Colors of Blue and Gold

[Richard Smith]

So much stupidity, it's beyond hilarious.

Only an "idiot" would suggest that because a video is available somewhere on You Tube that means it is not being suppressed.

You don't even understand the contradiction in terms applied here!   

Let me dumb it down as much as I can for you. A video that is available for viewing, regardless where, isn't suppressed! Perhaps some outlets did not use it, but that doesn't alter the fact that the video was available to them.

Particularly after admitting that even though you allegedly "live" in "Europe" that you were completely unaware of it.

This obsession of yours with where I live is really getting out of hand. Get some help! And while you are at it, get your head examined as well. There clearly is something wrong with it, when you believe that where somebody lives determines what he should or should not be aware of. As I said before, unlike you, I have a life and far better things to do than watch YouTube videos all the time.

The mainstream US press did not cover the story.

So what? Did Fox cover it? I can't find a single video about it on YouTube

Because there are references to it on You Tube does not mean it has not been suppressed by the US mass media.

Pathetically hilarious. Your bias is showing. US media may have ignored the story (if that's what happened), but you can't suppress a video that's already out there in the public domain.

Whew.  You don't understand the difference between someone posting a video on You Tube and the mainstream media running it as a major story.  HA HA HA.  It's just another day in "Europe" going down the rabbit hole of ignorance.

[Martin Weidmann]

Whew.  You don't understand the difference between someone posting a video on You Tube and the mainstream media running it as a major story.  HA HA HA.  It's just another day in "Europe" going down the rabbit hole of ignorance.

More stupidity on full display. Mainstream media not running a story, that's already out there, is not suppressing a story!

[Richard Smith]

More stupidity on full display. Mainstream media not running a story, that's already out there, is not suppressing a story!

You should work for Facebook with logic like that.  Unreal.  Suppression, of course, is different than total censorship.  Maybe you have lived in "Europe" too long to understand the obvious distinction.  Suppression means that dissemination is limited.  And how exactly would anyone know what stories are being completely censored since they would never be known?  Logic doesn't play any role in the contrarian fantasy world, however.

[Martin Weidmann]

You should work for Facebook with logic like that.  Unreal.  Suppression, of course, is different than total censorship.  Maybe you have lived in "Europe" too long to understand the obvious distinction.  Suppression means that dissemination is limited.  And how exactly would anyone know what stories are being completely censored since they would never be known?  Logic doesn't play any role in the contrarian fantasy world, however.

A story that is being suppressed doesn't see the light of day.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/suppression

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suppression

Suppression is censorship. You can not censor or suppress a story that's already in the public domain!

It's utterly amazing that something so obvious needs to be explained to you.

Care to try again?

[Richard Smith]

A story that is being suppressed doesn't see the light of day.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/suppression

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suppression

Suppression is censorship. You can not censor or suppress a story that's already in the public domain!

It's utterly amazing that something so obvious needs to be explained to you.

Care to try again?

[Richard Smith]

It didn't take long for the war mongers to begin clamoring for jet fighters.  The endless escalation of this conflict begs the ultimate question: 

What happens when the choice narrows to Ukraine being overrun or sending in US and NATO ground forces?  What then?

[Joe Elliott]

It didn't take long for the war mongers to begin clamoring for jet fighters.  The endless escalation of this conflict begs the ultimate question: 

What happens when the choice narrows to Ukraine being overrun or sending in US and NATO ground forces?  What then?

I don't see a trend leading to Ukraine being overrun. The Russians take months of a slow steady push to take Bakhmut before they are finally just able to take, ... Soledar, a pre-war town on 3,000. The great task of taking Bakhmut, a pre-war town of 10,000, will have to await another day. But if they are finally able to take Bakhmut, who knows what they may be able to accomplish next. The sky is the limit. They might even be able to take a town of 15,000 before Trump gets trashed in the elections of 2024.

The Russians have nothing to compare to the Ukrainian swift taking over of the large areas east of Kharkiv and Kherson. At this rate of Russian advance, the glaciers of the next Ice Age will overtake Moscow before Russia will overrun Ukraine.

But what happens if there is some sort of miracle reversal and Ukraine is on the verge of being overrun? Do we send in NATO ground forces? No. This is Ukraine's fight. No NATO forces will be sent in unless Russia attacks a NATO country, or uses a Nuclear bomb, or poison gas, or biological weapons. If Ukraine loses, Ukraine loses.

Which is why we need to make certain that we send enough. We should send in the jets Ukraine requests. All our expenditures, are a fraction of our yearly spending on defense, about 6 per cent. We should send in 10 per cent each year. And cut down our defense spending by 10 per cent. Surely, with Russia so occupied with Ukraine, we can cut down our defense spending by that much.

This aid to Ukraine is one of the best deals the U. S. has ever gotten. For just 6 per cent of our military budget, the Russian army is trashed, and the danger of Russia overrunning central Europe is greatly diminished for now and years to come. If we could spend another 6 per cent that would decimate China's military, making it impossible for them to invade Taiwan for the next several years, I would do it.

Just think what a great deal it would have been in 1938, if 6 per cent of the U. S. defense spending in 1938 could have been used to trash Germany's army, making it impossible for them to successfully invade Poland or France. And another 6 per cent spent to trash the Japanese navy, making an attack on Pearl Harbor impossible. Wouldn't that have been worth doing had it been an option? Why is this a bad option, for the U. S. in 2022-2023?