Putin the new Thomas Jefferson, the west the new Stalin?!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-05-2014, 07:31 AM
RE: Putin the new Thomas Jefferson, the west the new Stalin?!
(09-05-2014 07:13 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(09-05-2014 06:31 AM)Chas Wrote:  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)

Clearly you guys are both hopelessly naive and missing the key details here.

America bad, because lol conspiracy.
THEREFORE,
not-America good.

I think you can all agree so far?

Then, naturally, we note that:
Russia is not-America,
THEREFORE,
Russia good.

And therefore, naturally, forced imposition of undemocratic regime change accompanied by forced seizure of property and forced displacement of people in defiance of local and international law, all of it being done at literal gunpoint - a collection of any self-obsessed pseudo-libertarian's favourite things - is, as a consequence...

A-okay and totally legitimate! Because someone once paid lip service to a farcical pretense to self-determination, and that someone is not America.

And, too, anyone who opposes this act of unilateral coercive violence therefore endorses violence and oppression, in stark contrast to the one endorsing the act itself, who is, naturally, the paragon of non-violent solutions.

I hope that clears things up for you.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
09-05-2014, 07:55 AM
RE: Putin the new Thomas Jefferson, the west the new Stalin?!
(08-05-2014 07:12 PM)cjlr Wrote:  No. Hi there, straw man!

You can't just keep making up your own meanings to words. Seriously, this is an English language forum, stick to English. When I present a hypothetical situation and ask your opinion "what should be done?", that is NOT, and cannot ever be, a strawman. The only straws involved are the ones you're grasping at to avoid answering the question since you can't do so without revealing your inner caveman. See....

(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.
[/quote]

To say it's "necessary" begs the obvious question, well what if they don't do it? The only way it would truly be "necessary" is if the rest of the government was willing to fight a civil war and use violence and threats to make them stay. So you keep saying I make assumptions about how you think. Totally untrue. You reveal how you think by what you write, and I merely comment on it. Your own words prove that, in your mind, a government should use force against its own people if they try to secede without federal approval. No assumptions required. You said it. It's in black & white. And there's no need to be ashamed of it. Probably 95% of the population thinks like you, that whenever somebody does something you don't like, use force to make them stop. Humans and animals have been doing this for millions of years. That's the single issue that we libertarians are trying to promote, that humans can evolve and get passed using force and do things peacefully and voluntarily.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2014, 08:04 AM
RE: Putin the new Thomas Jefferson, the west the new Stalin?!
(08-05-2014 07:00 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(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.

No. The answer is that we don't know what really happened. We do know cjlr's claim of "invading Russian troops" is purely fabricated. If Russian troops invaded prior to the Crimean vote, satellite and radar would have caught it. They didn't. The west never claimed they did. There always were Russian soldiers in Crimea as Russia had a base there. If having a base on a foreign land is an "invasion", then the US has invaded 130 countries. The gunmen wore no insignia's and officially claimed to be Ukrainians, but some observers said they didn't have a Ukrainian accent. So, nobody really knows.

However, what is obvious is that the people of Crimea were not being forced to join Russia, but rather that this is what the majority wanted. That is the only logical explanation for why the west, instead of calling for election monitors, said that merely voting was illegal. Even before gunmen took to the streets there were plenty of news reports showing major unrest in Crimea and fury at Kiev.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2014, 08:10 AM
RE: Putin the new Thomas Jefferson, the west the new Stalin?!
(09-05-2014 06:31 AM)Chas Wrote:  Silly boy, the Quebecois can just move to France.

They can? Can you please provide a reference, Chas? I was unaware that France signed an agreement with Canada, as they did with the EU, granting the Québécois a right to live in France. I was under the impression they needed to get residency visas, which required sponsors, and were subject to quotas. I'm anxious to see where you got your information.

Regardless, it's quite different when individuals or minorities want to leave vs a region as a whole. Let's say there's a suburb of Detroit that's part of the city proper, and is suffering because of Detroit's ineptitude. Sure, if individuals within the suburb are discontent, they should pack up and move. But, if a clear majority of the suburb are discontent, I do believe they should have the right to vote on secession, and that the rest of Detroit shouldn't take up arms to stop them. However, I understand this is uniquely a fringe libertarian position and the rest of you believe in just beating each other to a bloody pulp if they have something you want or do something you don't like.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2014, 08:11 AM
RE: Putin the new Thomas Jefferson, the west the new Stalin?!
(09-05-2014 07:55 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(08-05-2014 07:12 PM)cjlr Wrote:  No. Hi there, straw man!

You can't just keep making up your own meanings to words. Seriously, this is an English language forum, stick to English. When I present a hypothetical situation and ask your opinion "what should be done?", that is NOT, and cannot ever be, a strawman. The only straws involved are the ones you're grasping at to avoid answering the question since you can't do so without revealing your inner caveman. See....

(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.

Quote:That's a necessary precondition, yes.

To say it's "necessary" begs the obvious question, well what if they don't do it? The only way it would truly be "necessary" is if the rest of the government was willing to fight a civil war and use violence and threats to make them stay. So you keep saying I make assumptions about how you think. Totally untrue. You reveal how you think by what you write, and I merely comment on it. Your own words prove that, in your mind, a government should use force against its own people if they try to secede without federal approval. No assumptions required. You said it. It's in black & white. And there's no need to be ashamed of it. Probably 95% of the population thinks like you, that whenever somebody does something you don't like, use force to make them stop. Humans and animals have been doing this for millions of years. That's the single issue that we libertarians are trying to promote, that humans can evolve and get passed using force and do things peacefully and voluntarily.

There's no need for secession and violence - those people can just move.

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, 08:23 AM
RE: Putin the new Thomas Jefferson, the west the new Stalin?!
Nations, corporations, banks, individuals.... all vying to see what gains they can lay their hands upon in Ukraine.

Its got nothing to do with peoples rights, faith, belief, personal identities.

I feel so much, and yet I feel nothing.
I am a rock, I am the sky, the birds and the trees and everything beyond.
I am the wind, in the fields in which I roar. I am the water, in which I drown.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2014, 08:25 AM
RE: Putin the new Thomas Jefferson, the west the new Stalin?!
(09-05-2014 07:55 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(08-05-2014 07:12 PM)cjlr Wrote:  No. Hi there, straw man!

You can't just keep making up your own meanings to words. Seriously, this is an English language forum, stick to English. When I present a hypothetical situation and ask your opinion "what should be done?", that is NOT, and cannot ever be, a strawman.

"So you believe X? So you believe Y? So you believe Z?", where another person has nowhere indicated believing either X, or Y, or Z, is a highly dishonest practice.

It is also a favourite thing of yours.

(09-05-2014 07:55 AM)frankksj Wrote:  The only straws involved are the ones you're grasping at to avoid answering the question since you can't do so without revealing your inner caveman.

And we see, once again, that in your deranged fever dreams, you are already convinced that you can read minds.

At least that means you'll never have to deal with changing your mind, I guess.

(09-05-2014 07:55 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(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.

Quote:That's a necessary precondition, yes.

To say it's "necessary" begs the obvious question, well what if they don't do it?

Indeed. What would be an appropriate response?

Te answer, of course, is it depends, because unlike your facetious and superficial hypotheticals, reality admits of nuance.

(09-05-2014 07:55 AM)frankksj Wrote:  The only way it would truly be "necessary" is if the rest of the government was willing to fight a civil war and use violence and threats to make them stay.

Necessary for legitimacy, you adorable little rat.

(09-05-2014 07:55 AM)frankksj Wrote:  So you keep saying I make assumptions about how you think. Totally untrue. You reveal how you think by what you write, and I merely comment on it. Your own words prove that, in your mind, a government should use force against its own people if they try to secede without federal approval. No assumptions required.

Yeah. No. That is not what I said. At all. In any way. Ever.

That is something you made up. That is something you invented. That is something you decided to trot out in lieu of honesty, because you've had a lot of practice jacking off to your fantasies of mowing down idiotic straw men, and you'd rather do that than engage in real dialogue with other real human beings.

You are so stuck up your own ass that you project your delusional fantasy onto everything you see, and so adamantly self-obsessed you never bother to check to see whether any of it is even remotely approaching the truth.

I will attempt to explain to you - futile endeavour though I already know that to be - some of why your demented caricature is so idiotic.

The federal government owns property in Quebec. Can the provincial government forcibly seize this property unilaterally?

Remember, you've said before that one individual forcibly seizing the property of another individual is a bad thing. And a government forcibly seizing the property of an individual is likewise a bad thing.

Is, then, a government forcibly seizing the property of another government a bad thing? Remember, between nations we call this imperialism. Is it magically okay in some circumstances?

According to you, yes.

Hey, that's funny. Did something just disappear? I could have sworn I just saw it, but now it's gone. What was it, again?

Oh, right. Your principles and integrity.

(09-05-2014 07:55 AM)frankksj Wrote:  You said it. It's in black & white.

No, you said it. You then declared that it was "what I meant", when anyone capable of grade school reading comprehension can tell I said no such thing. Inventing it, and then attributing it, does not re-arrange reality so that I actually said any such thing.

So there's that.

(09-05-2014 07:55 AM)frankksj Wrote:  And there's no need to be ashamed of it. Probably 95% of the population thinks like you, that whenever somebody does something you don't like, use force to make them stop.

Property cannot exist without the potential for violence, as you yourself explicitly acknowledged on prior occasions.

You are, as ever, a staggeringly disingenuous hypocrite, insofar as you are perfectly happy when things are in you favour, according to what you see as necessary, but are pathologically unable to admit of (inevitable) variety in the opinions of others, and that those opinions are no less legitimate than your own.

But, no, I'm sure self-obsessed self-gratification, obsession with in-group identity and conformity, and reactionary condemnation of all others is a totally winning combination.

(09-05-2014 07:55 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Humans and animals have been doing this for millions of years. That's the single issue that we libertarians are trying to promote, that humans can evolve and get passed using force and do things peacefully and voluntarily.

Oh, so, like in Crimea?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
09-05-2014, 08:36 AM
RE: Putin the new Thomas Jefferson, the west the new Stalin?!
(09-05-2014 08:11 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(09-05-2014 07:55 AM)frankksj Wrote:  You can't just keep making up your own meanings to words. Seriously, this is an English language forum, stick to English. When I present a hypothetical situation and ask your opinion "what should be done?", that is NOT, and cannot ever be, a strawman. The only straws involved are the ones you're grasping at to avoid answering the question since you can't do so without revealing your inner caveman. See....



To say it's "necessary" begs the obvious question, well what if they don't do it? The only way it would truly be "necessary" is if the rest of the government was willing to fight a civil war and use violence and threats to make them stay. So you keep saying I make assumptions about how you think. Totally untrue. You reveal how you think by what you write, and I merely comment on it. Your own words prove that, in your mind, a government should use force against its own people if they try to secede without federal approval. No assumptions required. You said it. It's in black & white. And there's no need to be ashamed of it. Probably 95% of the population thinks like you, that whenever somebody does something you don't like, use force to make them stop. Humans and animals have been doing this for millions of years. That's the single issue that we libertarians are trying to promote, that humans can evolve and get passed using force and do things peacefully and voluntarily.

There's no need for secession and violence - those people can just move.

Silly Chas.

Just because Ukraine and Russia have had open borders for twenty years doesn't mean anyone in the former who preferred the latter was free to move whenever they wanted.

No, clearly actual violence was the bestest most non-violent way to resolve their problems.

Welcome to bizarro world. Population: frankksj.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2014, 08:40 AM
RE: Putin the new Thomas Jefferson, the west the new Stalin?!
(09-05-2014 08:04 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(08-05-2014 07:00 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  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.

No. The answer is that we don't know what really happened. We do know cjlr's claim of "invading Russian troops" is purely fabricated. If Russian troops invaded prior to the Crimean vote, satellite and radar would have caught it. They didn't. The west never claimed they did.

You know, I guess it's possible that men with Russian uniforms and Russian guns, riding Russian vehicles out of Russian military bases, speaking Russian, and acting on behalf of Russia, might not actually be Russians.

Anything's possible.

But, y'know, there's the part where the Russians totally admitted the whole freaking thing.

But, uh, you keep on pretending "nobody knows" if that makes you feel better about vehemently defending an act which is literally wholly contrary to any of your stated principles.

(09-05-2014 08:04 AM)frankksj Wrote:  There always were Russian soldiers in Crimea as Russia had a base there. If having a base on a foreign land is an "invasion", then the US has invaded 130 countries. The gunmen wore no insignia's and officially claimed to be Ukrainians, but some observers said they didn't have a Ukrainian accent. So, nobody really knows.

And when those troops left their bases, entered foreign territory, and seized control of the place, that was, what, sightseeing?

(09-05-2014 08:04 AM)frankksj Wrote:  However, what is obvious is that the people of Crimea were not being forced to join Russia, but rather that this is what the majority wanted.

Yes, because as we've discussed, a hasty referendum conducted under the watchful eye of literal men with guns walking the streets is totally a legitimate democratic act, especially when said armed men imprison journalists and shut down independent media.

(09-05-2014 08:04 AM)frankksj Wrote:  That is the only logical explanation for why the west, instead of calling for election monitors, said that merely voting was illegal. Even before gunmen took to the streets there were plenty of news reports showing major unrest in Crimea and fury at Kiev.

You just cannot get enough of doubling down on craven apologism, can you?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
09-05-2014, 08:40 AM
RE: Putin the new Thomas Jefferson, the west the new Stalin?!
(09-05-2014 07:31 AM)cjlr Wrote:  And therefore, naturally, forced imposition of undemocratic regime change accompanied by forced seizure of property and forced displacement of people in defiance of local and international law, all of it being done at literal gunpoint

You already said that whether the Crimeans' votes were taken at gunpoint, or if Crimea had fair, uncontested, democratic elections with international observers, either way it's a moot point since you wouldn't accept the results of the election. It's simply a diversion tactic to criticize voting methods when you've already gone on record saying the vote is illegitimate anyway.

This distraction doesn't discredit the claim in my OP: Putin's official position on paper (whether or not it's the reality on the ground) that each region should be autonomous and allowed to hold democratic elections to determine their own fate is the same as Thomas Jefferson's. And the West's official position, like yours, that no matter what the will of the people is they will never be allowed to do anything the central government disapproves of is the same as Stalin's.

All your silly tangents don't change that.[/align]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: