Chirurgia spinală minim invazivă
Chirurgia spinală minim invazivă oferă pacienților oportunitatea unui tratament eficient, permițându-le o recuperare ultra rapidă și nu în ultimul rând minimizând leziunile induse chirurgical. Echipa noastră utilizează un spectru larg de tehnici minim invazive, din care enumerăm câteva: endoscopia cu variantele ei (transnazală, transtoracică, transmusculară, etc), microscopul operator, abordurile trans tubulare și nu în ultimul rând infiltrațiile la toate nivelurile coloanei vertebrale. www.neurohope.ro |
Se repeta istoria?
Last Updated: Jan 17 2019 21:42, Started by
Woltaire87
, Jan 06 2019 21:24
·
0
#1
Posted 06 January 2019 - 21:24
Ce parere aveti despre asta? Inca o dovada ca istoria se repeta atunci cand oamenii nu invata din ea si ca suntem supusi unui ciclu ?
1968-
Teoretic, ar trebui acum sa mai urmeze o criza petroliera ca-n 1973. Si tocmai ce a crescut iar pretul petrolului... Edited by Woltaire87, 06 January 2019 - 21:43. |
#3
Posted 06 January 2019 - 21:31
[ https://img.thedailybeast.com/image/upload/c_crop,d_placeholder_euli9k,h_1440,w_2560,x_0,y_0/dpr_2.0/c_limit,w_740/fl_lossy,q_auto/v1534982313/180822-stein-nixon-trump-tease_eii4gx - Pentru incarcare in pagina (embed) Click aici ]
Cei doi s-au si intalnit: [ https://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/12/19/us/19NIXON-02-TRUMP/19NIXON-02-TRUMP-facebookJumbo.jpg - Pentru incarcare in pagina (embed) Click aici ] Edited by Woltaire87, 06 January 2019 - 21:31. |
#4
Posted 06 January 2019 - 21:34
#5
Posted 06 January 2019 - 21:37
#6
Posted 06 January 2019 - 21:42
#7
Posted 06 January 2019 - 21:46
#8
Posted 06 January 2019 - 22:15
Lasati prostiile. Petrolul creste datorita guvernului nostru, in alte tari e mai ieftin ca la noi
|
#9
Posted 06 January 2019 - 22:26
sylvius, on 06 ianuarie 2019 - 21:46, said:
Nu, nu se repeta. Istoria... De asta ce zici? Lincoln–Kennedy coincidences urban legend - Wikipedia Quote
Both presidents were elected to the House of Representatives in '46. Both presidents were non-masons and both of their successors were masons (non-mason presidents replaced with mason power). Both were losing candidates for their party's vice-presidential nomination in '56. Both presidents were elected to the presidency in '60. Both died after being shot in the head. Lincoln defeated incumbent Vice President John C. Breckinridge for the presidency in 1860; Kennedy defeated incumbent Vice President Richard M. Nixon for the presidency in 1960. Both their predecessors were the last presidents to be born in their respective centuries. Both their predecessors left office in their seventies and retired to Pennsylvania. James Buchanan, whom Lincoln succeeded, retired to Lancaster Township; Dwight D. Eisenhower, whom Kennedy succeeded, retired to Gettysburg. They both then died before the end of the decade. Both their Vice Presidents and successors were Southern Democrats named Johnson (Andrew Johnson and Lyndon B. Johnson) who were born in '08. Both presidents were concerned with issues affecting Black Americans and made their views strongly known in '63. Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862, which took effect in 1863. In 1963, Kennedy presented his reports to Congress on issues related to the Civil Rights Movement, and in June of that year delivered his Civil Rights Address on radio and television in which he proposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Both presidents, and their successors, conferred with a nationally known black leader about civil rights. Both Lincoln and Andrew Johnson conferred with Frederick Douglass. Both Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson conferred with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Both presidents were known for their wit and eloquence, and both frequently quoted Shakespeare and the Bible in their speeches. Both presidents had been captains of ships in their private lives: Lincoln on a river boat, and Kennedy on PT-109. Each president suffered from a genetic disease. Lincoln had Marfan's syndrome. Kennedy had Addison's disease. Both presidents were shot in the head on a Friday seated beside their wives. Both Fridays preceded a major holiday observed within the week. Both assassinations occurred in a city that was the 14th largest in the nation according to the most recent census taken in '60. During the assassination, they were sitting in an alphabetical pattern. Their spouses first name and both president's last name. J,K,L,M- Jackie, Kennedy, Lincoln, Mary. Jackie was seated to the left of Kennedy and Mary to the right of Lincoln. Both presidents were accompanied by another couple. The male companion of the other couple was wounded by the assassin. Both presidents fathered four children, and had a son die during his presidency. Both presidents had only one child survive into the next century. That child served another president by political appointment. Both presidents' wives died in their sixties after an untimely decline in health, during the administration of a president who had been in the same party as their husbands in Washington, D.C. the same year as the assassination (Mary Todd Lincoln died during the presidency of Chester A. Arthur. Arthur had attended President Lincoln's 1865 inauguration. Jacqueline Kennedy died during the presidency of Bill Clinton. Clinton met President Kennedy in 1963 during a Boys State summer program). Lincoln was shot by John Wilkes Booth at Ford's Theatre; Kennedy was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald in a Lincoln automobile, made by Ford. Both presidents' last names have 7 letters. Both assassins' full names have 15 letters. Both while in their 30's married 24 year old women, who spoke fluent French. Both were related to a U.S. Senator, Attorney General,ambassador to Great Britain and the mayor of Boston. Both were born as second children. Each assassin committed his crime in the building where he was employed. Both presidents were purportedly smiling immediately before the assassination began. After shooting Lincoln, Booth ran from a theatre to a warehouse; after shooting Kennedy, Oswald ran from a warehouse to a theatre. Both assassins died in the same month as their victim in a state adjacent to the state of their birth. Both assassins were shot and killed with a Colt revolver. Both assassins were Southern white males born in the late '30s, who were in their mid-20s, and were 5'8" in height with hazel eyes and brown hair. Both assassins were sympathetic to a government that opposed the United States, and both had once resided within that government's borders. Both assassins were killed before being tried, by men who were reared in the North, changed their name as adults, and were bachelors. Both assassins suffered injuries during escape. Both assassins fled using modes of transportation they did not own. Booth rented a horse, Oswald rode a bus. Both presidents had body guards named William, William H. Crook told Lincoln not to go to the assassination point, William Greer drove JFK to the assassination point. Both bodyguards named William died within 48 hours of being aged 75 years, 5 months. Presidential security was heavily criticized, after each assassination, for being too lax. Lincoln sat in box number 7 at Ford's Theater; Kennedy sat in car number 7 in the motorcade. The doctors who primarily attended to each president were both named Charles. Dr. Charles Leale treated Lincoln. Dr. Charles Crenshaw treated Kennedy. Each president died in a place with the initials "P.H." Lincoln died at the Petersen House and Kennedy died at Parkland Hospital. Kennedy was the second president in U.S. history who issued interest-free money. The first was Lincoln, who issued greenbacks to finance the American Civil War. Coincidence (not part of the above list) - Both Lincoln and Kennedy were carried in coffins with no pallbearer's handles. Lincoln's body was placed in a plain pine box with no handles. It was carried out of the Petersen house with hands underneath the bottom of the box. Kennedy was placed in a bronze coffin, which wouldn't fit through the Eastern Airlines aircraft door; the pallbearer's handles were forcibly removed to board the plane (Lyndon Johnson boarded Air Force One as the newly sworn President). Edited by Woltaire87, 06 January 2019 - 22:31. |
#10
Posted 06 January 2019 - 23:01
Napoleon vs Hitler
Quote
Amandoi nascuti in saracie Amandoi au fost ambitiosi si insetati dupaputere Amandoi au obtinut puterea prin alegeri libere si lovitura de stat Amandoi au contribuit la renasterea natiunilor Amandoi sunt de alta origine fata de natiunea pe care au condus-o Amandoi au folosit razboiul pentru a-si extinde influenta Amandoi au vrut sa cucereasca Europa Amandoi au esuat in a cuceri Rusia Amandoi au esuat in a dobora Marea Britanie printr-o blocada continentala Amandoi au infruntat rezistenta impotriva regimurilor Amandoi au fost rapusi de o coalitie de natiuni Amandoi au incercat sa se sinucida prin otravire Natiunile amandurora au cazut in ruine Sau Razboaiele Punice izbucnite de Cartagina si Razboaiele Mondiale izbucnite de Germania Quote
Ambele izbucnite de o putere in ascensiune cu ambitii de a dobandi suprematie In ambele razboaie au fost infrante si au cazut in ruina De pe urma ambelor razboaie a rasarit o noua superputere - Imperiul Roman / Statele Unite ale Americii Cel de-al doilea razboi punic a fost declansat de Hannibal , Cel de-al doilea Razboi Mondial a fost declansat de Hitler - ambii lideri si-au terorizat inamicii si au ramas in istorie ca cei mai huliti si detestati rivali Ambii lideri s-au sinucis prin otravire dupa ce au fost infranti! Edited by Woltaire87, 06 January 2019 - 23:02. |
|
#11
Posted 06 January 2019 - 23:14
Sau asemănarea dintre Cleopatra și Udrea
Amândouă erau femei Amândouă și-o trăgeau cu șeful Amândouă preferau luxul |
#12
Posted 06 January 2019 - 23:18
Nu discutam despre repetarea istoriei ci despre problemele pieței capitaliste daca suprapunem peste ea democratia. Acest model economico-social generează deficite enorme care trebuie să se acopere cumva. Si se acopera prin războaie.
Edited by JurasikMan, 06 January 2019 - 23:19. |
#13
Posted 06 January 2019 - 23:18
#14
Posted 06 January 2019 - 23:20
Nici Basescu nu seamănă cu Cezar.
Edited by JurasikMan, 06 January 2019 - 23:20. |
#15
Posted 06 January 2019 - 23:25
JurasikMan, on 06 ianuarie 2019 - 23:18, said:
Nu discutam despre repetarea istoriei ci despre problemele pieței capitaliste daca auprapunem peste ea democratia. Acest model econonico-social generează fericite enorme care trebuie să se acopere cumva. Si se acopera prin războaie. In SUA inca exista o patura conservatoare de 50 ani care nu accepta sa se adapteze vremurilor noi si da sa moara, de aceea se mobilizeaza sa voteze un presedinte controversat care ofera aparenta ca e un salvator dupa ce presedintele democrat s-a dovedit a fi unul precar si slab. Sau invers, cand dupa un presedinte republican slab, americanii uita de porcariile democratilor si au tendinta sa voteze cu salvatorul democrat. La fel cum si patura liberala , cea care voteaza cu democrati, s-a orientat tot mai mult spre stanga, chiar daca politicienii democrati sunt socialisti in campanie, in practica sunt ultra-capitalisti. Masurile lor socialiste precum New Deal, Civil Rights Act , Great Society, Obamacare sunt menite sa le aduca voturi din partea majoritatii pentru a ramane mai mult timp la guvernare si in Congres si sa aiba astfel suprematia. Programele si legile lor nu rezolva mai nimic. Vine republicanul apoi care promite religie pe paine, joburi, prosperitate in afaceri, izolationism, anti-imigratie, taiere taxe, retragere trupe de peste tot si finalizarea razboaielor , "America mareata", intampinat in urale si cu proteste .........pana la urma se dovedeste a fi un presedinte mediocru, la fel de corupt si chiar unul cu comportament cam de liberal. Nu mai exista nici conservatori republicani, nici democrati liberali, ideologiile si doctrinele ambelor partide sunt moarte de zeci de ani, fiind acum doar doua tabere care se lupta pentru bani , putere si control. De aceea vedem asemanari intre LBJ si Obama sau intre Nixon si Trump. Cat despre asemanarile dintre conducatori si razboaie, e o regula universala in teorii si mecanisme in relatiile internationale: mereu exista doua puteri rivale, una e ambitioasa si vrea sa o rastoarne pe cealalta. Insa cum cealalta dispune de mai multe resurse si capacitate strategica, o invinge. Puterea infranta isi vrea revansa si incearca cu un lider mai radicalizat. Isi ia iar bataie, iar liderul, pentru ca nu suporta infrangerea si rusinea, se sinucide, iar superputerea invingatoare, pentru a nu mai avea batai de cap, extermina puterea rivala infranta si o subjuga. E acelasi lucru fiindca e un principiu universal valabil in toate razboaiele istoriei, indiferent de tara, uniforma, cultura , arma sau scop. Nu e nimic mistic pana aici. Dar asta cu Lincon-Kennedy depaseste orice savant si iti cam vine sa crezi in Matrix....LOL Edited by Woltaire87, 06 January 2019 - 23:36. |
|
#17
Posted 08 January 2019 - 22:42
Napoleon vs Hitler
Amandoi nascuti in saracie - Napoleon era fiu de nobil corsican. Nu foarte bogat la standardele unui nobil francez, dar suficient de instarit ca sa fie unul din pilonii politici ai zonei. Hitler era fiu de functionar - nu a suferit de saracie pana s-a mutat in Viena. Amandoi au fost ambitiosi si insetati dupaputere - Probabil asa sunt vreo 2 miliarde de oameni de pe planeta. Amandoi au obtinut puterea prin alegeri libere si lovitura de stat - nope. Unul a activat intr-un regim parlamentar si a participat la vot (parlamentar si prezidential), altul a preluat puterea printr-o lovitura de stat si si-a justificat urmatoarele etape (consulatul si imperiul) prin plebiscit. Amandoi au contribuit la renasterea natiunilor - Nu aveam impresia ca Franta si Germania erau moarte inainte de Napoleon si Hitler. Amandoi sunt de alta origine fata de natiunea pe care au condus-o - Hitler era german. German austriac dar german. S-a mutat in Germania inainte de caderea Austro-Ungariei, unde se lucra strict cu "etnia germana". Amandoi au folosit razboiul pentru a-si extinde influenta - Asta e valabil pentru toti conducatorii. Amandoi au vrut sa cucereasca Europa - Nu. Napoleon nu a vrut in niciun caz sa cucereasca Europa. Nici macar la Hitler nu se poate vorbi despre altceva decat o dominatie continentala (dar care nu implica neaparat expansiunea politica peste fiecare tara de pe continent). Amandoi au esuat in a cuceri Rusia - Napoleon nu a dorit sa cucereasca Rusia ci doar sa-l infranga pe imparatul Alexandru pentru a-l convinge sa i se realature in alianta si blocada anti-engleza. Amandoi au esuat in a dobora Marea Britanie printr-o blocada continentala - Ce blocada continentala visezi la Hitler? Ca era invers - englezii aveau putinta sa importe materiale din toata lumea, Germania era limitata la teritoriile anexate, supuse sau loiale. Amandoi au infruntat rezistenta impotriva regimurilor - Orice razboinic infranta rezistenta. Don't see your point. Amandoi au fost rapusi de o coalitie de natiuni - Ook... Nu e nimic special, razboaiele de dupa anul 1500 sunt in principal razboaie intre coalitii dar pot sa accept o asemanare daca vrei neaparat. Amandoi au incercat sa se sinucida prin otravire - Vorbesti de cianura in cazul lui Hitler? Pana mea, deja you're stretching it... Natiunile amandurora au cazut in ruine - Franta dupa 1815 nu era in niciun caz in ruine. Invinsa militar poate dar ramanea cea mai bogata natiune continentala. Mai ai de astea? |
#18
Posted 08 January 2019 - 23:50
1. Ok, reformulez.....nu foarte saraci, dar nici ultra-bogati. Insa prea marunti pentru a accede la functii inalte avand normal prea putine usi deschise fata de alti fii de aristocrati si nobili. Si care au avut nevoie de context special pentru a avansa si accede la conducere.
2. Important e sa ai gena puterii si calitati de lideri, asa toti putem sa visam 3. Plebiscitul era ceva considerat democratic pentru vremea aia in Franta post-revolutionara, asa ca las-o asa 4. Erau -Franta era devastata de teroarea iacobina si in plin razboi cu alte natiuni, decazuta economic, iar Germania .....vezi Republica de la Weimar si perioada marii depresiuni. Contextele economice defavorabile de altfel si nemultumirile populatiilor au contriuit la ascensiunea celor doi lideri. 5. Bre...las-o asa. E nascut in Austria? E nascut in Austria si a locuit la Viena, deci era cetatean austriac. A luptat in regiment bavarez ? A luptat! 6. DOOOOH......nope! Nu toti conducatorii si-au extins influenta prin razboaie sau numai prin razboaie. 7. Amandoi au vrut dominatie continenta , asta se explica prin actiunile lor. 8. Ceea ce inseamna ca tot voia suprematie daca aveau acelasi tel - eliminarea Rusiei din joc 9. Intreaba-l tu pe el de ce a bombardat Anglia la 1940. Voia acelasi lucru ca si Napoleon. Evident ca ambii nu si-au dat seama cu cine se puneau, dar stim ca amandoi voiau subjugarea Marii Britanii pentru a stapani linistiti pe continent. 10. Vorbim totusi de doi mari lideri care au incercat sa cucereasca Europa. 11. Normal. 12. Napoleon a incercat sa se otraveasca fara reusita in 1814 inainte sa fie exilat pe insula Elba. Pana la urma a murit otravit cu arsenic pe insula Sf. Elena (a avut cancer la stomac, dar otravirea s-a produs simultan, pentru ca britanicilor le-au placut enorm sa-l faca sa sufere si sa-i provoace o moarte lenta si dureroasa). Despre Hitler se stie ca a luat cianura in gura si apoi si-a tras un glont in cap. 13. Ba cred ca era daca vedem situatia dezastruoasa de dupa, pierderile teritoriale, nenumarate victime din cauza razboaielor in perioada 1789-1815 , urmand apoi revolutia de la 1830, revolutia din 1848, Comuna din Paris din 1871. Pana la 1830 a fost de altfel o tara "aflata sub ocupatie straina" pentru ca nu regele Luvodic XVIII si nici Carol X conduceau de facto tara, ultimii regi de Bourbon fiind niste marionete. Pana in 1848, Franta a fost condusa de facto de James Mayer de Rothschild si familia lui care au acaparat conducerea tarii dupa caderea lui Napoleon, tot aceeasi familie care a dominat si Austria si mai toata Europa occidentala. El a fost efectiv "imparatul" Frantei si Austriei in tot acesti ani. James Mayer de Rothschild - Wikipedia Apoi a venit Napoleon al III-lea care le-a luat puterea, influenta si patronajul asupra guvernului. Situatia se va stabiliza in Franta abia dupa 1880 cand incepe "La Belle Epoque". De Germania nu mai zic, impartita, RFG si-a revenit abia de prin anii 70', iar RDG sau partea estica inca mai continua sa se recupereze cu greu din cauza inapoierii produse de comunism. Sunt si acum trupe britanice stabilite in Germania ce se vor retrage anul asta, Germania merkelista fiind practic o tara aflata sub ocupatie anglo-americana. Tu sigur te consideri un "istoric"? Eu nu m-am considerat niciodata istoric, dar ma informez dinainte sa emit pareri. Edited by raycenx, 09 January 2019 - 00:12. |
Anunturi
▶ 0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users