View Poll Results: Should the U.S. recognize the Crimean vote?

Voters
52. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, the U.S. should

    21 40.38%
  • No, the U.S. shouldn't

    31 59.62%
Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011
Results 101 to 105 of 105

Thread: Should the U.S. recognize the Crimean vote on secession/annexation tomorrow?[W:78]

  1. #101
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:04 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,474

    Re: Should the U.S. recognize the Crimean vote on secession/annexation tomorrow?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    When I said observers, I meant people who were actually professionals at this kind of work and who come in without bias toward the outcome. I did not mean folks like the guy in your first link where he quite clearly supports Russia move here and thinks that Crimea should be part of Russia. I did not mean guys like the person in your second link where he literally says the majority of Crimeans will support Russia and that they need to send Kiev a message. And I didn't mean your third link where there's been a lot of conflicting information about whether the OSCE was invited or not and if they were invited why were they stopped at the border?

    OSCE observers barred from entering Crimea:Polish minister | Reuters
    That doesn't mean very much. I don't know what you "meant"...I only know what you "wrote" and now you say didn't write what you meant or you didn't mean what you wrote? Seriously, do you really expect people to read your mind through a computer?

  2. #102
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ft. Campbell, KY
    Last Seen
    12-31-14 @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,177

    Re: Should the U.S. recognize the Crimean vote on secession/annexation tomorrow?

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    That doesn't mean very much. I don't know what you "meant"...I only know what you "wrote" and now you say didn't write what you meant or you didn't mean what you wrote? Seriously, do you really expect people to read your mind through a computer?
    No I don't, which is why I'm clarify my point. I admit when I'm wrong, I've done it several times on here even to people I really really dislike like Apache and to people I respect like Zyphlin and I'd admit to you if I was talking about any observers not a bunch of jokers like this. I mean think about it, I was talking about what the US would negotiate for why would I suggest the US would be negotiating to send observers with bias against the Ukraine and extremely pro-Russia? That makes no sense at all.

  3. #103
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:04 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,474

    Re: Should the U.S. recognize the Crimean vote on secession/annexation tomorrow?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    No I don't, which is why I'm clarify my point. I admit when I'm wrong, I've done it several times on here even to people I really really dislike like Apache and to people I respect like Zyphlin and I'd admit to you if I was talking about any observers not a bunch of jokers like this. I mean think about it, I was talking about what the US would negotiate for why would I suggest the US would be negotiating to send observers with bias against the Ukraine and extremely pro-Russia? That makes no sense at all.
    I don't know why, I'm not a mind reader. I'm just blown away at how subjective and dare I say 'nationalistic' your views really are.

    If you really want to stand by what you "meant" then maybe you can provide some proof that Russia refused to allow outside election observers professional or otherwise into crimea? I didn't see you provide any and I can't take your word for it now because you keep changing what you mean. So please prove that Russia refused to allow outside election observers in Crimea. NOTE: I said and meant "election observers".

    I say that because it looked like you were deliberately confusing the issue with OSCE observers that were invited by Ukraine to monitor the miltary in Crimea......with the OSEC observers invited by Russia and Crimea to observe the election. Did you do it on purpose? I don't know, I can't read your mind but thats what it looks like.

    Did Russia invite foreign outside election observers? Yes, they did. That is ALL I had to prove and I did that inspite of your objections. Russia invited outside observers..thats it...thats all I had to prove based on your claim that they wouldn't allow "any outside observers" at all. Anything else beyond that is just you "raising the bar". Wiseman: "I didn't mean outside observers.....I really meant professional, qualified, US approved, international observers with a decidedly pro-ukraine stance and only belong to liberal political party and and no russian sources because I don't like russia, only US can have free speech." What you did is a classic "raise the bar".."move the goal post"...logical fallacy combined with attack the messenger and a litany of other fallacies. Sad thing is you still don't see it....so unless you have proof of the claim you first made about Russia not allowing any election observers into Crimea, then I think I'm going to let this be my last post to you and your crony on this issue. I don't want to get reported again.

    http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/s...html#goalposts
    "... Moving The Goalposts (Raising The Bar, Argument By Demanding Impossible Perfection): if your opponent successfully addresses some point, then say he must also address some further point. If you can make these points more and more difficult (or diverse) then eventually your opponent must fail. If nothing else, you will eventually find a subject that your opponent isn't up on.
    This is related to Argument By Question. Asking questions is easy: it's answering them that's hard.

    If each new goal causes a new question, this may get to be Infinite Regression.

    It is also possible to lower the bar, reducing the burden on an argument. For example, a person who takes Vitamin C might claim that it prevents colds. When they do get a cold, then they move the goalposts, by saying that the cold would have been much worse if not for the Vitamin C.
    Last edited by Moot; 03-20-14 at 12:19 AM.

  4. #104
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ft. Campbell, KY
    Last Seen
    12-31-14 @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,177

    Re: Should the U.S. recognize the Crimean vote on secession/annexation tomorrow?

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    I don't know why, I'm not a mind reader. I'm just blown away at how subjective and dare I say 'nationalistic' your views really are.

    If you really want to stand by what you "meant" then maybe you can provide some proof that Russia refused to allow outside election observers professional or otherwise into crimea? I didn't see you provide any and I can't take your word for it now because you keep changing what you mean. So please show me where Russia refuses outside election observers. NOTE: I said and meant "election observers".

    I say that because it looked like you were deliberately confusing the issue with OSCE observers that were invited by Ukraine to monitor the miltary in Crimea......with the OSEC observers invited by Russia and Crimea to observe the election. Did you do it on purpose? I don't know, I can't read your mind but thats what it looks like.

    Did Russia invite foreign outside observers? Yes, they did. That is ALL I had to prove and I did that inspite of your objections. Russia invited outside observers..thats it...thats all I had to prove based on your claim that they wouldn't allow "any outside observers" at all. Anything else beyond that is just you "raising the bar". Wiseman: "I didn't mean outside observers.....I really meant professional, qualified, US approved international observers with a decidedly pro-ukraine stance and only belong to liberal political party and and no russian sources because I don't like russia, only US can have free speech." What you did is a classic "raise the bar".."move the goal post"...logical fallacy combined with attack the messenger and a litany of other fallacies. Sad thing is you still don't see it....so I'm going to let this be my last post to you on this issue. I don't want to get reported again.

    A List Of Fallacious Arguments
    You're digging way too hard into this, you don't have to be a mind reader to use some basic common sense and figure that perhaps I'm not suggesting the US take a policy stance to deliberately undermine its stance and message by recognizing and pushing for bias pro-Russian monitors to oversee this election.

    As for the disagreement over whether it counts as Russia inviting observers if they do so through Crimea their puppet, well I think its an important distinction because often in information operations and psychological operations the person who gives the message is often just as if not more important than what the message is. I think it was important for Russia to have this invitation come from Crimea not Moscow to preserve both the message that Crimea is doing all this mostly by itself and that its an independent country, or at least was for a brief period according to Russia.

    What I meant by my original comment that the Russians would not allow observers in is that they wouldn't allow unbiased and honest observers in, now you can either accept the clarification of my argument or you can continue to be upset that you don't think I clarified it well enough the first time I made it. I'm telling you that I have no problem admitting when I think I'm wrong, I've done it plenty of times here, and you aren't even one of the people I'd hate admitting I was wrong to more than most. I mean if you were someone like Turtledude or Zimmer, both of them who I have no positive opinion of whatsoever, it would really suck to have to say I was wrong but your not one of those folks, you're just annoying like this little chirping bird or screeching cat and I wouldn't feel upset if I had to admit my error to you at all because I really don't care what you'd think.

  5. #105
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:30 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,569
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Should the U.S. recognize the Crimean vote on secession/annexation tomorrow?

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    With the Crimean Republic being a constituent part of the Ukraine and the Ukraine no longer have a Constitution since the overthrow of the constitutionally elected President, it seems to me that any argument which uses appeals to Constitution becomes invalid.
    Yes, many Americans still claim the super rich of the Confederacy had a right to create their own personal slave nations as a confederation because the majority of white people in their own fiefdoms agreed with them. So do you apparently. Are you one of the people who fly a Confederate flag in ongoing protest?

Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •