Jon Letendre

along with western response to the pandemic, climate crisis, racism, equity, immigration,financial policy ect.., but they are not authoritarian they just act that way sometimes

Beware of axe handles. Anyone here approve of this behavior? Alas, it may well be that I'm the only one here with an axe, and I certainly do not approve of the attack on Jan. 6! Nor any of you guys making slight such behavior!
Keep on with the the lol's, models of stupidity in more ways than one.
Speaking of stupidity, you defenders here of the woe-is-me, poor-'lil-white-guy set, always rationalizing rioters you sympathize with by switching the topic to violence that was perpetrated in association with BLM public assemblies should notice that if a patrolman stops me for speeding, it is no defense to cry "but everyone was speeding." Break the law, get caught, pay penalty. 

One officer died of a stroke that was a result of a pre-existing condition, he was the officer who lain in state at the Rotunda , what bullshit that was.
And several others committed suicide , there may have been a cardiac event or two.
It is more than a stretch to say these deaths are/were the result of violence on the part of attackers, it's propaganda/gaslighting  bullshit .

No law enforcement officers were killed , one woman protester was shot to death by law enforcement , and one woman was trampled and died , most likely, as the result of not being given proper medical treatment at the scene.
Where do you get the idea that law enforcement officers were killed , it is patently untrue , how do you come by this impression ?

oh no now the Texas GOP is duped
https://www.theepochtimes.com/texas-gop-passes-resolution-declaring-biden-not-legitimately-elected_4543841.html?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=whatfinger

Hooligans
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/07/lied-proof-highly-sensitive-doj-jan-6-documents-leaked-gateway-pundit-fbi-confidential-human-source-infiltrated-proud-boys-ran-fbi-operation-j-6-reported/

Don't have sex with strangers.  Link sex and romance by reserving sex for romantically significant others.  Use contraception with planning and conscientiousness.  Don't rely on abortion as contraception.   These points are what pass for common sense among normal people.

When in Rome ..

Even between sexual partners in a committed relationship most sex does not result in pregnancy, so this is not plausible.  However a good heuristic for whether or not one should have sex with someone is if a pregnancy would be completely unacceptable then don't have the sex.  
 
I confess, I think sluts are hilarious.  Sluts and drunks (similar mentality) ought to be ridiculed at every opportunity.  Not just because ridicule can be entertaining but it can be persuasive to get people to change their behavior.

That was not what I said, merely that it would be reasonable and understandable if a state were to bar gay adoption for the protection of children.  I have since gained some finer grained knowledge of possibly the real problem: children with genetically unrelated male stepparents in the household have a many times greater risk of being abused or killed (not just the murdered but also those getting into danger due to less parental attention).  The phenomenon has been named the "Cinderella effect".
People have sex for all kinds of reasons, including poor reasons.  It is simply not the case that sex is always indicative of someone pursuing pleasure and love.
Did I make a list of preventatives?  No, and why should I when the topic is abortion and contraception had already failed or was absent?  Contraception is used by people of both sexes with some sense of responsibility and an extended time horizon in their thoughts, not the kind of anti-conceptual and range-of-the-moment mentality I was criticizing.
Perhaps you simply are not aware of potential scale of the problem.  Most abortions are due to this mentality in action.
 

Abortion would be a less controversial issue if few cared about it.  If only the 7.7% abortions with valid reasons took place there would a lot less people paying attention to the issue.
Of further interest on this sidebar is Gay Parenting: Promise and Pitfalls | Dave Rubin & Dr. Jordan B. Peterson
 

But rhetoric is essentially about persuading.
 

Tony next you’ll say the American regime is acting in an authoritarian manner just because its officials arrest political opponents on bogus charges or broadcasts show trials 
https://www.theepochtimes.com/michigan-republican-gubernatorial-candidate-arrested-in-connection-to-jan-6-capitol-breach_4522911.html?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=whatfinger
Tune in tonight to see and help the regime identify and punish its enemies!
81 million people can’t be wrong , Joe’s legit everybody knows it , and it’s criminal to think otherwise !

Steven Pinker suggested this in his recent book, Rationality, Chapter 10: What's Wrong With People?
"The obvious reason people avoid getting onto a train of reasoning is that they don't like where it takes them." Page 289

Much in that. How else does one break out of the spin of media deception, the One public Narrative, but with one's induction-deduction?
A blizzard of distracting, media fed 'factoids' bring about good ol' O'ist nitpicking over minutiae.
Also some grasp of human nature is invaluable...  

Q would be proud of your bravery. 

Even on the Russian side, there was open admission that Ukraine put up more resolute and capable resistance than expected. But I've not heard they thought it would fall like a house of cards! If the West thought so, I wonder if they weren't dissembling, seeing as Britain and the US had been supplying and training Ukranians since 2015 (the UK, anyway) and should have known better how effective the Army was.
This reduces to how much Russia wanted or still wants to take Kyiv. And what costs would be acceptable. Frankly, I can't see why they'd try: superficially, of course to change the government, but that does not make sense. At great losses, civilian casualties and substantial damage to the city, the troops finally get to the Government buildings to find - everybody's left. Relocated secretly much earlier to a more secure part of the country. So what's the point? And as for the country's occupation...
I think you were aware of the crazy self-contradiction which we all were hearing simultaneously in the media, after Russia's retreat-redeployment or 'defeat' at Kyiv. (I still believe the attack was part "probe" to test out resistance and part diversionary-tactic). 
1. Russia is done for, taking too many losses, under-equipped, low morale - etc.etc.
Ukraine has victory in its sights!
2. Russia will now go after Poland, etc. etc. next, in its "expansionism".
Done for, or an army of Supermen? You can't have it both ways: a weak Army that couldn't defeat one city, is badly beaten--and now a powerhouse ready and able to conquer Europe?!
Most visibly now, neither was and is true. It had big losses, but is still strongly functioning.
Into Europe, a fantasy bridge too far, that couldn't possibly been even considered by Putin and his generals I think. It will become clearer as things unfold.
The point of the split "narrative" was almost certainly : 1. to build up Ukrainian morale with its apparent successes--and keep on going with its proxy war  2. to scare Europe into submission and sending support -- and gain new NATO members.
A military analyst wrote the other day, re: the fighting in the East and South that Russia's traditional battle style has been "a slow grinding down" of opposition, nothing flashy.
 

I count two. One I believe I've validated, the other still pending and more likely true than not. If you're going to fact-check me, you'll need more than 5 minutes search - and must provide your counter-sources, as I do.
And I notice you neglected to mention your accusation against me about "the leader of Russia" involved at Minsk as I reported.
But where do you find your info - or - opposing info? Weren't RT and Sputnik banned in Europe (for that very reason - we can't have independent minds questioning authority and the settled feelings and 'science' about the war in Ukraine, can we?).
I think I search through and collate more dissenting facts and opinions than you have demonstrated.
Your narrative runs very close to the "accepted narrative" which blankets Google and blocks the majority of dissenting voices.
On an Objectivist forum, only one's utmost candor matters. That means you are bound by your integrity to report on anything you might find, even and especially when conflicting with your stance.
There is no way possible you cannot uncover contradictions to "the narrative" about Ukraine and Russia and NATO. There are too many deceits and cover-ups floating around. Before even assessing their morality (sacrificial-altruism, predominating).

As regulars already know, I have major issues with Florida's governor, Ron DeSantis. That said he remains, as I said then, the man to watch in the next presidential election cycle.

It's clear why from an admiring Jeff Reynolds piece at PJ Media.

Two major factors are that DeSantis is not risk-averse or driven by polling, and that the news media -- blatantly slanted to everyone but themselves -- keep acting as dishonest foils to be exploited by his aggressive press secretary, Christina Pushaw.

DeSantis's recent signing into law of HB 1557 (aka Don't Say Gay) is an excellent example of both points:Pushaw notes that, contrary to agenda-driven left-wing polling figures, a majority of Democrat voters favored the legislation when shown the text of the bill.

Although I was disappointed with DeSantis's fascistic attempts since to punish Disney for siding against the bill, I always thought he had a good point: I don't think it is appropriate to teach prepubescents about sexuality.

(And, while I think government schools should be abolished, I think that as long as we have them, they shouldn't be in the business of sex education for anyone, anyway. If anything, I regarded DeSantis as having not gone far enough in taking that out of the government schools.)

I remain very leery of Ron DeSantis. On the one hand, he certainly shows the spine that Republicans and voters like me have wished to see in an opponent to the left. On the other hand, what difference does it make if we end up with a fascist instead of a socialist in the bargain? Yes, we must defeat the left. But we also need to replace central planning with capitalism.

-- CAVLink to Original

So, Putin having a non MSM "point of view" makes it okay to start a war of aggression on a mostly peaceful neighbor and destroy it's cities, murder and rape it's people and leave them dead in the streets or stuff them in mass graves? Now he must also be given things via "negotiations" for doing all these things that you won't declare as evil because he had "reasons"!? Also, the world has no right to defend itself because of these propaganda excuses because you are too much of a pussy to die potentially die for freedom in a nuclear war?
All evil regimes including the Nazi's in WW2 have these propaganda based excuses to justify their aggression and mass murder, knowing they exist doesn't magically transform morality from black-and-white to whatever form of relativistic grey like you and others here are attempting.
Now, I'm interested in the actual reason all of you are doing this...
I want to believe it's just fear that would cause people to defend evil but I'm truly not sure atm

Given what I attend to, it is a spectacular claim that this person I never heard of is lording over me. // Stop watching television. There's a lovely and fertile world out here waiting for getting hands dirty and for clean accomplishments.

Right, I'm (er) "safe" down here: Should I give a damn about others? Think about that a moment.
What would you personally give to save the world?
"tis not unreasonable for me to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger" (Hume, the skeptic-nihilist)
EC. You'd be against, if I have this correct, urgent negotiations entered into with Putin? But would rather blow Russia to smithereens if he doesn't surrender.
While simultaneously horrified at the prospect of nuclear war.
There's a self-contradiction here.
I point out that you suggest that dealing with Putin the brute would be beneath anyone of moral stature.  
So I infer that pride is more important than a holocaust, in your value priorities.
Except I'm wondering if that's "pride" as selfish virtue, or "pride" as emotional outrage i.e. hubris.
The greater value, some peaceful return to Ukraine, alleviating tensions, ending war deaths and easing for now the threat of nuclear exchange, you must concur, sits monumentally above anyone's pride (or insignificant hubris). As you'd see, someone creating a successful deal with Putin-Yelensky wouldn't be an act of altruistic sacrifice, it's an absolutely incalculable "gain".
Where's Henry Kissinger, or Donald Trump, when you need him?
Right now intervention by a wheeling-dealing, pragmatist statesman will be invaluable.

The majority of Eastern Europe. Wow. I got nukes, so do as I say.
That's the kind of impossibly irrational stuff the MSM has been espousing and exploiting.
Maybe just maybe Putin is concerned with no more than what is happening in his front yard?
Considered that anyone?
Has anyone identified and contrasted and evaluated what Putin wants, says he wants and actually is doing, before jumping to pie-in-the-sky conclusions,
Identify first, guys.
omigod, it's dour prophesies like this that will get everybody killed. 
 
 

EC
The annexation of Crimea was carried out by a weak Russia? The subsequent overt bolstering of Ukraine’s military capabilities by NATO powers was in response to a perceived weakness in Russia’s ability to project military actions ?
These are examples of the reasoning you used in your assessment/ predictions?

Seriously, you are a true believer in Q, and your Savior never showed up, after which you abandoned posting for a very long time. I don't think you know what evasion is, or even epistemological principles. You haven't even mentioned the fact that people don't like, and when Alex requested more details about the fact that you claim, you didn't bother to post evidence or mention anything about these alleged eyewitnesses and the veracity of their testimony. 
I mean, I guess you haven't read enough of his posts. 
 

I should also add -- for those who harp on the issue that "Putin is not the legitimate leader of the Russian Republic" -- that not only (as posted earlier) is Zelensky not the legitimate leader of Ukraine, but Joe Biden is not the legitimate leader of the U.S., so the lend-lease arrangement recently made between the U.S. and Ukraine has no "moral legitimacy" either.
You really believe a guy who stayed in his basement during most of the campaign phase, and made a few public appearances in which a dozen or so people showed up, each one sitting compliantly with a face mask, and separated by one another by six feet, sitting in a chair with a circle drawn around it -- that he got 80 million votes? The most popular POTUS in history? Even more popular than Obama? When Trump would speak at rallies in various cities, each filled with capacity crowds, e.g., when he spoke in Butler, PA, there are almost 60,000 people who showed up. And yet Biden won in a "secure, fair, and honest election"? I don't think so.
Watch "2000 Mules".