The Moscow Storm
A few days ago a big storm clouds brought by a strong wind covered Moscow. People don’t know what was the reason for this, nor nothing was in the news. A few people managed to make a photos like this ones of the sky.
via bagira
| Tags: moscow, nature phenomena, russian weather, storm, weather |
Tip: To get daily entertaiment news like this one, bookmark englishrussia.com or get 
if it's more convinient for you.
if it's more convinient for you.
Our friends publish:Bloggers, send your links! |
|
Back to English Russia Main Page for more articles like this
4:33 pm
Loading ...
Wow that looks great!!!!
first!
Moron.
Maroon
That does looks great. Nice pics.
Reminds me of desert sandstorm pictures.
Nothing to fear about those clouds. They are called “shelf clouds” and appear at the edge of a cold front. This type of stormcloud is quite common out in the American Midwest.
Google Image Search: Shelf Clouds.
Yes Sedgwick, you are right. Such cloud formations often preceed thunderstorms and can bring a marked change in local weather.
Growing up in the American Midwest I used to see a couple storms a year start like that.
IT’S A TSUNAMI! LOL!
no, I think it was god trying to metaphorically show the people of Russia how they are being overushed by a big wave of KGB-time all over.
NEVER EVER TRUST A RUSSIAN PRESIDENT WHO SPEAKS GERMAN!
> NEVER EVER TRUST A RUSSIAN PRESIDENT WHO SPEAKS GERMAN
Comrade, you misspelled the line ‘never ever oppose a russian president, who speaks German’.
Reminds me of the scene in Independence Day when the UFOs were coming to earth.
That was one of the crappiest movies I ever saw.
Thanks for posting those great photos! I only wish I was there to see it.
p.h.o.t.o.s.h.o.p
FIRST!
you smell like #2
You know , when the wind is like that its because it is full of everyones woes and bad stuff…thats all the wind is, the carrier of negativity.
I cannot stand the wind when it is like that !
That’s very profound chicken!We’ve had gusts of ninety miles an hour across the midlands today,but if I ever saw some of these rolling across the sky I think I’d probably hide.
sedgewick,john and cigar jack-you three must be used to all this sort of thing but extreme weather would scare the beejeezuz out of me!
Good photographs though…Is it very noisy?
This is the one to fear.
http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/seymour.jpg
No worries–this was part of the steam from a VIP bath and sauna shared by Putin and Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in celebration of the trouble they stirred in the Republic of Georgia this week.
My sources tell me they whipped each other with tree branches and screamed in pain and delight (things like “Oh please, Pooty, whip me again,” and “Take that, my little Persian Pleasure Pet”).
Unfortunately for the residents of Moscow, much of the steam escaped and rolled over the city, causing “bad hair day” for many.
Stop this!! I demand this lie from western spy be stopped! Take him to Red Square and do the xecution like we do in Tehran. Head on block and choppy choppy!!
What will my good sexy friend Lukashenko in Belarus think when he reads this? OMG.
Looks pretty scary.. First photo with birds reminds Nightwatch movie
WARNING WARNING - political debate approaching! (next post)
It seems even a picture of clouds can start them.
LOL. Thanks for the warning Misha.
Make that the upper (start in central Iowa and go north) midwest and stopping at the border (except Quebec, natch) with Canada.
Also, it is not so that it’s harmless. The birds and pilots can tell you it makes takeoff/landing issues (shear layers down at 1,300-3,000 feet?) Harsher winds make for more troubled construction than on the coasts (but not compared to on the ocean) and it does not much attract homeowners, farmers, even wind farmers, etc. You got one o’ those there too, eh? Don’t let them reelect Bush.
We can’t. The U.S. Constitution states that a president can only serve two terms. He’s on his second (and last) term, which will end January 20, 2009.
True, in the U.S. Constitution the CIC can only serve two terms. There is an exception where a president can serve more than 2 terms. That is during a war. FDR served more than two terms because of that exception. Technically, Bush can serve another term because America is at war with radical Islam. I hope that doesn’t happen!
CIC= Commander in Chief
Are you sure about a war exception? The 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution became law in 1951. Prior to that, there were no legal term limit for President.
If that’s the case John then you are correct…
HE dont have to be elected
GULIANI is the same dangerous bastard and he is the republican winner…
I hope americans will not be so stupid to elect a republican.
Ron paul seem the only different but i dont know if he had a chance
G.W. Bush wasn’t elected.
John,
I don’t challenge most of your comments about US politics, simply because to me it is the “American way” to be able to bitch openly about our givernment. However, in this instance, you are playing a deceptive game with the meaning of the word “election” by completely removing it from its context.
In 2000 the presidential race was close, and of the total number of votes cast nationwide, Al Gore got the most. For a person who is not familiar with the provisions for electing a US president, it would seem Al Gore won the “election.”
However, for people who know the constitution and its provision for the Electoral College, they know the person who wins the MOST STATES wins the presidential election.
Why does this make a difference? Because if you develop a strategy to win one type of election, it is not fair for someone to come along after they lose and say “I want to change the rules and determine the outcome of this election another way, one that is favorable to me.” That is what Al Gore’s supporters tried to do in 2000.
Presidential candidates develop their strategy based on the Electoral College, as if it is the ultimate strategic goal in a battle. When they buy time on TV and radio, or space in newspapers, or send out direct mail, they target key areas within certain states so that they can win that state.
If they think they have a comfortable margin for victory in a state, they move on to another state, rather than continue to increase their lead in a state they know they can win. It is their method for allocating their campaign resources. It’s as if you kill an enemy on the battlefield, but continue stabbing him with your bayonet while ten other enemy soldiers close in on you from behind. It’s not “good strategy.”
George Bush’s and Al Gores’ campaigns fought hard for Florida in 2000 because it is a key state. Why was it key? Because it is politically balanced and could go either Democratic or Republican, based on who campaigned the most effectively.
The controversy arose when Democrats tried to push ballots in Florida that were determined first to be suspect, and finally determined to be illegal and inadmissable.
Who decided they were not legal? The Supreme Court of the United States, consisting of nine Justices appointed by a variety of Democratic and Republican presidents. It is not the “Supreme Court of the Republicans” or the “Supreme Court of the Democrats,” but the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
That is the way our system works. Until enough people decide they want to change that system by an amendment to the US constitution, it will remain that way.
Each candidate campaigned to win states, but when Gore’s team could not win that way, they tried to insist on determining the outcome by a different set of rules, in a way that has NEVER been used to determine the next President of the United States.
John, I suspect you know all this, but I took the time to write it so that at least a few people who are not familiar with our system will not be deceived. George Bush won the election in 2000, and again in 2004. When people say Bush “did not win” or that he “stole the election” they are strongly implying that we have a leader who took control through force, and that the rule of law was ignored when we selected the political leader of our nation.
You have every right to dislike George Bush, US policy, etc., but if you really are from Kansas, if you really are an American, then please let us and our country stand or fall based on facts and performance, rather than campaign rhetoric.
God bless you, John. You may just get your choice of candidates in 2008, because I don’t see a Republican so far who has a chance of winning.
I understand how the electoral college works. What you describe is the way the system should work, not the way it worked in this case, and you left out some crucial information. At Gore’s request, several counties in Florida were in the process of recounting ballots in which Bush’s margin had already shrunk to 367 votes in heavily Democratic districts. As the deadline to complete recounts approached, some counties requested extensions in order to complete the recounts. It appeared that the Florida Supreme Court would allow for these votes to be included. The Bush people succeeded in bypassing the Florida Supreme Court and pushing the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court stopped the recounts in a narrow 5/4 decision thereby allowing the clock to run out on the recounts. The four dissenting justices wrote scathing opinions against the majority’ decision for subverting the states judiciary and election laws. Justice Stevens’ dissent concluded: “Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.”
John,
The “law of the land” is littered with 5-4 decisions from our Supreme Court. If something is so contentious and controversial that the highest court agrees to hear it, then it’s highly unlikely they will all decide the same way.
The “Founders” realized that, and that’s why the court consists of an odd number of people. I don’t mean to sound condescending, but the fact that a court ruled 5-4 for something carries as much legal weight as a 9-0 ruling. A close decision may embolden proponents of change to push for new case law in a later session of the court, especially if members have changed, but 5-4 is still the law.
As for Justice Stevens’s dissent–with all due respect to him, he can word it as strongly as he wants, and make all the insulting remarks he wants, but it is still “dissent,” meaning he is in the minority.
And with due respect to you, citing a dissenting opinion is usually the act of a desperate lawyer who knows he has no real legal ground to stand on. ;).
The law of the land is also littered with flawed decisions. And yes, this one stands. I don’t know what lawyers cite out of desperation but I know that a flawed decision subverted the law and democracy itself in this case.
Just because you don’t agree with the opinion of the court does not mean it “subverted the law and democracy itself.”
If you are correct, then apparently all the American Bar Association “grades” given to Supreme Court nominees, the US Senate confirmation hearings, and the Senate votes that put the sitting judges on the Supreme Court . . . were for naught.
Keep your law license updated, or, if you don’t have one, try to get one ASAP, and we’ll lobby to get you nominated to the Court if a Democrat wins in 2008. I think your confirmation hearing would be lots of fun.
We will never know for sure who won that election, because the court stopped the legitimate recount process.
Ultimately, the judicial branch made a partisan decision to choose the leader of the executive branch. Talk about a lack of “separation of powers”.
Gore was a bigger person and conceded to allow the country to move on. If the court had ruled in Gore’s favor, how much longer do you think the Republicans would have dragged it out? Certainly into the next year, at the very least. They don’t care who they hurt or what they force upon the American people, as long as they “win”.
How many “legitimate” recounts do you need before you’re satisfied?
And yes, I can talk about a “separation of powers,” because that’s what we have. The court acted well within their mandate, whether you like their decision or not, and despite all the Democratic talking-point hyperbole to the contrary.
If you want to believe that Gore didn’t continue to challenge the opinion because he was a “bigger person,” then more power to you–I’m not here to attack Gore on a personal level or dispute his honor or integrity. However, I suspect the reason he didn’t pursue yet another recount beyond the Court ruleing was simply because his legal team, and others around him who deal in facts and reality, made him realize he had lost.
Democrats will have a much better chance at taking the White House when they start acting like winners, instead of whiners.
OMG is this really look scary
That’s what tsunami would look like.
yeah, Moscow is fucked up
Visitor you are so correct if gore had won his home state he would have won the election. if the setting president had delivered his home state gore would have won. did the residents of these states know something the rest of the liberal media didnt know or would not admit to
What they did not know was that Republicans in swing states like Ohio and Florida were busy disenfranchising voters in Democratic districts. And what you do not know is that the so-called liberal media is a figment of your imagination.
it looks like weather engineering to me
ever hear of weather wars,directed huricanes,directed flood rains and general mahem caused by man controlling weather
who ever did this one had big bark but no bite i guess
Ref. the USA & the elections & the future
VOTE for RON PAUL
Just a nuclear cloud. North Korea launched a nuclear test bomb in Siberia.. So, nothing special…
i took this photos last summer, but not “a few days ago”!
the original photos (14 but not 6) are here: http://users.livejournal.com/bagira_/207658.html
These photos look fantastic
photoshoppage
It’s not just my opinion, many people believe it was a bad decision. As I originally stated, G. W. Bush was not elected President of the United States. And as you have pointed out, the U.S. Supreme Court appointed George W. Bush President. By the way, who is this “we”?
Do you really believe that there is anything Bush/Cheney would not do to gain and maintain power?