Russia is pulling an Afghanistan drain again on Ukraine and thus the US, they are slow playing their stack and know they could take over the entire region with no issues if they wanted to.
If Russia wanted the provinces back in the fold they would likely go about it in a different way, this is more about NATO and the way Ukraine flaunted their ambitions in the face of Putin and we wonder why they responded as they did?
@Raiders22
This is in response to your post #143
So you want me to follow the initial topic?The initial topic was "One party wants Putin to succeed",see where it says that as the "Thread Topic" or in your wording "The Initial Topic"?It's not "Name who is giving Putin a pass on killing political opponents",which is your statement,I came into the conversation after that.So which one of us is keeping the thread off the "initial topic"?
Sidehatch asks YOU in his post #54 "Why do you give Putin a pass on killing political opponents".He doesn't say anything about politicians or pundits,he asks YOU directly.You know who did bring up"politicians and pundits",YOU are the one who did in post #91,way to change the topic.Tell me one more time who isn't following the "initial topic"?Ya so you can skip your constantly lecturing to someone else about "focusing on the initial topic".
Nowadays it might not be as nonsensical as you think,who knows these days.How should anybody know if certain people will denounce certain things.At one point in this nations history it would of been taken for granted that it was wrong to attack our Capitol Building.And everybody would of known where every TRUE AMERICAN stood on that issue.But according to some on your side these days,even the person who is running for president in your political party.Those people are "patriots",and that we should pardon the traitors that did it.
So if you wanna post 40 posts ignoring my question on if you denounce Putin or give him a pass.And you are thinking that everybody should already know your stance,instead of just answering the question,that's on you.
Sure, go ahead and send . I'm always interested in hearing things from another perspective.
But I will say this. If we listen to Putin, he has said the greatest calamity of the 20th century was the fall of the Soviet Empire. That's quite a statement to make in a century that includes Hitler.
We shouldn't doubt Putin. He wants to be revered in his homeland like Lenin and Stalin, and has made clear his ambitions to reunify the Soviet State. He has no problem playing the "long game" , knowing full well he has a lifetime appointment, while Presidents come and go.
He "" will "" invade again is my contention..
@Raiders22
This is in response to your post #144
You say "You (meaning me) joined in a situation that has nothing to do with the folks in here,but the folks setting policy".That's a another fuckin lie,re-read Sidehatch's post #54 his post specifically ask YOU.It says "Why do YOU give Putin a pass on killing political opponents",where does that say anything about "folks setting policy,or anything about what a politician thinks,or what a pundit said about it.It doesn't,it just says YOU.Does it sound like to you I'm trying to backtrack out of anything?
Then you say "Then I (meaning you) asked again ,to you (meaning me),because you seemed to instantly agree with him about the policy-makers-who are these people".What policy-makers,the statement policy makers was only brought up by YOU,nobody else brought up policy makers.So you want me and Sidehatch to tell you who the policy makers are who said it,when YOU are the only one who has mentioned policy makers supposedly saying it.How are we supposed to know what policy makers you've made up and are talking about?And the people in your statement "who are these people" are the politicians and pundits that ONLY YOU have brought up in post #91.The only one who has said anything about if a politician or pundit had said anything,is I'll give you 1 guess,that's right its YOU.
Quit making shit up to try and cover up for your lies.
Have I articulated my stance better now?
@MrWhatsItToYa
This was my entry point:
@Sidehatch
The only people saying it’s an unwinnable proxy war are those who are pro-Putin.
Isn’t this an extreme over-generalization? There are a lot of top-level folks that are not for funding this war and say it is unwinnable BUT are certainly not pro-Putin.
@MrWhatsItToYa
That was your entry point. You also ignored my question to him.
Instead you make a silly comment saying because I have not been in here bashing Putin so I must be pro-Putin.
I then nicely explained to you what we call that fallacy in logic and why it made no sense.
@MrWhatsItToYa
The attempt at a a discussion then deteriorated from there. But I tried to answer most of what all you asked. Whereas, I have never received an answer to my original question.
My point that is still standing is: when you base your entire argument on a premise you cannot back up — is the rest of the argument any good?
I think that catches us up to date. 
Correct. And I addressed that in tremendously boring detail. Go reread it. Basically, I have not commented at all recently in here about Putin.
I told you it is assumed everyone in here condemns Putin. They do not need to declare it the every time they enter a thread.
I then explained to you the fallacy we call this in logic and reasoning.
Just because someone does not declare for something does NOT mean they are against it —etc.
In other words, I do not recall exactly where you condemned Putin either. BUT I know you do without you having to say it.
IF someone SUPPORTS Putin that is the type of person that would have to declare it.
Now that I think about it, I have not heard you say anything bad about Kim Jung-Un, Biya, Mayardit, Al-Assad. So, if a discussion came up about them — why would I assume from the start that you support them since you have not denounced them already.
@MrWhatsItToYa
It is silly to go straight to accusing someone of something before even answering an entirely different question they were asked.
I know of no one on here that has given Putin a pass on here — so why assume, or accuse someone of that?
Because it then looks petty — as if you are unable to support what you were questioned about yourself.
@MrWhatsItToYa
This is his very FIRST post:
Then more recently:
Even as congressional Republicans this week were threatening to cut off Ukraine aid once and for all, former president Donald Trumpfloated the idea that he would encourage Putin to attack NATO countries that didn’t pay enough; Tucker Carlson set about what was effectively a pro-Russian propaganda tour in which he downplayed Putin’s killing of political opponents; and then top Putin opposition leader Alexei Navalny was reported dead in prison.
This all begs the question - why do so many people from this one party want Putin to continue to get stronger? Are they all on his payroll? (Tucker probably is.)
As for those who are not on his payroll, they most certainly are living up the the Cold War moniker of being “useful idiots.”
@MrWhatsItToYa
So, he is NOT a talking about individuals on here. Otherwise, he would say so.
But reread his post. He is talking about the Congressional folks and all the folks in the party.
I was simply asking WHO are these Republican leaders he is talking about? Because none I know of have stated this or even indicated it at all.
Hopefully, this clears this up.
Talk about someone "who now cannot backtrack out it well enough",you are so far past trying to backtrack out of here,you are trying to do the moonwalk out of here.Ha,you know someones desperate when they start trying to win an argument by posting and quoting things that have absolutely nothing to do with what we are discussing.Well,desperate times call for desperate measures,right Raiders?
He might of never answered who he was talking about,but he was talking about "a unwinnable proxy war",not about "Name who was giving Putin a pass on killing political opponents".So it don't matter that "he never answered who he was talking about",cause he wasn't talking about what we're arguing about anyway.
You say "Instead you make a silly comment saying because I have not been in here bashing Putin so I must be pro-Putin".Geez,someone sure does say "silly" a lot,there's been a couple guys on TV that were always saying "silly".Hmm I wonder if,oh forget it.Another lie,I never in all my posts in this whole thread have said anything about anyone being pro-Putin.I said if you weren't on here bashing him about killing political opponents,"I guess your name could be used to answer your question" about who is giving Putin a pass for killing political opponents.
And yes you did so "nicely explain to me what we call that fallacy in logic",oh it was just so "nicely".It might of been the "niceliest" way I've ever heard the "fallacy in logic" explained,it was just so touching.
Please explain your point that is still standing,about when you base your entire argument on a premise you cannot back up,is the rest of the argument any good?I hope you don't think I'm silly but could you do me a huge favor,and explain it as "nicely" as you did the "fallacy in logic".I can't tell you the last time I've felt as inspired and touched as when I was reading your explanation of that.
@Raiders22
In response to your post #161
Oh you did address it in tremendously boring detail,I guess every addressing and explanation can't be as nicely done as the fallacy of logic,right?Just like every movie can't win an Oscar,and every song or album can't win a Grammy.Every explanation can't be as nicely done as the fallacy of logic,if only it could though,if only it could.What a wonderful world it would be.
What post # can I reread that in,cause I'm not sure if I remember that addressing,must be cause it was so tremendously boring?
Oh you told me it is assumed everyone in here condemns Putin,now you are assuming and speaking for everyone?You are implying and saying that every rational person would condemn Putin?Then how come fat donny doesn't condemn Putin for it,and if your leader doesn't condemn it,how are we supposed to assume you followers will condemn him?If we can just assume that,then why did you ASK someone to "Name who is giving Putin a pass on killing political opponents",couldn't you just assume everyone in here would condemn Putin?And like I brought up before about the attack on the Capitol,and assuming about how some people would condemn it,and they didn't.So I'm not so willing to assume anything about when certain people in your party will stand up and condemn something,or assume what you guys will stand up against.
No they don't have to declare it every time they enter a thread.But when someone is specifically asked about it you would think they would just give the answer,instead of saying your usual story about this isn't the right thread for my answer.Or everybody having to assume what everybody's thought are on it.
You wouldn't be able to recall exactly where I condemned Putin,because I haven't condemned Putin in here.Nobody in here asked what I thought about Putin,and if they would of asked I would of just gave my answer,without trying to skirt around giving my answer in THIS thread.You say "If someone supports Putin that is the type of person that would have to declare it".Well trumps a Putin supporter,and he certainly condemned what Putin did.Oh hold on a second,no he didn't he whined,cried and complained and turned it into something about his own legal problems,he never once condemned Putin.
If you wanna hear me say something bad about Kim Jung-Un,Biya,Mayardit and Al-Assad start another thread.I'm trying to stay on the initial topic here.If a discussion did come up,you could assume from the start that I support them all since I have not denounced them.Or you could just ask me to voice my opinion on whether I condemned them or supported them,like I asked you to do.
You never asked me,you asked Sidehatch,I can't give Sidehatch's answer.
I didn't accuse you of anything,I said if I haven't saw your post in this thread bashing Putin for killing his political opponents.And if there isn't one saying that in a different thread,then I guess your name COULD be used to answer your question.I said it "could" be used to answer your question,not that it definitely was the case or the answer to your question.I was asking if you had condemned it,cause I hadn't seen a post of yours actually condemning it.
Ya you know of no one on HERE that has given Putin a pass.But off of here there are people who have given Putin a pass,fat donny has given Putin a pass (again-which is a real shocker).Did you ever hear of people "following the leader"?So if your leader is not condemning it and is giving Putin a pass,why would anyone automatically assume his followers wouldn't do the same thing?
Oh it then looks petty-as if I am unable to support what I was questioned about myself.For about the 5th time,you never questioned me you delusional whack job,you asked Sidehatch a question.I can't answer who Sidehatch thinks is giving Putin a pass.And I can't help that Sidehatch hasn't come back in here to argue with you or answer YOUR question.But after arguing about it for 2 days with you,I am gonna assume I know exactly why he hasn't come back.I can't tell you how much I regret asking you if you condemned Putin for killing his opponents.Geez,do you ever listen to anything people post,I've told you ate least 5 times that you didn't ask me anything,and that you asked Sidehatch.What do you do just sit around and make up stories as to if you have asked someone a question,or just make up stories about what you think people have posted?
If you do not bash them then you must be pro them...that's a profound statement...what a way to go through life huh...so simpleton to think that just because you don't bash or hate something that you are all the sudden pro that....that's the retort or consensus around here from some...
what a complete disconnect
@MrWhatsItToYa
Established in 1995,
Hot Forum Topics
