4 ms·

"There will no longer be a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it."

by swader999 4y ago

hef19898 4y ago
And NS 2 ended, it was never certified. No need to blow it up...
ceejayoz 4y ago
There is no longer an Enron, either. No one blew up their headquarters to do it.
- swader999 4y ago
  The original enron pipelines are still moving product. They still 'be'. Biden wasn't talking about Gazprom. His words are very clear and direct. They are congruent with his body language and tone. He looked down at his notes before speaking.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    Don't be disingenous. "We will put an end to x" does not mean "we will blow x up", and is common political rhetoric. https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=5567609899962902 https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=5567609899962902 "We will put an end to Abbott's attacks on educators, raise teacher pay, improve their retirement benefits, and fully fund our classrooms." https://larson.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/larson-votes-make-insulin-more-affordable https://larson.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/larson-... "we will put an end to the decades of price gouging" Again, "we'll bankrupt them with sanctions" easily falls under "we will put an end to them".
    - swader999 4y ago
      Nobody uses that rhetorical construct in regard to physical entities. Your anologies are disingenuous.
      - ceejayoz 4y ago
        Governor Abbott is not a physical entity? I suspect this is news to him.
        swader999 4y ago
        You quoted "governor Abbott's attacks". Are you seriously trying to suggest a group threatened the governor himself? You're working too hard on this angle.
- hef19898 4y ago
  Enron's accounting department kind of did, not physically but still.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    > not physically but still That's precisely the point, isn't it? "We will put an end to X" does not mean "we will physically blow up X". Pretending Biden had an "oops, we're gonna do a terrorist attack against Russian and German infrastructure and I said it out loud at a press conference!" moment and that there's no other legitimate explanation for the statement is just goofy.
    - swader999 4y ago
      It wasn't an oops moment, it was scripted. Watch the video carefully. He consulted his notes before saying it. This public announcement removed the requirement to notify Congress. Genius imo. The other tell is that in the follow-up, Biden was pressured to explain what he meant but he refused to comment. Sanctions could have been mentioned here without repercussions but they weren't.
peppermint_gum 4y ago
>"There will no longer be a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it." Conveniently for Russia, Nord Stream 2 still exists. Only one of its two pipes had exploded. Everyone forgets about it.

"There will no longer be a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it."

hef19898 4y ago

And NS 2 ended, it was never certified. No need to blow it up...

ceejayoz 4y ago

There is no longer an Enron, either. No one blew up their headquarters to do it.

swader999 4y ago
The original enron pipelines are still moving product. They still 'be'. Biden wasn't talking about Gazprom. His words are very clear and direct. They are congruent with his body language and tone. He looked down at his notes before speaking.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  Don't be disingenous. "We will put an end to x" does not mean "we will blow x up", and is common political rhetoric. https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=5567609899962902 https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=5567609899962902 "We will put an end to Abbott's attacks on educators, raise teacher pay, improve their retirement benefits, and fully fund our classrooms." https://larson.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/larson-votes-make-insulin-more-affordable https://larson.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/larson-... "we will put an end to the decades of price gouging" Again, "we'll bankrupt them with sanctions" easily falls under "we will put an end to them".
  - swader999 4y ago
    Nobody uses that rhetorical construct in regard to physical entities. Your anologies are disingenuous.
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      Governor Abbott is not a physical entity? I suspect this is news to him.
      - swader999 4y ago
        You quoted "governor Abbott's attacks". Are you seriously trying to suggest a group threatened the governor himself? You're working too hard on this angle.
hef19898 4y ago
Enron's accounting department kind of did, not physically but still.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > not physically but still That's precisely the point, isn't it? "We will put an end to X" does not mean "we will physically blow up X". Pretending Biden had an "oops, we're gonna do a terrorist attack against Russian and German infrastructure and I said it out loud at a press conference!" moment and that there's no other legitimate explanation for the statement is just goofy.
  - swader999 4y ago
    It wasn't an oops moment, it was scripted. Watch the video carefully. He consulted his notes before saying it. This public announcement removed the requirement to notify Congress. Genius imo. The other tell is that in the follow-up, Biden was pressured to explain what he meant but he refused to comment. Sanctions could have been mentioned here without repercussions but they weren't.

peppermint_gum 4y ago

>"There will no longer be a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it." Conveniently for Russia, Nord Stream 2 still exists. Only one of its two pipes had exploded. Everyone forgets about it.