Putin the new Thomas Jefferson, the west the new Stalin?!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-05-2014, 06:23 PM
RE: Putin the new Thomas Jefferson, the west the new Stalin?!
(08-05-2014 03:30 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(08-05-2014 03:00 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Oh, you hopeless failure. Never change.

No, friend, I didn't say that.

Yes you did. It's right there in black & white. I asked why the West didn't call for election monitors when Crimea was voting on secession and you replied "Because they didn't want to legitimise an illegal act". WTF?! What "illegal act" were you referring to if not the vote on secession? I guess you're embarrassed to have called it an illegal act so you're denying you said that, but this is a written forum. We have a written record.

Yes. In reference to the Crimean referendum. You know; one specific event, which just so happened to be the one under discussion.

Not all referenda.

A distinction you are either unaware of or are just ignoring; belying either stupidity or dishonesty. Which would you prefer?

The Crimean referendum was not legal and was not legitimate. Other events are, shockingly, other things. It's a hard principle to grasp, I realize, but I think it might just be within your reach.

(08-05-2014 03:30 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(08-05-2014 03:00 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Anyone can say they predicted something after something happens. It's either unverifiable, or else they predicted both X and not-X. What powers of prognostication!

My prediction was that this would escalate into blocking Russia from selling oil in non dollars. You're response is that this has already happened!??!? Whatever...

The reference to postdiction was in reference to your earlier explicit claims of confirmed predictions.

I know you're bad with context, but geez.

(08-05-2014 03:30 PM)frankksj Wrote:  And you can see my posts post #50 and post #244 are from February, 2014, about how the US would have to respond with an invasion or sanctions to protect the dollar, but that Russia is too strong to invade.

Yes, but you see, the problem with that is that it doesn't make sense.

Russia invading Ukraine is not something the United States did.

(08-05-2014 03:30 PM)frankksj Wrote:  True, Canada has always had a partnership with the US on this, and the "petrodollar" often refers to both the US and Canadian dollars. But you're delusional if you think the US doesn't use force to protect this monopoly.

Your inane and pointless question had a trivial answer which contradicted your explicit point as stated.

Shall we review your exact words, in black and white?
"I pointed out the undisputed historical fact that, without exception, every time an oil producing country has tried to sell oil in another currency, the US has fabricated some "crisis" to justify invading the country or sanctions to block the sale."

Since your ludicrously overstated baloney was what we might call unadjacent to the truth in this particular instance - by quite a margin - you are now moving the goalposts. Oh, well.

(08-05-2014 03:30 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Are you seriously so naïve to think that counties which hate the US, like Venezuela, only sell their oil in US dollars because they want to do so???

No, but I see your love of straw men is as unhealthily ardent as ever.

(08-05-2014 03:30 PM)frankksj Wrote:  And when a country, say, Japan, buys oil, you really think they want to go to the US as a middleman and buy it in US dollars, rather than buying it directly in Yen?

OPEC deals in US dollars. This situation exists for actual reasons, and not just "lol conspiracy". OPEC accounts for less than half of world petroleum production.

The United States, fairly obviously, sells its oil in US dollars.

Canada sells Canadian oil in Canadian dollars, and always has.

The UK sells its oil in pounds, and always has.

Norway sells its oil in krone, and always has.

While the Dutch north sea petroindustry survived, Nederlands sold their oil in guilders. This is literally where the term "Dutch disease" comes from.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
08-05-2014, 06:33 PM
RE: Putin the new Thomas Jefferson, the west the new Stalin?!
(08-05-2014 03:00 PM)cjlr Wrote:  When Quebec held their referenda, it was at the will of a democratically elected provincial government under the approval of the federal government.

Here's a question for you cjlr... Since Crimea also had a democratically elected provincial government, the only thing you that, according to you, would make the Québécois' referendum legal is if the Canadian federal government as a whole approved it.

So what if they didn't? Let's say Quebec held an unapproved referendum and, through a fair, democratic process, unanimously approved secession from Canada, whereas the majority of Canada overall opposed the move. What if, despite political posturing and threats, Quebec went ahead and declared its independence? What do you think the rest of Canada should do? Do you really think they start a civil war over it and millions of Canadians should lose their lives fighting to force the Québécois to remain in Canada against their will? Are you so opposed to freedom and liberty that you'd choose bloodshed, destruction of infrastructure and economic ruin for both sides, rather than just let Quebec leave, and agree to live peacefully side-by-side as friends? Is it THAT important to deny those French-speakers their freedom and independence?

If you say 'yes Canada should go to war', then I wonder if you'll see why we libertarians see the rest of you lot as barbarians. If you say 'no, it's not worth it, let them go', then how is it any different in Ukraine? Because they're half a world away are they any less human, less deserving of freedom?

Now if you agree with us libertarians that it's better to lay down the clubs, give people their freedom and live in peace, then it would seem you have no choice but to agree with Putin's "official position" that Ukraine should simply allow each region to determine their own fate with fair, democratic elections.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2014, 06:40 PM
RE: Putin the new Thomas Jefferson, the west the new Stalin?!
Looks like Putin's bowing to international pressure.
He's pulling his troops off the Ukrainian boarder and calling for referendums and saying that the "Ukrainian elections are a step in the right direction".

I suspect we are going to see a pro-Russian Ukrainian President because I find it rather odd that Putin would appear to give up so easily. In saying that he has managed to gain Crimea and soon to gain several eastern regions.
Not bad for couple months work while managing to avoid a major war and a total embargo by foreign relations.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes earmuffs's post
08-05-2014, 06:52 PM (This post was last modified: 08-05-2014 07:00 PM by TheGulegon.)
RE: Putin the new Thomas Jefferson, the west the new Stalin?!
Did the people of Crimea vote to secede from the Ukraine, and join Russia, before or after Russian military personnel decided to walk the streets and/or intimidate voters with their guns?

If the answer is after, then the results are null and void, and I don't understand how anyone could say people voting under duress should be considered legal.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheGulegon's post
08-05-2014, 07:00 PM
RE: Putin the new Thomas Jefferson, the west the new Stalin?!
(08-05-2014 06:52 PM)TheGulegon Wrote:  Did the people of Crimea vote to secede from the Ukraine, and join Russia, before or after Russian military personnel decided to walk the streets and/or intimidate voters with their guns?

If the answer is after, then the results are null and void, and I don't understand the logic that says people voting under duress should be considered legal.

Yes, to both. The international community has rejected the results due to the intervention of the Russian Military but no one is willing to go to war over the Ukraine. Sad but true.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2014, 07:12 PM
RE: Putin the new Thomas Jefferson, the west the new Stalin?!
(08-05-2014 06:33 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(08-05-2014 03:00 PM)cjlr Wrote:  When Quebec held their referenda, it was at the will of a democratically elected provincial government under the approval of the federal government.

Here's a question for you cjlr...

Is it going to be inaccurate, irrelevant, and pointless?

God, I hope so. You've got quite a high standard to live up to.

(08-05-2014 06:33 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Since Crimea also had a democratically elected provincial government...

Which the Russians overthrew.

The put Aksyonov in charge at the ends of gun barrels. Aksyonov is a man whose party contested free elections in Crimea for twenty years and never won more than single-digit support.

(08-05-2014 06:33 PM)frankksj Wrote:  ... the only thing you that, according to you, would make the Québécois' referendum legal is if the Canadian federal government as a whole approved it.

That's a necessary precondition, yes. I never said only, so that right there's a little disingenuous - but, it's pretty clear that you can't help that.

(08-05-2014 06:33 PM)frankksj Wrote:  So what if they didn't? Let's say Quebec held an unapproved referendum and, through a fair, democratic process, unanimously approved secession from Canada, whereas the majority of Canada overall opposed the move.

That "unanimous" places us firmly in fantasyland, but, whatever, we'll roll with it.

(08-05-2014 06:33 PM)frankksj Wrote:  What if, despite political posturing and threats, Quebec went ahead and declared its independence? What do you think the rest of Canada should do?

In general they would abide.

There are a lot more variables to consider. As ever, you pretend nuance is a thing which doesn't exist in order to make your staggeringly superficial "analysis". But acknowledging that would interfere with whatever nonsensical conclusion you're ever so tediously grinding towards, so why don't we continue...

(08-05-2014 06:33 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Do you really think they start a civil war over it and millions of Canadians should lose their lives fighting to force the Québécois to remain in Canada against their will?

No. Hi there, straw man!

(08-05-2014 06:33 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Are you so opposed to freedom and liberty that you'd choose bloodshed, destruction of infrastructure and economic ruin for both sides, rather than just let Quebec leave, and agree to live peacefully side-by-side as friends?

No. Hi there, straw man!

(08-05-2014 06:33 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Is it THAT important to deny those French-speakers their freedom and independence?

No. Hi there, straw man!

...

If you have already convinced yourself, with ironclad conviction, that you know what other people think - past experience suggests that, yes, you are that delusional - then why even bother asking your pathetic questions? You'll just ignore the answers and keep on belabouring your mischaracterisations. In fact, why have the conversation at all? You ignore anyone else's part in it.

(08-05-2014 06:33 PM)frankksj Wrote:  If you say 'yes Canada should go to war'...

Which I didn't, but why let that stop your wallowing in self-importance?

(08-05-2014 06:33 PM)frankksj Wrote:  ... then I wonder if you'll see why we libertarians see the rest of you lot as barbarians.

Ah, so we're back to obsessive group-identity conformity. I thought I told you to try to cut back on that?

(08-05-2014 06:33 PM)frankksj Wrote:  If you say 'no, it's not worth it, let them go', then how is it any different in Ukraine?

Lots of reasons.

"If A was A it would be A" is all well and good so far as it goes. It's not particularly applicable to B.

(08-05-2014 06:33 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Because they're half a world away are they any less human, less deserving of freedom?

No. Hi there, straw man!

(08-05-2014 06:33 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Now if you agree with us libertarians that it's better to lay down the clubs,

Yes. Laying down arms. That sounds exactly like what what invading Russian troops were doing in Crimea. Do you have any self-awareness? The twisted and facetious hypocrisy you're demonstrating is a rather stunning piece of dissonance if nothing else.

Now, help me out if I've got this wrong, but seizing property is something "you libertarians" (I'll indulge your groupthink fantasy) aren't too keen on, isn't that so?

Since that is, oddly enough, precisely what happened to Ukrainian national assets in Crimea, I'm wondering where exactly you stand on that instance.

(08-05-2014 06:33 PM)frankksj Wrote:  ... give people their freedom and live in peace...

Yes, because "free and peaceful" totally applies to controlled and repressive modern Russia.

(08-05-2014 06:33 PM)frankksj Wrote:  ... then it would seem you have no choice but to agree with Putin's "official position" that Ukraine should simply allow each region to determine their own fate with fair, democratic elections.

Everyone's "official position" is that things should be decided by fair and democratic processes. I do in fact agree with that principle.

If you believe for one second that Russia's actions have been in accordance with that principle, you've been guzzling the kool-aid by the gallon.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
08-05-2014, 07:24 PM
RE: Putin the new Thomas Jefferson, the west the new Stalin?!
(08-05-2014 06:40 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Looks like Putin's bowing to international pressure.

Maybe in a different universe.

(08-05-2014 06:40 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  He's pulling his troops off the Ukrainian boarder

Curious that NATO hasn't been able to confirm this.

(08-05-2014 06:40 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  and calling for referendums and saying that the "Ukrainian elections are a step in the right direction".

I suspect we are going to see a pro-Russian Ukrainian President because I find it rather odd that Putin would appear to give up so easily. In saying that he has managed to gain Crimea and soon to gain several eastern regions.
Not bad for couple months work while managing to avoid a major war and a total embargo by foreign relations.

It would seem to me that Putin has already got what he wanted -- Crimea and its military bases. As a bonus he'll save a few rubles for not having to lease it any further, and he took away what little leverage Ukraine had in negotiations. It's almost astonishing with how meager repercussions he managed to pull that off while Ukraine was practically without governance. Talk about ninja stunt. As for the Russians in eastern Ukraine, they are totally irrelevant to him, as if he'd give a flying fuck over any man's soul. He's happy with how things turned out and doesn't wan't to escalate the conflict any further, there's nothing to gain, and a lot to lose at this point. Not bad indeed.

Τί ἐστιν ἀλήθεια?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2014, 08:27 PM
RE: Putin the new Thomas Jefferson, the west the new Stalin?!
I will give you this much on your criticism of the US. We are a tad questionable on the logic of our stance on the right to secede.

We essentially did just that when we fought the Revolutionary War against Britain. They viewed it as a Revolutionary War rather than as a Secession. As one of the founding fathers stated, "Only repeated, multiplied oppressions placing it beyond all doubt that their rulers had formed settled plans to deprive them of their liberties, could warrant the concerted resistance of the people against their government"

Then we fought a Civil War to prevent our Southern States from seceding. The Court wrote regarding acts establishing an independent government that "The validity of its acts, both against the parent state and the citizens or subjects thereof, depends entirely upon its ultimate success; if it fail to establish itself permanently, all such acts perish with it; if it succeed and become recognized, its acts from the commencement of its existence are upheld as those of an independent nation."

So, apparently, the official stance of the US is that we have no right to peaceful secession, but we do have the right to armed revolution... if we win.

Politics is a messy business.....

Jesus is my Stalker: He has graced me with his unconditional love, but if I reject it and refuse to love him in return, he will make my life Hell.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2014, 06:31 AM
RE: Putin the new Thomas Jefferson, the west the new Stalin?!
(08-05-2014 06:33 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(08-05-2014 03:00 PM)cjlr Wrote:  When Quebec held their referenda, it was at the will of a democratically elected provincial government under the approval of the federal government.

Here's a question for you cjlr... Since Crimea also had a democratically elected provincial government, the only thing you that, according to you, would make the Québécois' referendum legal is if the Canadian federal government as a whole approved it.

So what if they didn't? Let's say Quebec held an unapproved referendum and, through a fair, democratic process, unanimously approved secession from Canada, whereas the majority of Canada overall opposed the move. What if, despite political posturing and threats, Quebec went ahead and declared its independence? What do you think the rest of Canada should do? Do you really think they start a civil war over it and millions of Canadians should lose their lives fighting to force the Québécois to remain in Canada against their will? Are you so opposed to freedom and liberty that you'd choose bloodshed, destruction of infrastructure and economic ruin for both sides, rather than just let Quebec leave, and agree to live peacefully side-by-side as friends? Is it THAT important to deny those French-speakers their freedom and independence?

If you say 'yes Canada should go to war', then I wonder if you'll see why we libertarians see the rest of you lot as barbarians. If you say 'no, it's not worth it, let them go', then how is it any different in Ukraine? Because they're half a world away are they any less human, less deserving of freedom?

Now if you agree with us libertarians that it's better to lay down the clubs, give people their freedom and live in peace, then it would seem you have no choice but to agree with Putin's "official position" that Ukraine should simply allow each region to determine their own fate with fair, democratic elections.

Silly boy, the Quebecois can just move to France. Isn't that your favored libertarian solution?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2014, 07:13 AM
RE: Putin the new Thomas Jefferson, the west the new Stalin?!
(09-05-2014 06:31 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(08-05-2014 06:33 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Here's a question for you cjlr... Since Crimea also had a democratically elected provincial government, the only thing you that, according to you, would make the Québécois' referendum legal is if the Canadian federal government as a whole approved it.

So what if they didn't? Let's say Quebec held an unapproved referendum and, through a fair, democratic process, unanimously approved secession from Canada, whereas the majority of Canada overall opposed the move. What if, despite political posturing and threats, Quebec went ahead and declared its independence? What do you think the rest of Canada should do? Do you really think they start a civil war over it and millions of Canadians should lose their lives fighting to force the Québécois to remain in Canada against their will? Are you so opposed to freedom and liberty that you'd choose bloodshed, destruction of infrastructure and economic ruin for both sides, rather than just let Quebec leave, and agree to live peacefully side-by-side as friends? Is it THAT important to deny those French-speakers their freedom and independence?

If you say 'yes Canada should go to war', then I wonder if you'll see why we libertarians see the rest of you lot as barbarians. If you say 'no, it's not worth it, let them go', then how is it any different in Ukraine? Because they're half a world away are they any less human, less deserving of freedom?

Now if you agree with us libertarians that it's better to lay down the clubs, give people their freedom and live in peace, then it would seem you have no choice but to agree with Putin's "official position" that Ukraine should simply allow each region to determine their own fate with fair, democratic elections.

Silly boy, the Quebecois can just move to France. Isn't that your favored libertarian solution?

Pretty sure Frank here had to turn in his libertarian card with his support of armed Government Agents swooping down on an unarmed populace and forcing compliance at gunpoint (the biggest libertarian boogyman)

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Revenant77x's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: