nan said:

tjohn said:

As a consequence of the Maidan protests and attendant violence , an agreement was signed on 21 February 2014 by Yanukovych and leaders of the parliamentary opposition that called for the creation of an interim unity government, constitutional reforms and early elections. Shortly after the agreement, Yanukovych and other government ministers fled the country. Parliament then removed Yanukovych from office and installed an interim government. The Revolution of Dignity was soon followed by the Russian annexation of Crimea and pro-Russian unrest in Eastern Ukraine.

It was not a coup.

How does this make it not a coup?  There is nothing in what you wrote that makes it not a coup. 

do you know what the word even means?

I think we need to nail that down before we can discuss it further, because I'm pretty sure you and paul share a definition that is peculiar to your world view.

(of course, I've asked this question many times and have yet to get an answer.)

drummerboy said:

the Cookie Coup!

That's actually somewhat serious.  You have the US personal who were meeting regularly with the president and then going out on the streets supporting his overthrow.   

Let's not forget John McCain hanging out on stage with Oleh Tyahnybok, the Nazi guy mentioned in that phone call that was not publicly acceptable to be Prime Minister but was going to be on the weekly phone call. 

nan said:

tjohn said:

My sister-in-law's son's wife's sister's brother-in-law works for EMC (well, Dell now) and some people in his company are from Ukraine and he says that the Maidan revolt had a great deal of popular support.

My sister works for EMC (now Dell) and she knows there are some Russians that work in her company but not any Ukrainians.  Not saying they don't work there, just that my sister does not know them.  

Anyway, your antidote is not scientific.  The poll I posted did show support but it was not overwhelming. 

This is where I point out that you ignored what was already shown you, about that poll not showing what you claim.

nohero said:

You posted an article about a December 2013 poll. At that time there were protests in Kyiv against the President (and apparently diverse views about the protests). The "coup" (as you call it) was months later. 

nohero said:

nan said:

tjohn said:

My sister-in-law's son's wife's sister's brother-in-law works for EMC (well, Dell now) and some people in his company are from Ukraine and he says that the Maidan revolt had a great deal of popular support.

My sister works for EMC (now Dell) and she knows there are some Russians that work in her company but not any Ukrainians.  Not saying they don't work there, just that my sister does not know them.  

Anyway, your antidote is not scientific.  The poll I posted did show support but it was not overwhelming. 

This is where I point out that you ignored what was already shown you, about that poll not showing what you claim.

nohero said:

You posted an article about a December 2013 poll. At that time there were protests in Kyiv against the President (and apparently diverse views about the protests). The "coup" (as you call it) was months later. 

The coup did not happen overnight.  It takes time to organize and train protesters and figure out a plan for the Nazis to shoot people.  That's how they make it look organic.  Also, yes there are some people, as in every regime (and Ukraine was known to be a corrupt country) who will protest on their own (or with just a small amount of help).  

Another thing that you don't want to face:  All those innocent people who died protesting were killed by Nazis hired by the US.  Coups often feature death squads.  

nan said:

Also, yes there are some people, as in every regime (and Ukraine was known to be a corrupt country) who will protest on their own (or with just a small amount of help). 

Estimates of 400-800,000 people in Kyiv, 50,000 in Lviv, 30,00 in Kharkiv, over 100,000 throughout other cities and towns. "Some people" I guess.

(source)

PVW said:

Estimates of 400-800,000 people in Kyiv, 50,000 in Lviv, 30,00 in Kharkiv, over 100,000 throughout other cities and towns. "Some people" I guess.

(source)

You don't know how those people thought and what influenced them.  Several TV/media stations were created for the sole purpose of propaganda.   It is hard to separate people from their Manufactured Conclusions.  

Happens on MOL too.  

I guess you have to respect what people say they think, but the fact that there was very controlled media makes you wonder.  Also, they may have been critical of their government (which was in fact corrupt--as all governments in Ukraine had been), but not wanted the President removed.  Elections were a short time away and he had agreed to have them even sooner.  Also, and I don't know where I saw this, I read that the President had surprisingly high popularity poll numbers.  This was Ukraine and I think they realistically knew it was not like they were going to get someone who was not corrupt. 

The guy seems to have cared enough about the people to be shopping for the best deal for them (so he was not all bad).  He was reluctant to sign with the EU because it would have meant austerity (cut pensions, higher prices, etc).  The propaganda they were being fed  about the joy of being in the EU did not mention that (just like Sweden/Finland thinking joining NATO will be grand).  Russia was offering a somewhat better deal with less austerity.  Probably had he been able to sign with Russia and continue things might have been OK.   

Instead, the US swooped in and replaced him and got the EU deal signed and great austerity ensued.  In the end we can see that the US puppet replacement president was much worse.  Puppet presidents are rarely any good.

Anyway, the people of Ukraine have a history of being used and trampled over and the 2014 US backed coup set them on a sad path to the destruction we see today.  Of course the US media works hard to cover over that event because it interrupts their childish narrative about crazy Putin that, for some reason,seems to be believed by many educated, intelligent adults. 

See -- unfalsifiable.

nan said:

PVW said:

Estimates of 400-800,000 people in Kyiv, 50,000 in Lviv, 30,00 in Kharkiv, over 100,000 throughout other cities and towns. "Some people" I guess.

(source)

 It is hard to separate people from their Manufactured Conclusions.  

Happens on MOL too.  

It sure does.  How is your mirror working?

nan said:

You don't know how those people thought and what influenced them.  S 

Yet somehow you do.

I'll give you a little help, Nan, should you want to try for a more convincing reply to me. Let's imagine that in 2013, Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych abruptly decided not to sign a long-negotiated trade agreement and instead decided to sign an agreement having Ukraine seek closer ties with the Russian-dominated Eurasian Economic Union, and that the people of Ukraine took to the streets to protest this.

How would we be able to tell this scenario from the one you are alleging, that actually the US used propaganda and various other tricks to create a fake uprising?

If you can answer this, pointing to the signs that would mark a genuine uprising and their absence in the actual events in Ukraine, you'll be making a much more convincing argument. If you can't - if there's no way to tell the difference, then your argument just comes down to "because I believe it to be so."

sbenois said:

It sure does.  How is your mirror working?

Your media brainwashed you into believing that the Russians helped get Donald Trump elected and were controlling him.  Meanwhile the whole scam was made up by the Democrats who declared this was a national crisis above all others - for years.  

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.  There is also the part where you have been convinced to cheer on World War III and the surveillance state.  Also, if there is a hell you are going there because of what you have said about Julian Assange, a person who actually told us the truth about what our government does.  The media told you to hate him and you blindly did what you were told. 

Bottom line:  I'm not the one with the problem. 

Nan

The guy seems to have cared enough about the people to be shopping for the best deal for them (so he was not all bad).  He was reluctant to sign with the EU because it would have meant austerity (cut pensions, higher prices, etc).  

I’d like to address this point. ETA, which PVW also addressed, so…

IIRC, the big dealbreaker about the EU giving Ukraine a special trade status (the Association Agreement) with the end goal of joining the EU was that Yulia Tymoshenko was in prison, and the EU was adamant about making her release a condition of signing the agreement that had been drawn up. This continued even after Tymoshenko herself asked the EU not to use her imprisonment as a bargaining chip, which sounds like the EU wasn’t that desperate for Ukraine to join anyway.

Yanukovich at first was very much pro-EU, and the terms he laid out was that the EU would need to compensate them for all the money they would lose if Russia imposed heavy tariffs on Ukraine trade in the east, until the amount of money they gained from trading with the EU matched what they had lost from Russia. 

Then the Yanukovich-led Ukrainian government turned around and decided to push for a 3-way trade deal that allowed Ukraine to trade with both the EU and Russia instead of pursuing the AA with the EU, and that day was 11/21/13, generally considered the first day of the Euromaidan protests. Now this happened a week before Ukraine was expected to sign the AA in Vilnius, and up to that point everyone thought Ukraine was going to sign it. Every news outlet at the time called it a dramatic turnaround. 

Now I’m not going to speculate too much on the kinds of pressures the Russians (and whenever I say “the Russians” in politics I always means its government, not its people) put on Yanukovich (no one is “all bad”), but I do want to mention that austerity, cut pensions, higher prices, etc., were never mentioned by Yanukovich at the time as reasons for dropping his EU dreams going with the Russians at this time.      

The disagreement here is - do the Ukrainian people have agency and aspirations, or is the U.S. a "puppet master" diverting them from their proper destiny as vassals of Russia.

In order to believe the latter, then you have to deny the agency and aspirations of East Germans, Poles, Czechs, Hungarians, and other Eastern Europeans (all of whom pulled at and eventually broke the chains that bound them to Moscow). I'm not so "U.S,-centric" as to believe that these weren't genuine public movements in all of these countries.

I guess these were really munitions factories and warehouses, not residences. Either that or there will be some Putinphile's pablum about the apartments being vacant.

Russian missile strikes kill 18 in Ukraine's Odesa region - authorities | Reuters

nohero said:

I guess these were really munitions factories and warehouses, not residences. Either that or there will be some Putinphile's pablum about the apartments being vacant.

Russian missile strikes kill 18 in Ukraine's Odesa region - authorities | Reuters

Yay for the Putin-Suirovell-Mate-Zaz-Mate-Dore-TooLateTuilsi-Greenwald-Blumenthal Vicious Warmonger Alliance. More innocent civilians murdered.

And Nan thinks I am the one going to hell.   

There’s one common issue I have noticed over the years, and that is  most people want a peaceful existence. This image of Russia being the only true savior of the world, because America is the great satan, is somewhat false. 
I lived in the Caribbean and South America in the 1980’s, a friend of mine was killed in Grenada when the communists overthrew Maurice Bishop. That was a coup, he was killed when the soldiers involved in the coup, bombed the parliament building, as he was working for the government. He was Grenadian. Bishop, also a socialist, with a close relationship with Castro, was deemed not radical enough. About 60 Cuban military died when American forces invaded to free Grenada, after the Governor General begged Reagan to intervene. 
It was a time when the Russian government was trying to set up satellite bases in Latin America and the Caribbean. Using Cuba as their proxy, for decades, they finally managed to take control of Venezuela. After trying with Colombia, Panama, El Salvador, etc, they found a welcome host in the Venezuelan poor. The marginalized poor living in the “barrios” that covers the hills, were so fed up with the corrupt two party system that they voted for the alternative… Hugo Chavez. Today the majority of Venezuelans regret that they saw Chavez as the savior. The Cubans now control Venezuela. Maduro is a puppet. And his government is run by drug cartels. Bolivia was next, coca is the biggest agricultural product so it makes sense to have Bolivia controlled by a Marxist also. The one thing that disrupted the cartels was the American intervention in Colombia. The cartels were  killing Colombian judges every week, and they were gaining control of the country. Americans were invited in to secure their democracy also. 
All the drugs coming to America and Europe are in the control of the Cuban, Bolivian and Venezuelan dictators. I know it’s difficult for some of you leftists to believe but Russia is one dirty player in the drug trade. They just use their pawns to do the dirty work, so they can look like the saviors of the world from American greed. 
There’s lots more going on. Pay attention.

Moving to this thread. Nan asked what I thought of this.

nan said:

I read this at lunch today and my jaw dropped. The guy who wrote this is more mainstream than my usual go-tos, and he helped exploit Russia in the 1990s. So, he's a big capitalist, but not a neocon. Previously, he has said some critical things about the war, but this puts the blame front and center.

Sach's piece, a condemnation of the neocons behind this war, warns of big disaster for anyone who continues down this path.

Ukraine Is the Latest Neocon Disaster

The main message of the neocons is that the US must predominate in military power in every region of the world, and must confront rising regional powers that could someday challenge US global or regional dominance, most important Russia and China.

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2022/06/28/ukraine-latest-neocon-disaster

Packing for some July 4th travel, so probably won't get to it any time soon (and posting in general likely to be light for the next week). If she's still interested in my thoughts when I get back, I'll read it and reply. In the meantime, she might consider my earlier advice as to what would make a stronger argument -- eg paying more attention to the actual Ukrainians and their actions instead of acting as if only the US is real and the rest of the world some sort of simulation.

ridski said:

Nan

The guy seems to have cared enough about the people to be shopping for the best deal for them (so he was not all bad).  He was reluctant to sign with the EU because it would have meant austerity (cut pensions, higher prices, etc).  

I’d like to address this point. ETA, which PVW also addressed, so…

IIRC, the big dealbreaker about the EU giving Ukraine a special trade status (the Association Agreement) with the end goal of joining the EU was that Yulia Tymoshenko was in prison, and the EU was adamant about making her release a condition of signing the agreement that had been drawn up. This continued even after Tymoshenko herself asked the EU not to use her imprisonment as a bargaining chip, which sounds like the EU wasn’t that desperate for Ukraine to join anyway.

Yanukovich at first was very much pro-EU, and the terms he laid out was that the EU would need to compensate them for all the money they would lose if Russia imposed heavy tariffs on Ukraine trade in the east, until the amount of money they gained from trading with the EU matched what they had lost from Russia. 

Then the Yanukovich-led Ukrainian government turned around and decided to push for a 3-way trade deal that allowed Ukraine to trade with both the EU and Russia instead of pursuing the AA with the EU, and that day was 11/21/13, generally considered the first day of the Euromaidan protests. Now this happened a week before Ukraine was expected to sign the AA in Vilnius, and up to that point everyone thought Ukraine was going to sign it. Every news outlet at the time called it a dramatic turnaround. 

Now I’m not going to speculate too much on the kinds of pressures the Russians (and whenever I say “the Russians” in politics I always means its government, not its people) put on Yanukovich (no one is “all bad”), but I do want to mention that austerity, cut pensions, higher prices, etc., were never mentioned by Yanukovich at the time as reasons for dropping his EU dreams going with the Russians at this time.      

Robert Parry, a journalist covering Ukraine in 2014 said the IMF attached austerity demands to the plans:

Yet, the once-acknowledged though soon forgotten reality was that the crisis was provoked last year by the European Union proposing an association agreement with Ukraine while U.S. neocons and other hawkish politicos and pundits envisioned using the Ukraine gambit as a way to undermine Putin inside Russia.

The plan was even announced by U.S. neocons such as National Endowment for Democracy President Carl Gershman who took to the op-ed page of the Washington Post nearly a year ago to call Ukraine “the biggest prize” and an important interim step toward eventually toppling Putin in Russia.

Gershman, whose NED is funded by the U.S. Congress, wrote: “Ukraine’s choice to join Europe will accelerate the demise of the ideology of Russian imperialism that Putin represents. Russians, too, face a choice, and Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself.”

In other words, from the start, Putin was the target of the Ukraine initiative, not the instigator. But even if you choose to ignore Gershman’s clear intent, you would have to concoct a bizarre conspiracy theory to support the conventional wisdom about Putin’s grand plan.

To believe that Putin was indeed the mastermind of the crisis, you would have to think that he somehow arranged to have the EU offer the association agreement last year, then got the International Monetary Fund to attach such draconian “reforms” that Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych backed away from the deal.

from:

Who’s Telling the ‘Big Lie’ on Ukraine?

September 2, 2014

https://consortiumnews.com/2014/09/02/whos-telling-the-big-lie-on-ukraine/

You definitely read Gershman's op-ed Parry quotes there, didn't you? Because Parry seems to read the op-ed backwards. The op-ed is about Russia and former Soviet states. The crux of the op-ed is this:

"Russia has used economic and security threats to draw post-communist countries into its Eurasian Customs Union and to block the European Union’s Eastern Partnership initiative, which seeks the reform and possible eventual integration of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine into E.U. structures."

He goes to talk about Russian attempts to bring in Armenia (it worked), Moldova (didn't work), and Georgia (might happen). Then Gershman writes this: "Ukraine is the biggest prize, and there Russia’s bullying has been particularly counter-productive." Gershman is not saying that Putin is the target of an initiative, he is literally saying that Russia is the instigator. Ukraine is the biggest prize for Russia.

In the next quote from Gershman that Parry adds, he misses out the beginning of the paragraph that starts like this: 

"Russian democracy also can benefit from this process. Ukraine’s choice to join Europe will accelerate the demise of the ideology of Russian imperialism that Putin represents. There are signs of the emergence of a new Russian nationalism: the strong performance by opposition leader Alexei Navalny in Moscow’s recent mayoral election and polls that show greater opposition to Putin in the Russian provinces, his traditional support base. This nationalism is concerned not with the restoration of Russia’s imperial greatness, which would be inconceivable if Ukraine joined Europe, but with fighting corruption and addressing the severe economic and social problems of the Russian people.

Russians, too, face a choice, and Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself."

Emphasis mine.

In case you're wondering why I decided to read the original op-ed instead of Parry's interpretation of it so I can see for myself what it actually says, see some of my earlier posts about second- and third-sourcing. Also see the obvious tell-tale phrase "In other words" which often means someone is about to tell you what they think someone actually said, instead of just leaving the quote to do the work.

ridski said:

You definitely read Gershman's op-ed Parry quotes there, didn't you? Because Parry seems to read the op-ed backwards. The op-ed is about Russia and former Soviet states. The crux of the op-ed is this:

"Russia has used economic and security threats to draw post-communist countries into its Eurasian Customs Union and to block the European Union’s Eastern Partnership initiative, which seeks the reform and possible eventual integration of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine into E.U. structures."

He goes to talk about Russian attempts to bring in Armenia (it worked), Moldova (didn't work), and Georgia (might happen). Then Gershman writes this: "Ukraine is the biggest prize, and there Russia’s bullying has been particularly counter-productive." Gershman is not saying that Putin is the target of an initiative, he is literally saying that Russia is the instigator. Ukraine is the biggest prize for Russia.

In the next quote from Gershman that Parry adds, he misses out the beginning of the paragraph that starts like this: 

"Russian democracy also can benefit from this process. Ukraine’s choice to join Europe will accelerate the demise of the ideology of Russian imperialism that Putin represents. There are signs of the emergence of a new Russian nationalism: the strong performance by opposition leader Alexei Navalny in Moscow’s recent mayoral election and polls that show greater opposition to Putin in the Russian provinces, his traditional support base. This nationalism is concerned not with the restoration of Russia’s imperial greatness, which would be inconceivable if Ukraine joined Europe, but with fighting corruption and addressing the severe economic and social problems of the Russian people.

Russians, too, face a choice, and Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself."

Emphasis mine.

In case you're wondering why I decided to read the original op-ed instead of Parry's interpretation of it so I can see for myself what it actually says, see some of my earlier posts about second- and third-sourcing. Also see the obvious tell-tale phrase "In other words" which often means someone is about to tell you what they think someone actually said, instead of just leaving the quote to do the work.

I don't know why you are changing the topic. 

We were talking about austerity related to the EU deal; I used that quote to show it was the IMF who attached the auterity to the EU deal.  Yanukovich did not want the Ukrainians to suffer that and in the end they did when he was disposed. 

PVW said:

Packing for some July 4th travel, so probably won't get to it any time soon (and posting in general likely to be light for the next week). If she's still interested in my thoughts when I get back, I'll read it and reply. In the meantime, she might consider my earlier advice as to what would make a stronger argument -- eg paying more attention to the actual Ukrainians and their actions instead of acting as if only the US is real and the rest of the world some sort of simulation.

Have a nice vacation.  Read the article because it sums up my views on this conflict and is more important than identifying what individual Ukrainians want.  

Jaytee said:

There’s one common issue I have noticed over the years, and that is  most people want a peaceful existence. This image of Russia being the only true savior of the world, because America is the great satan, is somewhat false. 
I lived in the Caribbean and South America in the 1980’s, a friend of mine was killed in Grenada when the communists overthrew Maurice Bishop. That was a coup, he was killed when the soldiers involved in the coup, bombed the parliament building, as he was working for the government. He was Grenadian. Bishop, also a socialist, with a close relationship with Castro, was deemed not radical enough. About 60 Cuban military died when American forces invaded to free Grenada, after the Governor General begged Reagan to intervene. 
It was a time when the Russian government was trying to set up satellite bases in Latin America and the Caribbean. Using Cuba as their proxy, for decades, they finally managed to take control of Venezuela. After trying with Colombia, Panama, El Salvador, etc, they found a welcome host in the Venezuelan poor. The marginalized poor living in the “barrios” that covers the hills, were so fed up with the corrupt two party system that they voted for the alternative… Hugo Chavez. Today the majority of Venezuelans regret that they saw Chavez as the savior. The Cubans now control Venezuela. Maduro is a puppet. And his government is run by drug cartels. Bolivia was next, coca is the biggest agricultural product so it makes sense to have Bolivia controlled by a Marxist also. The one thing that disrupted the cartels was the American intervention in Colombia. The cartels were  killing Colombian judges every week, and they were gaining control of the country. Americans were invited in to secure their democracy also. 
All the drugs coming to America and Europe are in the control of the Cuban, Bolivian and Venezuelan dictators. I know it’s difficult for some of you leftists to believe but Russia is one dirty player in the drug trade. They just use their pawns to do the dirty work, so they can look like the saviors of the world from American greed. 
There’s lots more going on. Pay attention.

No one said Russia is a "true savior."  The arguments about US imperialism and Empire exist with or without Russia, but Russia is used to justify US hegemony.  Extreme cartoon representations of Russia/China are used to influence public support for regime change in these countries. 

Those of us who defend Russia, do not do so because we think it is so wonderful over there or that Putin is a nice guy, but just to take down the false portrayal to normal levels.   Due to propaganda, many people cannot handle hearing anything positive about Russia and regularly compare Putin to Hitler, and can't see that this invasion has two sides to the story.  It's not just crazy Vlad waking up to no coffee and deciding to drink Ukrainian blood instead.

Anyway, the rest of your post is interesting and, no surprise, I disagree but I do agree that there is lots more going on and people should pay attention. 

nan said:

PVW said:

Packing for some July 4th travel, so probably won't get to it any time soon (and posting in general likely to be light for the next week). If she's still interested in my thoughts when I get back, I'll read it and reply. In the meantime, she might consider my earlier advice as to what would make a stronger argument -- eg paying more attention to the actual Ukrainians and their actions instead of acting as if only the US is real and the rest of the world some sort of simulation.

Have a nice vacation.  Read the article because it sums up my views on this conflict and is more important than identifying what individual Ukrainians want.  

So "your views" are more important than the Ukrainians????? Why am I not surprised by this?

Dennis_Seelbach said:

So "your views" are more important than the Ukrainians????? Why am I not surprised by this?

It's not "my" views.  It's the perspective expressed in this article:  https://www.commondreams.org/views/2022/06/28/ukraine-latest-neocon-disaster

Check it out. 

nan said:

It's not "my" views.  It's the perspective expressed in this article:  https://www.commondreams.org/views/2022/06/28/ukraine-latest-neocon-disaster

Check it out. 

Quote..."Read the article. because it sums up my views on this conflict and is more important than identifying what individual Ukrainians want." Want to try again, without egregious prevarication?

Dennis_Seelbach said:

nan said:

It's not "my" views.  It's the perspective expressed in this article:  https://www.commondreams.org/views/2022/06/28/ukraine-latest-neocon-disaster

Check it out. 

Quote..."Read the article. because it sums up my views on this conflict and is more important than identifying what individual Ukrainians want." Want to try again, without egregious prevarication?

to be fair, she's probably referring to the article contents when she says "is more important ..." , not her own views, which happen to align with the contents.

drummerboy said:

to be fair, she's probably referring to the article contents when she says "is more important ..." , not her own views, which happen to align with the contents.

Quote: "it sums up my views" seems pretty darn clear. No fairness earned. She is a stone liar.

Dennis_Seelbach said:

drummerboy said:

to be fair, she's probably referring to the article contents when she says "is more important ..." , not her own views, which happen to align with the contents.

Quote: "it sums up my views" seems pretty darn clear. No fairness earned. She is a stone liar.

Just read the article.   I don't know what Ukrainians want, but I see them getting slaughtered by the hundreds daily and this all could have been avoided.  It's a proxy war so the Ukrainians are just cannon fodder. 

And if you want to call me a liar you had better back that up with specific examples or you will be revealed as the liar  

drummerboy said:

Dennis_Seelbach said:

nan said:

It's not "my" views.  It's the perspective expressed in this article:  https://www.commondreams.org/views/2022/06/28/ukraine-latest-neocon-disaster

Check it out. 

Quote..."Read the article. because it sums up my views on this conflict and is more important than identifying what individual Ukrainians want." Want to try again, without egregious prevarication?

to be fair, she's probably referring to the article contents when she says "is more important ..." , not her own views, which happen to align with the contents.

Yes, I think so.  You are all reading too much into what I wrote.  I just wanted people to read the article and respond.  So far all I'm getting is flack so maybe it's a tough one to process. 

Dennis_Seelbach said:

drummerboy said:

to be fair, she's probably referring to the article contents when she says "is more important ..." , not her own views, which happen to align with the contents.

Quote: "it sums up my views" seems pretty darn clear. No fairness earned. She is a stone liar.

Potty Mouth.