gentlerider7 said:Putin probably still thinks he can just make up for losing Europe by leaning harder into trade with Asia, but does he even care about the economy? Not really. He only cares about the economy enough to build tanks, howitzers, and missiles, and to make sure the masses have enough scraps for their TV shows, a decent Chevrolet, and cheap vodka.
And apparently, it's working... Or maybe he just let all that fame and power go straight to his head. People in Russia and across the globe were actually praising him back when he was supposedly "rebuilding" the nation. All I can say is, before the war in Ukraine started, I actually thought he understood geopolitics and how the world really works. Turns out, his entire worldview is stuck in the Stone Age. Once you've got the mindset of the Stasi, you're stuck with it forever.
Nancy Gomez26 said:This is essentially their last remaining move—one they can execute with some degree of efficacy as a supposed 'retaliation' against the West (in response to the relentless escalation of sanctions). If they truly intended to push things this far, they missed the window. In other words: if this was the plan all along, they should have pulled the trigger immediately. It’s clear they were playing a numbers game, betting that the West would blink and retreat out of fear of losing Russian gas supplies. But everyone understands this is just a classic game of 'chicken.' Whoever flinches first loses. In this arena, the West holds the stronger hand; given its massive economic scale, the impact of sanctions hits much slower and less severely than it does the Russian Federation. There is absolutely zero incentive for the West to back down now, especially since everything has already been pivoted to favor them. In this scenario, the West simply needs to wait... While over at The Kremlin, they can continue with their little chess matches. Delusions can be incredibly dangerous, particularly when held by those sitting in positions of power.
The long-term fallout from these Russian games is that Europe is going to pivot to other suppliers and finally cut the cord on Russian gas. Sure, it won't be easy or cheap. The alternatives are definitely going to cost more, at least in the short term. But the real loser in the end is Russia itself... and they're doing it right when they should have been closing the deal of the century to open a new gas corridor. They're basically shooting themselves in the foot.
Nancy Gomez26 said:On the contrary, he didn't lose control. He simply realized that any military or other presence of the USSR within Warsaw Pact nations had become obsolete. He understood those relationships needed a total overhaul and a move toward entirely different frameworks. That led to the withdrawal from Europe; he essentially gave the political leadership in those countries a free hand to chart their own course toward a better tomorrow, letting them negotiate their own futures with their citizens. Everything else is just history. This man was looking at the future through a lens fundamentally different from his predecessors or those who followed him. Regarding that—all of Eastern Europe owes him a debt, and I expect several major streets in their cities to be named after him. That’s the view from Eastern Europe, anyway. We can also credit him with nuclear disarmament and the easing of the Cold War, though that's a separate discussion, even if both topics provide ample material for a Nobel Peace Prize. One could write volumes here, but we're drifting off-topic. Now that we see how much suffering, pain, destruction, and death can result from the decisions of one small, narrow-minded, secret police bureaucrat in power—the life and work of Mikhail Sergeyevich seem even more monumental.
Signed. Gorbachev understood that change was necessary and handled it without bloodshed or repression. He actually grasped the concept of republics within the USSR, unlike Putin, who is stuck in the Stone Age with that "wherever there are Russians, there is Russia" mindset.
Aside from being a blatant clone of a user who got permanently banned, this guy is straight-up insulting people on the board and editing posts (specifically mine—I definitely didn't write that).
Here’s what he said to the user dostojevski-fm:
For example: "Listen here, you loser, I'm gonna make 22,000,000 clones just to screw you over 22,000,000 times for every single one of those 22,000,000 people wiped off the face of the Earth because of people like you. People like you are burying us alive, you absolute bottom-feeding scavenger. People like you! And you have the nerve to bring up some fake Holocaust?!"
Is there any way we can actually hold people accountable (looking at you, Vesa101, though I guess Anonymous isn't far behind) who keep breaking the rules in the "Verse and Hadith" thread over on the "religion" subforum? The whole point of that thread is to post verses from the Quran or quotes from the traditions of Muhammad without adding all your own commentary—especially the tasteless, flame-war inducing kind of stuff.
Daniel Chase13 said:Not really. It’s actually a Catholic program where guests are invited and treated with genuine respect—basically viewed as fellow Catholic commentators. The only thing they poke fun at are those tired, empty slogans used by old-school Marxists, hardline communists, or the Dawkins-style crowd (though, granted, not every single atheist falls into that camp).
Honestly, I didn't even catch that from the few episodes I've watched. Sure, there's a bit of a "fanboy" vibe every now and then, but for the most part, the shows are pretty serious.
feralranger said:...well, it is quite obvious that there are numerous variables at play here... making broad generalizations is rarely a wise move because, as is often the case, specific examples tend to dismantle them entirely...
It’s basically impossible to set one rule that fits everyone. Maybe the only constant is that the goal should be actual development—not being a total pushover and not being a drill sergeant either. In the real world, how well any method works is hit or miss, and honestly, it just comes down to the individual.
I kind of see where everyone is coming from here, even if we’re all arguing different sides... It’s honestly pretty impossible to draw a hard line or set one universal rule for stuff like this.
Just a heads-up, physical discipline doesn't always mean getting hit... For example, I personally never had to go that route with my kids. In most cases, you just need to be absolutely firm with a kid who's acting out. If that means physically grabbing their hands to stop them from hurting someone else, so be it. The idea is that the kid connects that restriction to the bad thing they were trying to do. But more importantly, you’ve got to distract them—redirect that energy toward something else, ideally something engaging enough to actually hold their interest.
That said, I get that every situation is different. Like, how do you handle a kid who’s being a total menace and picking fights with other kids or even adults? Sometimes a stern talking-to or raising your voice does nothing; they just stare at you like you're a joke. Actually, that’s exactly what they’re doing—testing boundaries. It’s hardwired into our biology. In those specific moments, I don't judge parents who use a quick physical correction to regain control, provided it's about discipline and not just venting frustration.