Maggie's Farm

Bird Dog: Great Whites live everywhere

Great White Shark Habitat

jaybird: what is your point? That you can look up something on the web? That our good host Bird dog is a liar, because a map ypu found somewhere on the internet shows sharks don't swim around in the arctic and antarctic ice?

We're quite certain that Bird Dog wasn't lying, but he was apparently mistaken, or at least didn't provide a complete answer. Great Whites only swim in waters that are about 12°C or warmer. They are not normally found in Irish waters, but may very well migrate north if the waters there warm sufficiently.

Our point was directly relevant to the post. We assume that if it was worth his time to post on the subject, then it invites relevant comments on that subject.

jaybird: (we know, your advice is "freely given")

You're welcome!

Excellent example of a Trumpism.

The Clinton video is from 2010, when Dmitry Medvedev was president of Russia, who was engaged in an extensive modernization program. The U.S. was hoping to solidify Russia's role as a responsible member of the international community. Since then, under Putin, Russia has devolved into a kleptocracy, annexed Crimea and invaded eastern Ukraine, and engaged in a widespread campaign of cyberwarfare against open democracies including against the U.S.

jaybird: The Putin-Medvedev tandemocracy is the joint leadership of Russia between 2008 and 2012 when Vladimir Putin, who was constitutionally barred from serving a third consecutive term as President of Russia, assumed the role of Prime Minister under President Dmitry Medvedev

Yes, but that doesn't change the basic point that Clinton's remarks were before the annexation of Crimea, the invasion of eastern Ukraine, and cyberwarfare against open democracies, including the U.S. After these aggressions, Clinton became an adversary to Putin's Russia, and as retribution they initiated cyberattacks against her campaign.

The context changed.

Zachriel: Clintons remarks were before the annexation of the Crimea and the invasion of the Ukraine

indyjonesouthere: but long after the CIA invasion of the Ukraine and the threat of NATO in Georgia and the Ukraine. The warmonger Uniparty stirred that shitpile up

When Georgia attempted to regain control of South Ossetia, a northern region of Georgia, Russia militarily intervened. And the U.S. did side with the democratic aspirations of the Ukrainians. Essentially, Russia considers these countries to be in their sphere of influence, and reject American attempts to intervene. That's one reason why the Obama Administration did not provide lethal aid to Ukraine, the fear being that it would likely lead to more violence, when a political solution is probably the only way to resolve the issue.

You are making valid points. The U.S. often intervenes and makes situations worse. However, while these disputes are intra-national, the annexation of Crimea is a direct violation of international law by forcibly redrawing borders. This puts Russia outside the international system regardless of any complaints they may have about other issues. It also colors any interpretation of their other interventions. Russia is an aggressor.

indyjonesouthere: Since it has been annexed once again, the Russians have built a bridge to it.

And they did it by force, in violation of THE fundamental tenet of international law: Borders are not to be changed except through peaceful means. Meanwhile, Russia invaded eastern Ukraine, so don't pretend they aren't the aggressor.

indyjonesouthere: Russia did nothing Hillary and Obama didn't do in Libya.

Huh? There was the potential of a massive slaughter of civilians in Libya. The invasion of Ukraine caused widespread civilian deaths.

indyjonesouthere: When Russia unilaterally allowed the Ukraine to administer the Crimea it negated that right when the Ukraine left the USSR.

Russia agreed to Ukraine's borders in the Balavezha Accords, Alma-Ata Protocol, and the Budapest Memorandum.

indyjonesouthere: Libya was all about running guns to ISIS.

Uh, no. While some weapons provided to insurgent groups may have been diverted, "Libya was all about running guns to ISIS" is false.

jaybird: your peerless leader hillary was secretary of state under obama, from 2009 to 2013, while you claim your buddy medvedev was the benign ruler of russia.

We made no such claim. However, there were indications that Russia was attempting to modernize in order to limit their reliance on mineral resources. However, investment required for modernization requires ending the kleptocracy, which Russia's oligarchy is impeding. Any nation is a confluence of many different political forces, and eventually change will occur.

jaybird: The uranium one bribes to hillary culminated in 2010.

There's no evidence to support the accusation. Unlike Trump, the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation have open books.

jaybird: are you claiming that "bill" didn't get payments for "speaking" from the russians

Not $140 million. Clinton got paid $500,000, which was the going rate for celebrities in his tier. Reagan received $2,000,000 for two speeches, and that was in 1980s dollars. George Clooney has received as much as $600,000, and he's just an actor.

jaybird: the clinton crime family "foundation"

Again, there is no evidence that the Clintons monetarily profited from the Clinton Foundation. The Clintons and the Clinton Foundation have open books.

jaybird: THat the "open books" clinton crime family tried to hide the bribes as coming from canada so they would not have to be reported in the US?

Canada has different reporting rules. Take that up with Canada. In any case, there is no evidence that the Clintons monetarily profited from the Clinton Foundation.

jaybird: There is no evidence except for the $140 million dollars.

Except the bulk of the $140 million was donated by someone who no longer had a stake in Uranium One, the Uranium One mines in the U.S. had negligible strategic significance, uranium part of the global energy market, there is no evidence that Clinton was involved in the Uranium One decision, and there is no evidence that donating money to the Clinton Foundation enriched the Clintons monetarily. Other than that, you have an iron-clad case.

jaybird: And the clinton crime family "foundation" being run and owned by the clintons, paying massive overhead salaries to clinton political hangers on and political machine

The salaries of the principals of the Clinton Foundation are within industry norms. Again, there is no evidence that the Clintons profited monetarily from the Clinton Foundation. There is, however, evidence that millions of lives were saved through the efforts of the Clinton Foundation on HIV/AIDS and malaria. Charity Watch gives the foundation an “A” rating, based on its financial efficiency, accountability, governance and fundraising costs.

Bruce Lindsay, Director $361,000
Chelsea Clinton, Director $0
Donna Shalala, President & CEO, $0
Total executive payroll, $3.5 million for 13 employees
(See page 43 of 2016 return)

(Notably, you ignored the contrary opinions expressed in the article you cited.)

jaybird: You must be claiming that your idol hillary had no idea whatsoever that putin was involved with medvedev in russia.

We made no such claim.

jaybird: obama told medvedev to tell putin that he (obama" would have "more flexibility" after his re-election.

Putin was president-elect at the time. That they worked in conjunction was not a secret. In any case, that is immaterial to the larger point. Must we repeat it again? Really?

Ahem, Clinton's remarks were before the annexation of Crimea, the invasion of eastern Ukraine, and cyberwarfare against open democracies, including the U.S. After these aggressions, Clinton became an adversary to Putin's Russia, and as retribution they initiated cyberattacks against her campaign.

Just noticed. Trump is retweeting a video from Russian state television, Channel One.

jimg: I always get a kick out of leftists - who spent the entire Cold War openly cheering for the Soviet Union - now suddenly have the vapors when it comes to Russia.

We never cheered for the Soviet Union, which system was stultified and insular and could not withstand contact with liberal society.

indyjonesouthere: The lefties have been cheering for Russia since the Harry Hopkins days and through the Che days of the Russian missile crisis.

Overgeneralization. The political left is a highly disparate grouping, a grouping with a wide range of views. The left is generally defined as those advocating for social or economic equality. That can mean anyone from communists advocating a utopian vision of perfect equality to those who simply support social security programs for the poor and disabled.

This is similar to overgeneralizations about the political right, another disparate grouping, defined as those advocating a hierarchical society, which ranges from authoritarian white nationalists to those who simply support traditional institutions such as marriage and the military.

indyjonesouthere: There is no generalization...the socialists love their utopian socialist order until they run out of everyone else's money.

Of course it's an overgeneralization. Not everyone on the political left is a socialist.

indyjonesouthere: The American wealthy like the Mexican wealthy or any other socialist group of wealthy promote the socialism on the backs of the middle class while their money magically remains out of reach of the tax man.

Most of the wealthy in the U.S. are not socialists by any means.

indyjonesouthere: The political left are micromanaging utopians content to kill anyone not adhering to the truths of socialism.

Overgeneralizing makes for a no better argument than it did above.

What part of leftists (and rightism) is a spectrum of beliefs do you have trouble understanding?

indyjonesouthere: You have advanced to the extreme left.

Our ideological position is immaterial to your claim that "The political left are micromanaging utopians content to kill anyone not adhering to the truths of socialism" and other such hokum. In any case, as we consider markets and private property as essential to liberty and prosperity, we do not meet even your strained definition.

indyjonesouthere: And who runs the DNC? Two more minority extremists.

Now you're conflating the political left with the Democratic Party.

indyjonesouthere: Lefties have been moving farther to authoritarianism since the 60's.

Now you're conflating leftism with authoritarianism.

indyjonesouthere: The political left is the democratic party

Again, no. While the Democratic Party tends left, not everyone on the left is a supporter of the Democratic Party. Similarly, while the Republican Party tends right, not everyone on the right is a supporter of the Republican Party.

indyjonesouthere: its been the party of the left since Harry Hopkins

Hopkins died in 1946. The Democratic Party had a strong conservative wing until the 1980s. There were conservative Democrats until the 2010s.

indyjonesouthere: Lefties are authoritarian..

Not all leftists advocate for government solutions, and not all those who advocate for government solutions are on the left. There are authoritarians on the left and authoritarians on the right. There are libertarians on the left and libertarians on the right.

Left-wing politics supports social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy.

Right-wing politics hold that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal or desirable

The fact is that Russia interfered in the U.S. election, was attempting to penetrate the Trump campaign, and people in the Trump campaign lied about their contacts with Russian agents.


Mueller was charged with investigating "the Russian govenment's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election," and "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump."

We know Russia interfered with the U.S. election, and we know that people within the Trump campaign had contacts with Russian agents, then lied about it.


According to Fox News — way back in January — "New text messages allegedly reveal that controversial FBI official Peter Strzok was hesitant about joining Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation team because of his 'gut sense' there would be 'no big there there.'" In other words, it wasn't an informed decision, but one based on limited information available to Strzok at the time. One doesn't have to have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to initiate an investigation. In this case, there is very strong evidence of Russian interference in the U.S. election.

OneGuy: There is a constant drum beat that "the Russians interfered with the election". But what, exactly, did they do?

Russia government agents under direct orders from Putin illegally hacked into Clinton campaign emails, then timed the releases to cause maximum political damage to the Clinton campaign. They also used various means of propaganda, such as social media to target Catholics with fake news that the Pope had endorsed Trump, or targeted minorities to discourage voting.

Russia is reverse engineering open democracies, and are engaging in widespread and concerted cyberattacks against liberal societies. Gee whiz, they even turned off the lights in Kiev in order to destabilize the government. When you refuse to acknowledge the threat, when the President himself calls it fake news, it emboldens such actions in the future. Other governments are probably considering similar measures.

annieoakley: The US is a Constitutional Republic.

Democracy and republicanism are not mutually exclusive. The U.S. is a republic because leaders are representative of the people, in particular, the head of state is not an inherited monarchy. The U.S. is a democracy because the people exercise power through elections, in particular, there is universal suffrage. The U.S. is a federal system because power is distributed between a central government and state or regional governments. Consequently, the U.S is a federal representative democracy.

annieoakley: It is a Constitutional Republic no matter how you try to spin your opinion.

The U.S. is a constitutional republic, but it is also a democracy. Greater democracy has been a trend in the U.S. since its inception, through Jacksonian Democracy, through the Civil War Amendments, direct election of the Senate, women's suffrage, and the Civil Rights movement. The U.S. now has what is called universal suffrage.

indyjonesouthere: The "greater democracy" has been promoted through the living-breathing Constitution theory promoted by democratic socialists/communists since at least Woodrow Wilson.

You are throwing around words as mockery and insults rather than adhering to their actual meaning. Following your argument, it would seem virtually every American has been a leftist, including Eisenhower and Coolidge.

indyjonesouthere: That's how we got our legalized fossilized administrative state and the IRS

It's technically easy to get rid of the administrative state. Just pass the appropriate legislation. However, turns out people like their administrative state, so you may face some opposition. By the way, the IRS was founded under that known communist, Abraham Lincoln.

indyjonesouthere: The living breathing Constitution is a well know belief of the socialist/communist lefties that attain judgeships whether on state or federal courts.

There are no, or very few, judges in the U.S. who are communists.

indyjonesouthere: They deny all other rights to privacy.

Generally, it is those on the left who protect the right to privacy in the private sphere.

indyjonesouthere: It is why the SCOTUS first said states (in this case California) had the right to legalize gay marriage but shortly after ruled that it was to be the law of the land.

Good example. The right to love whom you want, and what you do in the bedroom, is fundamental to privacy rights.

indyjonesouthere: You do notice I have no financial privacy or medical privacy

Sure you do. It's not unlimited though, and for that, it's mostly due to legislative not judicial action.

indyjonesouthere: SCOTUS will rule states rights in a gay case when the state approves of gay marriage but will turn around and mandate all other states to do the same when those states do not approve.

On the one hand, you decry the loss of privacy, but then complain when the courts protect the privacy of the bedroom.

indyjonesouthere: The Constitution limits the government...not me.

That is not correct. While the Constitution limits government, it does grant to government certain powers. That means the government can place limits on your individual autonomy. For instance, they can make you stop when the light is red.

indyjonesouthere: Through the IRS I have no right to financial privacy.

Your financial records are not open to the public, but the IRS has to right to look at them. In any case, the U.S. Constitution, which you apparently haven't read, gives the federal government the power to tax your income.

indyjonesouthere: Nobody cares about the "privacy" of anyone's bedroom

See Lawrence vs. Texas, Griswold v. Connecticut.

OneGuy: I wouldn't doubt that Russians were able to get to Hillary's emails and a lot of top secret government data she left laying around on her server.

Possible, but there's been no evidence that it happened.

OneGuy: It appears that the FBI really screwed up on this. They failed to investigate

The FBI opened an investigation the Clinton email situation, including possible foreign intrusions, in July 2015. As part of their conclusion, they said "it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account."

OneGuy: Your denial of what we all know is true shows you up for what you are.

What did we deny that "we all know is true"?

indyjonesouthere: Kiev (Ukraine) wasn't paying its bills to Russia and got cut off ...

So Russia annexed Crimea, and invaded eastern Ukraine.

indyjonesouthere: See a preceding post about who has historical ties to the Crimea...it isn't the Ukraine.

Under the fundamental tenet of international law, borders are not to be changed except through peaceful means. Meanwhile, Russia invaded eastern Ukraine, so don't pretend they aren't the aggressor.

indyjonesouthere: Under the fundamental tenet of national security the Russians are not going to tolerate CIA and NATO threatening their borders or security in the Black Sea area.

While international law recognizes the right to self-defence, that doesn't justify aggression. Ukraine was not a threat to Russia. Russia annexed Crimea and invaded eastern Ukraine. They lied about it because they knew it was against international law.

We will note that you justify Russian aggression.