i did not name this thread The R E Lee on Sunday show, broadcast live from Burning Kiev

[sunday]

3 minutes ago, txtree99 said:

He may be asking quality, but needs to be consistent.  He also seems to get confrontational when he doesn’t need too.  Just my opinion.   

for the record

[txtree99]

Just now, sunday said:

for the record

Go for it.   You are recorded also

[sunday]

Just now, txtree99 said:

Go for it.   You are recorded also

For the record

[Der Zeitgeist]

6 minutes ago, sunday said:

For the record

Reported.

[sunday]

Just now, Der Zeitgeist said:

Reported.

For the record

[Stuart Galbraith]

5 minutes ago, Der Zeitgeist said:

Reported.

 

[sunday]

Sigh...

[sunday]

9 minutes ago, txtree99 said:

Sigh.  Again you are the one that seems upset, so I’m am going to stop replying to this.   

For the record.

[sunday]

19 minutes ago, Colin said:

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I inferred in seconds the Jewish connection with the character on the left thanks to the nose and facial feature.

It could be a cultural thing, then. I am not used to see cartoonish Jews around here, as I am not a consumer of radical left magazines. Still, the Nazi insignias are more prominent.

BTW, Which facial feature?

Dog in a fight, what a curious phrase.

Edited November 12, 2022 by sunday

[Colin]

25 minutes ago, sunday said:

It could be a cultural thing, then. I am not used to see cartoonish Jews around here, as I am not a consumer of radical left magazines. Still, the Nazi insignias are more prominent.

BTW, Which facial feature?

Dog in a fight, what a curious phrase.

People used to throw dogs into a fight ring and bet on the results, hence the term. No dog and therefore no money on the result. The facial features on the left are straight out of WWII Nazi propaganda.

[sunday]

Still curious that phrase, and I still do not know what facial feature, nose apart, were you referring to.

Edited November 12, 2022 by sunday

[Colin]

3 minutes ago, sunday said:

Still curious that phrase, and I still do not know what facial feature, nose apart, were you referring to.

Go look at nazi propaganda from WWII era and look at the similarities 

[sunday]

3 minutes ago, Colin said:

Go look at nazi propaganda from WWII era and look at the similarities 

Sorry, not my taste, but if you are unable to define it, then how could you expect me to recognize it?

Edited November 12, 2022 by sunday

[txtree99]

1 hour ago, sunday said:

For the record.

Who appointed you to record???

[sunday]

7 minutes ago, txtree99 said:

Who appointed you to record???

 

1 hour ago, txtree99 said:

Sigh.  Again you are the one that seems upset, so I’m am going to stop replying to this.   

 

[MODERATOR]

1 hour ago, sunday said:

Sorry, not my taste, but if you are unable to define it, then how could you expect me to recognize it?

Sunday, unlike Colin. MODERATOR does have a dog in this fight. The cartoon incorporates elements from Nazi era antisemitic propaganda and is in itself antisemitic.  This has been pointed out to you by several other members.  MODERATOR is prepared to accept that you may not have realized the nature of the cartoon when first posted, but your continued denials border on the obtuse.

To be clear, and this is directed to all posters, the posting of images incorporating Nazi antisemitic imagery or tropes is a severe violation of the rules and will be dealt with accordingly.

MODERATOR should have deleted that post when it was first made and will be doing so now.

[sunday]

Ok, then. Moderator did not ask to delete it, as If asked, then I would have complied gladly.

[MODERATOR]

MODERATOR does suggest that you delete  it now, if only to save MODERATOR the aggravation of searching for the post among the thousands of posts in this topic.

[sunday]

On 4/18/2022 at 6:34 PM, sunday said:

Deleted as requested by mod.

Done. Thanks to Der Zeitgeist for keeping a screenshot on imgur with the date, at this address. Perhaps imgur could be asked to delete it, depending on the copyright applicable.

Edited November 12, 2022 by sunday

[R E lee]

On 11/11/2022 at 8:27 PM, Sardaukar said:

Where can I join?

Can i join?, do we get a secret hand shake or jackets?.

[R E lee]

On 11/11/2022 at 9:12 PM, Sardaukar said:

I'd offer a virgin in trade...but those things are so damn difficult to come  by....

And, they dont know what they like or how to get what they like.😜

[R E lee]

On 11/11/2022 at 9:25 PM, Pavel Novak said:

The visual depiction of guy on the left is connected with jewish physiognomy and that in negative way. It was used on anti-jewish posters already in 19th century - see here on page 4 (picture 199):

http://www.nasinebocizi.cz/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/3-08_Antisemitismus_v_karikature.pdf

Yes thats correct.

[R E lee]

21 hours ago, R011 said:

Cabinet declared war without consulting the King in 1914 and 1939.  If they can do that, they're not going to ask for permission for anything.  Legislation  and a few other thinhgs needs the King's approval, but there would be a constitutional crisis if he denied it and a new or no King very soon after.  This was effectively decided in 1649 and reiterated in 1688.

To disagree over what the facts/evidence supports is a to disagree over interpretation of the fact/evidence, and is common on the net and is the default behaviour. Disagreeable behaviour otoh is to ignore facts and replace them them with non facts and argue from ignorance of the facts as your start point, those doing this generally get treated with the contempt they deserve since they start out by being disagreeable, often they then complain when treated as they deserve to be treated and have treated others. If you disagree from a sound grasp of the subject matter, then others will generally respond in the same manner.

You sir, are being disagreeable as you have a strong tendency  replace fact with non fact. https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/private-lives/yourcountry/collections/the-outbreak-of-the-first-world-war/king-george-v/#:~:text=At 10.15 pm George V,be at war with Germany. "At 10.15 pm George V held a small meeting of the Privy Council at Buckingham Palace and at 11 pm, with the power to declare a state of war or peace ultimately residing with the monarch, and with the support of the Prime Minister and his cabinet, George V declared Britain to be at war with Germany." WW2 was no different.
 

[R E lee]

14 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

My understanding (I may be completely wrong about this) is that they do whats necessary, and ask for royal assent afterwords. Its not like he is going to say no after all...

With nuclear war, and the expected 4 minute warning during the cold war, It was obviously impractical to ask for an audience with the Queen before hitting the red button. In fact, as I recently posted in the Because Britain thread, there were some grave problems with even letting the Prime Minister know in time.

No they require Royal consent to act, they are after all acting on his delegated authority.

[R E lee]

7 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

And once again you demonstrate the inate inability to recognise someone blatently taking the piss. 🙃

 

Actually its the ability to see what you want to see, and disregard the evidence he was demonstrating methinks.😄