What does Putin want (and whatabout it)
no - you've never pointed to a clip. Instead you tell us to watch a 2 hour movie - why not say - how about this 10 minute section? I've told you it's mainly propaganda and pointed out one clip you couldn't verify. I'm just asking if there was a particular section that stood out to you.
drummerboy said:
the gish gallop continues.
can you name one "neo-con" that is influential today?
I asked you earlier for the Dems pushing for war. Still waiting. Who are they, exactly?
And I guarantee every time you say "Russiagate hoax" a thousand eyes roll here on MOL. The amount of evidence that you ignore is just staggering.
And yeah, Putin just gets "re-elected".
Yes Russiagate is a hoax. There is no evidence. Show me the evidence. You can't.
The US media loves to say Putin's elections are a scam. They say that everytime someone they don't like gets elected. They were saying that about Maduro until recently when they needed his oil. Suddenly he was the real president of Venezuela and Juan Guido was chopped liver.
cramer said:
Do you believe that Russia poisoned the Skirpals?
No. It made no sense. I have no idea what happened there, but the Skipals are no where to be found so we can't ask them about it.
nan said:
drummerboy said:
the gish gallop continues.
can you name one "neo-con" that is influential today?
I asked you earlier for the Dems pushing for war. Still waiting. Who are they, exactly?
And I guarantee every time you say "Russiagate hoax" a thousand eyes roll here on MOL. The amount of evidence that you ignore is just staggering.
And yeah, Putin just gets "re-elected".
Yes Russiagate is a hoax. There is no evidence. Show me the evidence. You can't.
The US media loves to say Putin's elections are a scam. They say that everytime someone they don't like gets elected. They were saying that about Maduro until recently when they needed his oil. Suddenly he was the real president of Venezuela and Juan Guido was chopped liver.
I'm not doing your homework for you. The evidence abounds - but you've shown us that you're evidence resistant. (hint - you won't find it in thegrayzone)
Of course, it also has to do with what you think "Russiagate" actually is.
Putin has been running the show now for twenty+ years and has manipulated the constitution to do that. He's made himself king for life. That's ok with you?
So, you have no idea what happened there but you don't believe Russia poisoned them. Got it.
It's kind of funny - nan is convinced Hillary fixed the primaries to steal the nom from Bernie, but believes wholeheartedly in the fairness of Russian elections.
Also, Putin jails his political opponents - or don't you believe that either?
nan said:
... Your idea that someone needs to be insane to use nuclear weapons is insane. Harry Truman used them twice. Was he insane?
wow.
just. wow.
You do realize that Mutual Assured Destruction was not yet a thing when Truman dropped the bomb, right?
Being the first to use nukes now, possibly precipitating global destruction, can't be considered anything other than insane. No matter how you look at it.
But amazingly, you don't see that, and apparently think that for Putin, using nukes is just another war-fighting tactic.
Frightening.
drummerboy said:
I'm not doing your homework for you. The evidence abounds - but you've shown us that you're evidence resistant. (hint - you won't find it in thegrayzone)
Of course, it also has to do with what you think "Russiagate" actually is.
Putin has been running the show now for twenty+ years and has manipulated the constitution to do that. He's made himself king for life. That's ok with you?
I looked for the evidence and it was not there. No one could show me although they all insisted it was there. It's on you to prove me wrong. There was no connection between Trump and Russia. There was some connection between Ukraine and Hillary Clinton. But, I don't even care about that now.
Our country is friends with many dictators. They only worry about human rights when they want regime change or oil. I bet lots of people in Russia hate Putin the way I hate Joe Biden. But, neither of us wants another country to come in and place their guy in our guy's chair. Let Russia deal with Putin. We have lots of our own problems. We spend all our money trying to take over the world while claiming only Putin wants that. Meanwhile we have a crumbling infrastructure and no national healthcare. I heard they have national healthcare in Russia.
If you're continuing to argue with someone who says ...
nan said:
The US media loves to say Putin's elections are a scam. They say that everytime someone they don't like gets elected.
... you should consider that it's not the best use of your time.
drummerboy said:
wow.
just. wow.
You do realize that Mutual Assured Destruction was not yet a thing when Truman dropped the bomb, right?
Being the first to use nukes now, possibly precipitating global destruction, can't be considered anything other than insane. No matter how you look at it.
But amazingly, you don't see that, and apparently think that for Putin, using nukes is just another war-fighting tactic.
Frightening.
Well you see how our country treats others so a bunch of them got the bomb.
I don't pretend to know what goes on in Putin's mind the way so many Americans seem to do. So, in fact, he could use nukes as just another war-fighting tactic. None of us know how things will be interpreted. Why would we want to even find out if that is true? Why would we be engaging in a proxy war with him in the first place? He clearly gets pissed after awhile and reacts strongly. We are playing with fire and Ukraine may well end up not the only place on fire. This war did not have to happen and it could easily be ended.
nan said:
Where do you get your information? Check and see if they are affiliated with the Atlantic Council (PR for NATO) cause it sure sounds like it. How is he clearly and definitely seeking to restore the old USSR? The guy does not want NATO jammed up his butt. How hard is that to understand? What would you think if the guy who runs China put missiles on the US boarder in Mexico? Remember the Cuban Missile crisis? Putin has had that for years.
If we attack Russia, he's going to use nuclear weapons. I said he was not insane, but not Mr. Nice Guy. The United States has the biggest military in the world. Your idea that someone needs to be insane to use nuclear weapons is insane. Harry Truman used them twice. Was he insane?
Harry Truman used them in a situation in which the bombs themselves were much less powerful and, more importantly, the other side could not respond in kind.
But, what makes you believe that he is not trying to re-form the USSR? Everything that he's done supports that conclusion. Belarus. Abkhazia. South Ossetia. Crimea. Now, the remainder of Ukraine.
cramer said:
So, you have no idea what happened there but you don't believe Russia poisoned them. Got it.
I read a bunch about it at the time but I don't remember. I have a life although it does not look like that lately based on how much time I've been on MOL. I'm learning how to do a technical drawing of a spiral staircase and it's really hard so it's easier to just pop over here and talk about Ukraine.
drummerboy said:
It's kind of funny - nan is convinced Hillary fixed the primaries to steal the nom from Bernie, but believes wholeheartedly in the fairness of Russian elections.
Hillary did fix the primaries. She took over the whole DNC with a secret deal. They were working for her not Bernie. Wikileaks came out with a whole tranche of evidence on that. You just refuse to believe it the way you think the Nuland-Pryot phone call was just casual chit chat.
I never said I believe wholeheartedly in the fairness of Russian elections. I said our government always says anyone they don't like got elected unfairly. Neither you nor I can verify the fairness of the Russian election. I do know the US interfered in the Russian election to get Boris Yeltsen elected and the people of Russia suffered greatly. You don't think that happened either, despite Time Magazine making a cover about it.
We don't agree on much but you seem to feel that pointing that out is more important than having a real conversation about the topic which is not the 2016 election.
Nan isn't messing around in Spring Training. She's going right for the Bernie regular season swing.
nan said:
cramer said:
So, you have no idea what happened there but you don't believe Russia poisoned them. Got it.
I read a bunch about it at the time but I don't remember. I have a life although it does not look like that lately based on how much time I've been on MOL. I'm learning how to do a technical drawing of a spiral staircase and it's really hard so it's easier to just pop over here and talk about Ukraine.
Good luck with the spiral staircase.
sbenois said:
As long as a bomb isn't targeting her house, she doesn't care.
We Will All Go Together When We Go.
cramer said:
Good luck with the spiral staircase.
Is the Stairway to Heaven a spiral? I don't think they explain that in the song. But thanks!
cramer said:
Good luck with the spiral staircase.
I Left This More Today Than Yesterday
nan said:
drummerboy said:
It's kind of funny - nan is convinced Hillary fixed the primaries to steal the nom from Bernie, but believes wholeheartedly in the fairness of Russian elections.
Hillary did fix the primaries. She took over the whole DNC with a secret deal. They were working for her not Bernie. Wikileaks came out with a whole tranche of evidence on that. You just refuse to believe it the way you think the Nuland-Pryot phone call was just casual chit chat.
....
You have the most curious relationship to evidence. On the one hand, you'll except the barest of facts (e.g. the Nuland conversation) and construct a whole coup out of it. Yet faced with real incontrovertible evidence (e.g. the lack of a Russian language ban) you'll twist and turn to avoid changing your beliefs.
This makes rational discussion hard at times.
btw - thinking back to the good old days of the Hillary takeover, I asked you time and time again for examples from Wikileaks that actually proved it, and you had nothing. Nothing.
DaveSchmidt said:
I Left This More Today Than Yesterday
Good One! Now I'm dancing around the kitchen. I will never do that drawing.
drummerboy said:
You have the most curious relationship to evidence. On the one hand, you'll except the barest of facts (e.g. the Nuland conversation) and construct a whole coup out of it. Yet faced with real incontrovertible evidence (e.g. the lack of a Russian language ban) you'll twist and turn to avoid changing your beliefs.
This makes rational discussion hard at times.
btw - thinking back to the good old days of the Hillary takeover, I asked you time and time again for examples from Wikileaks that actually proved it, and you had nothing. Nothing.
Can you stop the character assassination project for one second and get back to the topic?
I gave you lots of examples but you have never had a firm grasp of the obvious, so alas, it did not penetrate.
I have been trying to read that thread that you posted by the Atlantic Council guy . . . what part of that propaganda did you consider evidence?
nan said:
drummerboy said:
You have the most curious relationship to evidence. On the one hand, you'll except the barest of facts (e.g. the Nuland conversation) and construct a whole coup out of it. Yet faced with real incontrovertible evidence (e.g. the lack of a Russian language ban) you'll twist and turn to avoid changing your beliefs.
This makes rational discussion hard at times.
btw - thinking back to the good old days of the Hillary takeover, I asked you time and time again for examples from Wikileaks that actually proved it, and you had nothing. Nothing.
Can you stop the character assassination project for one second and get back to the topic?
I gave you lots of examples but you have never had a firm grasp of the obvious, so alas, it did not penetrate.
I have been trying to read that thread that you posted by the Atlantic Council guy . . . what part of that propaganda did you consider evidence?
What's propagandist about it?
All the thread is pointing out is that Ukraine becoming independent was an issue fraught with peril back in 1990 - and had nothing to do with NATO.
And neither does the current war.
drummerboy said:
What's propagandist about it?
All the thread is pointing out is that Ukraine becoming independent was an issue fraught with peril back in 1990 - and had nothing to do with NATO.
And neither does the current war.
Right says the guy who works for NATO. That's obvious propaganda. But you don't have a grasp of the obvious.
nan said:
jamie said:
I did watch Ukraine on Fire and skimmed through the last one - and even cited an example (which you haven't replied to). I feel the whole thing is propaganda - so I'm asking you which particular piece would you want to people to see?
It truly is pure Russian propaganda and it's remarkable that you're embracing it so much - weird. Fortunately, it doesn't appear that many other people are.
And when Putin does have a public video clip in the movie - it's him walking through huge golden doors. Ugh! At least it's not western propaganda - right!!
If you watched it than you can critique it. You hate Putin so much that anything about him that is not 100% negative reads as propaganda to you. That's because you are used to US media where everything said about him is 100% negative. It's all black and white. This makes it impossible for you to see the larger picture. You can't accept that your country had anything to do with this war, never mind funded Nazis groups to help them overthrow the government of Ukraine, making it a client state and waging proxy war with Russia. You can't see that the Ukrainians have been murdering their own people for eight years in an ethnic cleansing campaign using US weapons.
But that's what happened. Those movies are not going to win Oscars but they have the facts on that straight.
You tell us to watch a movie - I watch it. I say it's propaganda and you say I hate Putin (with what he's doing now - i do sorta hate him)
I asked to name a segment that you liked and may want to discuss further. And you don't seem to want to talk about the movie now. I have no time to critique every single scene, but if there's one you would like me to critique - let me know. Otherwise - what's the sense of telling us to watch something?
nan said:
drummerboy said:
What's propagandist about it?
All the thread is pointing out is that Ukraine becoming independent was an issue fraught with peril back in 1990 - and had nothing to do with NATO.
And neither does the current war.
Right says the guy who works for NATO. That's obvious propaganda. But you don't have a grasp of the obvious.
It's only propaganda if you can show that NATO was an issue with Ukraine in 1990.
As for not seeing the obvious, you're one to talk. It's obvious that using nukes in a conflict like this is batsh!t insane. But you know, Truman.
lol
I should have known. It seems that Bill Gates bears his share of responsibility for the war in Ukraine.
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/michael-flynn-says-putin-ukraine-125916566.html
For Sale
Garage Sales
-
House Contents Sale Sale Date: May 18, 2024
More info
Free Items
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Advertisement
Your request makes no sense but gives me lots of work to do which you will then just say is propaganda. I've been down this road too many times with you. If I need to make a point using the movie I will. You can watch the movie or don't watch the movie. I don't care. You have already made up your mind about this. I'm just glad that you don't support a No Fly Zone. Right????