• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ukraine accuses Russia of Occupation calls for help from US/UK

You should just ignore them then. Remember I said I don't give a **** about what you say or think.

Why should I ignore them when I can also discredit them by pointing out the poor critical thinking?
 
Why should I ignore them when I can also discredit them by pointing out the poor critical thinking?

Pointing out the hypocrisy in US foreign policy isn't poor critical thinking. But if you disagree with it or just don't like it you can call it whatever you like. I think you exercise poor critical thinking, see how that works.
 
If I were in the Ukraine, I would have made sure the mass-murdering President did NOT escape.
Seems to me that ousting a mass-murderer is all the talk in the USA in regards to the 2nd amendment crowd .
Sure I do. But what transpired in Ukraine wasn't a revolution, it was an anti-democracy rebellion. And you wouldn't condone it here, or would you?
 
You may remember this one better than I, as I'm battling a nasty flu.
When did the USA create the phenomenon known as the 'Sandinistas'?
Pointing out the hypocrisy in US foreign policy isn't poor critical thinking. But if you disagree with it or just don't like it you can call it whatever you like. I think you exercise poor critical thinking, see how that works.
 
Kissinger was also good at playing politics with the Vietnam draft, ending it during an election year 1972.
And, coincidentally, 1972 was the FIRST year there was no '2S' college deferment.
I know, I was '1H' for 7 years while my buddies went to the National Guards all over the Nation .
Kissinger was good at history and realpolitik.
 
You may remember this one better than I, as I'm battling a nasty flu.
When did the USA create the phenomenon known as the 'Sandinistas'?

I'm thinking this was in the Reagan admin.
 
I'm thinking this was in the Reagan admin.

As usual, you think inaccurately. The Sandinistas took power before Reagan became POTUS.:peace

[h=3]Sandinista National Liberation Front - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/h]en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandinista_National_Liberation_Front‎Wikipedia


The Sandinista National Liberation Front (Spanish: Frente Sandinista de Liberación Nacional, or FSLN) is today a social democratic political party in Nicaragua.‎History - ‎Ideologies - ‎Principles of government - ‎Policies and programs
 
I dont know....

If Russia was really confident, they would have turned the spigot off on Ukraine already. They have not done so yet. My guess is that the Russians really need every gas sale they make just to keep going.

But, the Russians also have an advantage. Putin is not only well, relentless in his pursuit of Russian interests, but is also highly intelligent. My bet is that though Russia would get hurt more than the EU in an embargo, none of their leaders and nobody in the Obama adminstration has the nerve and experience to call Putin's bluff and then out play him.

That's because that would be a big bluff to call. Better we leave well enough alone.
 
Pointing out the hypocrisy in US foreign policy isn't poor critical thinking. But if you disagree with it or just don't like it you can call it whatever you like. I think you exercise poor critical thinking, see how that works.

I'm not the one that thought "not all" meant "none". I'm not one that, when told that a classified portion of the Church Committee proceedings exists, assumed the person telling them that was unaware of the larger, unclassified portion. Your critical thinking errors go far, far beyond your opinions and corrupt the actual way to get to them.

You claim to be "for peace", whatever that means, but go out of your way to excuse Russia's actions solely because "they're not hypocritical about law." Which isn't even true anyway, but even if it were it would make no sense.
 
I'm not the one that thought "not all" meant "none". I'm not one that, when told that a classified portion of the Church Committee proceedings exists, assumed the person telling them that was unaware of the larger, unclassified portion. Your critical thinking errors go far, far beyond your opinions and corrupt the actual way to get to them.

You claim to be "for peace", whatever that means, but go out of your way to excuse Russia's actions solely because "they're not hypocritical about law." Which isn't even true anyway, but even if it were it would make no sense.

Any poster who quotes Chesterton deserves my support.:peace
 
I'm not the one that thought "not all" meant "none". I'm not one that, when told that a classified portion of the Church Committee proceedings exists, assumed the person telling them that was unaware of the larger, unclassified portion. Your critical thinking errors go far, far beyond your opinions and corrupt the actual way to get to them.

You claim to be "for peace", whatever that means, but go out of your way to excuse Russia's actions solely because "they're not hypocritical about law." Which isn't even true anyway, but even if it were it would make no sense.

Oh I know you know what peace means, you probably thought that was funny. And it's no bother excusing Russia's actions in Ukraine, AT THIS POINT! And the unclassified portion of the Church Committees report to congress is the relevant portion. Again, if you have knowledge of the classified portion that would diminish senator Church's declassified concerns/warning of potential for NSA abuses, please do share them.
 
Oh come on...Now that we are entering the lame duck portion of Obama, you all of the sudden want to distance yourself from him, when in the past, you have done little more than regurgitate MSNBC talking points (and no I won't go on a snip hunt to provide examples)

Stopped reading there. The idea that I've "done little more than regurgitate MSNBC talking points" is laughable, and the fact that you won't even back up your inane assertion is simply pathetic. Good day to you sir. I SAID GOOD DAY
 
Oh I know you know what peace means, you probably thought that was funny.

Very funny, because it's so generic and infantile. Saying you're "for peace" is like saying you're "for good things". It's so basic that it may as well be meaningless. Different actors have different roads to peace. Peace for some can mean discomfort for others, etc etc. Here's a piece of knowledge for you that you can use later on in life: everyone is for peace on their own terms, so saying you're "for peace" is for either simpletons or politicians hoping to appeal to simpletons.

And it's no bother excusing Russia's actions in Ukraine, AT THIS POINT!

Oh, I'm sure you'll continue to excuse it at later points. I'm confident.

And the unclassified portion of the Church Committees report to congress is the relevant portion. Again, if you have knowledge of the classified portion that would diminish senator Church's declassified concerns/warning of potential for NSA abuses, please do share them.

You just keep displaying your atrocious cognitive abilities:
1- I didn't say anything about what the relevant portion was. That wasn't the debate then, it's not the debate now: the issue is that when you're told a "classified portion" of something exists, you take that to mean the person is unaware of the unclassified portion. But you can't even follow the train of thought about an example of a time you couldn't follow the train of thought. looooool! This is like Inception! A cognitive failing within a cognitive failing!

2- How would you know what the relevant portions were anyway, you've never read the classified parts? lol!

3- Why would someone share classified information? But again, why are you even talking about that, that has nothing to do with the discussion here.

The discussion is about your horrible critical thinking skills, which lead you to these absurdly hypocritical stances, wherein you defend Russia when they're violating international treaties (or close to it, if you want to argue that) but have no problem being critical of the US for violating international treaties (or close to it). When you're asked if you care about international law or not, your response is that you care about if nations say they follow it or not, not it in particular.

You're beyond ridiculous, and I'm going to keep calling you on it until you actually refine your thinking to the point that you could write a C paper in your junior year of high school, because frankly you're not there yet.
 
Really? That's really what you think?:roll:
There are no good guys, Jack. I'd think that with your background, you'd wholeheartedly agree.
 
There are no good guys, Jack. I'd think that with your background, you'd wholeheartedly agree.

On the contrary. It's because of my background that I know there are good guys, and bad guys.:peace
 
On the contrary. It's because of my background that I know there are good guys, and bad guys.:peace
The bad guys are the other side, right? :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom