@ABooksNightmare Right back to the conspiracy mod stuff again, its ok you have been playing that card for so many years it is old hat. Here is what I said- If a member is breaking the rule then report it. I am not required to answer a loaded question, especially by you. I did answer it though but you did not like the answer. My response was that this part of the forum we are not as hard lined as in other areas, similar to the penalty box so there is your answer. I also said there is perspective we consider, history, interaction, we usually look at what is going on and not just the use of a word on its own...so if someone on either side sends in a report it is usually examined in FULL context looking at all aspects of the conversation and the people involved and then decide. I asked if you wanted the OT rules approach because if you do then the same goes for you, that would be the CORRECT way to enforce the rules per your complaint right? Do you think if I had an agenda against you and I was even remotely what you are calling me that you would still be posting here? LOL you do not even think of a message when you write it, if I was at all as you always whine about you would have been gone so many years ago and yet here you are...and its all a conspiracy isnt it?
One party wants Putin to succeed
@ABooksNightmare Right back to the conspiracy mod stuff again, its ok you have been playing that card for so many years it is old hat. Here is what I said- If a member is breaking the rule then report it. I am not required to answer a loaded question, especially by you. I did answer it though but you did not like the answer. My response was that this part of the forum we are not as hard lined as in other areas, similar to the penalty box so there is your answer. I also said there is perspective we consider, history, interaction, we usually look at what is going on and not just the use of a word on its own...so if someone on either side sends in a report it is usually examined in FULL context looking at all aspects of the conversation and the people involved and then decide. I asked if you wanted the OT rules approach because if you do then the same goes for you, that would be the CORRECT way to enforce the rules per your complaint right? Do you think if I had an agenda against you and I was even remotely what you are calling me that you would still be posting here? LOL you do not even think of a message when you write it, if I was at all as you always whine about you would have been gone so many years ago and yet here you are...and its all a conspiracy isnt it?
@ABooksNightmare Right back to the conspiracy mod stuff again, its ok you have been playing that card for so many years it is old hat. Here is what I said- If a member is breaking the rule then report it. I am not required to answer a loaded question, especially by you. I did answer it though but you did not like the answer. My response was that this part of the forum we are not as hard lined as in other areas, similar to the penalty box so there is your answer. I also said there is perspective we consider, history, interaction, we usually look at what is going on and not just the use of a word on its own...so if someone on either side sends in a report it is usually examined in FULL context looking at all aspects of the conversation and the people involved and then decide. I asked if you wanted the OT rules approach because if you do then the same goes for you, that would be the CORRECT way to enforce the rules per your complaint right? Do you think if I had an agenda against you and I was even remotely what you are calling me that you would still be posting here? LOL you do not even think of a message when you write it, if I was at all as you always whine about you would have been gone so many years ago and yet here you are...and its all a conspiracy isnt it?
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: Quote Originally Posted by MrWhatsItToYa: @Raiders22 Oh you have "found it easier to focus folks on 1 or 2 topics at a time",as you bring up 1.terrorists bombing someplace 2.taking helicopter flights over hurricane areas 3.high definition video 4.Biden doesn't do it every time 5.if trump held a press conference every other day it still wouldn't be enough Then you say "So why does anyone have to say it over and over",but you haven't even said it ONCE.I'm not saying someone has to say it over and over.Saying it once would do,but I know I have to start another thread for you to be able to comment on that,right? Yessir. Those are NOT topics to discuss. They are topics for a comparison/contrast of the one he was discussing and you got in on. There are many examples of something that is almost unanimously agreed on that no one HAS to always say they agree on. For example, the ones listed AND that Putin is bad. So to make it a gotcha moment and say, βAha, you forgot to condemn Putin as a preface β before saying you do NOT want to send more funding to Ukraineβ β is sloppy thinking is all. Two separate topics.Ok,when you start running the political forum,I'll start trying to abide by the rules you think your entitled to set.Until then I'll post whatever I think is relevant to the conversation,capiche?
Keep this up MrWhatsItToYa...
You're about to win the trifecta on grammatical errors. ![]()
If you want any of us to take you seriously (and yet you're a TDS sufferer), you need to step up your game,,,,... as Trump would say,... "" Bigly" . ![]()
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: Quote Originally Posted by MrWhatsItToYa: @Raiders22 Oh you have "found it easier to focus folks on 1 or 2 topics at a time",as you bring up 1.terrorists bombing someplace 2.taking helicopter flights over hurricane areas 3.high definition video 4.Biden doesn't do it every time 5.if trump held a press conference every other day it still wouldn't be enough Then you say "So why does anyone have to say it over and over",but you haven't even said it ONCE.I'm not saying someone has to say it over and over.Saying it once would do,but I know I have to start another thread for you to be able to comment on that,right? Yessir. Those are NOT topics to discuss. They are topics for a comparison/contrast of the one he was discussing and you got in on. There are many examples of something that is almost unanimously agreed on that no one HAS to always say they agree on. For example, the ones listed AND that Putin is bad. So to make it a gotcha moment and say, βAha, you forgot to condemn Putin as a preface β before saying you do NOT want to send more funding to Ukraineβ β is sloppy thinking is all. Two separate topics.Ok,when you start running the political forum,I'll start trying to abide by the rules you think your entitled to set.Until then I'll post whatever I think is relevant to the conversation,capiche?
Keep this up MrWhatsItToYa...
You're about to win the trifecta on grammatical errors. ![]()
If you want any of us to take you seriously (and yet you're a TDS sufferer), you need to step up your game,,,,... as Trump would say,... "" Bigly" . ![]()
Joe Biden was never a good guy. He has always been a pretentious, arrogant, racist, non-benevolent, non-empathetic, overtly corrupt ass. #50years
@JohnWayneGracy aka Fubah2
Should we play the video of "Joe " giving Eulogy of KKK recruiter Robert Byrd ? ###KKKGrandWizzard ![]()
Should we play the videos of Biden calling Black Americans "Superpredators' ? ![]()
"you aint black if you dont vote for me " ??
Joe Biden was never a good guy. He has always been a pretentious, arrogant, racist, non-benevolent, non-empathetic, overtly corrupt ass. #50years
@JohnWayneGracy aka Fubah2
Should we play the video of "Joe " giving Eulogy of KKK recruiter Robert Byrd ? ###KKKGrandWizzard ![]()
Should we play the videos of Biden calling Black Americans "Superpredators' ? ![]()
"you aint black if you dont vote for me " ??
@MrWhatsItToYa Who did you list or say? I really missed that?
@MrWhatsItToYa Who did you list or say? I really missed that?
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: @MrWhatsItToYa Who did you list or say? I really missed that?You asking me who I listed regarding your question about "Name who is giving Putin a pass on killing political opponents"?You really don't remember who I said must be ok with it,cause they haven't stated they were against it?Umm that would be you,that's what this whole discussion has been about.You really weren't kidding when you said "I really missed that".I don't know how,but you certainly did miss something.
Yeah. I addressed that already.
I thought you listed someone in politics or pundits β that donβt support the funding and are pro-Putin.
Neither of you could list them β because there are no folks like that.
So, it is a terrible way to have a discussion by simply bashing politicians that do not agree with your thinking by accusing them of something they obviously are not. ![]()
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: @MrWhatsItToYa Who did you list or say? I really missed that?You asking me who I listed regarding your question about "Name who is giving Putin a pass on killing political opponents"?You really don't remember who I said must be ok with it,cause they haven't stated they were against it?Umm that would be you,that's what this whole discussion has been about.You really weren't kidding when you said "I really missed that".I don't know how,but you certainly did miss something.
Yeah. I addressed that already.
I thought you listed someone in politics or pundits β that donβt support the funding and are pro-Putin.
Neither of you could list them β because there are no folks like that.
So, it is a terrible way to have a discussion by simply bashing politicians that do not agree with your thinking by accusing them of something they obviously are not. ![]()
@MrWhatsItToYa They donβt have to βget back to the starting topicβ β they can START with the starting topic.
@MrWhatsItToYa They donβt have to βget back to the starting topicβ β they can START with the starting topic.
Quote Originally Posted by MrWhatsItToYa: Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: @MrWhatsItToYa Who did you list or say? I really missed that?You asking me who I listed regarding your question about "Name who is giving Putin a pass on killing political opponents"?You really don't remember who I said must be ok with it,cause they haven't stated they were against it?Umm that would be you,that's what this whole discussion has been about.You really weren't kidding when you said "I really missed that".I don't know how,but you certainly did miss something. Yeah. I addressed that already. I thought you listed someone in politics or pundits β that donβt support the funding and are pro-Putin. Neither of you could list them β because there are no folks like that. So, it is a terrible way to have a discussion by simply bashing politicians that do not agree with your thinking by accusing them of something they obviously are not.
Then you say "So,it is a terrible way to have a discussion by simple bashing politicians that do not agree with your thinking by accusing them of something they obviously are not".It's also a terrible way to have a discussion by simply lying about what somebody has said.So let me say this again and hopefully it sinks into your skull "I never fuckin mentioned a politician".So how can I bash a politician,when I've never even mentioned a politician in this thread,I mentioned YOU.
Quote Originally Posted by MrWhatsItToYa: Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: @MrWhatsItToYa Who did you list or say? I really missed that?You asking me who I listed regarding your question about "Name who is giving Putin a pass on killing political opponents"?You really don't remember who I said must be ok with it,cause they haven't stated they were against it?Umm that would be you,that's what this whole discussion has been about.You really weren't kidding when you said "I really missed that".I don't know how,but you certainly did miss something. Yeah. I addressed that already. I thought you listed someone in politics or pundits β that donβt support the funding and are pro-Putin. Neither of you could list them β because there are no folks like that. So, it is a terrible way to have a discussion by simply bashing politicians that do not agree with your thinking by accusing them of something they obviously are not.
Then you say "So,it is a terrible way to have a discussion by simple bashing politicians that do not agree with your thinking by accusing them of something they obviously are not".It's also a terrible way to have a discussion by simply lying about what somebody has said.So let me say this again and hopefully it sinks into your skull "I never fuckin mentioned a politician".So how can I bash a politician,when I've never even mentioned a politician in this thread,I mentioned YOU.
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: @MrWhatsItToYa They donβt have to βget back to the starting topicβ β they can START with the starting topic.Umm,again you are the one that mentioned in your post #120 about "Just weird when folks never get back to the starting topic".That's the first time starting topic was brought up.You are complaining about people never getting back to the starting topic,then you say they don't have to get back to the starting topic,they could start with the starting topic.But you are the one who brought up to "Name who is giving Putin a pass on killing political opponents",at that point that is the topic I posted about.So if I got this straight,you posted something that wasn't really about the starting topic.I posted something responding to what you posted,and in your mind I'm the one who veered the conversation away from the starting topic.Whoa,that's like a 360 degree spin,nice try.
No sir. Just neither of you addressed what he claimed is all. That is all I asked for. ![]()
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: @MrWhatsItToYa They donβt have to βget back to the starting topicβ β they can START with the starting topic.Umm,again you are the one that mentioned in your post #120 about "Just weird when folks never get back to the starting topic".That's the first time starting topic was brought up.You are complaining about people never getting back to the starting topic,then you say they don't have to get back to the starting topic,they could start with the starting topic.But you are the one who brought up to "Name who is giving Putin a pass on killing political opponents",at that point that is the topic I posted about.So if I got this straight,you posted something that wasn't really about the starting topic.I posted something responding to what you posted,and in your mind I'm the one who veered the conversation away from the starting topic.Whoa,that's like a 360 degree spin,nice try.
No sir. Just neither of you addressed what he claimed is all. That is all I asked for. ![]()
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: Quote Originally Posted by MrWhatsItToYa: Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: @MrWhatsItToYa Who did you list or say? I really missed that?You asking me who I listed regarding your question about "Name who is giving Putin a pass on killing political opponents"?You really don't remember who I said must be ok with it,cause they haven't stated they were against it?Umm that would be you,that's what this whole discussion has been about.You really weren't kidding when you said "I really missed that".I don't know how,but you certainly did miss something. Yeah. I addressed that already. I thought you listed someone in politics or pundits β that donβt support the funding and are pro-Putin. Neither of you could list them β because there are no folks like that. So, it is a terrible way to have a discussion by simply bashing politicians that do not agree with your thinking by accusing them of something they obviously are not.Ya then I guess you should read a little better.I never mentioned a politician or a pundit,and I also never mentioned that I thought I would be able to list any politician or pundit that was pro-Putin.I specifically only said something about if YOU were giving Putin a pass on killing political opponents,nobody else was ever mentioned by me as far as a politician or pundit. Then you say "So,it is a terrible way to have a discussion by simple bashing politicians that do not agree with your thinking by accusing them of something they obviously are not".It's also a terrible way to have a discussion by simply lying about what somebody has said.So let me say this again and hopefully it sinks into your skull "I never fuckin mentioned a politician".So how can I bash a politician,when I've never even mentioned a politician in this thread,I mentioned YOU.
Correct. But that was what he was implying.
Then you were talking about him killing opponents. Same situation. ![]()
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: Quote Originally Posted by MrWhatsItToYa: Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: @MrWhatsItToYa Who did you list or say? I really missed that?You asking me who I listed regarding your question about "Name who is giving Putin a pass on killing political opponents"?You really don't remember who I said must be ok with it,cause they haven't stated they were against it?Umm that would be you,that's what this whole discussion has been about.You really weren't kidding when you said "I really missed that".I don't know how,but you certainly did miss something. Yeah. I addressed that already. I thought you listed someone in politics or pundits β that donβt support the funding and are pro-Putin. Neither of you could list them β because there are no folks like that. So, it is a terrible way to have a discussion by simply bashing politicians that do not agree with your thinking by accusing them of something they obviously are not.Ya then I guess you should read a little better.I never mentioned a politician or a pundit,and I also never mentioned that I thought I would be able to list any politician or pundit that was pro-Putin.I specifically only said something about if YOU were giving Putin a pass on killing political opponents,nobody else was ever mentioned by me as far as a politician or pundit. Then you say "So,it is a terrible way to have a discussion by simple bashing politicians that do not agree with your thinking by accusing them of something they obviously are not".It's also a terrible way to have a discussion by simply lying about what somebody has said.So let me say this again and hopefully it sinks into your skull "I never fuckin mentioned a politician".So how can I bash a politician,when I've never even mentioned a politician in this thread,I mentioned YOU.
Correct. But that was what he was implying.
Then you were talking about him killing opponents. Same situation. ![]()
@Rush51
Nice,I'm glad I'm gonna win the trifecta of grammatical errors,it's still better then being in the "trifecta of cowards" club that YOU ARE in.
Hold on,aren't you the one who posted this grammatical gem in the "trump legacy" thread (post #862)?"Hunter is a cracked up 'smoke pipe coked up on Hookers".And that's copied letter to letter just the way you wrote it.Nice going there Einstein.One of the only guys in here,who ends up clowning himself,whata joke.
@Rush51
Nice,I'm glad I'm gonna win the trifecta of grammatical errors,it's still better then being in the "trifecta of cowards" club that YOU ARE in.
Hold on,aren't you the one who posted this grammatical gem in the "trump legacy" thread (post #862)?"Hunter is a cracked up 'smoke pipe coked up on Hookers".And that's copied letter to letter just the way you wrote it.Nice going there Einstein.One of the only guys in here,who ends up clowning himself,whata joke.
Joe Biden was never a good guy. He has always been a pretentious, arrogant, racist, non-benevolent, non-empathetic, overtly corrupt ass. #50years @JohnWayneGracy aka Fubah2 Should we play the video of "Joe " giving Eulogy of KKK recruiter Robert Byrd ? ###KKKGrandWizzard Should we play the videos of Biden calling Black Americans "Superpredators' ? "you aint black if you dont vote for me " ??
Joe Biden was never a good guy. He has always been a pretentious, arrogant, racist, non-benevolent, non-empathetic, overtly corrupt ass. #50years @JohnWayneGracy aka Fubah2 Should we play the video of "Joe " giving Eulogy of KKK recruiter Robert Byrd ? ###KKKGrandWizzard Should we play the videos of Biden calling Black Americans "Superpredators' ? "you aint black if you dont vote for me " ??
Quote Originally Posted by MrWhatsItToYa: Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: @MrWhatsItToYa They donβt have to βget back to the starting topicβ β they can START with the starting topic.Umm,again you are the one that mentioned in your post #120 about "Just weird when folks never get back to the starting topic".That's the first time starting topic was brought up.You are complaining about people never getting back to the starting topic,then you say they don't have to get back to the starting topic,they could start with the starting topic.But you are the one who brought up to "Name who is giving Putin a pass on killing political opponents",at that point that is the topic I posted about.So if I got this straight,you posted something that wasn't really about the starting topic.I posted something responding to what you posted,and in your mind I'm the one who veered the conversation away from the starting topic.Whoa,that's like a 360 degree spin,nice try. No sir. Just neither of you addressed what he claimed is all. That is all I asked for.
Quote Originally Posted by MrWhatsItToYa: Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: @MrWhatsItToYa They donβt have to βget back to the starting topicβ β they can START with the starting topic.Umm,again you are the one that mentioned in your post #120 about "Just weird when folks never get back to the starting topic".That's the first time starting topic was brought up.You are complaining about people never getting back to the starting topic,then you say they don't have to get back to the starting topic,they could start with the starting topic.But you are the one who brought up to "Name who is giving Putin a pass on killing political opponents",at that point that is the topic I posted about.So if I got this straight,you posted something that wasn't really about the starting topic.I posted something responding to what you posted,and in your mind I'm the one who veered the conversation away from the starting topic.Whoa,that's like a 360 degree spin,nice try. No sir. Just neither of you addressed what he claimed is all. That is all I asked for.
Quote Originally Posted by MrWhatsItToYa: Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: Quote Originally Posted by MrWhatsItToYa: Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: @MrWhatsItToYa Who did you list or say? I really missed that?You asking me who I listed regarding your question about "Name who is giving Putin a pass on killing political opponents"?You really don't remember who I said must be ok with it,cause they haven't stated they were against it?Umm that would be you,that's what this whole discussion has been about.You really weren't kidding when you said "I really missed that".I don't know how,but you certainly did miss something. Yeah. I addressed that already. I thought you listed someone in politics or pundits β that donβt support the funding and are pro-Putin. Neither of you could list them β because there are no folks like that. So, it is a terrible way to have a discussion by simply bashing politicians that do not agree with your thinking by accusing them of something they obviously are not.Ya then I guess you should read a little better.I never mentioned a politician or a pundit,and I also never mentioned that I thought I would be able to list any politician or pundit that was pro-Putin.I specifically only said something about if YOU were giving Putin a pass on killing political opponents,nobody else was ever mentioned by me as far as a politician or pundit. Then you say "So,it is a terrible way to have a discussion by simple bashing politicians that do not agree with your thinking by accusing them of something they obviously are not".It's also a terrible way to have a discussion by simply lying about what somebody has said.So let me say this again and hopefully it sinks into your skull "I never fuckin mentioned a politician".So how can I bash a politician,when I've never even mentioned a politician in this thread,I mentioned YOU. Correct. But that was what he was implying. Then you were talking about him killing opponents. Same situation.
If that's what you think "he was implying",then take that up and quote HIM (whoever that may be),it's got nothing to do with me or what I said.I wasn't talking about killing opponents,I mentioned YOU when you asked someone to Name who it seems is giving Putin a pass on killing his political opponents,that's it.
Same situation,you evidently don't even know what situation we're talking about.
So what politician are you claiming I was bashing?You know what,forget I even asked that question.I don't even wanna hear what bull shit story you have to say.
Quote Originally Posted by MrWhatsItToYa: Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: Quote Originally Posted by MrWhatsItToYa: Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: @MrWhatsItToYa Who did you list or say? I really missed that?You asking me who I listed regarding your question about "Name who is giving Putin a pass on killing political opponents"?You really don't remember who I said must be ok with it,cause they haven't stated they were against it?Umm that would be you,that's what this whole discussion has been about.You really weren't kidding when you said "I really missed that".I don't know how,but you certainly did miss something. Yeah. I addressed that already. I thought you listed someone in politics or pundits β that donβt support the funding and are pro-Putin. Neither of you could list them β because there are no folks like that. So, it is a terrible way to have a discussion by simply bashing politicians that do not agree with your thinking by accusing them of something they obviously are not.Ya then I guess you should read a little better.I never mentioned a politician or a pundit,and I also never mentioned that I thought I would be able to list any politician or pundit that was pro-Putin.I specifically only said something about if YOU were giving Putin a pass on killing political opponents,nobody else was ever mentioned by me as far as a politician or pundit. Then you say "So,it is a terrible way to have a discussion by simple bashing politicians that do not agree with your thinking by accusing them of something they obviously are not".It's also a terrible way to have a discussion by simply lying about what somebody has said.So let me say this again and hopefully it sinks into your skull "I never fuckin mentioned a politician".So how can I bash a politician,when I've never even mentioned a politician in this thread,I mentioned YOU. Correct. But that was what he was implying. Then you were talking about him killing opponents. Same situation.
If that's what you think "he was implying",then take that up and quote HIM (whoever that may be),it's got nothing to do with me or what I said.I wasn't talking about killing opponents,I mentioned YOU when you asked someone to Name who it seems is giving Putin a pass on killing his political opponents,that's it.
Same situation,you evidently don't even know what situation we're talking about.
So what politician are you claiming I was bashing?You know what,forget I even asked that question.I don't even wanna hear what bull shit story you have to say.
@Rush51 BUT do you realistically ever see a point where that could be done AND is it ever the USAβs obligation? Because it is NEVER their responsibility, especially with Ukraine being a non-NATO country. That is why the tepid-funding approach is likely doing the EXACT opposite of any diplomatic approach might do. Dragging it out. Etc., etc.
I realize Ukraine is not a NATO member, but Putin will feel emboldened to invade neighboring countries ( i.e. Baltic States) should he be successful w Ukraine .... and they are all NATO members. That's quite a scary predicament.
I do think it's realistic for anyone in Congress to ask the same question I posed ; what Ukraine needs ( short of air power) to push Russia out ; I just hope it's not too late.
@Rush51 BUT do you realistically ever see a point where that could be done AND is it ever the USAβs obligation? Because it is NEVER their responsibility, especially with Ukraine being a non-NATO country. That is why the tepid-funding approach is likely doing the EXACT opposite of any diplomatic approach might do. Dragging it out. Etc., etc.
I realize Ukraine is not a NATO member, but Putin will feel emboldened to invade neighboring countries ( i.e. Baltic States) should he be successful w Ukraine .... and they are all NATO members. That's quite a scary predicament.
I do think it's realistic for anyone in Congress to ask the same question I posed ; what Ukraine needs ( short of air power) to push Russia out ; I just hope it's not too late.
[Quote: Originally Posted by Midnight1]This thread has become quite the shitstorm.[/Quote]
Political Climate Change!
Mr Whatchacallit seems to demand the last insult.
If ever a thread was begging to be shit-canned, this is it!
[Quote: Originally Posted by Midnight1]This thread has become quite the shitstorm.[/Quote]
Political Climate Change!
Mr Whatchacallit seems to demand the last insult.
If ever a thread was begging to be shit-canned, this is it!
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: Quote Originally Posted by MrWhatsItToYa: Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: @MrWhatsItToYa They donβt have to βget back to the starting topicβ β they can START with the starting topic.Umm,again you are the one that mentioned in your post #120 about "Just weird when folks never get back to the starting topic".That's the first time starting topic was brought up.You are complaining about people never getting back to the starting topic,then you say they don't have to get back to the starting topic,they could start with the starting topic.But you are the one who brought up to "Name who is giving Putin a pass on killing political opponents",at that point that is the topic I posted about.So if I got this straight,you posted something that wasn't really about the starting topic.I posted something responding to what you posted,and in your mind I'm the one who veered the conversation away from the starting topic.Whoa,that's like a 360 degree spin,nice try. No sir. Just neither of you addressed what he claimed is all. That is all I asked for.See where you said "he claimed"?Quit quoting me when you are talking about what somebody else supposedly claimed.And you are the one worried about staying on topic.
You were the one that joined in right after I asked him to list who he was talking about.
Then you decided to imply it was me because I had not denounced him. But somehow when I explained to you how nonsensical that was β you insisted on staying on that topic, INSTEAD of addressing the issue that was being questioned when you joined in.
Focus on the initial topic please.
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: Quote Originally Posted by MrWhatsItToYa: Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: @MrWhatsItToYa They donβt have to βget back to the starting topicβ β they can START with the starting topic.Umm,again you are the one that mentioned in your post #120 about "Just weird when folks never get back to the starting topic".That's the first time starting topic was brought up.You are complaining about people never getting back to the starting topic,then you say they don't have to get back to the starting topic,they could start with the starting topic.But you are the one who brought up to "Name who is giving Putin a pass on killing political opponents",at that point that is the topic I posted about.So if I got this straight,you posted something that wasn't really about the starting topic.I posted something responding to what you posted,and in your mind I'm the one who veered the conversation away from the starting topic.Whoa,that's like a 360 degree spin,nice try. No sir. Just neither of you addressed what he claimed is all. That is all I asked for.See where you said "he claimed"?Quit quoting me when you are talking about what somebody else supposedly claimed.And you are the one worried about staying on topic.
You were the one that joined in right after I asked him to list who he was talking about.
Then you decided to imply it was me because I had not denounced him. But somehow when I explained to you how nonsensical that was β you insisted on staying on that topic, INSTEAD of addressing the issue that was being questioned when you joined in.
Focus on the initial topic please.
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: Quote Originally Posted by MrWhatsItToYa: Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: Quote Originally Posted by MrWhatsItToYa: Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: @MrWhatsItToYa Who did you list or say? I really missed that?You asking me who I listed regarding your question about "Name who is giving Putin a pass on killing political opponents"?You really don't remember who I said must be ok with it,cause they haven't stated they were against it?Umm that would be you,that's what this whole discussion has been about.You really weren't kidding when you said "I really missed that".I don't know how,but you certainly did miss something. Yeah. I addressed that already. I thought you listed someone in politics or pundits β that donβt support the funding and are pro-Putin. Neither of you could list them β because there are no folks like that. So, it is a terrible way to have a discussion by simply bashing politicians that do not agree with your thinking by accusing them of something they obviously are not.Ya then I guess you should read a little better.I never mentioned a politician or a pundit,and I also never mentioned that I thought I would be able to list any politician or pundit that was pro-Putin.I specifically only said something about if YOU were giving Putin a pass on killing political opponents,nobody else was ever mentioned by me as far as a politician or pundit. Then you say "So,it is a terrible way to have a discussion by simple bashing politicians that do not agree with your thinking by accusing them of something they obviously are not".It's also a terrible way to have a discussion by simply lying about what somebody has said.So let me say this again and hopefully it sinks into your skull "I never fuckin mentioned a politician".So how can I bash a politician,when I've never even mentioned a politician in this thread,I mentioned YOU. Correct. But that was what he was implying. Then you were talking about him killing opponents. Same situation.Are you on acid or something?Is it any wonder people don't wanna deal with you.It's like running around in a constant circle with you. If that's what you think "he was implying",then take that up and quote HIM (whoever that may be),it's got nothing to do with me or what I said.I wasn't talking about killing opponents,I mentioned YOU when you asked someone to Name who it seems is giving Putin a pass on killing his political opponents,that's it. Same situation,you evidently don't even know what situation we're talking about. So what politician are you claiming I was bashing?You know what,forget I even asked that question.I don't even wanna hear what bull shit story you have to say.
Yes, you did. And again, I pointed out how silly that was. I have not even addressed the Putin issue lately. So, why accuse me of that. Completely silly.
You joined in a situation that had nothing to do with the folks in here, but the folks setting policy. Then you tried to make it personal and now cannot backtrack out it well enough.
Then I, very slowly and thoroughly, explained to you why it was silly to accuse anyone on here of that.
Then I asked again, to you, because you seemed to instantly agree with him about the policy-makers β WHO are these people?
If you cannot answer that β then move along.
If he cannot answer it β he should amend or retract it.
Again, it is lazy to go straight to that conclusion when you cannot articulate your stance better!
![]()
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: Quote Originally Posted by MrWhatsItToYa: Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: Quote Originally Posted by MrWhatsItToYa: Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: @MrWhatsItToYa Who did you list or say? I really missed that?You asking me who I listed regarding your question about "Name who is giving Putin a pass on killing political opponents"?You really don't remember who I said must be ok with it,cause they haven't stated they were against it?Umm that would be you,that's what this whole discussion has been about.You really weren't kidding when you said "I really missed that".I don't know how,but you certainly did miss something. Yeah. I addressed that already. I thought you listed someone in politics or pundits β that donβt support the funding and are pro-Putin. Neither of you could list them β because there are no folks like that. So, it is a terrible way to have a discussion by simply bashing politicians that do not agree with your thinking by accusing them of something they obviously are not.Ya then I guess you should read a little better.I never mentioned a politician or a pundit,and I also never mentioned that I thought I would be able to list any politician or pundit that was pro-Putin.I specifically only said something about if YOU were giving Putin a pass on killing political opponents,nobody else was ever mentioned by me as far as a politician or pundit. Then you say "So,it is a terrible way to have a discussion by simple bashing politicians that do not agree with your thinking by accusing them of something they obviously are not".It's also a terrible way to have a discussion by simply lying about what somebody has said.So let me say this again and hopefully it sinks into your skull "I never fuckin mentioned a politician".So how can I bash a politician,when I've never even mentioned a politician in this thread,I mentioned YOU. Correct. But that was what he was implying. Then you were talking about him killing opponents. Same situation.Are you on acid or something?Is it any wonder people don't wanna deal with you.It's like running around in a constant circle with you. If that's what you think "he was implying",then take that up and quote HIM (whoever that may be),it's got nothing to do with me or what I said.I wasn't talking about killing opponents,I mentioned YOU when you asked someone to Name who it seems is giving Putin a pass on killing his political opponents,that's it. Same situation,you evidently don't even know what situation we're talking about. So what politician are you claiming I was bashing?You know what,forget I even asked that question.I don't even wanna hear what bull shit story you have to say.
Yes, you did. And again, I pointed out how silly that was. I have not even addressed the Putin issue lately. So, why accuse me of that. Completely silly.
You joined in a situation that had nothing to do with the folks in here, but the folks setting policy. Then you tried to make it personal and now cannot backtrack out it well enough.
Then I, very slowly and thoroughly, explained to you why it was silly to accuse anyone on here of that.
Then I asked again, to you, because you seemed to instantly agree with him about the policy-makers β WHO are these people?
If you cannot answer that β then move along.
If he cannot answer it β he should amend or retract it.
Again, it is lazy to go straight to that conclusion when you cannot articulate your stance better!
![]()
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: @Rush51 BUT do you realistically ever see a point where that could be done AND is it ever the USAβs obligation? Because it is NEVER their responsibility, especially with Ukraine being a non-NATO country. That is why the tepid-funding approach is likely doing the EXACT opposite of any diplomatic approach might do. Dragging it out. Etc., etc. I realize Ukraine is not a NATO member, but Putin will feel emboldened to invade neighboring countries ( i.e. Baltic States) should he be successful w Ukraine .... and they are all NATO members. That's quite a scary predicament. I do think it's realistic for anyone in Congress to ask the same question I posed ; what Ukraine needs ( short of air power) to push Russia out ; I just hope it's not too late.
Is that really what you think will happen OR what you worry MIGHT happen?
Those are two very different situations.
There are very many experts, not just from the USA β but around the world that disagree with this. They are experts in the region and Russian/Ukrainian history.
This conflict is very different than say, Finland or Poland would be.
The past history is different. There is a deep pro-Russian sentiment in the area.
I have been in that area many times and I can tell you there are a lot of pro-motherland Russia folks there. I am not in any way saying it justifies it. I am simply pointing out that you do not find this in some of the other regions of Poland/Finland, etc.
Plus the strategic control of that region matters more, etc.
But that potential βemboldeningβ might be a factor now if Sweden causes other countries to decide to βthreatenβ Russian by trying to either join NATO or align closer with them, etc. Russia of course has liked the βbufferβ of those countries.
There is a lot to be said for the βhumanitarian superpowerβ status β instead of uniting with NATO, which is almost entirely set up against Russia.
You can go back and look at this around 2014ish and even 2016ish when there were huge discussions on Sweden joining NATO and the reasons for and against it. One of the main reasons is destabilizing the area and antagonizing Russia.
There has to be more diplomacy done, and sadly, maybe concessions to end this. I am not sure how much responsibility the USA should be taking in this matter. But for sure, just blindly sending them money with no progress being made is NOT the answer.
Russia realizes they cannot reasonably take on NATO. But Russia has settled in for the long haul obviously and I do not see funding a full-on war for Ukraine as the correct way to get a resolution.
You absolutely have to question why other, nearer countries are not doing FAR more if they are really that concerned about this and future aggression in other areas. I do not mean funding β I mean whatever other avenues they can take.
Is it really up to the USA to be the frontrunner on this?
If so, is the USA ready for China/Taiwan? NK/SK?
What happens when a conflict breaks out in Africa and they complain the USA is not helping them?
For sure, the USA has to pick and choose what is in their best interest to βhelpβ out. But is this really the one?
Russia may be content to stay settled in and let everyone spend all of their money. Ukraine is okay with everyone sending money.
I am not necessarily promoting isolationism β but I do not think funding a war there is the correct answer in this situation.
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: @Rush51 BUT do you realistically ever see a point where that could be done AND is it ever the USAβs obligation? Because it is NEVER their responsibility, especially with Ukraine being a non-NATO country. That is why the tepid-funding approach is likely doing the EXACT opposite of any diplomatic approach might do. Dragging it out. Etc., etc. I realize Ukraine is not a NATO member, but Putin will feel emboldened to invade neighboring countries ( i.e. Baltic States) should he be successful w Ukraine .... and they are all NATO members. That's quite a scary predicament. I do think it's realistic for anyone in Congress to ask the same question I posed ; what Ukraine needs ( short of air power) to push Russia out ; I just hope it's not too late.
Is that really what you think will happen OR what you worry MIGHT happen?
Those are two very different situations.
There are very many experts, not just from the USA β but around the world that disagree with this. They are experts in the region and Russian/Ukrainian history.
This conflict is very different than say, Finland or Poland would be.
The past history is different. There is a deep pro-Russian sentiment in the area.
I have been in that area many times and I can tell you there are a lot of pro-motherland Russia folks there. I am not in any way saying it justifies it. I am simply pointing out that you do not find this in some of the other regions of Poland/Finland, etc.
Plus the strategic control of that region matters more, etc.
But that potential βemboldeningβ might be a factor now if Sweden causes other countries to decide to βthreatenβ Russian by trying to either join NATO or align closer with them, etc. Russia of course has liked the βbufferβ of those countries.
There is a lot to be said for the βhumanitarian superpowerβ status β instead of uniting with NATO, which is almost entirely set up against Russia.
You can go back and look at this around 2014ish and even 2016ish when there were huge discussions on Sweden joining NATO and the reasons for and against it. One of the main reasons is destabilizing the area and antagonizing Russia.
There has to be more diplomacy done, and sadly, maybe concessions to end this. I am not sure how much responsibility the USA should be taking in this matter. But for sure, just blindly sending them money with no progress being made is NOT the answer.
Russia realizes they cannot reasonably take on NATO. But Russia has settled in for the long haul obviously and I do not see funding a full-on war for Ukraine as the correct way to get a resolution.
You absolutely have to question why other, nearer countries are not doing FAR more if they are really that concerned about this and future aggression in other areas. I do not mean funding β I mean whatever other avenues they can take.
Is it really up to the USA to be the frontrunner on this?
If so, is the USA ready for China/Taiwan? NK/SK?
What happens when a conflict breaks out in Africa and they complain the USA is not helping them?
For sure, the USA has to pick and choose what is in their best interest to βhelpβ out. But is this really the one?
Russia may be content to stay settled in and let everyone spend all of their money. Ukraine is okay with everyone sending money.
I am not necessarily promoting isolationism β but I do not think funding a war there is the correct answer in this situation.
@Rush51
About the last part β I meant to say that there are a lot of folks in that region that do not necessarily want βRussia pushed outβ. That is a weird region β but if a good portion of the people in that region would rather be part of Russiaβ¦
I am not so sure this sort of thing will not continue to crop up. Certain borders in the world are tricky with the folks having more sentiment for a nation that is very near them β but now an imaginary line has drawn them into another country. You see this in the MENA area as well.
That is why I think some sort of diplomatic solution has to be tried very soon.
@Rush51
About the last part β I meant to say that there are a lot of folks in that region that do not necessarily want βRussia pushed outβ. That is a weird region β but if a good portion of the people in that region would rather be part of Russiaβ¦
I am not so sure this sort of thing will not continue to crop up. Certain borders in the world are tricky with the folks having more sentiment for a nation that is very near them β but now an imaginary line has drawn them into another country. You see this in the MENA area as well.
That is why I think some sort of diplomatic solution has to be tried very soon.
@Raiders22
I think are 3 possible scenarios. First, the U.S. funding dries up , Ukraine suffers, and Putin can march on to Kiev in due time and feel emboldened to march on to other former Soviet States. Second, we continue U.S. funding any without clear objective, Ukraine stalls because they aren't provided w/ sufficient military capability to push back Russia, and the region continues to get bogged down for years, with hundreds of billions of dollars more in U.S. taxpayer money being spent. That is insane.
The 3rd option as I mentioned earlier should be to help Ukraine w/ a more forceful strategic plan, providing them the military power to push Russia back to their territory. It's more risky, but Russia is hardly opposing this from a position of strength. It's been stated that Russia has lost hundreds of thousands of men thus far, and a lot of their top infantry, tanks, etc. are killed & destroyed. Go for the kill shot. Would Putin go nuclear over Ukraine ??
I think any diplomatic resolution is a bad idea. I say this because any resolution likely results in Ukraine ceding territory to Russia. So, How exactly does this deter Putin from invading other neighboring countries in the future ? The Precedent will have been set, and Putin can carry on with his goal of reunifying the great Soviet Empire.... one piece at a time.
@Raiders22
I think are 3 possible scenarios. First, the U.S. funding dries up , Ukraine suffers, and Putin can march on to Kiev in due time and feel emboldened to march on to other former Soviet States. Second, we continue U.S. funding any without clear objective, Ukraine stalls because they aren't provided w/ sufficient military capability to push back Russia, and the region continues to get bogged down for years, with hundreds of billions of dollars more in U.S. taxpayer money being spent. That is insane.
The 3rd option as I mentioned earlier should be to help Ukraine w/ a more forceful strategic plan, providing them the military power to push Russia back to their territory. It's more risky, but Russia is hardly opposing this from a position of strength. It's been stated that Russia has lost hundreds of thousands of men thus far, and a lot of their top infantry, tanks, etc. are killed & destroyed. Go for the kill shot. Would Putin go nuclear over Ukraine ??
I think any diplomatic resolution is a bad idea. I say this because any resolution likely results in Ukraine ceding territory to Russia. So, How exactly does this deter Putin from invading other neighboring countries in the future ? The Precedent will have been set, and Putin can carry on with his goal of reunifying the great Soviet Empire.... one piece at a time.
@Rush51
I get what you are saying. But I am saying the Ukraine situation doesnβt mean if they are successful they will start invading other countries. It does not even mean they want Kiev, etc.
I am not sure this is the spot to test whether Russia is interested in going nuclear.
If you get interested I will link you a couple of articles to read and see what you think.
@Rush51
I get what you are saying. But I am saying the Ukraine situation doesnβt mean if they are successful they will start invading other countries. It does not even mean they want Kiev, etc.
I am not sure this is the spot to test whether Russia is interested in going nuclear.
If you get interested I will link you a couple of articles to read and see what you think.
Political Climate Change! Mr Whatchacallit seems to demand the last insult. If ever a thread was begging to be shit-canned, this is it!
Ya Mr What is the problem,and always keeps this thread going and rehashing things.Oh hold on a second,who's the guy in the next 2 posts after yours that just keeps trying to explain his side.Gee that looks like it says Raiders next to the posts,hold on let me get my glasses,yep definitely says Raiders as the 1 who posted them.But you won't say nothing about him cause he also likes the guy who paints himself orange everyday.Unfortunately his posts are quoting me,then when I confront him that I never stated what he's saying I said.Then he says "Oh I was talking about what the OTHER guy claimed",but just quoted you.But ya,I'm the one who's the problem.
I don't need to get the last insult.But if you think I'm gonna back away when somebody keeps saying stuff and claiming and quoting that I said something,when it was somebody else who said it.Ya that ain't gonna happen,that ain't the way I play,I don't walk away.So if he keeps posting,you better get some comfy clothes on and grab a bucket and a brown paper bag,and stay in your safe space.Cause I can guarantee you,my replies will keep coming.
And if it just becomes more then you can possibly handle in your feeble state,then just don't come in here,problem solved.
See I'm a problem solver,not a problem creator.
How's that for the "last insult"?
Political Climate Change! Mr Whatchacallit seems to demand the last insult. If ever a thread was begging to be shit-canned, this is it!
Ya Mr What is the problem,and always keeps this thread going and rehashing things.Oh hold on a second,who's the guy in the next 2 posts after yours that just keeps trying to explain his side.Gee that looks like it says Raiders next to the posts,hold on let me get my glasses,yep definitely says Raiders as the 1 who posted them.But you won't say nothing about him cause he also likes the guy who paints himself orange everyday.Unfortunately his posts are quoting me,then when I confront him that I never stated what he's saying I said.Then he says "Oh I was talking about what the OTHER guy claimed",but just quoted you.But ya,I'm the one who's the problem.
I don't need to get the last insult.But if you think I'm gonna back away when somebody keeps saying stuff and claiming and quoting that I said something,when it was somebody else who said it.Ya that ain't gonna happen,that ain't the way I play,I don't walk away.So if he keeps posting,you better get some comfy clothes on and grab a bucket and a brown paper bag,and stay in your safe space.Cause I can guarantee you,my replies will keep coming.
And if it just becomes more then you can possibly handle in your feeble state,then just don't come in here,problem solved.
See I'm a problem solver,not a problem creator.
How's that for the "last insult"?
If Russia wanted Kiev they would already be there. Thinking our help kept Russia from taking all of Ukraine is a mistake.
Have to look at the big picture; An insurrection in 2014 removed a president who leaned Russia. How did he get elected? Crimea and Donbas people who favored Russia too. So after insurection Putin secures Crimea without a fight. He should have took Donbas region too but that was not as clearcut. So fighting breaks out between Russian favoring Donbas residents and western Ukrainians. Am sure Putin helped them during this fighting. So Ukraine gets Neo-Nazi Azov's to kill those favoring Russia. Then Biden gets elected and calls Zelensky. The very next day Zelensky shuts down all Russian speaking television stations in Ukraine. So Putin masses troops in spring of 2021 and demands a resolution. Biden meets with Putin in June and Putin pulls back the troops. Months go by with nothing and Putin again masses troops, gets laughed at and he invades......for the people of the Donbas region. ![]()
He doesn't want Europe he doesn't want Poland, and he doesn't even want to mess with running Ukraine. He wants to protect Russian speaking/ Russian leaning people.
It's obvious if you follow it. But we are given a whole different story.
If Russia wanted Kiev they would already be there. Thinking our help kept Russia from taking all of Ukraine is a mistake.
Have to look at the big picture; An insurrection in 2014 removed a president who leaned Russia. How did he get elected? Crimea and Donbas people who favored Russia too. So after insurection Putin secures Crimea without a fight. He should have took Donbas region too but that was not as clearcut. So fighting breaks out between Russian favoring Donbas residents and western Ukrainians. Am sure Putin helped them during this fighting. So Ukraine gets Neo-Nazi Azov's to kill those favoring Russia. Then Biden gets elected and calls Zelensky. The very next day Zelensky shuts down all Russian speaking television stations in Ukraine. So Putin masses troops in spring of 2021 and demands a resolution. Biden meets with Putin in June and Putin pulls back the troops. Months go by with nothing and Putin again masses troops, gets laughed at and he invades......for the people of the Donbas region. ![]()
He doesn't want Europe he doesn't want Poland, and he doesn't even want to mess with running Ukraine. He wants to protect Russian speaking/ Russian leaning people.
It's obvious if you follow it. But we are given a whole different story.
Hot Forum Topics
-
🤢🥴💩_ Fubah's risky baseball bets _🥶😲🥵
449,369
-
🏈🏈🏈 Fubah2's risky CFB bets
259,594
-
Sunday 09/20/2026
522
-
PART DEUX
325
-
NFL LOCKED IN!
98,826
-
Flawed Logic & Bad Decisions: CFB Edition
2,858
-
Trump's legacy?
25,530
-
The Three-Day Money Train
5,912
-
***Macwesties * Sun. Sept. 20, 2026 * NFL * Week #2 * Football Plays***
3,417
-
Philadelphia Eagles @ Tennessee Titans
4,611
Warning - External Link
Report User
This post is spam
Delete Post
Remove Thread
Scan Results
Login/Register
Accounts are free and easy to create.
Search
