You find a problem in there? It was funny, very funny. Your hate of Zelensky is making you stupid.
Russia - Ukraine WAR Warning: Political Discussions
- Thread starter Canned Heat
- Start date
- Status
That was widely reported. I just chose that tweet. CNN, fox, nbc, abc, skye news, the guardian all reported on it. It's comical you use the term "far right libertarian" though. I spit my drink up on that. You gave up a lot on that comment. LOL.
Russian State TV with a serious, well-reasoned explanation of what they're fighting for in Ukraine and why.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/russian-state-tv-editor-blames-175252090.html
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/russian-state-tv-editor-blames-175252090.html
In Wikipedia? LOL. How about you Wiki Libertarian and Far Right separately and then come back to the class and explain how the hell you can be a Libertarian and far right... It would be like saying you are a pro freedom communist. They are polar opposites.
Libertarians can be right-leaning or left-leaning, including to the extremes of each.
I'd agree on the "leaning" part... but... Can a communist be Pro free market or pro top down economy? LOL. No. NO.
lib·er·tar·i·an
[ˌlibərˈterēən]
NOUN
- an advocate or supporter of a political philosophy that advocates only minimal state intervention in the free market and the private lives of citizens:
"no true libertarian would ever support a culture where citizens must show their papers to travel" - a person who advocates civil liberty.
- philosophy
a person who believes in the doctrine that human beings possess free will.
synonyms:
tolerant · unprejudiced · unbigoted · broad-minded · open-minded·
[more]
- relating to or denoting a political philosophy that advocates only minimal state intervention in the free market and the private lives of citizens:
"he holds libertarian views on most social issues" ·
[more]
Yes, far right. That's fine but Libertarianism doesn't work in the real world. They also tend to follow the Mises school of economics which is also screwed up.
Yes they are. I say they because it’s like 3 or 4 of them that can’t accept real facts and hold onto whatever the media says to them instead.
Did you actually read the definition? I'd say I am a libertarian leaning republican. I get the feeling you don't know what a libertarian actually believes so you're just saying stuff. Libertarians are strict constitutionalist and pro personal freedom. We agree with our founders that we should not go forth searching for dragons to slay but should take care of our own family. You either believe in constitutional right or you don't. You don't get to say "yea but" when you want to do unconstitutional stuff.
I know exactly what libertarianism is. This can be an interesting discussion for once. Ill get back with you tomorrow.
They treated those people like chit, just like they did in the Donbas and the the rest of their ethnic Russian population.
But sure, they wouldn't vote for independence unless it must've been a sham election; we need to risk humanity through WW3 for their "liberation."
![[eyeroll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/rolleye/rolleye0011.r191677.gif "Eye roll [eyeroll]")
No way would they prefer Russia investing in them over Ukraine cutting off their water supply. No how would the people of the Donbas want independence after years of Ukrainian shelling.
And I don't hate anyone... he''ll reap what he's sown. And it's definitively not the pro-peace argument that is the stupid one.
He just wants to find some way to dismiss you according to his worldview. That's his M.O. It's how he reconciles the cognitive dissonance, maintaining his self-assessed intellectual superiority.
They all do that, something like that, straw man arguments and useless name-calling to obscure the glaring holes and limitations of the pro-war argument.
Yeah, and you can take that to the political thread.
I can't agree with you here. At it's most basic, libertarianism desires VERY small government and nearly unfettered personal freedoms.
This thread discusses politics, it's even in the thread title, so I'll post it where I damn well please.They treated those people like chit, just like they did in the Donbas and the the rest of their ethnic Russian population.
But sure, they wouldn't vote for independence unless it must've been a sham election; we need to risk humanity through WW3 for their "liberation."
No way would they prefer Russia investing in them over Ukraine cutting off their water supply. No how would the people of the Donbas want independence after years of Ukrainian shelling.
And I don't hate anyone... he''ll reap what he's sown. And it's definitively not the pro-peace argument that is the stupid one.
He just wants to find some way to dismiss you according to his worldview. That's his M.O. It's how he reconciles the cognitive dissonance, maintaining his self-assessed intellectual superiority.
They all do that, something like that, straw man arguments and useless name-calling to obscure the glaring holes and limitations of the pro-war argument.
Yeah, and you can take that to the political thread.
Henninger is clearly a warmonger:
"In February, Mr. Putin restarted his cold war against the Western victors with a tank invasion. Instead of the Fulda Gap, Mr. Putin sent a tank army to capture the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv.
No one should delude oneself, however hard some try, into thinking that Mr. Putin’s intentions were merely to reannex Ukraine and go home to live in peace with the world. But our peaceniks here do. After conquering Ukraine, Mr. Putin would have established a military presence on Ukraine’s western borders. He's sending Middle East migrants across NATO borders already to destabilize them. Good ole Vlad.
He would have begun political, economic and military pressure against countries on NATO’s eastern flank—Poland, the Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia, Hungary. His goal over the long term would be de facto reabsorption.
Similar pressure would be applied to the Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, plus Sweden and Finland, whose quick decision to join NATO demonstrates that these countries understood immediately the broader implications of the Putin invasion.
Ukraine hasn’t figured much in the U.S. midterm elections, which are properly focused on political accountability for the highest rate of inflation experienced in most Americans’ adult lifetimes and widespread, often unchecked civil disorder. But the midterms will be succeeded quickly by politicians positioning themselves for the 2024 presidential election, and U.S. support for Ukraine is going to be an issue.
For now, only the most churlish isolationists can fail to be moved by the success of Ukraine’s daily effort to resist, and even defeat, everything the Putin military machine has thrown at it." Lots of churlish folks here.
"It is a sad irony that some in the U.S. have decided this is the moment to pull back American support for Ukraine, which is the fateful but willing nation fighting Mr. Putin’s assault on freedom and sovereignty.
The House Progressive Caucus sent President Biden a letter recently urging him to start direct negotiations with Mr. Putin to end the war. (That be you 5000, 888, GK?) Quick denunciation of the letter forced caucus chair Rep. Pramila Jayapal to withdraw it. The always-mercurial Tulsi Gabbard then denounced the left for caving to “the warmongers” in the Democratic Party. Even Tulsi agrees with The Squad et al.
On the right, Citizens for Sanity ran an ad during the World Series saying that Mr. Biden’s domestic failures are a consequence of the financial and military support the U.S. is giving Ukraine. LMAO."
www.wsj.com
"In February, Mr. Putin restarted his cold war against the Western victors with a tank invasion. Instead of the Fulda Gap, Mr. Putin sent a tank army to capture the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv.
No one should delude oneself, however hard some try, into thinking that Mr. Putin’s intentions were merely to reannex Ukraine and go home to live in peace with the world. But our peaceniks here do. After conquering Ukraine, Mr. Putin would have established a military presence on Ukraine’s western borders. He's sending Middle East migrants across NATO borders already to destabilize them. Good ole Vlad.
He would have begun political, economic and military pressure against countries on NATO’s eastern flank—Poland, the Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia, Hungary. His goal over the long term would be de facto reabsorption.
Similar pressure would be applied to the Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, plus Sweden and Finland, whose quick decision to join NATO demonstrates that these countries understood immediately the broader implications of the Putin invasion.
Ukraine hasn’t figured much in the U.S. midterm elections, which are properly focused on political accountability for the highest rate of inflation experienced in most Americans’ adult lifetimes and widespread, often unchecked civil disorder. But the midterms will be succeeded quickly by politicians positioning themselves for the 2024 presidential election, and U.S. support for Ukraine is going to be an issue.
For now, only the most churlish isolationists can fail to be moved by the success of Ukraine’s daily effort to resist, and even defeat, everything the Putin military machine has thrown at it." Lots of churlish folks here.
"It is a sad irony that some in the U.S. have decided this is the moment to pull back American support for Ukraine, which is the fateful but willing nation fighting Mr. Putin’s assault on freedom and sovereignty.
The House Progressive Caucus sent President Biden a letter recently urging him to start direct negotiations with Mr. Putin to end the war. (That be you 5000, 888, GK?) Quick denunciation of the letter forced caucus chair Rep. Pramila Jayapal to withdraw it. The always-mercurial Tulsi Gabbard then denounced the left for caving to “the warmongers” in the Democratic Party. Even Tulsi agrees with The Squad et al.
On the right, Citizens for Sanity ran an ad during the World Series saying that Mr. Biden’s domestic failures are a consequence of the financial and military support the U.S. is giving Ukraine. LMAO."
Opinion | Putin’s Nonnuclear War in Ukraine
Ukrainians are dying to protect the free world from an active alliance of enemies.
www.wsj.com
I'm not sure what you mean by strict constitutionalist but when I say far right, I'm referring to the continuum of liberal and conservative. Far right simply means more conservative. The basic beliefs of libertarianism, small government, personal freedom and so forth are very conservative positions. Hence my statement.
Who is the arbiter of "unconstitutional stuff"?
You're free to disagree, but there are most definitely right and left versions. While it's common to think of it is as such given the nature of most current political discourse, "left-leaning" does not necessarily mean big government. Wikipedia actually has pretty good pages discussing the two different strains.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-libertarianism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism
"Libertarianism is often thought of as 'right-wing' doctrine. This, however, is mistaken for at least two reasons. First, on social—rather than economic—issues, libertarianism tends to be 'left-wing'. It opposes laws that restrict consensual and private sexual relationships between adults (e.g., gay-sex, non-marital sex, and deviant sex), laws that restrict drug use, laws that impose religious views or practices on individuals, and compulsory military service. Second, in addition to the better-known version of libertarianism—right-libertarianism—, there is also a version known as 'left-libertarianism. Both endorse full self-ownership, but they differ with respect to the powers agents have to appropriate unappropriated natural resources (land, air, water, etc.)."
I agreed leaning left or right on Libertarianism but it can't be far right or far left. He used far right to make it sound like its a crazy website... and it's not. He just didn't like the info, so attacked the source.
Yes, conservative by definition. Very conservative which is far right.
Last edited:
I was replying to BBFGA, not you. Anyway, you can be a pretty far-right leaning or far-left leaning libertarian, hence the term "lean." You can lean either way to varying degrees. Hell, there's even libertarian Marxism, which would be an extreme form of left-libertarianism in my view Typically in the USA, libertarians tend to lean moderately towards right-libertarianism.
Kewl, what happens when we don't watch MSM as I don't? Let me guess, you get your news from something like zerohedge too, am I right?
OMG OMG OMG OMG!!! A COMPETENT PRO-PEACE OP/ED IN THE NYT!!!
Could it be the tide's gonna finally turn in the favor of sanity over this needless warmongering, MLC profiteering, and destruction?
The economic dislocations produced by the war are heightening the internal threats to Western democracy and straining solidarity on supporting Ukraine. Soaring inflation and looming recessions have the potential to produce toxic political effects.
...
Sooner rather than later, the West needs to move Ukraine and Russia from the battlefield to the negotiating table, brokering a diplomatic effort to shut the war down and arrive at a territorial settlement. A hypothetical deal between Russia and Ukraine would have two main components. First, Ukraine would back away from its intention to join NATO — an objective that has for years provoked strong Russian opposition. Russia has legitimate security concerns about NATO setting up shop on the other side of its 1,000-mile-plus border with Ukraine. NATO may be a defensive alliance, but it brings to bear aggregate military power that Moscow understandably does not want parked near its territory.
...
Second — the harder part — Moscow and Kyiv would need to arrive at a territorial settlement. A reasonable starting point for negotiations would be to aim for a Russian withdrawal to the “line of contact” that existed before Russia’s invasion began in February. Diplomacy could then focus on the ultimate disposition of Crimea and the chunk of the Donbas that Russia occupied in 2014. Both sides would need to compromise: Moscow to abandon its recently announced intention to annex a major slice of eastern Ukraine, and Kyiv to settle for an outcome that could entail less than regaining all its land.
...
The mounting risks that the West faces in Ukraine necessitate that the United States and its NATO partners get more involved in managing the war and in setting the table for an endgame. From Vietnam to Afghanistan to Iraq, the United States has gotten in over its head, taking on strategic commitments not warranted by the interests at stake. Helping Ukraine defend itself is worth a quite significant effort, but not one that leads to World War III or fractures Western democracy.
By Charles A. Kupchan
Dr. Kupchan is a professor of international affairs at Georgetown University and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
www.nytimes.com
Could it be the tide's gonna finally turn in the favor of sanity over this needless warmongering, MLC profiteering, and destruction?
The economic dislocations produced by the war are heightening the internal threats to Western democracy and straining solidarity on supporting Ukraine. Soaring inflation and looming recessions have the potential to produce toxic political effects.
...
Sooner rather than later, the West needs to move Ukraine and Russia from the battlefield to the negotiating table, brokering a diplomatic effort to shut the war down and arrive at a territorial settlement. A hypothetical deal between Russia and Ukraine would have two main components. First, Ukraine would back away from its intention to join NATO — an objective that has for years provoked strong Russian opposition. Russia has legitimate security concerns about NATO setting up shop on the other side of its 1,000-mile-plus border with Ukraine. NATO may be a defensive alliance, but it brings to bear aggregate military power that Moscow understandably does not want parked near its territory.
...
Second — the harder part — Moscow and Kyiv would need to arrive at a territorial settlement. A reasonable starting point for negotiations would be to aim for a Russian withdrawal to the “line of contact” that existed before Russia’s invasion began in February. Diplomacy could then focus on the ultimate disposition of Crimea and the chunk of the Donbas that Russia occupied in 2014. Both sides would need to compromise: Moscow to abandon its recently announced intention to annex a major slice of eastern Ukraine, and Kyiv to settle for an outcome that could entail less than regaining all its land.
...
The mounting risks that the West faces in Ukraine necessitate that the United States and its NATO partners get more involved in managing the war and in setting the table for an endgame. From Vietnam to Afghanistan to Iraq, the United States has gotten in over its head, taking on strategic commitments not warranted by the interests at stake. Helping Ukraine defend itself is worth a quite significant effort, but not one that leads to World War III or fractures Western democracy.
By Charles A. Kupchan
Dr. Kupchan is a professor of international affairs at Georgetown University and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Opinion | It’s Time to Bring Russia and Ukraine to the Negotiating Table
The risk of a wider war between NATO and Moscow is rising by the day, as is the risk that a prolonged war could undermine Western democracy.
I still disagee with this. There is simply a continuum line with far left (very liberal) on one side and far right (very conservative) on the other side. Libertarians tend to want super small government, little intrusion on personal property, isolationism for foreign policy. These are very conservative ideas.
Well, you can disagree, but you'd be essentially ignoring a few centuries' worth of political discourse on the matter. What you've just listed as your conception of libertarianism generally corresponds to the right-leaning variety, which is far more common at least here in the USA. So, that probably influences what your *perception* of libertarianism is. Anyway, I don't mean to belabor the point or pick at you ceaselessly. That's Gassy's job. 😆
At least we agree that Putin sucks, his war on Ukraine and the Ukrainian people sucks, and that we should provide reasonable amounts of aid to Ukraine to fight back effectively.
-more a circle than a line...knowledge is power.
I’d just like to see cooler heads prevail and some peace agreement be reached. This war is so pointless and could easily escalate globally. I thought Musk’s idea for a vote in the disputed regions to be overseen by NATO was a good idea. Would Putin accept that and stop there? Who knows. Would Ukraine accept it or would they go back to attacking those areas? Who knows. But this needs to end.
He wrote a similar piece in April. I've aleady said a couple of times, this will end with Russia keeping Crimea and Ukraine keeping everything else. Otherwise, Ukraine will not concede regardless of what some academic or anyone else wants.OMG OMG OMG OMG!!! A COMPETENT PRO-PEACE OP/ED IN THE NYT!!!
Could it be the tide's gonna finally turn in the favor of sanity over this needless warmongering, MLC profiteering, and destruction?
The economic dislocations produced by the war are heightening the internal threats to Western democracy and straining solidarity on supporting Ukraine. Soaring inflation and looming recessions have the potential to produce toxic political effects.
...
Sooner rather than later, the West needs to move Ukraine and Russia from the battlefield to the negotiating table, brokering a diplomatic effort to shut the war down and arrive at a territorial settlement. A hypothetical deal between Russia and Ukraine would have two main components. First, Ukraine would back away from its intention to join NATO — an objective that has for years provoked strong Russian opposition. Russia has legitimate security concerns about NATO setting up shop on the other side of its 1,000-mile-plus border with Ukraine. NATO may be a defensive alliance, but it brings to bear aggregate military power that Moscow understandably does not want parked near its territory.
...
Second — the harder part — Moscow and Kyiv would need to arrive at a territorial settlement. A reasonable starting point for negotiations would be to aim for a Russian withdrawal to the “line of contact” that existed before Russia’s invasion began in February. Diplomacy could then focus on the ultimate disposition of Crimea and the chunk of the Donbas that Russia occupied in 2014. Both sides would need to compromise: Moscow to abandon its recently announced intention to annex a major slice of eastern Ukraine, and Kyiv to settle for an outcome that could entail less than regaining all its land.
...
The mounting risks that the West faces in Ukraine necessitate that the United States and its NATO partners get more involved in managing the war and in setting the table for an endgame. From Vietnam to Afghanistan to Iraq, the United States has gotten in over its head, taking on strategic commitments not warranted by the interests at stake. Helping Ukraine defend itself is worth a quite significant effort, but not one that leads to World War III or fractures Western democracy.
By Charles A. Kupchan
Dr. Kupchan is a professor of international affairs at Georgetown University and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Opinion | It’s Time to Bring Russia and Ukraine to the Negotiating Table
The risk of a wider war between NATO and Moscow is rising by the day, as is the risk that a prolonged war could undermine Western democracy.
You do realize that thousands of people from those regions have been removed to Russia, right? They left the pro Russian people in place. Gee, I wonder how that vote would turn out. Once again, that is incentivizing the illegal and brutal steps Russia has taken. That cannot be allowed.
That's close to what the NYT is saying. Putin is the problem. As soon as the West says let's talk, he'll want more & more. Putin needs to take first step.
- Status
