'd be a meaningless Frankenstein that'd be completely unsustainable. It's not hard to spot. Takes only a bit of intellectual honesty. ETA: I decided to provide you all with a link to the map of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Tell me what you see and what conclusions you draw from this image.