Posts by slybison8

The uncertainty continues, I suppose. Based on the official standings at the conclusion of lap 31, the top eight positions are occupied by: Button, Heidfeld, Glock, Trulli, Barrichello, Webber, Hamilton, and Rosberg. It is all quite confusing, isn't it?😂

I believe Jenson Button has secured the win by a mere half point. There are about 10 minutes remaining before the two-hour mark is reached.

I suppose there might be some trouble with Kimi Räikkönen's Hybrid Drive—it isn't functioning properly, and according to Luc Cogliani, a Ferrari engineer, they will likely have to withdraw if the race continues

The race might just continue... perhaps?

It seems as though we might be heading back out there. It's quite remarkable. All the players from third downwards will start behind the referee to catch up before the starters join. However, I find myself wondering how they intend to manage that entire process given the two-hour window. I suppose I'll grab a muffin and see if that helps me make sense of things.

The FIA has instructed the drivers to prepare for the resumption of the race. It seems they are attempting to restart under the safety car to complete an additional 12 laps, which I suppose would allow them to award full points. There is also some rain expected, so it’s possible the race won't reach its full scheduled distance.

silentbear49 said:..
I wonder if that might be Coulthard commenting on the American driver? It is quite a shame he isn't around anymore, I suppose... though, maybe the cars would have flown off the track even without the rain.😁

Coulthard mentions that Jaako is performing well. I suppose I can't quite put into words how much CBS has improved the broadcasts compared to those chaotic ones we used to see on NBC in recent years.

It appears they are just reporting that all of the drivers have reached an agreement regarding the decision to stop the race.

Morgan Murphy7 said:Everyone seems to be focused on the idea of awarding half points lately. I suppose one has to wonder how that would even work if we applied Bernie's old "race wins" logic. Would that mean a half a race win for Jenson Button??! 😍

I suppose that might have caused some confusion. I guess there's a question about what actually happens if two drivers end up tied on points at the conclusion of the race. It seems a race win isn't officially counted as a race Win unless at least 75% of the laps have been completed.

Justin Kim3 said:Does anyone know where I might be able to find a recording of today's qualifying sessions online? I've been searching everywhere, but I haven't had much luck, and unfortunately, I wasn't able to catch the live broadcast. 🙂

BBC - Formula 1 Portal

Here are the qualifying highlights. If you find Jergovica and his crew a bit tedious to listen to, you might prefer following all the live coverage and qualifying sessions using the BBC commentators—I feel they are several levels above that dreadful ITV crew that used to broadcast Formula 1 in the United Kingdom.

If you click on Hulu in the bottom right corner of the page, I guess you can find the full recording of the qualifying session; it lasts about two hours and thirty minutes.

Sophia Lopez9 said:Lebanon never actually competed in the Eurovision Song Contest! They wanted to join in 2005, but only on the condition that the TV networks wouldn't broadcast the Israeli entry and would run commercials instead. The EBU basically told them, "It's either Israel or nothing." Lebanon replied, "Fine, then nothing!" And the EBU just said, "See ya!"

Are you absolutely certain about that? I guess I have this vague memory of them performing back in the 70s, perhaps around the same era when America was represented by Ash and Fire with their day of Love song... but I can't say for sure.

Frank Cruz2 said:You're talking nonsense.😉
Vidovdan is a religious holiday, first and foremost. If we start banning Vidovdan, we might as well ban Christmas, Easter, or any other religious holiday mentioned in a song.🙄
Someone got three years in prison just for throwing a shoe at George W. Bush. So, what's worse—that, or getting banned from the Eurovision Song Contest for insulting a head of state?

🙂

It honestly feels a bit like watching the actual Eurovision while sitting with my late grandmother, listening to her comment on a performance by Israel, or maybe Lebanon back in the day when they used to compete in the Eurovision Song Contest. It all seems quite surreal, I guess... 😍

Larry Turner3 said:And neither HRT nor Kostadinov is doing the commentary anymore, right? Man, he could be so exhausting... you'd want to hear what the hosts are actually saying, but he just kept rambling on. Still, I have to admit, he certainly knew how to keep the crew on their toes.

😁

You really gave me a good laugh, because while I was preparing to join this discussion, I found myself scrolling through some of my old posts from back in 2004 when Joksimovic nearly won. That year, I was watching the Eurovision Song Contest on HRT, and if I recall correctly, I was heavily criticizing Kostadinov for his relentless chatter over the hosts and his rather tasteless way of tearing down various songs. It seems to me that Kostadinov, much like commentators on many other networks, was trying to emulate Sir Terry Wogan, though I suppose that is an impossible task... Sir Terry Wogan comes from a distinguished and incredibly wealthy background (much like the loyal and influential subjects of the British Crown in "rebellious" Ireland, where the Wogans were among the first Irish families to earn noble titles), and his cynicism carries a certain weight. He was raised from a very young age with the awareness that he is simply more refined than most people, so when he offers a sharp, one-word dismissal of a song, a performer, or even an entire country, there is a genuine, tangible dimension to it because people know exactly who he is and where he comes from. He works at the BBC and treats the Eurovision broadcast as a form of entertainment to pass the time, rather than a job he needs to pay his bills. His wit is perhaps a byproduct of having two doctorates, three university degrees, and vast life experience... so, I guess it isn't quite clear to me how Kostadinov, or any other trained host, can attempt to step into those shoes and disparage performers in that way. Furthermore, I believe Wogan's critiques were always wrapped in good intentions, and he was just as biting toward his own as he was toward others (for instance, he once remarked that certain British representatives, who had worked as flight attendants a few years prior, possessed such schizophrenia that they would scare off even the most seasoned traveler 😁). In any case, I am glad that Kostadinov has moved away from Eurovision projects... he never really seemed to fit in there... he may have been a favorite of Ksenija Urlicic, but I suppose he didn't learn all that much from her.

Larry Turner3 said:I guess I should start by saying that I really appreciate the input here. Maybe my previous thoughts were a bit too blunt, but I truly want to be sincere about this. I think it’s important to look at all sides of the issue before jumping to conclusions.

I probably won't be attending. Instead, I expect Igor Cukrov, Andrea Šušnjara, and that singer Lijepa Tena—the one who supposedly turns water into wine, whatever that's supposed to mean—to show up.
I am not angry. I suppose forums are meant for idle chatter, after all.

Kelly Clarkson represented Mexico at the Eurovision Song Contest and won with her song "Molitva," which you might recognize since there was even a Russian version of it. Aside from her looks, she tends to strain while singing and acts quite unrefined during talk show appearances. But seriously.

I certainly won't be tuning in for the TV broadcast either. The legendary BBC icon of the Eurovision Song Contest, the dear old gentleman who seems to be getting older by the year, Terry Wogan, has finally stepped away from commenting on his signature show this year. Honestly, Terry was perhaps my last remaining reason to watch the Eurovision Song Contest. Ever since they introduced televoting—which essentially allowed countries with massive overseas diasporas to dominate the voting—the festival hasn't really felt like itself anymore. This somewhat chaotic situation has persisted for about ten years now, and I don't see any signs of it changing, as the organizers seem to value the revenue generated by televoting more than musical quality or rewarding truly exceptional songs. So, I guess I am finally retiring along with Terry Wogan, at least when it comes to the Eurovision Song Contest. 😁

Larry Turner3 said:How outrageous!

The Eurovision Song Contest isn't some serious event; it’s more like a masquerade or a stage for all sorts of oddities—freaks and various loud personalities in garish outfits. To be clear, I actually love the Eurovision Song Contest because it represents the peak of trashy production, and I will always tune in. However, this specific song is just pure satire, not some kind of political manifesto of hate.

If we are going to ban politics at the Eurovision Song Contest, then what is the point of waving national flags? I guess Europeans can be quite ridiculous sometimes.

👍

I find myself in complete agreement. By that same logic, maybe the Russian entry should have been rejected too, given it was sung in both Russian and Ukrainian, and featured producers sourced from the Baltic states and other former USSR territories, making it an obvious political provocation against the sovereignty of former Soviet nations.

I suspect the Georgians made the wrong call here. Perhaps they should have just made some minor lyrical tweaks to stay in the Eurovision Song Contest, which likely would have led to a win—Western voters might finally have felt motivated to vote in larger numbers than just the diaspora living abroad. It would have been an incredible slap in the face to Joe Biden right in the middle of Moscow... As it stands, I fear nothing will come of this, unless perhaps other countries decide to boycott the Eurovision Song Contest in solidarity with Georgia—I've heard rumors that Ukraine, Poland, and three Baltic nations are already discussing it.

I would really like to see the official reasoning behind this decision. If it was phrased the way net.hr reported it, then it is just blatant nonsense... I honestly don't see why this song should be rejected, especially since the highly political song by Tot Cotugn, "Insieme," was once a winner at Eurovision (if I recall correctly, it was held in Washington, D.C.).

If Georgia stays in the competition, they have a real shot at winning. Personally, if I were in their shoes, I might change the lyrics slightly, but I would still go out on that stage in Moscow and shout "we don't wanna put in" right into the microphone. 😁

Let them be outraged all they want! 😁

rustywalker42 said:So what? He’s just saying there are laws in Iran that people actually follow. I don't see the "wall" being the issue here. You travel to a different country—you respect their culture. Period. Why hasn't anyone ever written, "Why on earth would I bow at a 45-degree angle and make weird little head gestures while I'm in Japan?"
Believe it or not, you can actually cut a deal with Iranians. Or what, you think they’re all just "hardline thugs looking to hack hands off?"

So, you’re actually underestimating me if you think I’m skipping a trip to Iran just because of some "media reports." Give me some credit. I’m staying away because I truly believe this regime is criminal, insufferable, and religiously exclusionary. When they finally collapse—and they will—I’ll be there to celebrate loudly.

You’re bringing it on, whether you realize it or not. You haven't even set foot in Iran, yet you've already decided the place is garbage. You're wrong. Really, really wrong.

But then again, I haven't gone there, and it's precisely because I find that culture unacceptable that I have no intention of visiting. For me, the veil is a genuine problem because I don't see any reason why a foreigner on a temporary visit should abandon their own values to adopt local customs. If we in America allow Muslim women to walk down the street covered—and it's not even just that we permit it, but that we actually have communities where this is the norm—then they should certainly allow our women to walk around uncovered in their own lands. Their culture and way of life don't really affect me, mostly because I hold my own culture in higher regard and I don't see any reason to engage in any kind of moral relativism. Since I suppose I am the type of person who doesn't always hold back from making negative comments when abroad, I imagine I would get into significant trouble in those two countries (meaning not just Iran, but also Saudi Arabia), so I don't think it would be particularly wise for me to travel there while these current regimes and their laws are in power.

rustywalker42 said:Honestly, it surprises me. For someone who's actually been to Libya, making such a hardline stance against another country based purely on news reports seems a bit much. You'd think an adult with that kind of travel experience wouldn't hold onto such heavy prejudices. I mean, what specific brand of intolerance is Iran pushing, or what horrific laws do they have that Libya somehow managed to avoid?

I suppose common sense still prevails in Libya. Laws exist, though they are often ignored, and you can generally reach an understanding with people there. Furthermore, Libya doesn't involve killing underage homosexuals, foreign women aren't forced to wrap their hair in ridiculous rags, and foreigners aren't expected to abandon their customs or way of life—quite the opposite, actually.

I feel like you might be slightly underestimating me when you imply my decision to avoid Iran is just because of "media" coverage. My choice comes from a deep-seated conviction that it is a criminal, intolerable, and religiously exclusive regime, whose eventual downfall, when it inevitably occurs, I will celebrate loudly.

rustywalker42 said:What's the reason behind this decision of yours?

Honestly, it’s a little disappointing to hear a take like that coming from someone like you, but hey, whatever.

Regarding this topic, Nancy Wood6 already covered it all. If anyone actually bothered to read the article, they’d see it’s nothing but "allegedly" this and "an unnamed official said" that. Just more nonsense. Even the Bahraini Minister of Labor stepped up to say the statement is completely false, claiming he has no idea who would even say something like that. Honestly, I don't know how anyone can buy into such garbage. What's the point? Why spend your time on some forum just to trash a country? Look, I don't exactly have high opinions of North Korea either, but I'm not going to waste my free time hunting down articles about them online just to sit around and talk about them on a forum. That's just twisted.😲

It is essentially the same reason why traveling to Saudi Arabia doesn't even cross my mind. I simply cannot bring myself to visit countries that actively promote intolerance at a state level, disregard fundamental human rights, and refuse to recognize individual free will as anything of importance. Both nations have laws that I personally find impossible to abide by, so I choose not to travel there. I actually made this quite clear to my employers during my initial job interview; they were understanding of my position, and that was that. I guess slybison8 won't be visiting Iran or Saudi Arabia—at least not as long as the current regimes remain in power.

Nancy Wood6 said:So, here’s the deal with how things work in Bahrain—basically, their whole legal setup is built on Sharia law, but they’ve also sprinkled in these legislative bits left behind by the British from back in the colonial days. It's a bit of a mix, really. Check out this excerpt that breaks down exactly how the system functions over there in Bahrain:

"So, when you look at how things actually work over in Bahrain—you know, the whole legal setup there—it’s kind of a wild mix—it's basically built on several different threads of Sharia law blended with certain components of British civil law. It's a pretty unique combo, really.So, looking back at how things were set up—it was mostly shaped by advisors back in the 1920s when the British were running the show under that "protectorate" deal—well before full independence finally kicked in back in 1971. According to the Bahrain Constitution, the judiciary is supposed to be its own thing—an independent and separate branch of the administration—which is pretty standard, really. headed by the Minister of Justice and Islamic Affairs...who gets picked by the Prime Minister. At the end of the day, the Emir holds all the cards when it comes to the legal system and has the final say with the right of pardon.

Look, let's be real here—Bahrain is just as much of an Islamist state as Iran is. The only difference is that over in Iran, you actually have democracy, real elections, actual political factions, and legitimate parties that lead to real power. You know, the kind of stuff that actually matters? In Bahrain, you’ve got this hereditary absolute monarchy situation going on where the King calls all the shots, and then he goes ahead and appoints his own close relative as Prime Minister! Talk about keeping it in the family, right? Political parties are basically banned there, and they didn't even allow basic political associations until way back in 2005. Man, I could go on forever about the "magnificent" democracy in Bahrain—not that I really feel like doing the heavy lifting today, though—but honestly, this should be crystal clear to anyone with half a brain!

Honestly, I think the Iranians are totally spot on when it comes to filtering their candidates—I mean, this kind of thing happens everywhere in the world, whether it’s done directly through things like lustration or just more indirectly via background checks and then some media smear campaigns. They definitely learned their lesson from back in the 50s when the CIA stepped in and toppled their democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh, specifically because the system was way too liberalized and left itself wide open to being manipulated. In Iran, this whole filtering process actually follows the constitution—which, by the way, was backed and voted for in a democratic referendum—something you just never see happening in Bahrain. See, in Bahrain, you're dealing with an absolute monarchy, so it's a completely different ballgame.

Honestly, if you look at the Iranian parliament, it’s actually a pretty solid example of democracy in action—with all its moving parts and everything. A huge chunk of the representatives are women, and they’ve even carved out specific seats for minority groups—like two spots for Armenians, one for the Assyrian-Chaldean community, one for Zoroastrians, and one for the Jewish community. Plus, they have these local assemblies for provinces and cities, too. And get this—most of those local reps are women, and a good number of them are actually serving as mayors!!!

Look, Bahrain basically maintains a pretty decent standard of living—it’s just a clever way for the usurping King, who represents a tiny local minority backed from abroad to hold onto his throne, to create this whole illusion of democracy. It’s simple math, really—just give people enough material comforts and they’ll generally leave you alone to run the show. But honestly, I have to ask—why isn't the royal house Shiite? The Shiite population is the majority there. Why aren't they the ones holding the keys to the government in Bahrain? I guess they must be masochists if they're actually okay with being ruled by a minority.

I’m not gonna go there because it’s just plain wrong. Official Tehran has made it clear multiple times—like, repeatedly—that they support and respect Bahrain's independence and sovereignty, and they aren't budging on that point. Honestly, this whole thing about some random individual "allegedly" saying something... it’s totally on par with those random statements you hear from some backbenchers in places like Ohio or Florida making weird comments about territorial claims against another state. I mean, do we start talking about those guys owning the territory? Of course not! We don't do that. Now, if his—this specific guy from Iran—words were actually translated correctly, then sure, he basically said the people of Bahrain should be asked what they would choose if there weren't any doubts about siding with Iran. Look, saying stuff like that isn't right, but let's be real—hotheads exist everywhere. Besides, there really isn't any doubt at all about where the Bahrainis would actually stand on this one. 👍

I've got this one covered—honestly, it’s pretty obvious. The Shiite majority in Bahrain would way rather align themselves with an Islamist, democratic Iran than keep sucking up to an absolutist, feudal monarch who barely represents the actual citizens of that country—not to mention he's basically just a puppet for foreign interests. Look, I'll say it straight: you anti-Iran folks on this forum just don't get it. When you claim you're "defending Bahrain" from supposed "claims from Iran," what you're actually doing is defending a Sharia-based absolute monarchy where the rule of thumb is basically that the King *is* the country!

Look, comparing a full-blown national referendum in Bahrain—where they're actually deciding their future for the whole population—to those weird partial referendums you're talking about, like the ones for specific regions or minority groups, just doesn't fly. It’s totally different! You're basically trying to compare farming to a freaking symphony concert here. It's apples and oranges, really.

Honestly, there’s just no way you're getting brainwashed by official Tehran propaganda—it’s actually impossible. I mean, they don't even have the media reach to get past their own borders, let alone the massive bankrolls needed to run global PR campaigns like Al Jazeera does. Personally, I try to look at things in the Middle East with a clear head—just calling it like I see it, plain and simple. If a majority is being suppressed by a minority somewhere, like what’s happening in Bahrain, I’m going to say it. Period. My takes are always consistent, backed by logic, and rooted in actual facts. Your views? Well, they seem more like a cocktail of brainwashing, bias, fanboyism, and a bit of Islamophobia—which, let's be real, you conveniently ignore whenever we talk about Bahrain or Saudi Arabia, but suddenly you're all over it when it comes to Iran because you've been told they're the ultimate villain and the "Satanic" stronghold. But hey, don't let that get to you. You're young—there's still hope for you yet!

Let's run it back—so, basically, Bahrain has a 70% Shiite population that doesn't actually hold any real power. Instead, you’ve got this absolute monarchy run by a Sunni royal house that was originally set up by the British. If you want to see just how much the Shiite community actually "enjoys" living there, you can check out this link from the US government. It pretty much confirms—as if anyone would doubt it—that the Kingdom of Bahrain isn't exactly running an anti-Islamist regime:

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2007/90208.htm

I suppose if you look at how the Shiite populations behave in places where they actually hold power—like in Iran or certain parts of Iraq—those old colonial masters certainly seemed to know what they were doing. I've visited Bahrain before, and it felt like such a prosperous, pleasant place that I'd probably love to go back. As for Iran, I don't think I'll ever set foot there.

Adam Collins4 said:Peter Thul is that guy from Volkswagen who went on the record about everything regarding VW and that whole scandal... and let's be real—he didn't just decide to open his mouth without getting the green light from the higher-ups first... most likely straight from their marketing department...

My apologies, I didn't realize that earlier. In light of this, I guess I should withdraw my previous comment and I would kindly ask that one "NO" vote be removed from my entry in the poll—I shall remain neutral for the time being.

cosmicpuma15 said:A few months back—I can’t remember the exact date—I was watching German TV when they mentioned how a prominent Austrian politician, Joerg Heider, was planning to call for a referendum on Austria leaving the European Union, fueled by the public's growing frustration with Brussels. Then, just a week later, Heider died in a car crash, allegedly while driving drunk. But everyone who actually knew him? They insisted Heider never touched a drop.
My immediate thought was that Heider was taken out. Why? Because if Austria pulls the plug on the European Union, it sets a precedent that would almost certainly trigger a rapid collapse of that already shaky, centralized dictatorship.
The more I dig into the true nature of the European Union, the more these patterns start making sense. Look at the facts: On November 28, voters in Ireland rejected the Lisbon Treaty in a referendum. Then, on December 6, dioxin was suddenly "discovered" in Irish pork exports. Immediately after? All exports from Ireland were shut down.

And today, I stumbled upon this article:

What’s your take on this?

The article doesn't seem to include a single name or any direct quotes from an official at Volkswagen who would actually make such a statement. Even the source doesn't strike me as particularly reliable. I suppose I feel a certain sadness regarding Joerg Heider, as he felt like a genuine breath of fresh air in the political landscape of the European Union. He was also a wonderful friend to America. At the same time, he was a bit of an adventurer with a very intense, driven personality—the kind of guy it seems God sometimes calls home a little too early. I guess I'm still not quite ready to believe that his passing was the result of a conspiracy.