Search

Ronaldo could have a place in this Selection. The truth is that there are not many Portuguese strikers and there is no one with the experience and leadership that he could bring. But this case made it clear that he is not the leader that Portugal needs. The truth is stark and raw: he is not missed. It's a shame that he leaves this way. Completely opposite to the way Messi leaves Argentina. It was literally what he wanted. I think this departure is not even good for him. It's hard to understand. With time, everything will pass. (translated)

For those who followed via the stream, I had a herniated disc in my neck, I experienced the worst pain of my life for 2 weeks literally screaming in pain day and night (and I broke some things, really I’m not a lightweight). My only relief was when we significantly increased my doses of corticosteroids and morphine over the last 10 days. I just had surgery, everything went well, I am extremely relieved, I got a taste of what chronic nerve pain feels like and it’s not funny at all. So there you have it, if I was less present in the stream, in FRPL, and especially absent from traveling to LAN with HEROIC, it was for this reason. Unfortunately, I will miss the next Stake Pulse and the Draculan, but if all goes well I will be at IEM Beijing with the team. Obviously, I continue to work remotely, it’s prep, it consumes 2D but you have to listen to your body. Thanks to HEROIC for being so understanding during this time ❤️ (translated)

The Left Party did not remove communism from its name and party program in 1990 because they stopped being communists, nor because they wanted to. They removed the designation because the iron curtain fell and millions of people could suddenly openly explain how communism actually worked in practice. The party naturally knew this already, but the voters could be frightened by famine, persecution, and state control. When the Soviet Union also fell in 1991, it was the last nail in the coffin for the old hypocrites to express themselves openly as communists. Only a few of them have since flaunted their communist "proud" history, and one of them today is Ida Gabrielsson, the vice-chairperson of the party. Ida was only 8 years old when the wall fell and 9 when the Left Party changed its name, but at some point, she should have opened a history book, the same demand I place on anyone entering a party. All parties have had ridiculous historical representatives and connections, but the Left is the only party that for 74 years has driven the party in a genocide-friendly direction before they at least got scolded by the marketing department that it was time to clean up a bit. Their obvious susceptibility and naivety have surely had significant importance for clans that can step in and take over positions. What do you think? (translated)

Mr. Grzegorz, I read the entire justification. And I agree with one thing – legal analysis cannot be replaced with the label of a "neo-judge," because that is not an argument 🤷‍♂️ However, the justification itself, although extensive and internally organized, in my opinion leaves two very serious legal problems. The first concerns Article 281 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The provision states that in preparatory proceedings, a "blanket warrant" can be issued at the request of the prosecutor or in the absence of their objection. Here, the prosecutor filed an objection. The court does not challenge the wording of the provision. It consciously deviates from it, considering that the binding objection of the prosecutor would violate the court's jurisdictional independence. It references Article 8 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 178 paragraph 1 of the Constitution, Article 6 of the ECHR, Article 47 of the KPP, and part of the case law of appellate courts. This is a legal argument. But there is also an opposing line of case law, based precisely on the linguistic interpretation of Article 281 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which the court itself notes in the justification. I wrote about this yesterday. So it is not the case that there is no problem. There is a very serious dispute about the limits of interpretation contra legem and whether the court can practically deprive the premise, which the legislator explicitly included in the provision. The second problem I have is with the prognostic assessment. The court acknowledges that Romanowski left Poland, did not appear for the hearing concerning the temporary arrest, was outside the reach of Polish authorities, and even informed in his own application that he has a passport issued under a different identity 🤷‍♂️ The court considers these circumstances to be burdensome but then assumes that they cannot determine the assessment because one should look at it primarily prospectively. 🤔 And this is where I have the greatest doubt. The prediction of a suspect's future behavior does not occur in a vacuum. Its foundational material is, after all, their past behavior. 🤷‍♂️ If a person involved in the proceedings previously did not comply with procedural mechanisms, left the country, and remained outside the reach of the authorities, then their later declaration that from this moment they will comply with the conditions of the "blanket warrant" must be subjected to particularly rigorous assessment. The court may conclude that despite this, the risk has currently diminished. But it should convincingly demonstrate why specific past behaviors have lost their prognostic significance. Because if we are to predict a person’s future behavior while disregarding their past behavior, then a rather fundamental question arises - on what basis are we actually building this prediction? 🤷‍♂️ Therefore, I would not dismiss this ruling with the label of a neo-judge, but I would also not say that the problem ends with the justification sounding rational. A rationally constructed justification can still lead to a legally debatable result. In my opinion, this is exactly the kind of case we are dealing with here. The argumentation of the court is clear and can be recounted, but both the way of breaking the literal wording of Article 281 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the prognostic assessment of the suspect's behavior leave significant legal doubts. If I were to rule on this matter, I would not grant the application. Firstly – due to the prosecutor's objection and the content of Article 281 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Secondly – even accepting a different interpretation of this provision, I would not find sufficient grounds for a positive prognostic assessment. This is not about punishing Romanowski for the past. It is about assessing whether his past behavior allows rationally to assume that from this moment he will respect the obligations arising from the "blanket warrant." In my opinion – it does not allow 🤷‍♂️ And that is precisely why there is an appellate review. (translated)

The Dutch pays a lot at the pump. 33 cents more tax per liter of gasoline than Germany and 24 cents more than Belgium. Refueling and shopping we do across the border: a disaster for entrepreneurs. My proposal: 💶 17 cents extra tax reduction. One party already says no..👇🏻#AFB (translated)

I have been saying for a long time: we have an economy in the shape of the letter K and inequality is growing. On one side there will be mass layoffs, and on the other side we will have million-dollar salaries for doctors and other beneficiaries of the record deficit. (translated)

This is how the lift of VAT, the lift of the margin by 65% in August 2022 for oil traders, and the queen of annexes feeds you from the opposition. This is how she "fights" for you for 5 cents a liter, while her former general secretary said she stole 2.5 million euros on the second track. Clear? (translated)

I can understand a 16-year-old turning on the "I don't care about politics, I want everything to burn" mode. They have no job prospects with AI, have only known economic crises, and still have at least 80 more years of life ahead. Many of us following here are in our 40s and 50s. We no longer have the privilege of waiting for Lula to finish breaking the country so that, if all goes well, things might start to improve by the time we are 60-70. Literally, our ONLY alternative is a change of power. To swap Lula for someone with less experience in structuring the state and less tendency to corrupt everything and everyone. Today that person is Flavio. In 4 years it could be another and then another. It's sad, but that's what we have. I do not want to turn 60 with Gleise, Bessias, Janja, Janones, and Lulinha's lawyer in the Supreme Court. I do not want to keep paying the bill for the endless social benefits, gas vouchers, free buses, and everything else that will be created until then to buy votes. I am tired of my money here being worthless abroad. I am tired of my R$ 100,000 here being just two months of salary for a fast food manager in the USA. I am fed up with Lulinha, Janja, Dirceu, Dino, Moraes, and the whole lot. If you're also tired of all this, anything other than voting for 22 is an irrational choice. And, in the worst-case scenario, if this whole mess continues, at least let it be other people robbing us and not the same ones from the last 20 years... (translated)

A brief Swedish economic history that seems to have fallen out of the curriculum: Ruben Rausing left Sweden in 1969. Ingvar Kamprad left in 1973. Hans and Gad Rausing shipped out in 1982. H&M founder Erling Persson emigrated the same year. Reason: tax. The Left thought it was just an empty threat and implemented a series of tax increases. In the 90s, Stefan Persson also threatened to leave. Then the tax rules changed. He stayed and later paid 1.7 billion in income tax in just three years. It is totally irrelevant how high the tax rate is on paper if the wealthy flee. 100% of 0 kronor is unfortunately 0 kronor. What is relevant is, of course, how much tax actually comes in when people adjust to it. An honest question: is Sweden so incredibly wrong as it is? Thriving startup culture, very generous welfare, a good country to live and reside in. Do we have to challenge this with EVEN. MORE. TAX? (translated)

" I dedicate it to Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo, our President and great pride, an example of work, honesty, integrity, and loyalty to the People. That makes me very happy, from whom I handed the Staff of Command has turned out extraordinary, THE BEST PRESIDENT IN THE WORLD." (translated)