Ukraine referendum

There is no need to invade Russia. Putin is running into the ground while Russian demographics are so bad they are terminal as a people. As in they won't have the children they need to even perpetuate the state. Why invade when we can just sit back and watch them drive themselves extinct?

 

Why are you blubbering this unrelated Russia gibberish in response to your demonstrably false claim .. "Anti-War speech in the US without repurcussions"

Did you get triggered or someting ? What part of - your claim is demonstrably false nonsense - caused you to spin into a Russia Russia Rant ..

Crying out about Russia or China or Saudi Arabia suppressing free speech - does not change the fact that speech is not free in the USA and rather than "without repurcussions" - has huge repurcussions .. akin to "Russia Russia Russia"

You have a "necessary illusion bubble" pop there Richard ?

 

We absolutely have free speech. I can call Biden a piece of **** pedo ******* right to his face and you won't see me stumbling out of a highrise window any time soon.

Fox news makes it a daily mission to point out how much of a **** up Biden is, and you nor anyone can show me an equal in Russia on Putin.

Ben Shapiro and the Daily Wire are making bank pointing out the progressive left's dipshit ideologies on the daily.

We absolutely have freedoms that Russia inheriently does not have and has never had. That's the beauty of the United States is that we are allowed to have opposing views. It's law here. You will not get arrested or thrown out a window.

 

Many things -- as like every news network .. its not all propaganda .. and only a moron would think that .. and it would not be a very good propaganda site if it was all propaganda .. so dumb x 2 . In particular it is good when you want the other side of the story on US internal issues - RT being the place where US citizens can get the other side of the story out .. particularly good for anti US Gov't commentary .. Patriots like Ron Paul and numerous others who can not get their voice out through the US mainstream.

What "certain things" do you use RT as a source ?

 

I bet you $1,000 where I will stand in front of the White House for 8 hours holding a sign that says "Biden is an idiot" and all you have to do is stand downtown Moscow for 3 hours in main district holding a sign that says,"Putin is an idiot." We will see who gets arrested.

 

You have no clue what free speech is TT - and your claim is horribly lacking in logic and rational thought. so I might want to take log out of own eye prior to going on about "Dipshit ideologies" on the left or from Putin.

Any moron can come up with an example or two of speech that is free - That does not mean there is free speech. What is lacking is your exampes of speech that is not free .. and if you can not come up with any .. you have no clue what free speech is.. which is clearly the case here .. completely unaware of the abridements to speech .. which is fine .. and expected .. as the propaganda machine works very well .. got you all believing in the "Necessary Illusion" .... free speech in the US -- freedom of press - freedom of information .. and so on.

The question here is on "Anti-War" speech. The claim on the table is no repercussions here in free USA.

Show us you have the faintest clue what free speech is por favor -- and come up with an example of "
repercussions" here in the USA ... There are many .. should not be difficult - for one with the faintest clue.

 

"Putin is an idiot" - What is an idiot -- is one who thinks finding one example of speech that is free in some nation - means there is freedom of speech in that nation. That would be a true idiot do you not agree ?

The speech in question is - by your own mouth - is Anti -War speech which you claim has no repurcussions in the US.

What part of "Demonstrably false nonsense" - did you not understand the first 4 times. are you having trouble understanding what demonstrably false nonsense means ?

 

I'm VERY aware of what free speech is. We have the right to assemble. The right to arm. The right to have opposing opinions.

And if your dipshit hot take is that we are in the same spot as Russia because you can't openly threaten to do harm to someone as being the same as not being allowed to voice oppossing opinions of the government in Russia, then your argument has left the dock. It's sailed away.

The real point you should not be glossing over is Putin's control over state media/all media. You either perpetuate the government's narrative or you find yourself thrown out a window.

We have the ability to have oppossing narratives and media on major events. We have a CNN but we also have FOX. That's important. Russia only has CNN. Which is why you can't find me an example of FOX for Putin. A MAJOR news network who constantly shits on Putin. That's how you end up with a dumb ass voting population who only know world and global events through the bullshit narrative perpetuated by it's bullshit government.

That's not news at that point, it's propaganda.

There is a reason why you live here, and not there. Just as Jeanette or any other pro Putin bot on these boards.

Because you know deeeeep down in the well of your being you are free here, and not there.

 

Another complete fail in logic friend -- clearly a difficult one to spot though as you got 2 likes for the fallacious steaming pile Har har

Sometimes the invader has the moral high ground do they not ?

 

"Freedom of Speech" Not only are you "Not Aware" .. but you have demonstrated a complete lack of awareness .. unable to come up with one example of a violation in the specific example being addressed "Anti War" speech in the USA

"your dipshit hot take" - whose dipshit hot take on Russia ? this conversation is not about Russia - so who is the dipshit here.

This is about the demonstrably false claim that there are no repercussions for Anti War speech in the US .. What part did you not understand the 3rd time ?

 

Are you trying to suggest that you can't vocalize that you are against the war in the United States? Just so we are clear...is that your dipshit hot take?

https://www.newsweek.com/seven-reasons-us-shouldnt-help-ukraines-fight-russia-303002

https://northernstar.info/97029/opi...need-to-stop-sending-military-aid-to-ukraine/

https://www.thedailybeast.com/tucker-carlson-in-my-view-we-shouldnt-be-sending-ukraine-any-aid

https://www.newsweek.com/tucker-carlson-why-us-should-side-ukraine-not-russia-1648293



https://dailycaller.com/2022/09/22/tucker-carlson-biden-russia-nuclear-war/

 

No.. what I am suggesting is that "dipshit hot take" - what ever the hell that is ..is your inability to maintain coherent thought. Not every conversation is about the war in Ukraine.. the one you jumped into .. was about the claim that Anti war vocalization comes without repercussions in USA.. Something that has taken you more than 3 posts to figure out .. after jumping into convo .. completely oblivious to the fact that said claim is demonstrably false .. and still after hearing this 3 times .. go running off crying "Russia Russia Russia"

So honestly - self deception aside .. well all deception aside .. who is the "dipshit" here ?

 

What time period you talking duhip ? -- well doesn't matter if one thinks a little .. since when has our policy not been to break up Russia.

Don't think Jen said anything about invade ? Where did that brain-turd fall from ? your Strawman modus operandi .. or has no one pointed out the fallacy you continuously make to you before ? Strawman .. say it with me TT .. give me an S T R A W ....

 

Yep, a completely fraudulent sham.

 

I don't think our goal is to break up Russia. However the world would be a much safer place if Russia were dismantled. So what that means is while we are actively not pursuing it, it sure wouldn't be sad if it ever happened on its own.

We do have freedom of speech over here. They don't have that over there. That's how you end up with a dipshit war monger in charge for 30 years and his lowest approval rating is 65 percent lol.

Midget guy is on the verge of starting ww3 and his approval rating is 65 percent at its lowest? They call that propaganda.

 

I think Iraq was a mistake. Greed should have pushed them in another direction. Libya was at least partly about their "war on terror."

 

Of course not.

 

"I don't think" -- who cares what you think - specially given your awful track record of deficiency in that arena .. what can you support ?

And quit making the same "Dipshit" commentary .. and predending you have some clue about free speech .. you have still yet to come up with a single violation on for Anti War speech demonstrating you have no idea and the claim that there are no repercussions in the USA -- completely false nonsense on steroids .. demonstrating you are without understanding of the subject.

Trouble with english mate .. can you come up with one example or not ? repercussions ..Anti War speech .. USA ?
Or just fess up and say you can't .. demonstrating your oblivious and lack understanding of what freedom of speech is. .

 

Do you believe Gaddafi sponsored terrorism in Europe?

 

I am old enough to remember the Pan-Am flight he had blown up over Scotland so, yes.

 

I doubt it, but he may have made nice with those who are financing some of it.

 

I never made the claim that there isn't free speech in the United States...who the hell would come up with that dipshit hot take? Especially when you compare our speech laws to Russia.

I am free to publish anti war messaging and tell Biden where he can shove his equity without fear of reprisal. That's part of what makes our country great.

 

No one said you did -- why do you make up "Dipshit" nonsense on every post ... how on earth would you be able to compare anti war speech in Russia to USA given you havn't the faintest clue about Free speech in the USA .. still waiting for you to come up with a single violation in the USA .. demonstrating your abject lack of understanding.

but why would you want to compare to Russia to begin with ... is that the bar .. violations in the USA are OK .. cause we are not as bad as your idol Vlad .. is that how it is in libbo land ?

but as stated previously -- you are hopelessly lost on the topic --- unable to come up with a single violation. Need to bone up on Liberty mate .. your "Nothing to see here" attitude that progressives love to sport.

 

Gaddafi was fighting against al Qaida and the like. The " terrorists" that the west designated were the ones fighting against Gaddafi. As far as I'm aware he was against that lot. I'm not even sure the west even tried to claim he was allied with them.

Many ppl don't even know why NATO was so interested in Libya.

 

He blew up the Pan-Am flight over Scotland and Ronald Reagan bombed him for it.