i've re-considered the entire Ukraine case.. enter *your* opinions please..

Neo Liberalism and Democracy do not go together. Where Neoliberalism is, is a Plutocracy. I believe in Democracy.
They go togather great in the foremost developed democracies. What the hell are you even talking about?

"Neo Liberalism" is simply a reference to reducing gov market regulations. Some regulations are good, some are not so good, only ideology driven fools think that a country loosing up some regulations (or increasing them) is somehow inherently bad, no matter what.
 
Last edited:
Wtf? Who "bought up their farmland"?
It’s a very old tactic. I’m surprised you haven’t heard of it, well maybe not.

This is what the USG and it’s partners/donors the big multinational firms do every time. They’ve been doing it in central and south America for over a century.

Get informed. This will work better if you’re informed.
 
It’s a very old tactic. I’m surprised you haven’t heard of it, well maybe not.

This is what the USG and it’s partners/donors the big multinational firms do every time. They’ve been doing it in central and south America for over a century.
Doing what? Efficiently grow food and distribute it for profit?

Sounds kinda evil. Lets have government do that, it's what it does best after all :icon_rolleyes:
 
They go togather great in the foremost developed democracies. What the hell are you even talking about?
You may hear they are together but that does not mean they are. The fundamental thing about democracy is each person has an equal voice. The fact that each person has the right to an equal voice in representative Government is shown through everyone having one vote. Democratic Governments have responsibilities to do things to make sure that they continue to act in a democratic way as far as possible giving each person an equal chance to achieve. This can include things like making sure the majority to not harm the minority and helping children born into poverty to find a way out. You would need to go and look at political theorists and see what they say about Democracy to get a better idea. We had Democracy for a very short time and during that time, political theorists were working out what it was and what we needed to do to make sure it stayed with total knowledge that those who already had bags of money would be trying to get Governments acting for them again which is what they always did. Capitalism and Democracy do not easily sit together. The reason for that is because the Government must act to try to achieve what the people want shown by their votes. If a Government allows Capitalists to become too rich, like being Monopolies then the Government can no longer act for the people but instead must work for those with the most wealth or they will be thrown in the scrap heap. We knew this after WW2 in both the US and the UK and that is why my parent's generation went berserk if they heard of monopolies. They had found out in WW2 how monopolies interfere with Democracy and how easily they sit with fascism. We are not Democracies. Our future depends on a few extremely rich people. In the US for instance 3 people own as much wealth as half of your population and only the most rich have seen any rise in their standard of living since the 70's and for them it has been enormous. The lowest paid are in a worse position than they were then. We are not Democracies. Even if some Americans get a vote every four years, your Government will not be working for your needs and desires but for those of the most wealthy. America and the UK are Plutocracies.
 
Putin is smart enough to know he's no longer fighting a Ukrainian army equipped by NATO, but a NATO army manned by Ukrainians; he's about as likely to back down today as JFK was in 1962.
distances-of-major-cites-from-cuba.jpg
Still more crazy talk from you. Russia is being beaten by a tactically superior Ukrainian army with 16 Himars.
 
If a Government allows Capitalists to become too rich, like being Monopolies then the Government can no longer act for the people but instead must work for those with the most wealth or they will be thrown in the scrap heap.

I see, so according to you what is the "REAL" democracy, among all the supposedly fake ones that allow people to get too rich?
 
Nope! It's anyone who posts same silly nonsense that Russian propagandists are pushing day in and out on Putin Vision is obviously drinking from the same well.
You're such a clown.

You're doing this dance to prop up Quid Pro and keep the foreign aid spigot open so that taxpayer funds can continue to be embezzled.
 
Last edited:
I don't think 'spout' is a right word. But you are somewhat in line with it.

One of the main examples is the cause of the war. You blame the US and NATO for provoking Russia. That is not exactly true.

Read some history of these lands and people living there to grasp what is going on. And history not from 2014 or 1991, but much earlier. Read about the Ukrainian revolution of 1918-1921, about the period that is called the Ruin and so on.

In 1918 there wasn't NATO and 'American biolabs' but that didn't prevent the Russians from ruining newly formed Ukrainian state.

The main cause of the war is the Russians from all political spectrum reject the right of Ukrainians to exist as a separate nation. They follow the same policy of 'gathering Russian lands' set up by Ivan III back in 1500s, no matter how absurd and out-of-date it is now.
Not to mention Stalin's full on genocide of Ukrainians, the Holodomor.
 
I see, so according to you what is the "REAL" democracy, among all the supposedly fake ones that allow people to get too rich
Oh I did not create the meaning of Democracy. That I think belongs to the ancient Greeks. I gave you a link so you could get more information. You seem to be doing what I have noticed you do a great deal, refuse to educate yourself

From the article I linked you to. Even if you are so lazy you want to remain ignorant, others may not

.....

Democracy against democracies​

Let’s begin with the ancient Greek word “democracy”. The term does not denote a political regime as many have come to understand it. Monarchies and oligarchies are political regimes. They concentrate sovereign power in the hands of the wealthy few. In a democracy, by contrast, the people (the demos) – without qualification – govern.

As I said earlier during the time from the war till Thatcher/Reagan we were working out what Democracy was and how we could fulfil it in a Representative system with full knowledge that those who had the power before would be trying to grab it back. During this time both the US and the UK had the fastest growing social mobility of all time. Both of us now are at the bottom of the pile for first world countries in this. During this time people of our countries when they were into investigative journalism and found our Government, our Military and so on acting in a way which we would not approve of told us. In that way we began to create the society we wanted and that investigating and making sure Democracy is serving the people is one of the most important parts of it. Now if someone does this they are likely to spend the rest of their life in Prison. Being critical of society is absolutely necessary to keep the society serving the people's wishes. In a Democracy it is not enough to agree with what the Government is doing. If one does not agree it is their right to make that clear. Now when people criticise their country they are told to move to another. That is not a democracy working.

You do not live in a Democracy. You live in a Plutocracy or indeed given that only 3 individuals have as much wealth as half of your people, an Oligarchy. Now the fact that you seem to approve of living in a Plutocracy does not in any way change the fact that it is a Plutocracy or Oligarchy. Democracy is much more than having a vote every 4 or 5 years.
 
Oh I did not create the meaning of Democracy. That I think belongs to the ancient Greeks.
You don't know what you are talking about, what is today called democracies would be called REPUBLICS by the Greeks, because they are of REPRESENTATIVE sort.
 
It's not about making threats asshole, but if he were to attack a NATO member, Russia would be humiliated even worse than it is now in Ukraine.
What's your estimate of casualty ratios between Ukrainian and Russian forces in Donbass?

SCOTT RITTER: Why Russia Will Still Win, Despite Ukraine's Gains

"The second phase of the Russian operation had the Russians regroup to focus on the liberation of Donbass.

"Here, Russia adapted its operational methodology, using its superiority in firepower to conduct a slow, deliberate advance against Ukrainian forces dug into extensive defensive networks and, in doing so, achieving unheard of casualty ratios that had ten or more Ukrainians being killed or wounded for every Russian casualty."
 
The guarantees in the Budapest Memorandum were made in exchange for persuading Ukraine give its nuclear arsenal, the third largest in the world at that time, to Russia in exchange for guarantees of sovereignty. There were no caveats about NATO or the EU or about any internal strife within Ukraine. If the US had not foolishly
When Ukraine became a full-fledged NATO proxy logistically sustained by NATO, trained by NATO, furnished with NATO intelligence, and working closely with NATO military planner, the Budapest Memorandum became inoperative.

Like every other sovereign state on this planet, Russia will not tolerate a hostile military presence on its borders.
 

Forum List

Back
Top