Maybe if the one who plays the bass in the band gets further back to the right and the one who plays the drums is located next to the exit door, maybe jazz sounds a little better that way. To play jazz you don't need to be a true musician but just learn to play an instrument and let your hands to make an improvised melody or sound. The drinks and drugs will do the rest in the audience. After that your brain learns how to accept such discordant sounds and whola! just follow the traffic...
Liberals are social resent people. Barack Obama is a great example. A man born from the union of a black man with a white woman in times where discrimination against blacks was in progress. He grew up with hate in his soul against the American society. He used his oratory talent to become a politic figure and by faking to work for minorities he promoted a style of life inciting people to accept anti nature sex and signed laws protecting it.
About Joe Biden, what can you expect of a man who is a 50 years plus politician? This individual is a complete failure. In the 70s China received lots of US funds to become economically great, change its government to democracy and become a US ally. The result was the economical greatness of China and let it be the greater competitor against the US. Joe Biden participation has been a great disaster. Same Barack Obama never trusted him.
Having their main representatives the worst for the American society and economy, what can you expect from the followers?
Nothing good for sure.
To start, the illegal entrance to the Capitol Building by protesters of the result of the elections wasn't president Trump's idea.
This illegal entrance of people to those premises is a lesson that Democrats and some Republicans still refuse to learn.
In that day January 6, 2021, politicians finally tested in their own skin, what is to feel the sensation of seeing with their own eyes the illegal entrance of individuals into a land without the proper permit.
What it happened in the Capitol Building on January 6 is what is going on at the US borders every day.
Illegal entrance is illegal entrance every where, and same as those people who entered to the Capitol Building without a permit are under the hands of the justice court, same the illegal immigrants who enter into the US without permit shall be also under the hands of the justice court.
The hypocrisy of politicians is justify the illegal immigrant, forgive his fault and let him free while condemning the American, accuse his fault and keep it in detention.
Politicians trashing the Constitution is an every day task by their part.
Why making things hard?
Justice must be applied accordingly to the events.
When is about a murder where there are doubts about the culpability of the suspect, then the death penalty must be on hold, always on hold regardless of the years in prison and later freedom from jail.
But, when is about a murder where the suspect is clearly the criminal, caught in the act, with no doubts of culpability, then it should be no doubts to use the rope. In these cases no excuses should be accepted, no expensive appeals, just applying justice and leave the cell free for the next criminal.
I use a cell phone for communication and entertainment. To me the iPhone is the last in my list to be used for these purposes. With the iPhone if I want to listen music selected by me from my own sources, then I'm obligated to do it thru iTunes.
If I want to crate my own phone ring tone I must to do it thru iTunes.
There is no freedom to enjoy music with iPhone unless you subscribe and depend on iTunes.
About other features, most cell phones from other brands provide same quality than iPhone.
About apps, I don't use any.
I don't use apps because those are a path for others to get your location and private information 24/7. Using apps for me is losing your privacy.
Of course, people is free to decide how much of their privacy can be shared with others and they see as inoffensive the fact of being watched by others just by using those apps. In my case, I feel I enjoy more freedom without using apps in my cell phone.
As Batman you talk too much and lack of simple applications.
XY people to use men's bathrooms is a simple way to understand the current issue between sex and gender. To identify a person sex is what rules while gender is just the behavior preference of the individual.
Government is to catalogue people by their sex at birth not so by their gender's preference, however some agendas seem to keep the masses in ignorance.
Your error is thinking that masculinity is for men only. Such is not the truth. Masculinity is the standard, normal and expected behavior in men only, not in women.
You just can't force a woman to behave with feminine behavior, and on the other hand, a woman behaving with masculine behavior can't force you to accept her as a man.
See? So simple.
I, Luchito.
Family of mine lives in Washington DC. If asked by the owner of a house, the DC government installs a front and back camera for free in the properties. These cameras can be connected to a house security system or a computer. The "catch" is that the cameras also come with an antenna sending the images to the DC government surveying service.
Watching YouTube videos one can realize that any person can be under surveying cameras all day long everywhere. Sometimes the cameras installed on traffic street light poles are a kind of perturbing when their lenses appear to aim straight to you.
Question is, are people allowed to show the finger to those cameras?
Male becomes the sex status and masculine the gender.
In our species sex is man and woman. In other species the words male and female becomes the identification of their sex, and is also used with humans, however, the words man and woman are the most common words used.
A masculine woman is a woman behaving as a man, while feminine man of effeminate man refers to his gender.
The transgender ideology won't reach a transsexual status, and such is the great ignorance from authorities, who misunderstood such simple concepts and gave green light for effeminate men to enter in women's bathrooms.
Same as it was clarified with the status of a zygote right after conception, as genetically been a human being, same genetic status must be established to know who is whom in society with respect to sex. Applying science is the best to avoid disparate concepts between sex and gender. XY people must use men's bathrooms, XX people must use women's bathrooms, case closed.
I, Luchito.
Do you have a permit to carry a concealed chocolate gun?
I think police have the benefit of doubt when shoot defending themselves in front of a possible danger against their integrity. This is not a situation favoring to police only but also to anyone in the same situation.
The one carrying the chocolate gun won't aim against a police officer without expecting to have no reaction from the authority.
Are all Jews good people?
I don't think so. Decades ago a young Jew teenager killed another teenager, cut the body of the victim in pieces and trashed them. The father of this teenager Jew took him to Israel before the son was arrested and according to the news later on, the young murderer was to be on trial by an Israeli justice court. No extradition was fulfilled.
I think that lots of Nazis were also criminals and many of them were also good people.
There is a common confusion. People mostly take gender as sex.
Sex is related to the sexual organs and body structure in general.
Gender is related to the characteristic behavior according to the sex of the individual.
An individual born man can behave as a woman, however his man is not a woman, he is an effeminate man.
Sex is identified as man and woman. Gender is identified an masculine and feminine.
Our human species have been designed by nature as having two sexes.
By consequence, in base of this biological fact, there are two gender categories only: the individual as a man or as a woman will behave solely as masculine or feminine according to his or her preference.
When a man have a feminine behavior such is abnormal, having in consideration that "abnormal" is not a synonymous of bad. Still, according to his sex, behave as a woman is abnormal. Same is established with other species IF males and females behave opposite to their sex at birth.
There are some ideologies that include other behaviors which might be considered by them as other different genders, but such is nonsense: only two sexes and two genders are the valid categorization for the human species. Rare cases of an individual having both sexes at birth, such is just birth defect. nothing else.
>
It happens that while white people won't be the majority in the US, on the other hand black people won't take that place either.
If you think that your argument using "freedom of speech" as your flag is the win win debate, my guess is that such won't work here.
Your "freedom of speech" might end if you insult a police officer, reminding him his mother and grandmother, screaming loud at him when he pulls you over because your over speed. Freedom of speech... right.
In my post I never suggested censorship, if you saw it that way, then show the phrase used by me for you to think I want to stop suck blackish tendency by movie and commercial producers. Their agenda is changing society under their point of view, using the communication media favoring their "revolution"?
I'm watching the soccer world cup in Qatar, the European teams appear to be African teams just by watching the race of their players, an example is France soccer team. This is proper way to show that everybody must be treated equal and must have opportunities in jobs, sports, etc.
But, mixing races? Pushing for mixing races? I know biology and I can state such is not good for society, weakens the human species. This doesn't mean such mixing must be prohibited, but that such mixing better not to be encouraged.
No matter your freedom of speech the way you apply it, but using such a freedom of speech to improve society not so to harm it.
>>
And what country is that?
Here in America, a famous dude John Lennon said his pop group was more popular than Jesus and fans protested his freedom of speech and burned LPs and screamed, cried, got angry, arggghhh...
Last elections showed the marvels of free speech when memberships were blocked if their opinions were against the results of the elections. In many social media places memberships were blocked and banned if their opinions were against the COVID 19 vaccines.
What country you live at where the communication media can freely argue the validity of the Holocaust, the arrival of man to the Moon, supporting the Russia invasion, comments against Islam, and so forth without being targeted by others and being banned from social media, losing their jobs, being practically discriminated because their thoughts?
A friend of mine, while we were watching a movie, he commented that today children are exposed to violence when they watch cartoons. So, I suggested him to watch the cartoons we watched when we were children. Popeye cartoons were full of violence, Daffy Duck, ha! forget about it, pure violence, and so forth. However, even when violence was a common denominator it was mixed with comedy, and the effects to the viewer must have been different. The three stooges is practically harmless.
Violence without being funny is a different scenario, and it may incite the viewer to cause harm to others when in the film the good guy is rewarded when he is the one committing the crime. Perhaps this is the inspiration that causes the crimes perpetuated by individuals against certain groups in our society.
Yes, free speech is a great thing, is a right, but is also manipulated by governments, the communication media, etc. The mind of people has been brainwashed so much that today films with violence is no solely entertainment but is also inspiration. Violence in films has reached a point when a poster is asking the question in this topic, if the idea of reducing it should be a next step, measure, necessity...
Besides violence, I also have noticed that the "heroes" of the series or films, they can steal money and keep it, they can kill and evade being punished or at least been "notified" by authorities because the justice taken with their own hands.
And I don't consider this mixture of an assumed good guy committing crimes while "doing good" as being a good example for children and youths.
Not that simple, it is not about me alone but about the entire society watching those blackish sided TV commercials, movies and more.
New commercials now include not only white blond girls towards black boys but also white old women shown together with old black men.
And I was watching a series in YouTube, where in a South American country the commercials are also started to copy such a tendency, and in those countries doesn't exist the radical discrimination between races like here. In those countries, as the new fade comes from the US, they just do "monkey see monkey do".
Late Hollywood movies are also the same, women beating white men like crazy, black women beating white men, a new hero who is not even black but wants to be called Black Adam.
I have no idea how the producers of those movies and commercials have convinced business to follow such a tendency and surely those business are not selling more products or making better profit providing more services because those commercials.
As I said before, the continued mixing of races at great scale will cause a weaker humanity in the future. In this aspect science rules and in order to maintain a stronger human species best is to keep the purity of each race.
Today I was watching the soccer world cap. A commercial from Samsung shows a white girl started a contact online with a black boy who is a neighbor across the street. due to that connection the buildings where both characters get more closer and both families can see one to another more closely.
In appearance this is a message of the holiday season but this is just going more and more into a current tendency to lift up the pushing of mixing of races.
Since decades ago slowly but surely the movie industry has been adding a hero black man who will have as a companion a white woman. This is not an issue in reality when is something sporadic. But when becomes a common denominator, this style of movies, TV series and commercials, this becomes an issue.
Watching carefully commercials, when is about a black man or young man and a white woman or young woman, there is body contact and even kisses. When is about a white man or young man with a black woman or young woman, usually there is no physical contact, no kisses, but sometimes accidents, like the white man throwing food over his girlfriend.
Other commercials worship the black man, like Allstate in my area. There was an original commercial where the car owner was talking by phone with a white Allstate attendant at early hours of the day. The same commercial was edited and the Allstate is black, but the dialogue is more extended for the black man. The same company has the commercial of a white man making a carving figure of the Allstate black attendant (Idol worship?). Another one shows a food stand where a female teenager give for free food to the Allstate black attendant (A Latino minor assuming to be working at that food stand). And many other Allstate commercials having as the main figure the black man not as giving service but receiving praises.
Most of TV commercials in my area show white girls always inn contact with black boys.
Movies are exploiting this tendency as well.
The primary issue is not that, but the situation is that while the producers are focused to promote white women together with black men, at the same time in most movies the bad guys are white men.
This is typical with original Netflix movies where heterosexual marriages are mostly identified with an abusive or cheater husband. At the end the wife or girlfriend ends in company of a black man, a homosexual black man or in love with another woman. Anything but the white man as the good guy.
This new tendency carries some disadvantage for society. I see no problem with men and women choosing their sexual partners. The problem is having children.
Contrary to the common understanding, mixing of races cause genetic diversity which is preached to be a good thing. The reality is that cultures that don't mix much with other races enjoy a greater diversity. The best example is the Bushmen, who are tribes that only have marriages between people of the same families, and they enjoy a genetic diversity greater than people who are mixed between races throughout generations.
When you mix dog races the dogs acquire sometimes very attractive physical and functional characteristics, but at the end of the day, the mixed dog is weaker than the ancestors. The Doberman lose vision at early age regardless of the attributes obtained with such a mixed race dog.
Same it happens with mixing of felines, including lions and tigers and similar. the offspring comes out more weaker than the ancestors.
In our society, encouraging the mixture of races is a great mistake according to biology. My opinion is that one is free to have the sexual partner one desires but at the time of having children best is to have them with a partner of the same race.
To end, I think that producers of movies, TV series, and commercials are pushing a mixture the races with some malice and giving an insane preference to exalt the black man and more recently the black woman. I say this because at the same time of promoting their blackish agenda, the white man is portrayed as the bad dude, the father of a family as a cheater, abusive and even ignorant.
I think people has also the right to be anti semite, anti white, anti black, anti democrat, anti dogs, etc.
As long as the individual doesn't attack others, I see no problems when they give their own opinions with absolute freedom.
To me, as an example, when I see the rainbow flag bothers me a lot, because I disagree with such ideology, however I don't attack the members of that group, I just avoid them. And if someone asks my opinion about them, I feel I'm free to express my thoughts same as others who support that group have also the right to express theirs.
That new mode of playing cry baby must end. I want to listen BOTH sides and to make my own conclusions in everything. And I think the freedom of expression must be respected even when the others' opinions are against our opinions.
No group is to have privileges over others in society.
Illegal immigrant is not by any means offensive or discriminating but the correct description of an individual trespassing a limit or border illegally. Any person trespassing the line of my property with the attempt to settle in it, that is considered illegal entrance and settling.
Many illegal immigrants can't be called undocumented because they carry their country ID, plus many of them also carry fake ID and stolen social security numbers.
If their status as illegal immigrants is not recognized as such then the use of other "softer" denomination will lead to the lack of enforcement of the law.
When you try to help or save someone who is drowning then you might also put your life at risk.
When you help someone in such a trouble, you must do it thinking about your safety as well, because for you your own life must be the priority, unless you decide to be a legendary dead hero and die in the attempt.
If you find out that an attempt to save the drowning individual might take you with you to the depth of the waters, then just let him go and you return back home in peace, there was nothing you can do and you are free of any charge, even morally.You can even use your phone and make a video, and no one is going to reprimand you unless you use it for your own gain publishing on YouTube.
Twitter is the sure way to have your messages lost somewhere between the Hindu's religious pictures of their gods and also of their college friends.
Twitter promised several times that will make adjustments to make easy the search of topics and never happened.
It's just entertainment but I truly don't like Twitter.
The individual is free to choose the gender that fits better to his/her life.
But such is his/her choice, not so the rest of people choice.
Same as well, the individual can choose the kind of sex that makes him/her fell better, but such is his/her choice. It doesn't mean that the rest of people must agree or have to agree with that.
Those two words, gender and sexual identity are behaviors.
On the other hand, the words man and women are biological sex.
This biological sex can't be changed at the choice of the individual. A person is born man, and man will die. The person is born woman, and woman will die.
This is the clear and absolute difference between sex of a person, which is biological, and sexual identity and gender, which are behaviors.
By law, one must be tolerant. This is to say, one is not to offend or attack the choice of people about their sexual identity and gender selection.
However, one is not obligated to accept the sexual identity and gender selection of others.
This is then, the difference between tolerance and acceptance.
I can let be the homosexual, and never go against him because his behavior. However I can reject him as a friend because his homosexuality.
This is the freedom allowed in society, where tolerance is encouraged and acceptance is established according to the culture, ethics, moral, etc of the rest of people.
The cause of intolerance against sexual identity and choice of gender by some individuals, is not because those behaviors are against the natural biological standard but because these individuals want to force you to accept them.
Such is a no no.
Same way homosexuals usually reject religious people, same way several sides of society have the absolute right to reject homosexuals because their way of living.
As long as homosexuals, effeminate men and mannish women, etc don't mess with heterosexuals, I don't see a reason why heterosexuals must lose their respect for them.
Living together in society doesn't mean "mixing people". Society is formed by hundreds of different groups living side by side in harmony, and there is no need of mixing.
Intolerance usually happens when one of the groups crosses the line.
"Anyone who needed to learn pornography..." - Semantics.
"anybody who thinks we need a leader like Putin..." - Cheap argument.
A debater who repeats the word "any" three times or more in an argument has lost a discussion already.
Same way the use of the word "gay" as happy and as homosexual, the word "teaching" has also different meanings to be applied and understood according to the text.
Putin is a great leader for Russians, not here. The expression we need a leader like him is not a reference as to say "we need Putin as our leader" but we need a leader who can be strong and fight for America same way Putin fights for Russia.
Not happy with the fact of having to clarify what I said to a closed minded person who will interpret other's writings according to his own agenda, whatever his agenda is about.
Point is that marriage between homosexuals is as negative to society as negative is the poor understanding of other's writings by someone.
Disagreement with other poster doesn't mean to have the need to deviate the meaning of his text. Better is asking him questions about some doubted expression than having rushed conclusions about his words, erroneous conclusions which at the end won't take the discussion to the right path.
Respect deserves respect.
I think homosexual and lesbian adults have the right to choose whatever they want and whatever they do with their bodies is their business. If they called "marriage" to their union, that is their thing.
But, using children for their cause or ideology, such is a different area and must be considered against the law.
Children rights must be protected and those children must be taken away from gay marriages.
Same way is prohibited the teaching of pornography to children, same way by ethics and moral principles is also prohibited the teaching of homosexuality to children.
Of course heterosexuals must avoid and evade even friendship with married homosexuals and lesbians, because those individuals have chosen to live a life against nature, and our children can't grow up thinking that such is also another good choice of way of living.
Totally the contrary, by evading friendship with homosexual couples is how our children will be aware that homosexuality doesn't bring anything beneficial to society.
Yes, I have asked that question to homosexuals and all of them have failed and never answered the question "what benefit provides homosexuality to society?"
On the contrary, homosexuality is only harmful to society.
Gay marriage -according to current laws- is allowed. But no heterosexual is obligated to accept that legal recognition, Rejecting gay couples friendship is also a right for heterosexuals and is not against any law, neither against any ethic or moral principle.
Just avoid them but do not ignore them, but be on guard. Homosexuals will try to infiltrate inside your family and you must protect your people from them.
Of course the answer is: never in life.
Better to be a hypocrite than a criminal.
Guiding children directly or indirectly to homosexuality or lesbianism is a crime against humanity.
A fact is that only humans are the ones who consciously perform homosexuality, the rest of species of the world don't do such a deviate kind of sex. It is a lie the several arguments trying to justify homosexuality as being also performed by other species.
While heterosexuality is encouraged because is the base foundation of the survival of our species, on the other hand homosexuality is totally the contrary, is against our nature and is the cause of the proliferation of greatest percent of sexual diseases, specially when the sexual act is performed between men without protection (something very common in gay bars and clubs).
It is also a crime against children the recent license of homosexuals adopting children, because those children are exposed since early years to homosexuality, by the example given from the adopted parents.
Homosexuals are desperate to increase their number by brainwashing the mind of society thru methods like attacking the children with their teachings using those different methods.
While heterosexuals increase their number thru natural means which is reproduction, on the other hand homosexuality increases in societies solely by contagious means. In other words homosexuality is like a harmful bacteria or virus.
Nobody can be against the right of an adult person to choose what to do with his body, this is to say, to perform homosexuality or lesbianism. That is their right.
However, children have also rights, and children can't be exposed by any means to homosexuality. To expose children to homosexuality is a crime and teaching homosexuality in schools and children being adopted by couples of homosexuals and lesbians must be prohibited and be under penalty of the law.
The problem today is the corrupt authorities. We need a leader like Putin in US to remove them and liberate the US society from such a blot in power.
Nothing is better than clean and decent society, and allowing homosexuality to be taught to children is definitively a no no.
I agree.
Ronaldo to me is a team player while Messi due to his style of playing, is individualist.
Thru the years, Ronaldo have played the whole game while Messi has been a second part game player, perhaps because physical capabilities.
Watching the games, I think I have seen Messi being lost more minutes in a game than Ronaldo, this is just an impression of mine, I can't affirm this part.
I like both as soccer players, they do perform very well, but if I was to play side to side with one of them, I think Ronaldo will be more willing to share the ball with me.
You are comparing bananas with airplanes. Both of them belong to different categories even when you use the law of the land to make your argument.
To be more clear, you are comparing the traffic law of 25 miles limit with getting a divorce.
Anyway, a gun must be legal to use but in many States there are restrictions and/or limitations of their use.
With the drug, such is a different scenario, it's prohibited.
Drugs will cause harm to your body and mind, this is in health status only, while gun's impact in a body cause an injury, which is something different.
Drugs can also lead for you to cause injuries to yourself of course.
You can drive a car carrying a gun, but you can't drive a car after LSD consumption.
You carry a gun and you can control yourself, on the other hand you consume LSD and who knows what you will do next and if you will be aware of it.
Then, drugs can be indeed more dangerous than carrying a gun in several occasions.
Well, in those former times you were a criminal because you knew it was against the law and you proceeded and kept doing it.
Today is different, and your current behavior is not against the law anymore, so your thinking is different as well, today you can do it freely.
It is the intention what it counts as well.
Nobody will miss those documents.
But I remember when George Bush took the presidency after Clinton, the employees of the new administration weren't capable to start working on the first day and neither on the following one... because the former democrat employees stole the whole computers, printers, chairs, pens, etc.
They didn't steal the desks because those were very heavy.
OK, your argument is very valid.
However, if no mention of the democratic system is found in the Constitution, is there the possibility of accepting a king as a ruler and keep the Constitution intact?
To defend my position, being a king is not being a dictator.
I disagree.
Evolution and Big Bang theories weren't created in base of observation and didn't explain anything but were just ideas put over the table, words written in pieces of paper, those are great monuments of pseudoscience.
The idea of evolution comes from Kant, the German philosopher, portraying an imaginary scenario of men as descendants of chimpanzee of Africa and Orangutan from Asia.
No explanations given about any biological process or similar.
The Big bang literally tells you the universe comes from a microscopic particle in the middle of nothing, which -no one knows how- started to expand (exploded).
Those ideas were originated in the imagination, not so by observation of phenomena or experimentation and other scientific procedures.
About a theory of science, yes, it is an explanation, but this explanation is based in a fact or phenomena in order to belong to science. Ideas created by imagination of people are not theories of science, those are just mere speculations. Same it happens with other speculations like black holes, worm holes, multiple universes, etc. definitively those are not science.
I won't catalogue something that can't be proved or solved as uncertainty inside a theory of science, but I will catalogue it as unknown. Then, theories with trouble to be fully proved correct can't develop more because some factors or causes are unknown, as to say of unknown origin, etc.
The basic principle of a theory of science is to be based on fact, evidence, observation, something that exists in the physical world and from which an attempt to explain the consequences from the primeval source will develop the theory.
The particle of God, as an example, is another fiction novel and is not science. Of course a new particle has been discovered and many said that was the Higgs Boson . Such is false because the Higgins particle was to "glue" other particles to cause the mass of bodies. So far, the new discovered particle doesn't glue anything, the fiction particle Higgs Boson still is in the limbo.
The confusion created by some members of the scientific community, has been generated by their acceptance of imaginations and conjectures as if they were theories of science. From here, many arguments have been originated trying to defend good for nothing ideas as theories of science, having some of them considered even as pillars of physics, biology and etc. Pure propaganda, those so called theories are not science but just imaginations.
In reality, his personal life shouldn't have been exposed like that. I strongly dislike that guy, but I won't enjoy watching those pictures and reading those messages.
Of course, I'm interested to know if he mentions something that connects him with the Burisma scandal, which is something important.
On the other hand, those pictures are showing what the Biden's family is about, and it seems is far from being decent.
Democrats voters' legs were pulled, no doubt about it, and because shame they won't argue in favor of Biden's son.
He defended his wife from the big mouth guy that night, but he was incapable of defending his children from homosexuals and lesbians working in Hollywood doing make ups to actors.
Those workers while dressing them up and while talking about their lovers and sexual encounters, incited the mind of the little ones and these children were exposed and learned that wrong way of life, and now his son and his daughter are homosexual and lesbian.
Who will slap Smith's face now?
Surely no liberal will do it.
No.
If food shortage happens is Biden's fault.
Nobody asked Biden to stop negotiations with Russia, that was his own initiative.
Putin's war in Ukraine is not US business. Even Boris is changing his tone and says things can be back to normal if Russia gets out of Ukraine.
Putin, on the other side, continues doing what he wants.
Russia can live fine without European business, while Europe will have a hard time without Russia.
The food from the fields of Ukraine can feed easy the whole Russia for long time, and will be free. Countries neighbors like China, India and more will appreciate very much cheap oil and gas (paid with Rubles) from Russia and provide everything Russia needs.
If Biden with his nonsense causes a crisis here in the US, then he can be catalogued not only as the worst president but even as a traitor.
Biden must focus in the wellness of America first, because Ukraine is a country on the other side of the world, from which the authorities have been killing Russian descendants living over there for decades and decades. Let Putin apply justice over there and settle the land to be better suitable for everyone who lives there.
Ukraine belongs to Russia the same way Hawaii belongs to the US, Aruba to Holland, etc.
It is very common for great empires to have colonies far away of their borders, even when later those occupied lands are declared part of the invader nation, it is known historically that those lands weren't subdued but by force.
Ukraine should have surrender as soon as it was invaded. Sadly, today Ukraine will become ruins after the Russians start to destroy anything that moves against them.
If you didn't know, president Bush wasn't able to travel to Europe because he was asked as a war criminal by some courts, because Iraq's second invasion and the death of hundreds of thousands of civilians. It was unjustified the death of so many people just to take one man out of power. Same will probably happen with Putin.
No matter the results, Russia won't allow the reconstruction of Ukraine to be made with dollars and euros. The Russian plan is to be made with Rubles. He already has started to respond the attacks against the richer in his country, by impede them to use their ships (luxury and trade), freezing their accounts, etc.
This economic war was started by the Western nations right after the invasion to Ukraine. Putin is playing the game and Rubles will be the currency for selling and buying their goods, no more dollars.
If those unused dollars come back to America, then deflation will be the next apocalyptic wave in our economy.
Lets see who wins this currency war.
We are in different times now, and the technique of using economic boycott only works with small nations, This is Russia, and the next step (already in progress) is the Western nations looking for traitors in Russia to move Putin away.
World War 2 wasn't won thanks to the brave soldiers against Germany but thanks to traitors (history books always manipulate the truth). This war strategy has been inherited since biblical times, when Israel used traitors to get inside a city with a solid wall that impeded their invasion.
Putin must protect himself from traitors, because such is the way the Western armies win wars.
In today's era, if Putin sees Russia without a possibility to win, then we better hide under the kitchen table because the nuclear war will start and here everybody will be the loser.
Just one nuclear bomb sent to space and entire armies will be blind. No more internet, no more GPS, etc... all satellites will suffer malfunction and will shut down.
At the end, best is to let Russia to take Ukraine, this is the solution to avoid a greater conflict. The Western nations have "colonies" all around the world, and Russia wants its own colony added to its main land. That's all.
And by biblical records, Moscow is one of the earliest cities in the world: The sons of Jepheth: Gomer, Magog, Javan, Tubal, Meschech.
From here, Magog is great part of Russia, Javan is Japan, Tubal and Mescheck are Tobolks and Moscow.
Curiosly, China, wihch is Kittim, is a descendant of Japan.
Some weird information says that Ukraine can't be part of Russia because Ukraine existed before Moscow, but such claims are false. The Bible is the best historical book to find the first nations of the world. No other source gives us this so great information.
I know that as a Western I must be against the Russian invasion, but this is not the case, The US Constitution covers solely what is inside the US borders, because such is the jurisdiction limit for it.
So, conflicts outside the US are simply not my business, and I can take sides at my will. In this case my side is the economy in the US. Right now the future is dark because Biden's administration have decided to get involved in a conflict that doesn't affect the US land.
Having Ukraine as part of Russia will cause cheaper price of oil and gas, not so the contrary.
I go for cheaper oil and gas, so, I think is best for Russia to recover Ukraine as their land.
What I see in TV series, Netflix and movies in general, is the tendency to attempt the brainwashing of people's minds portraying the white male, heterosexual, sometimes shown with religious faith, and head of a family, as being rude with the wife, abusive, a cheater, a bad person.
On the other hand, the same TV series and movies will portrait the wives not only as victims of the white husband but the wife will find support being in love with a black man or having a homosexual black man as her best friend. Other movies portrait withe wives being happy married with their black husbands. This is a very common denominator in movies and TV series
.
Worst it comes when the wife is pregnant and the future male close to her will be the homosexual black man or a homosexual of any race. This is sick. Homosexuality is the worst example to be taught to children. (The old belief that homosexuality is observed in other species is 100 percent false. Evidence based on basic biology and observation debunks such claims of homosexuality in species other than human)
TV commercials are made to portrait a white/Chinese. Latino woman having as lover or husband to a black man, These women are to huge and kiss their black man. On the other hand, when the commercial shows a white man with a black woman as lovers or in a marriage, the white man won't touch her, kiss her and do nothing like that. It is a kind of taboo showing in TV commercials a white man kissing with love to her black wife, unless he is old and the assumption is him as her sugar daddy.
Where I want to go with all of this from above?
Is that the ruling democrat/liberal communication media not only cover up the negative actions of several black communities but is trying to enforce a kind of new society where mixing of races must be pushed at all cost.
These actions are based on misunderstanding of facts. Mixing of races causes a weaker offspring, this is a sure fact. Best and stronger kids come from same race parents.
Mixing of races does not cause greater genetic diversity. This is also an idea based in "common sense alone", while facts reveal that people having children with people of their own race or family, their offspring will obtain a greater genetic diversity.
The democrat ideology is based on lies not so in facts, but as they push their propaganda using all kind of communication media without rest, then the masses are becoming victims of such nonsense and believe that kind of negative doctrine.
On the other hand, whites are somehow also part of the survival of STILL PEOPLE in society. One day doing my job I met a police officer, who was big, blond, and strong (something you don't see much today with young fat female black police officers or, skinny, small and wearing prescribed glasses Chinese officers).
We went to a carryout store to have coffee. Coming out from the store, an old black man at the door insulted the police officer. Here is the dialogue.
-Are you OK?
-Yes, replied the old black man.
-Is your daughter receiving food stamps again?
-Yes, said the black man biting his teeth.
-And you... are still living with your daughter in the same apartment? (the daughter living in Public Housing wasn't supposed to have out of the list tenants living with her)
-Yes, said one more time the old man.
-Then... enjoy your coffee. -And he gave him his coffee cup.
When we went outside, I saw the old man throwing the coffee to the street.
To me, what it happened at the carry out didn't mean much, but when I told the story to a friend of mine who was black, he felt so offended in a way I never thought that kind of reaction from him. I saw his response when going to a Seven Eleven he scratched with his key a police car parked over there.
I think best was for the police officer and me to shut up our mouths.
This social resent attitude is also found in authorities. For example, when you observe president Barack Obama speeches and bills, those don't make any sense and his bills are against decent people in society. From this president such an attitude is what was expected because he was the son of a white woman with a black man, and in those years such kind of unions weren't accepted by society. So he grew up with such resent feelings against America society.
What the democrat controlled media released? That this president was great, that he unified the country and other lies. (Just reading the newspapers in Obama's days, the Republicans were always against the mean disastrous initiatives of the president, and that was not a unification of any kind in those 8 years).
The following administration, which brought so much progress, a great economy, and finally moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem, was under attack by social resent people who's only motto is destruction of society to have control of its ruins. The buildings of the cities still are preserved, but the mind of people have been brainwashed for the worst.
Yes, STILL PEOPLE destroys society, but the liberal controlled communication media portrays them as victims, heroes, and the example to be followed.
In former years you stand in a bar or a club and tell a good funny joke about a blind man, and people laughed. Today you do the same and complaints about your joke will be presented. The argument is that is offensive to people with vision disabilities. If you are famous and tell that joke you probably will face even court suits against you.
This is how ridiculous modern culture is reaching, and to stop this nonsense will be harder each day.
You voted for Joe... surely you were not thinking...
All species think, of course at different levels.
Reasoning is part of thinking, and is developed individually according to our own capacities.
Our greatness of thinking over other species is our expanded and variable language. An easier communication between individuals is what have help us to question ourselves if we can stop thinking. (Using reasoning to perform this task).
No one knows exactly how thoughts work but discoveries are showing that is such a complex system that in many cases is unnoticed by our own consciousness.
It has been observed that when a person dies slowly because age, our body starts to close the functions of the organs one by one in order to keep the brain alive until last. The person might be unconscious but the brain still working. This kind of protection might be a signal that even when we don't notice it, we still thinking until last minute.
Farmers following nature.
The problem with many farmers today is that they are producing food which has been genetically modified, and its consume is deteriorating the population's health.
An example is the chicken you eat everyday.
A science magazine in the 60's published the new chicken farming project. This new technology consists in grouping chicken in wired cages which will be feet away over the surface. In front of the rows of cages a canal will run food 24/7. Chicken will be eating all the time. The chicken poo will just fall from the wired cage to a wide canal located at the bottom, and this canal as a river will carry the poo to a machine. This machine will select what still is good from the poo and with new additives will return it back to the feeding canal in front of the cages.
These chicken won't see sun light in their miserable lives. Besides that, these chicken are genetically modified to have atrophied legs. With no motion available these chicken will get fat fast. Artificial light will be On 24/7 in order to impede them going to sleep.
This project became a reality in the 70's, and underground farms of this kind, about 5 miles long, have been the source of lots of the chicken you buy in the market. These chicken meat is bought mostly by carry out chicken business. Then, according to what the poo machine selects, the chicken meat you are eating is 65% chicken poo with additives. (You are what you eat) (Now you know why Europe didn't want US farm goods in those decades. Even today those concerns still stand: https://www.focusforhealth.org/
Then, after eating that kind of chicken all your life, surely your health will be compromised and surely you are going to need the help of a doctor.
On the other hand, fruits without seed is also harmful when it is understood that seeds in fruits release elements which help your body to prevent the trigger of cancer.
Eating fruits without seeds might make you a new cancer patient because the lack of that natural protection against this disease, a protection that nature included in fruits. But, who cares, right? People love St. Jude)
So, to me, farming following nature is more important than doctors. An example is the last pandemic. People with good health had not even symptoms even when they showed to be positive. On the other hand, this Corona virus, a weak virus for sure, killed and caused great problems solely to people with bad health and smokers.
Healthy people didn't need vaccines against this Corona virus.
Of course doctors are also needed because there are very healthy viruses and bacteria around, and those will have no respect for you regardless if you are healthy or not. Doctors are needed to help when people is injured, etc.
In general, farmers are the base foundation, but unfortunately food production is going far away from nature to is becoming each day more artificial.
In the past the arrival of immigrants was necessary to populate empty and wild areas, plus to impede the wish from Indians of returning back to their former lands.
In the past crossing the border from and to Mexico was not a great deal, same with the border with Canada.
But, today the situation is different. Let me explain.
Several months ago, some house owners in my city decided to rent their "one family" house to five or more families. Of course, there was no contract, no inspection of the house, and the owner started to make good profit.
To the rest such was not a problem. But, the new residents had cars, trucks, vans, and even someones used to bring their company's truck home. So, parking became a problem. I myself had to park one or two of our cars a block or two around the corner at nights.
Another problem was school buses. Rather than one school picking up students, in the selected street corners were two and even three school buses needed to pick up students.
Complaints about parking were made at the city hall, and the solution became to be having car stickers proving residence in our city.
Here is when parking went back to normality. Those families living in one house weren't able to prove they lived in the city because they had no renting receipts. The owners of those houses didn't want to provide rent receipts because such will cause them to bring an inspector and check living conditions.
It took months for parking returning back to normal in my city, but the Mayor's decision did work.
These from above are as an analogy a good example of what is having uncontrolled immigration. The lack of stopping a hidden increase of population causes the need of more stores, hospitals, schools, and so forth without following an ordered model but just by taking urgent measurements.
Having two or three buses to pick up students when the plan was always one bus, such is a huge change. This is not just about the amount of students to be transported but also about the allowed number of students in a classroom, and so forth.
Illegal immigration is not noticed because authorities don't report the problems, so, the problem is the lack of interest from their part to find a real solution.
And while politicians play the game of being "compassionate" with illegal immigrants, millions of them laugh of the American system and cross the borders like entering to their own houses.
To me legal immigration is the only path to make the country more prosperous and having more opportunities of progress, having in mind that this progress will benefit the cities, the States and the country in general.
The biggest problem is that illegal immigrants don't assimilate to the American society but they make their own societies. I witness many business posting the flag of their country of origing in front of their business and houses until the city remove it.
Ruth, the biblical character, is the best example of what an immigrant must be when wants to be part of the new country: "Your God will be my God, your people will be my people".
This is what assimilation is about, learning the language and culture of the land and be part of it. The idea of bringing foreign people like crazy just to experiment a solution for the future is not the right answer. Accelerated immigration was necessary in the past due to the conditions of the land in 1500, 1600, 1700 and 1800.
But today the conditions are totally different, and politicians and authorities must be aware of that.
