Page #2
Pages: #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 ...#87
New Comment Rating: -6 Similar topics: 1.American men? 2.nude 3.Donald Trump 45th President of United States 4.🎆 🇺🇸 HaPpY BiRtHdAy America!! 🇺🇸 🎆 5.The Nobel Peace Prize 🏅 Comments: | ||
You must be logged in to post here. Log in
only registered users can see external links
Eliminate Homeland security.
Dumb ass's plain and simple
only registered users can see external links
why is it every other nation has borders and enforces them,but our democrats want chaos here in the US?
they are planning to replace a bunch of criminals by actual law enforcement.
Ripping up The Constitution is how Trump is creating chaos in the US.
You better learn about it, before your rights are disrespected even less than those illegal's.
If you keep demanding that people are treated horribly, you will get your wish,
but it won't be just the people you intended. That's because people who hurt people
will never stop hurting people. Don't pick those people to be in charge.
The US presidential jet is getting
a new paint design that will
include one of President Donald
Trump's preferred colour choices
for the White House and his hotels,
gold.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Heres the map showing Baltimore is democrat. only registered users can see external links
rate the United States very highly, despite its power and intelligence.
only registered users can see external links
I have heard that Singapore is nice and pretty good to live in.
They say it's beautiful, safe and clean, and the people are nice.
I have never been there, because it's very hot there, I tend to spend less on vacations, and they eat a shitload of soy that my girlfriend is allergic to.
You could ask some AI: "Why is Singapore a good country to live in?"
"Better than the US?"
I asked: "In what ways is it better than The Netherlands to live in?"
ChatGPT started with the climate, calling it a Tropical climate.
But other points made it look good.
You will see how your country handles it, when we don't let you anymore.
Trump called himself a "unifier". True, he unites everyone against the US.
... Where the hell did you get this information from or is it just a downright lie?
Why lie since this page should be based on transparency to create a straight line towards the truth? Do you lie because you want everyone to think you are smart?
So far up to this point you've done the opposite 180 degrees by convincing everyone you're dumb and stupid.
The NATO's 2% 'rule', established in 2014, was not a rule in the legal sense.
It was a political commitment by NATO members to aim to SPEND at least 2%
of their GDP on defense.
You are correct that many the NATO members didn't spend what they had pledged. In 2023, the average was 1.8% of GDP, excluding the US, including the US, it was 2.6 % of GDP.
Here is why: NATO was created to ensure peace in the NATO area.
It was a combined force against Russia, while they were an ally in WW2. WHY?
That was only the US forcing everyone else to pick your side and NOT Russia's.
The US didn't like communism, wanted it to fail, and united everyone against it.
As a result, the US became the dominant military power and economic power.
Why did the US SPEND so much more that the rest of NATO?
Because the US didn't spend on DEFENSE, but on OFFENSE.
The US has been attacking countries all over the world,
and the reason was to dominate the world's resources (oil).
The US toppled governments that didn't sell the oil cheap enough.
You built military bases all over the world, to control everyone.
That was very expensive, but that is mostly for the benefit of the US.
Many Europeans didn't want their money to be used for waging war,
with heavy civilian deaths, against countries that hadn't attacked us.
Another big part of the US's 'defense' budget was primarily used for SPYING, even on European allies. The NSA has been stealing the EU citizens' personal data and our industry's intellectual property. The US has made sure that you dominated the digital infrastructure, making everyone else dependent and vulnerable. This has been a joined effort by your government that wanted people's data and your corporations that can make huge profits from people's data, and gullible citizens who give away their data willingly, to see cat videos, vent their anger on a forum,
or have their biases confirmed by some grifter. This has favored the US massively.
Meanwhile, the US heavily encouraged European countries to buy weapons from the US, instead of producing them ourselves. That resulted in our spending going directly to your military industrial complex. Since the citizens of liberal countries didn't want their pension money going to the manufacture of cluster bombs, that conflict with the Geneva convention, EU countries did fall into trouble coming up with the funding to spend the 2% of the GDP they pledged. The EU citizens didn't like how their money was being used. We actually live in a DEMOCRACY.
[Fun fact, in my country, it was mostly when our right-wing party controlled politics, when funds for the defense spending were cut the most. That was under Rutte,
who is now NATO Secretary-General. He is now telling everyone that daddy Trump is right, while he led our country to cut the defense spending the most.]
However, the NATO members were still spending roughly $430 billion, excluding the US, while Russia was spending around $140 billion. That would have been more than enough to defend us against an attack on the EU. Understand that before Russia attacked Ukraine, there was good reason to think that the Russians would be stupid enough to attack the EU, because the EU bought most of their fossil fuels, which was about half of their income. We were building Nord Stream 2 with them, at the time. Russia had a GDP just a bit bigger than the GDP of Italy. The GDP of the EU was 7.3X bigger than that of Russia.
The attack on Ukraine was not an attack on the EU, or on NATO, but it was certainly a provocation. No one invoked NATO, the EU just assumed that defending Ukraine, against the former biggest enemy of the US, would be in the US's best interest. Maybe you can explain why it doesn't seem that way?
Can you explain that anyway else than that Trump personally likes Putin and that
Trump seems to have lots of financial ties to Russia?
A challenge to you, is to read my reaction without your American bias.
When you say something, do you ever factcheck yourself?
Or do you just call me a liar, on what you have been told to believe?
You only presented ONE real argument to call me stupid; the percentages.
I have explained the spending difference. SHOW ME WRONG, on anything I said.
Do NOT just SAY I'm wrong or stupid, present verifiable facts that contradict me.
Be transparant.
You want to kill the economy by getting rid of gas for cars then forcing people into dependence on government support.
You are an extremist/communist pinworm infected piece of pigshit that tries to convince sound educated people that already know your intentions only to have them laugh right in front your ugly face making you the fool and jackass of this forum.
So yes, you aren't dumb in that regard. But dumb in believing you can shoot this shit on us and we all agree.. This only tells me you are a fool with no life planned.. You waste oxygen and shit out excrement.
This is known as an attempt of creating a political position. This is your tactic. Nothing more. You're forgetting that I have hands on experience with fucktards.. Just like you and that racist pig shit snot infested CAT52
Everything you've ever said in conclusion is a lie and I believe you know it is a lie. I don't have to disprove anything you say. You do it by yourself. You're just a total fuckup with antipersonality disorder.. Solid
No one is telling you that we're all done by 2028. It will just get a bit worse very slowly. It will be more damaging, as we go along. At some point, the damages
will be more expensive than having done the complete energy transition.
You president is throwing aside energy technology that is cheaper and pollutes the environment less. Even if you don't "believe" in climate change, it's worth every dollar of investments. The only reason he does it, is because he got
a $1 billion campaign donation from BIG OIL.
About 18% of global energy consumption used by passenger cars.
That is the hardest energy to transfer to electricity, because they cannot be connected to the electric grid, all the time. Still, the people who want you to not support the energy transition, keep you focused on cars, because that's the hardest problem to solve and because Americans are very sensitive about their cars. They stand for freedom to you.
23% of global energy goes to electricity, which is now still coming for 59% from fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, oil). Why? They are super easy to transition to renewable energy, which is MUCH CHEAPER NOW. Do you like burning money?
About 60–65% of global energy consumption is fossil fuels used directly by stationary objects (not counting electricity). These require some more effort to migrate to electricity, so they can use renewable energy. They would still be
much cheaper to run, after that transition.
I might be a communist, but I understand the idea of INVESTING in the future.
Do you?
Why the fuck would I want to kill the economy?
Is this the level of nonsense you need to tell yourself?
Come up with some actual arguments, because this is embarrassing.
Can you actually SHOW ME WRONG? I have fact checked everything I said in the last comment. There is still opinion in there, but NOTHING is downright false.
Unlike your ideology, who is gaslighting people to not believe their EYES,
I think LYING IS A SIGN OF WEAKNESS.
I have no comment on you... All you do is create accusations with no juristiction then demand I prove you wrong... All I give you this reply.. "FUCK YOU..don't ask me again or I'll throw 7 shitpiles on your page..
Just fucking grow up and and accept my gift of a nice big cup of shut the fuck up.
Do you understand how CO2 absorbs Infrared radiation from the sun
and turn that radiation into heat? I can explain it, if you don't.
Are you denying that the global average CO2 concentration is around 426 ppm today, and it was around 333 ppm in 1976?
IT'S JUST PHYSICS.
Do you understand why the planet Venus has an average surface temperature of 867 °F (464 °C), while it is only ~28% closer to the Sun. The next planet is Mercury. It is ~61% closer to the Sun, and it is on average ~333 °F (~167 °C). That's because Venus has a thick CO2 atmosphere and Mercury doesn't.
That's just science, not 'lefty lies'.
You don't have to argue with me, so don't be an asshole if I react.
Don't be a fucking snowflake.
Cover my page in shit, I don't care. It just shows that you are a petulant child.
This website is for ADULTS!! If you cannot handle that, just leave.
If you are a licensed scientist with a doctorate in quantum physics then tell me how you got these credentials and qualifications or you can just shut the fuck up now based on my conclusions your nothing but a fucking moron and I'll stay or leave as I please, you go that fucktard.
I have a science education, but I'm not a scientist by most definitions.
I have a bachelor is Biotechnology, which is a science education.
I work in Bio-pharma, using the scientific method every day.
I'm part of an engineering team that improves the processes and
solves issues.
I have a scientific education ✅
I work in a science-based field ✅
I apply scientific knowledge daily ✅
I do not produce new, testable knowledge about nature ❌
I do not participate in scientific literature or the research loop ❌
It doesn't require a doctorate in quantum physics to understand climate change. High-school physics, plus a little chemistry, is enough to understand the core mechanisms of climate change for yourself.
It's not cutting edge science either, the discovery that carbon dioxide, CO₂, absorbs infrared (IR) radiation dates back to the 19th century.
The key experiments were performed by John Tyndall, a British physicist,
in 1859–1861. Tyndall demonstrated that gases like CO₂, water vapor, and methane absorb infrared radiation and trap heat. He used a setup where he passed IR radiation through various gases and measured their absorption.
His work is considered the foundational experimental proof of the greenhouse effect. These are basic experiments nowadays, which can be repeated by high school students in a few hours.
Can you do anything else, than making personal attacks?
How about an actual argument, that contradicts any of mine?
If climate change is a lie, you should be able to debunk it.
Do you even understand what that means?
Climate change is a natural process. Its a functional curve in relation with time. This is normal.. Normal.. So in essence yes there is climate change but its based on functionality not induced. Your paranoia is a pseudo-reaction and its enhanced by your left wing stupidity and ignorance.
You want the truth? This is a sound reply.
1) You think that my education would provide me the ability to understand climate change, or you would have no problem to believe it.
2) You have no education that you think would provide you the ability to understand climate change, or you would say so, instead of obviously listing nonsense qualifications.
The argument "climate change is a natural process" is very simplistic.
It's like saying that murder doesn't exist, because people die of natural causes.
There are ways to understand the difference, e.g. "This 20 y.o. man was found dead, with a small hole in the back of his head, and his face missing. We think he didn't die of 'natural causes'!".
Climates indeed change naturally too. We know that, because civilizations of old have been keeping some records about the weather and the climate, since the Sumerians and Babylonians 3000 BCE. Ancient Greeks have been trying to explain the weather since 400 BCE. Aristotle wrote Meteorologica (~340 BCE). It's understandable why they wanted to know. Their lives dependent on their harvests succeeding.
The first scientists to proposed that much of Europe and North America had once been covered by vast ice sheets, were Swiss geologist in 1837, known as the Ice Age Theory. Their evidence was physical marks on the landscape that could only be explained by massive moving ice sheets.
Later in the 19th century, geologists found alternating layers of glacial deposits and warmer-climate sediments and fossils indicating repeated cold and warm periods. This led to the idea that Earth had experienced multiple ice ages, not just one.
In the early 20th century, Serbian mathematician Milutin Milanković proposed that variations in Earth’s orbit and tilt drive long-term climate cycles.
These are now called Milankovitch cycles, and they explain:
- Ice ages (~100,000-year cycles)
- Warmer interglacial periods (like today)
This work connected astronomy with geology, creating modern paleoclimatology.
Later contributions:
- Astronomy (orbital cycles)
- Physics (climate modeling)
- Paleontology (fossil evidence)
- Geochemistry (ice cores, isotopes)
Those those studies with ice cores and isotopes are important. Scientists drill deep into ice sheets in places like Antarctica and Greenland. Each year, snowfall forms a new layer. Over thousands of years, these layers compress into ice. A deep core is like a timeline of Earth’s atmosphere. Some Antarctic cores go back 800,000+ years.
Scientists can measure the Carbon dioxide, Methane and Nitrous oxide concentrations, in trapped bubbles in the ice. They can also measure the age of the ice by measuring the Oxygen Isotopes in the water molecules of the ice.
They started doing this in the 1960s. The Major global concern about climate change didn't take off until the 1980s.
Anyhow, from ice cores alone, we now have a very accurate, direct record of atmospheric CO₂ going back about 800,000 years. This record covers about 8 full glacial–interglacial cycles. Other measurements support those measurements, like on Marine sediments, Fossil leaves, Cave Deposit, Boron isotopes in marine carbonates and Oxygen isotopes and trace elements (Mg, Sr) in stalagmites and stalactites and basic observations from geologists.
That ~800,000 Years of history from the measurements shows that the CO₂ never exceeded ~300 ppm NATURALLY. The natural range is:
- Typical glacial periods: ~180–200 ppm CO₂
- Typical interglacial periods (warm periods): ~270–300 ppm CO₂
Based on orbital position and Milankovitch cycles, NATURAL CO₂ today would likely have been around 280 ppm.
As of 2026, atmospheric CO₂ is over 420 ppm. THIS IS NOT NORMAL!!!
March 2017: 406,92 ppm
Current Weekly Avg (Feb 2026): ~428.10 ppm
I am indeed left-wing. How does worrying about the climate serve my purpose of lowering inequality, people having safe jobs that pay for their bills, universal housing, universal healthcare, universal education, nature preservation, women's control over their own bodies, racial/gender/LGBTQ+ equity, taking corruption out of politics, and free speech that doesn't prop up hate and propaganda with social media algorithms?
I am 52 years old and born in a mild climate. I have SEEN the climate change in my life. That is impossible for climates that change naturally slowly over many THOUSANDS of years. I have EYES and a BRAIN.
How about you? Are you telling me that you have not noticed?
Or do you buy the story that humanity can just cut down ~35%
of the forest area in the world and emit 38 billion metric tons of CO₂/year,
without that having an effect? How does that make sense to you?
It can only be a lie, if hundreds of millions of people,
with completely different ideologies, from all over the world,
conspire together, to spread this lie, exactly in the same way
that flat earthers believe, about the 'globers'.
What reason do you have to reject this? Are you afraid?
Or do you think it's expected of you, because you picked a side?
As long as you are here discussing things, I'll react to you, as I see fit. That's my free speech, and I take it seriously. You will never succeed
to shut me up. That's how the marketplace of ideas works. Deal with it.
There is a mathematical explanation showing this is a lie. There is a algebraic mathematical function showing and involving the lifetime of the earth in relation with time (t)...So far man has existed for 100,000 years give or take. The climate is of the earth is graphed from billions of years. Sin(t) which forms a curve in relation with time is to draw information as to what amounts or CO2 and Methane is presentin the atmosphere where the period is measured as 2*PI, the current time, past and future function with relation to time.....The slope of the function is greater than 0 right now for there have been many cycles of which the slope has been positive, negative or at 0 from day one. Say what the industry has produced chemicals such as this so you compare the number 1 to 1.0000000000000000000001 with fossil fuel production. That means what you are telling me is insignicant in relation of crossing any critical points disrupting the earth's cycle comparing normality and alarming trends..
THe one thing I'm alarmed with is the illegal dumping of chemical waste into the rivers, oceans and the earth of which there is substantial evidence that shows corruption with politicians taking bribes to overlook these infractions PLUS even though knowing they are responsible they will blame other agencies such as car and factories that conform to filter out harming chemicles producing which also taxes people just trying to get to work or grocery shopping.
This just doesn't hurt people it destroys all life on earth.
This is how corruption works and at the same time murdering cows and putting Iron and Mercury into water streatms reducing life spans for for power and economic purposes.. THe extreme left of whick you are involved with participates by using climate change in order to steal money while taking your car away from you..
This is why Al Gore wrote his book by the year 2002 the earth telling us the world was going to be destroyed. Now its 2026 telling us to world will end by 2030 and we need to pay our tax dollars but that the same time its doing nothing other than lining their pockets.
How are you believing I'm suppressing your free speech when I haven't banned you? I have dealt with it, I have total clarity with your agenda here.
You really have no idea who you are dealing with here do you?
Just because you are fucked up with an attitude and completly just totally retarded I am not responsable for your fucking incompetence in proving your accussations wrong.. My job here is to bring facts. You can't pay me to disprove anying to you. My response to you is "FUCK YOU" , get a fucking life already and shut the fuck up..""""" But you won't ,, you're just too fucking stupid to see it. How is this my fault cleaning up your mess? Just because you dropped out of school in the 2nd grade how is this my fault where I clean your shit on the floor?
Look, you're blood pressure is boiling up, I can feel it.. How about we just take a break so you can just calm down already? Chill for crying out loud,, such a baby
The idea is that since we are adults and yes this is an 18 or over website gives us the responsibility as behaving as adults where there is no paperworks that prove our moral compass..
My suggeston is to use facts and state conclusions based on journalism(obective broadcasting of events for a large numbered population) as adults and professionals of right and wrong. It doesn't matter how educated you are on university standards for establishing credibility as long as you are being sincere with telling the truth right or wrong.. If this is pertaining of polital structure of USA we should remove personal bias and personal attacks and to keep focussed on the current topics at hand relevent to forum discussion.
You are ignoring one thing; you can be honest AND WRONG.
Education trains the brain to discern the truth from lies.
Without education, people are more susceptible to believing lies.
There is real journalism, which is objective, and there is
fake journalism, which is intended to deceive.
It requires critical thinking skills to recognize what's what.
Scientific education teaches critical thinking skills.
Science is not merely a body of knowledge; it is a self-correcting method designed to minimize individual bias and systematically separate reliable claims from unreliable ones. It's a skill that improves with every level gained in science education.
For example, the levels can be generally split in 3 levels of science education:
Level 1 — Everyday Claims
For evaluating basic claims (e.g., “Does this diet work?”),
a solid high school–level understanding of:
- Logic
- Basic probability
- Correlation vs. causation
This is often sufficient to avoid obvious mistakes.
Level 2 — Complex Public Issues, For topics like:
- Vaccine safety
- Climate modeling
- Economic policy
People need:
- Statistical literacy
- Ability to read scientific papers
- Understanding of uncertainty and model limitations
This usually requires at least undergraduate-level training
in a relevant field.
Level 3 — Producing New Knowledge
To conduct original scientific research:
- Deep specialization
- Advanced mathematics or technical skill
- Familiarity with current literature
This typically requires graduate-level training (Master’s or PhD).
I see people confidently argue against level 2 complexity issues,
on clearly not even level 1 science literacy.
It 'SOUNDS' better? Is that how you think about things?
I think 100% is a nice number. That's your level of 'thinking'.
How about a world where we don't have to spend money on killing each other?
Maybe, if Trump would suck Putin's dick a bit less, Ukraine would be free now.
You keep thinking that those percentages are some sort of contribution.
No one is PAYING NATO. That number is the percentage of GDP the country
SPENDS ON THEIR OWN DEFENSE.
When your country spends a trillion on the NSA, to spy on your own citizens,
that's considered 'defense'. (not an actual number, just an example)
Stop worrying about little singapore.
By system 08,Feb,26 18:01
You were blacklisted by Limpy
Send Private Reply (start chat if the member is on-line)
🤣🤣
--------------------------------------- added after 3 minutes
Hey, listen to this from that pussy Limpy
I fucking told you to stay the fuck aways from me you nasty ass'd diseased cunt.. This is my last fucking warning /// Shut your fucking hitler supporting jew hating murding
cunt..
You stay your dog shitten rotten brain and attitude and stay the fuck away from me..
If you want to take this personal I'll meet you any fucking time or place.. you got it
Admin does this constitutes as a threat?
This hatred of Jews leads to analysis and conclusion. This allowable display of hatred towards me as a Jew will only lead me and my children will be remembered forever while your hate will end up in a long forgotten memory of nothing.
--------------------------------------- added after 114 seconds
So Limpy, who are you?
I was planning of objecting to these comments then dropping further inquiry but when you doubled , tripled down and so forth after ther critical point reached I fought back and will continue in doing so as long as you persist ... I do not want to hear from you again. Just leave me alone
You will stay the fuck away from me. You got that too asshole?
Now, I can read and, I can understand and I know what I’m talking about, but, you? All you have is a few expletives and a bunch of throw up. Why don’t you leave real discussions to people that know how to talk in mixed company and not like a teenager in the twelfth grade.
--------------------------------------- added after 9 minutes
And while I am at it, what do YOU know about
GDP
GNP
TARRIFS
NATO
HE.LL, I bet you don’t even know what these initials mean.
Oh, BTW, it would take a real man to slap the “whiteness of ya ass”. And you don’t qualify, pussy.
cunt..
You stay your dog shitten rotten brain and attitude and stay the fuck away from me..
If you want to take this personal I'll meet you any fucking time or place.. you got it
towards the truth"
It is a crying shame really that Trump had to be a asshole and essentially FORCE europe to grow a pair of balls and invest in it's own defense.
You just wanted Europe to BUY lots of YOUR weapons.
Which could be easily withheld from us, if it served YOU.
Now we want to buy lots of those weapons, but you're not delivering enough.
And your argument is clearly: "We don't want to risk war with Russia for YOU!"
We cannot create a military industrial complex like yours, in a few short years.
What am I talking about? Here is an example:
The Netherlands currently has about 47 F-35 fighter jets (Officially ordered: 52).
The software is provided by the US. Without regular updates the jet doesn’t just get “a bit worse”, it loses combat relevance very fast. Certain weapons and modes are software-locked. No update = no authorization = no use. Sustainment systems (ALIS → ODIN) are US-controlled. They affect maintenance, diagnostics, and readiness. If the US doesn't like how we use our F-35s, you can just 'pull the plug'.
And that's for a country that was a “Level 2” partner in the development of the F-35. The Netherlands joined the F-35 (JSF) development program early, as far back as the early 2000s, and signed onto the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase with other partner countries. More than 90 Dutch companies and institutions are involved in the F-35 program. Because of this investment and industrial participation, the Netherlands isn’t just a customer, it's one of the official partner countries in the F-35 program, alongside the United Kingdom and Italy
(the UK is Level 1).
My Socialist Party was against the JSF program at the time. We wanted to buy
the Saab JAS 39 Gripen. We wanted to be independent from the US.
You keep parroting the same nonsense.
Saab, the car manufacturer went under, Saab AB (Aerospace & Defense) did not.
I have stocks in them, which are up at 77.6% today.
I would prefer to have full public ownership of the war machine, because with private companies, it's just enriching a small group of wealthy owners, while it makes defending our countries more expensive. Still, since no one is listening,
I'll just tag along and enlarge the group of people making money from killing people a bit larger.
Do you think the world would see more OR less war, if there were no people getting wealthy from producing and selling weapons?
you gota fix the hate,that's what is profitable
it's not going to stop if you stop investing. so you may as well make some cash to better your life while you can.
It's not the citizens, it's our governments.
Care to do a an analysis of the US presidents who did that?
Conflict.........US casualties....President.............Party
Grenada............19...............Ronald Reagan.....Republican
Panama.............23...............George HW Bush..Republican
Gulf War............294...............George HW Bush..Republican
Kosovo..............1–2..............Bill Clinton.............Democrat
Afghanistan......~2,400.........George W Bush....Republican
Iraq..................~4,500...........George W Bush....Republican
Libya.................Minimal........Barack Obama......Democrat
Qasem Soleimani...0.............Donald Trump......Republican
Iran..........................0................Donald Trump....Republican
Venezuela...........7 injured......Donald Trump.....Republican
(I only added 'Acts of War' that started a war or potentially would start a war, because when you're already AT war, it almost necessarily requires further
acts of war to bring it to a peaceful resolution.)
Here's a list of territories that Trump threatened with US military action:
- Gaza Strip
- Venezuela
- Iran
- Colombia
- Mexico
- Cuba
- Greenland
- Panama
- Canada
His threats clearly described 'boots on the ground' situations.
There would be no problem, if those wealthy people were not allowed
to bribe politicians.
Fanta is of nazi german origin,when WW2 started ,the cocacola plant was defunct and they needed beverages and came up with their own formulas that of course the liberators took hold of and made it their own.
We have been to the fries museum in Bruges, Belgium, a few years back.
Also weird, what we know as 'Flamish fries' are a thicker variant, which is not square but rectangular, that we only know in The Netherlands, but they don't eat anywhere in the Flemish Region or Belgium. Some chip shop in The Netherlands just made it up 30 years ago, and now everyone calls them 'Flamish fries'.
The other origins you explained seem to mostly check out.
Ketchup seems of Chinese origin, although it was completely different there.
Strange how a name sticks, while everything else about it is changed.
New Comment Go to top