Posted on 07/21/2023 7:33:09 AM PDT by ganeemead
Still standing with "ukraine".....
Hilarious!! Everyone needs to watch!
LOL!
Nailed it.
WOW! He really packed a lot into that video clip! It’s like reading FR Ukrainian agitprop, only this time it was entertaining. :D
JP is a funny guy.
Blasphemy and Consumerism all at once…impressive.
Ya though I walk through the wheat fields of cluster bombs, I will fear no Russians.
Your drab green t shirt comforts me…
A place that a year ago 9 out of 10 Americans had never heard of and couldn’t have found on a map as big as a barn door is suddenly the most important place in the world deserving of BILLIONS of US taxpayer dollars being shoveled into and shut up and don’t ask why, you Putin stooge!
Ukraine and Russia. Two f’ing scorpions in bottle.
Not our circus, not our monkeys.
I suppose the only way to have a discussion about Ukrainiacs is to ridicule 'em.
No real humans could be that stupid.
I think...
There are people who actually think Biden is doing a good job...
One of them, most reverend, continues to cite in FR threads retired general Ben Hodges as a source for things Ukraine, even though he ENDORSED BIDEN in the last presidential campaign, in the Tallahassee Democrat and other papers.
So why are you standing with Russia?
In some of my early business training, your comment is what was called the "Assumptive close."
"The assumptive close is also known as the presumptive close. It's where the salesperson assumes the prospect is ready to buy. Instead of the salesperson saying ‘Are you ready to buy?’ they would assume the sale, and ask a question like ‘Would you like me to arrange for delivery on Monday?’The assumptive close keeps you in control of the sales momentum by skipping past the whole question of whether the customer wants to buy. In this approach, you simply assume that the sale is as good as done. As soon as you complete your sales pitch, you move right into a question.
Source: https://www.socoselling.com/the-assumptive-close/
It is a clever gambit used by some within the larger topic of the Ukraine-Russia war.
It sidesteps the minimum of three alternatives, by pretending there are only two. There are at minimum three.
1) Pro-Z (which is not necessarily the same as pro-Ukraine), 2) pro-P (which is not necessarily the same as pro-Russia) and 3) what these threads have been saying, "not my circus and not my clowns," meaning no funding should be spent.
The third, which your question sidesteps with a well-known sales and debate stratagem, suggests that neither Ukraine nor Russia should be getting materiel assistance for warring.
Given that these are two nations, neither belonging to NATO, and then conflating an officially non-NATO conflict -- according to the statements in which NATO members assiduously thread the needle with not declaring themselves as actual combatants in any legal sense, and therefore participants in the actual fighting -- into something else, you take the three alternatives, ignore the third as well as the subtleties of the other two, to imply by a single question that any disagreement with your stance should be "standing with Russia." Clever but not clever enough.
It is tantamount to you answering clearly, "why are you standing with the United States' adding to its 130 percent of GDP in national debt, in order to further fund an non-declared war which might be -- like Afghanistan -- an eventual loss?"
This ignores that the pro-Z stance might not always serve Ukraine going forward, or the pro-P stance might not always serve Russia going forward. Perhaps both these non-NATO combatants are two thugs, and you are demanding someone choose which thug wears a white hat and which thug wears a black hat. If there are two black hats....
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.