Posted on 04/07/2014 1:02:54 PM PDT by dangus
I lean towards your interpretation of events, but the incredible thing is how unnecessary it is to interpret events! If Crimea weren’t so pro-Russian, there’s no way Putin would want — or be able to afford — a restive, occupied province. He’s got his hands full. Is he Macchiavellian? Before answering that, people should note the central thesis of Macchiavelli was that his sponsor should NOT occupy Corsica.
“Poor form?” Whose stylebook are you using? I would argue that it is “poor form” to present debatable conjectures as “encyclopedic knowledge.”
Agreed! And, I certainly agree with Putin on several issues. But, he did invade another country for shaky reasons (yeah, I know we invaded Irag for shaky reasons, so spare me that comment please........).
In addition, he is dropping hints at invading other countries including Finland.
So, minimally, Putin remains on the “dubious” list.
Of course. Those Russian troops that crossed the border simply "lost their way."
I agree that the MSM narrative is being contradicted by your thread.
RINOS and the GOP-e probably don’t agree, though.
Don’t bother. The erasing of posts seems to extend to some by not all. I use Ad Homs IN REPLY to Ad Homs hurled at me (without provocation) and nothing apparently gets done. OTOH, when I...
Oh, please. The notion that Zyuganov is a buddy of Putin is so idiotic it is impossible to comment on.
The parliament only ousted Yanukovich after he had already fled the country and the parliament literally had armed mobs occupying its halls. They might as well have announced, “Ratify our actions or die!”
The 22K income per capita is by far the highest its even been in Russia, wealthier than the vast majority of the Earth, and six times what it was when Putin took over in the 1990s.
More "encyclopedic knowledge?"
Russia is the largest country in the world. The last thing
Putin needs is more territory.
OK, which one of these posts (besides the Yushenko poisoning) do you even consider debatable?
Is there some contention as to who owned Crimea in 1650? 1750? 1850? 1950?
Is there some contention as to which are the largest ports in the Ukraine?
Is there some contention as to whether or not there are pipelines through the Crimea?
Is there some contention as to whether Kiev is really the wealthiest part of the Ukraine, as opposed to the Crimea?
Is there some contention as to whether or not Svoboda glorifies the Banderites? Or whether the Banderites wiped out the Poles in Western Ukraine?
Is there some contention about how far around the Sea of Azov you have to travel to go from Russian to Crimea? Or that a bridge is being built to make the trip just two miles across the straits of Kerch?
You tell me where I posted a contestible point as fact, and I’ll happily note it.
One way to start would be to compare your last post with your original. Note which “items” you left off the second list, and you’ll have a good idea what’s debatable.
The pathetic, laughable thing is that every one of the “myths” I contradict has been presumed true by mainstream AND “conservative” authors without anyone fact-checking, let alone sourcing.
So your “encyclopedic” sources are contradicted by others, encyclopedic or otherwise?
They risk it. Mother Russia can be cruel to unfaithful...
Oh please! I stopped because I thought I had beaten a dead horse long enough! Is it contestible that Tymoshenko was recorded calling for the death of all Russians in the Ukraine? No; I noted her intents by saying that were contestible, and I avoided drawing the conclusion that she wanted them all dead. I only allowed the reader to draw their own conclusion whether a Russian in Donetsk might not want her as their ruler. So again, which item do you debate?
Now, I admit I have actually been contradicted in the past with conspiracists that the UN echoed the falsified data regarding Russian birth rates, death rates, etc., But that quickly fell into the argument that no source was good enough (except my opponent’s own intuition). But again, just go look that up in Wikipedia, and you’ll find endless sources.
Now you’re being purposely stupid. I noted that there was no fact-checking at all, let alone sourcing.
I’m confused.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/gop/3127835/posts?page=27#27
Nobody cares about any of your opinions. Therefore your points are moot.
You have made it clear on this forum that you desire to disparage others for expressing opinions. Even if they post vanity threads to debate those opinions with others you pop in (instead of just turning off the vanity posts in your settings) to tell them how much you despise vanity threads.
Your attitude and the intellectual vacuum from which it derives negates any contemplation of your input which might otherwise occur.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.