- Joined
- Aug 2, 2011
- Messages
- 35,800
I?m pretty much goofing; but I do like Mayim. She?s smart and funny and her characters are smart and funny.
Soleil Moon Frye doesn?t seem to be doing much these days.
Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!
By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!
-
If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.
Ukraine
- Thread starter zyxt9
- Start date
I?m pretty much goofing; but I do like Mayim. She?s smart and funny and her characters are smart and funny.
Soleil Moon Frye doesn?t seem to be doing much these days.
Spartanmack
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2013
- Messages
- 17,532
they can hold coal and gas plants too - but they can't stop the sun from shining or the wind from blowing so maybe we should go full solar & wind...
sggatecl
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2011
- Messages
- 10,918
Her IMDB says she was in a Punky Brewster remake last year and was in 10 episodes of some other show this year. Work is work I suppose.
Spartanmack
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2013
- Messages
- 17,532
Last edited:
It's offical, anyone still propagating Q nonsense is either a psyop agent or can't admit they have been duped and just went ahead an leaped right off the deep end. Here is an example of what they are saying now on Gab
"This is a war between the white hats and dark hats and a war the dark hats know will lose and thus are trying to convince the American public to bankroll and support them in their fight."
I mean not even Alex Jones goes off that deep end. good lord.
"This is a war between the white hats and dark hats and a war the dark hats know will lose and thus are trying to convince the American public to bankroll and support them in their fight."
I mean not even Alex Jones goes off that deep end. good lord.
Last edited:
Michchamp
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2011
- Messages
- 34,212
she's better looking than Blossom, and I'd wager her personality is better too.
For a brief moment last year, some of Blossom's terrible opinions on vaccines and Israel got scrutinized, then were almost immediately memory-holed, when the execs at whatever network Jeopardy is on decided she would succeed Alex Trebek, regardless of how awful she was, instead of Ken Jennings (who WOULD have been the best option).
I was going to do a side-by-side pic comparison of Blossom and Punky, but after searching for pics of both, decided neither was that good looking, and it made me sad.
Michchamp
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2011
- Messages
- 34,212
I keep seeing things about sending money to Ukraine, or hosting Ukrainian refugees.
Trust me... you do NOT want to do either.
Trust me... you do NOT want to do either.
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2011
- Messages
- 99,910
Update on war. Gives accounts of both sides and where the conflict is at.
https://youtu.be/FDKH_FxFdrw
https://youtu.be/FDKH_FxFdrw
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2011
- Messages
- 35,800
Spartanmack
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2013
- Messages
- 17,532
If you're not calling Israel an apartheid state and instead making the point that it's the only Democracy in the middle east, has Muslim citizens with full and complete rights, doesn't kill people for being gay, leaving their religion, blasphemy, refusing an arranged marriage or drawing pictures of the prophet, then you're saying awful things about Israel.
If you say stuff like that instead of supporting theocratic dictators that use their own citizens as human shields and openly call for the destruction of Israel and the death of all Jews, you're a horrible person.
Last edited:
sggatecl
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2011
- Messages
- 10,918
I don't know if there is a more uniquely complex situation between two countries in the rest of the world. Maybe in history? It has to be up there.
It doesn't matter how much I try to learn about that region, I usually leave a conversation about it less sure than I was before. I will never pretend to be an expert or have the answers on that topic. I just hope one day they can figure it out.
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2011
- Messages
- 99,910
Article from Foreign affairs.
Dictatorships Look Stable?Until They Aren?t
Russian President Vladimir Putin?s attack on Ukraine has been a clarifying moment. Since he came to power in 2000, various Western leaders have tried to cooperate, accommodate, or negotiate with him. But by embarking on a war of choice against a country he claims doesn?t have a right to exist, Putin has forced the international community to see him for what he is: a belligerent leader with a remarkable capacity for destruction. The result has been sweeping new measures designed to constrict and constrain him?punishing sanctions against Russia?s financial institutions, bans on Russian planes over EU airspace, and increased weapons shipments to Ukraine. Even Germany, long reluctant to confront Putin, agreed to exclude Russian banks from the SWIFT financial messaging system, reversed its long-standing prohibition on providing arms to conflict zones, and substantially increased its military spending. Russia?s invasion of Ukraine has sparked nothing less than a sea change in international perceptions of Putin and what must be done to confront him.
Such a sea change could well be underway inside Russia, too. Throughout his tenure, Putin has maintained relatively high levels of public support thanks in large part to his ability to restore economic growth and stability after the turmoil of the 1990s. While most Russians have few illusions about their leader, recognizing the corruption that benefits him and the elite around him, it remained all but unfathomable to most Russians that Putin would launch a major conventional war against their Ukrainian neighbors. For months, many Russian analysts, commentators, and citizens alike were convinced that Putin would not engage in such an act of aggression. The news of the war and the economic ramifications that followed have led Russians to see both Putin and Russia differently; Russia is not the same today as it was last week.
The prevailing wisdom holds that Putin will be able to survive any domestic backlash. That is most likely true. In personalist authoritarian regimes?where power is concentrated in the hands of an individual rather than shared by a party, military junta, or royal family?the leader is rarely driven from office by wars, even when they experience defeat. That?s both because other elites are not strong enough to hold the dictator to account and because domestic audiences have few opportunities to punish leaders for their actions. But the thing about repressive regimes like Putin?s Russia is that they often look stable right up to the point that they are not. Putin has taken a major risk in attacking Ukraine, and there is a chance?one that seems to be growing?that it could mark the beginning of his end.
FORTRESS RUSSIA
There are good reasons to believe that Putin can withstand the backlash from his war. He has gone to great lengths in the last year to crack down on Russian civil society, political opposition, journalists, and the information environment. The regime?s brazen poisoning of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny and banning of Memorial, the country?s most important post-Soviet human rights civic institution underscore the regime?s commitment to using repression to maintain control. Russians have gotten the message. According to polling by the Levada Center in 2021, 52 percent of Russians fear mass repression, and 58 percent are scared they will be arbitrarily arrested or otherwise harmed by the authorities?the highest these indicators have been since 1994. Such an uptick in repression is common late in the tenures of longtime autocrats. The longer these authoritarians remain in power, the more they lose touch with their societies and the less they have to offer their citizens. As a result, they have few other ways to sustain their rule.
Along with repression, Putin can manipulate Russia?s information environment, shaping the way many Russians understand events in Ukraine. Already, Russia?s security actors are harassing individuals who post antiwar messages on social media and censoring facts and details about the war. The authorities also moved to shut down Echo Moskvy, an independent radio station broadcasting in Russia since 1990. Although younger generations get more information from non-state-controlled outlets, the regime remains dominant in the information space. Before Russia invaded Ukraine, polls show that large majorities of Russians supported recognizing the Russian-backed breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine as independent countries and that they blamed Ukraine and NATO for the conflict.
Together, repression and information control could help prevent Russia?s antiwar protests from catching on. So far, the regime has arrested more than 5,000 people for actively demonstrating against Russia?s invasion, which may deter others from joining. While other Russians may be willing to risk arrest if they think the demonstrations will snowball, censorship makes it difficult for potential protesters to know how many citizens are upset with the war. Most likely, the Putin regime will only further ratchet up repression to deal with a more restive Russian public. Personalist regimes are more likely to use repression in response to protests than are other autocracies, and they are especially likely to do so when engaging in expansionist territorial conflicts (as Putin has with Ukraine). Moreover, many of the Russians fed up with Putin will opt to leave Russia, as some already have, reducing the pressure mounting against the regime.
Putin has also gone to great lengths to inoculate himself against another threat: elite defection. In a highly choreographed meeting of his national security council, Russia?s president forced each member of his team to publicly pledge their support for his decision to recognize the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk, the two separatist regions in eastern Ukraine. This reduced the council members? ability to credibly defect and claim that Putin is taking Russia in the wrong direction. Likewise, Putin convened his country?s most powerful businessmen the day after the campaign against Ukraine began to discuss the economic shocks that would follow. Putin?s goal was clear?remind them that their fates are tied to his continuation in power.
ALL FALLS DOWN
But there are also good reasons that the tides might turn. Despite the repression, protests have taken place in more than 58 cities across Russia. The early demonstrations are remarkable not just for the bravery that they reflect, but also for the potential that they hold?protests in highly repressive regimes are more likely to be successful than protests in less repressive environments. That is because when people take to the streets even when the costs of doing so are high, it sends a powerful signal to other citizens that their dissent is shared. In this way, these early antiwar protests have the potential to trigger cascading opposition. The fact that Russians view Putin?s war as being unjust and egregious makes it especially likely to prompt widespread backlash. It is moments of acute injustice that have the greatest ability to mobilize people?as when Tunisian fruit vendor Mohamed Bouazizi set himself on fire after local officials humiliated him and confiscated his wares, launching the Arab Spring in 2011.
The war also has famous and influential domestic opponents?and they are not just known dissidents. Several Russian celebrities have signed letters opposing the war. Russian tennis star Andrei Rublev wrote ?no war please? on a TV camera. The Russian head of a delegation at a major UN climate conference apologized for his country's invasion of Ukraine, and the daughter of Putin?s press secretary reportedly posted ?no war? on her Instagram account. (She deleted it hours later.) There are even signs that Putin?s cozy oligarchs are getting uncomfortable. Former energy magnate Anatoly Chubais posted a picture of Boris Nemtsov, a Russian opposition leader murdered in front of the Kremlin, on his Facebook page. Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska called for peace and negotiations.
Even if Putin?s actions don?t immediately push him from power, the war in Ukraine creates long-term vulnerabilities. Punishing economic sanctions are already shredding the value of the ruble, and the economic damage is expected to intensify. Over time, this could weaken Putin domestically. Personalist dictatorships generally cut government spending when faced with sanctions, making life even harder for average citizens and increasing the odds of growing unrest. Sanctions also tend to be more effective when targeted at personalist authoritarian regimes than when aimed at other types of autocracies because personalist dictators are the most dependent on patronage to keep power. So far, Russia?s elite have never had to choose between the life they wanted and Putin. But Chubais?s and Deripaska?s comments hint that could change as the effect of the sanctions sets in, especially if they are coupled with stepped-up anticorruption efforts by the United States and Europe. If they are squeezed tight enough, Russia?s elites may come to decide that Putin can no longer guarantee their future interests and try to replace him with a leader who would withdraw from Ukraine and prompt the West to unfreeze their assets.
Finally, the conflict in Ukraine may well evolve into a drawn-out insurgency that slowly saps the patience of the Russian public. Research shows that personalist dictators are more willing than other authoritarians to tolerate military disputes with high casualties, but that doesn?t mean their citizens are. In Libya, for example, former leader Muammar al-Qaddafi engaged in heavy-handed repression to maintain control of the country as the costs of his wars increased. But eventually, when faced with dire economic conditions, ordinary citizens violently overthrew his government. In the Soviet Union, a lengthy and expensive invasion of Afghanistan helped drain faith in the Communist Party?s regime. It is not inconceivable that Putin?s grip on Russia will slip if Ukraine becomes a morass.
LOSING TOUCH
Predicting the downfall of an authoritarian leader is a fool?s errand. Weak and embattled autocrats can limp along far longer than analysts expect. Former Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe survived hyperinflation and electoral defeat, staying in power until just two years before his death. Venezuelan President Nicol?s Maduro remains in office, even though Venezuela?s economy has utterly collapsed. Similarly, leaders that appear strong can be suddenly ousted, as happened to former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in 2011 and Tunisian President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali that same year.
But analysts do know that personalist leaders such as Putin are more likely to make foreign policy mistakes than are other autocrats. They surround themselves with yes men who only tell them what they want to hear and withhold bad news, making it difficult for these dictators to make well-informed decisions. Whether or not Putin?s war of choice becomes the mistake that unseats him from power is an open question. But Russia is experiencing rising dissatisfaction from the public, fissures among its elite, and broad-based international punishment. Putin?s downfall may not come tomorrow or the day after, but his grip on power is certainly more tenuous than it was before he invaded Ukraine.
You are reading a free article.
Subscribe to Foreign Affairs.
Dictatorships Look Stable?Until They Aren?t
Russian President Vladimir Putin?s attack on Ukraine has been a clarifying moment. Since he came to power in 2000, various Western leaders have tried to cooperate, accommodate, or negotiate with him. But by embarking on a war of choice against a country he claims doesn?t have a right to exist, Putin has forced the international community to see him for what he is: a belligerent leader with a remarkable capacity for destruction. The result has been sweeping new measures designed to constrict and constrain him?punishing sanctions against Russia?s financial institutions, bans on Russian planes over EU airspace, and increased weapons shipments to Ukraine. Even Germany, long reluctant to confront Putin, agreed to exclude Russian banks from the SWIFT financial messaging system, reversed its long-standing prohibition on providing arms to conflict zones, and substantially increased its military spending. Russia?s invasion of Ukraine has sparked nothing less than a sea change in international perceptions of Putin and what must be done to confront him.
Such a sea change could well be underway inside Russia, too. Throughout his tenure, Putin has maintained relatively high levels of public support thanks in large part to his ability to restore economic growth and stability after the turmoil of the 1990s. While most Russians have few illusions about their leader, recognizing the corruption that benefits him and the elite around him, it remained all but unfathomable to most Russians that Putin would launch a major conventional war against their Ukrainian neighbors. For months, many Russian analysts, commentators, and citizens alike were convinced that Putin would not engage in such an act of aggression. The news of the war and the economic ramifications that followed have led Russians to see both Putin and Russia differently; Russia is not the same today as it was last week.
The prevailing wisdom holds that Putin will be able to survive any domestic backlash. That is most likely true. In personalist authoritarian regimes?where power is concentrated in the hands of an individual rather than shared by a party, military junta, or royal family?the leader is rarely driven from office by wars, even when they experience defeat. That?s both because other elites are not strong enough to hold the dictator to account and because domestic audiences have few opportunities to punish leaders for their actions. But the thing about repressive regimes like Putin?s Russia is that they often look stable right up to the point that they are not. Putin has taken a major risk in attacking Ukraine, and there is a chance?one that seems to be growing?that it could mark the beginning of his end.
FORTRESS RUSSIA
There are good reasons to believe that Putin can withstand the backlash from his war. He has gone to great lengths in the last year to crack down on Russian civil society, political opposition, journalists, and the information environment. The regime?s brazen poisoning of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny and banning of Memorial, the country?s most important post-Soviet human rights civic institution underscore the regime?s commitment to using repression to maintain control. Russians have gotten the message. According to polling by the Levada Center in 2021, 52 percent of Russians fear mass repression, and 58 percent are scared they will be arbitrarily arrested or otherwise harmed by the authorities?the highest these indicators have been since 1994. Such an uptick in repression is common late in the tenures of longtime autocrats. The longer these authoritarians remain in power, the more they lose touch with their societies and the less they have to offer their citizens. As a result, they have few other ways to sustain their rule.
Along with repression, Putin can manipulate Russia?s information environment, shaping the way many Russians understand events in Ukraine. Already, Russia?s security actors are harassing individuals who post antiwar messages on social media and censoring facts and details about the war. The authorities also moved to shut down Echo Moskvy, an independent radio station broadcasting in Russia since 1990. Although younger generations get more information from non-state-controlled outlets, the regime remains dominant in the information space. Before Russia invaded Ukraine, polls show that large majorities of Russians supported recognizing the Russian-backed breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine as independent countries and that they blamed Ukraine and NATO for the conflict.
Together, repression and information control could help prevent Russia?s antiwar protests from catching on. So far, the regime has arrested more than 5,000 people for actively demonstrating against Russia?s invasion, which may deter others from joining. While other Russians may be willing to risk arrest if they think the demonstrations will snowball, censorship makes it difficult for potential protesters to know how many citizens are upset with the war. Most likely, the Putin regime will only further ratchet up repression to deal with a more restive Russian public. Personalist regimes are more likely to use repression in response to protests than are other autocracies, and they are especially likely to do so when engaging in expansionist territorial conflicts (as Putin has with Ukraine). Moreover, many of the Russians fed up with Putin will opt to leave Russia, as some already have, reducing the pressure mounting against the regime.
Putin has also gone to great lengths to inoculate himself against another threat: elite defection. In a highly choreographed meeting of his national security council, Russia?s president forced each member of his team to publicly pledge their support for his decision to recognize the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk, the two separatist regions in eastern Ukraine. This reduced the council members? ability to credibly defect and claim that Putin is taking Russia in the wrong direction. Likewise, Putin convened his country?s most powerful businessmen the day after the campaign against Ukraine began to discuss the economic shocks that would follow. Putin?s goal was clear?remind them that their fates are tied to his continuation in power.
ALL FALLS DOWN
But there are also good reasons that the tides might turn. Despite the repression, protests have taken place in more than 58 cities across Russia. The early demonstrations are remarkable not just for the bravery that they reflect, but also for the potential that they hold?protests in highly repressive regimes are more likely to be successful than protests in less repressive environments. That is because when people take to the streets even when the costs of doing so are high, it sends a powerful signal to other citizens that their dissent is shared. In this way, these early antiwar protests have the potential to trigger cascading opposition. The fact that Russians view Putin?s war as being unjust and egregious makes it especially likely to prompt widespread backlash. It is moments of acute injustice that have the greatest ability to mobilize people?as when Tunisian fruit vendor Mohamed Bouazizi set himself on fire after local officials humiliated him and confiscated his wares, launching the Arab Spring in 2011.
The war also has famous and influential domestic opponents?and they are not just known dissidents. Several Russian celebrities have signed letters opposing the war. Russian tennis star Andrei Rublev wrote ?no war please? on a TV camera. The Russian head of a delegation at a major UN climate conference apologized for his country's invasion of Ukraine, and the daughter of Putin?s press secretary reportedly posted ?no war? on her Instagram account. (She deleted it hours later.) There are even signs that Putin?s cozy oligarchs are getting uncomfortable. Former energy magnate Anatoly Chubais posted a picture of Boris Nemtsov, a Russian opposition leader murdered in front of the Kremlin, on his Facebook page. Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska called for peace and negotiations.
Even if Putin?s actions don?t immediately push him from power, the war in Ukraine creates long-term vulnerabilities. Punishing economic sanctions are already shredding the value of the ruble, and the economic damage is expected to intensify. Over time, this could weaken Putin domestically. Personalist dictatorships generally cut government spending when faced with sanctions, making life even harder for average citizens and increasing the odds of growing unrest. Sanctions also tend to be more effective when targeted at personalist authoritarian regimes than when aimed at other types of autocracies because personalist dictators are the most dependent on patronage to keep power. So far, Russia?s elite have never had to choose between the life they wanted and Putin. But Chubais?s and Deripaska?s comments hint that could change as the effect of the sanctions sets in, especially if they are coupled with stepped-up anticorruption efforts by the United States and Europe. If they are squeezed tight enough, Russia?s elites may come to decide that Putin can no longer guarantee their future interests and try to replace him with a leader who would withdraw from Ukraine and prompt the West to unfreeze their assets.
Finally, the conflict in Ukraine may well evolve into a drawn-out insurgency that slowly saps the patience of the Russian public. Research shows that personalist dictators are more willing than other authoritarians to tolerate military disputes with high casualties, but that doesn?t mean their citizens are. In Libya, for example, former leader Muammar al-Qaddafi engaged in heavy-handed repression to maintain control of the country as the costs of his wars increased. But eventually, when faced with dire economic conditions, ordinary citizens violently overthrew his government. In the Soviet Union, a lengthy and expensive invasion of Afghanistan helped drain faith in the Communist Party?s regime. It is not inconceivable that Putin?s grip on Russia will slip if Ukraine becomes a morass.
LOSING TOUCH
Predicting the downfall of an authoritarian leader is a fool?s errand. Weak and embattled autocrats can limp along far longer than analysts expect. Former Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe survived hyperinflation and electoral defeat, staying in power until just two years before his death. Venezuelan President Nicol?s Maduro remains in office, even though Venezuela?s economy has utterly collapsed. Similarly, leaders that appear strong can be suddenly ousted, as happened to former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in 2011 and Tunisian President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali that same year.
But analysts do know that personalist leaders such as Putin are more likely to make foreign policy mistakes than are other autocrats. They surround themselves with yes men who only tell them what they want to hear and withhold bad news, making it difficult for these dictators to make well-informed decisions. Whether or not Putin?s war of choice becomes the mistake that unseats him from power is an open question. But Russia is experiencing rising dissatisfaction from the public, fissures among its elite, and broad-based international punishment. Putin?s downfall may not come tomorrow or the day after, but his grip on power is certainly more tenuous than it was before he invaded Ukraine.
You are reading a free article.
Subscribe to Foreign Affairs.
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2011
- Messages
- 99,910
Btw
I can?t post articles about hackers. My tablet keeps crashing. it is kind of freaking me out.
switched to my old deck top computer.
I can?t post articles about hackers. My tablet keeps crashing. it is kind of freaking me out.
switched to my old deck top computer.
Last edited:
sggatecl
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2011
- Messages
- 10,918
I would say it's the return of the Iron Curtain, but if the last two weeks have taught us anything it's that it probably is closer to a Rusty Curtain.
Russia will nationalize assets of foreign firms that leave ? ruling party
Russia will nationalize assets of foreign firms that leave ? ruling party
After being censored on YouTube, Oliver Stone has released his 2016 film to the public, covering Ukraine's complex history and build up to the political unrest we see today.
See Oliver Stone's "Ukraine On Fire" IN FULL
https://banned.video/watch?id=62293b42456fae60bcdda47f
See Oliver Stone's "Ukraine On Fire" IN FULL
https://banned.video/watch?id=62293b42456fae60bcdda47f
Last edited:
Julia Mendel, the former press secretary to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky did not hold back earlier today when the tweeted out this on Kamala Harris, ?It would be a tragedy if this woman became president.?
She later deleted the tweet but not before someone grabbed a screenshot.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...source=Gab&utm_campaign=websitesharingbuttons
She later deleted the tweet but not before someone grabbed a screenshot.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...source=Gab&utm_campaign=websitesharingbuttons
Last edited:
mhughes0021
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2011
- Messages
- 28,732
Award for best person on the planet is the woman civilian who went up to a Russian taking over her city and gave him sunflower seeds. He was starving and accepted.
She then proceeded to say something to the effect of "dont eat them..put them in your pocket so when you die atleast there will be some nice flowers to look at."
She then proceeded to say something to the effect of "dont eat them..put them in your pocket so when you die atleast there will be some nice flowers to look at."
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2011
- Messages
- 99,910
It?s time to stand up to Putin and call his nuclear war bluff. He has daughter and maybe some grandchildren. Ukraine wants to be it?s own government. Isn?t this why Nato was formed ? They don?t want to live under a dictatorship.
Last edited:
Michchamp
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2011
- Messages
- 34,212
NATO was formed in 1949, mainly as opposition to the USSR, but nominally as a defense treaty against attacks on any members.
Every so often, for shits and giggles I guess, The USSR and later Russia has requested to become a member, but always gets rejected. Seems like if your alliance was defensive, you'd want more people to join it, but who knows what those nefarious Russians are planning! they can't be trusted!
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2011
- Messages
- 35,800
I know, right?
Let?s tell those Poles to unleash the MIGs!
Why are they even listening to this old man in White House - or ANY old man in the White House, be it Orange Man Bad or Dementia Man Bad, screw it - Putin is currently an existential threat to Poland.
Unleash the MIGs!
Affiliates
