Niagara Bill Posted Thursday at 12:07 AM Posted Thursday at 12:07 AM 2 hours ago, 4th&long said: No. There is less to Doc them you think. A lot less! He is the same brain washed cult member as the rest of them are. Not how I judge him...it behoves all of us to move to the middle.
4th&long Posted Thursday at 12:14 AM Posted Thursday at 12:14 AM 5 minutes ago, Niagara Bill said: Not how I judge him...it behoves all of us to move to the middle. I don't judge him, I've delt with him. I'm telling you how he is from experience. It's not opinion.
Joe Ferguson forever Posted Thursday at 01:04 PM Posted Thursday at 01:04 PM (edited) is this NC fascist or Bman? If not, please go join this lunatic and help out. https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/russia-ukraine-american-spy-daniel-martindale-fc7b51f5 11 hours ago, Trump_is_Mentally_fit said: yup. So now we've made enemies of Canada, Mexico, Greenland, UK, Ukraine, Panama and all of western Europe. Japan and Korea"s auto industry are none too pleased. But Russia and far right lunatic righties are ecstatic. Oh and China feels empowered to invade regionally. Well done donnie. Edited Thursday at 01:14 PM by Joe Ferguson forever 2
Joe Ferguson forever Posted Thursday at 01:23 PM Posted Thursday at 01:23 PM (edited) 19 hours ago, Doc said: No I meant when did Putin and Russian oligarchs lift Trump out of financial disaster? And it's about as likely as Trump seizing power and there never being another election again. why don't you do some research? https://www.kyivpost.com/analysis/47435 Images from Wednesday’s Riyadh meeting showed Russian businessman Dmitry Rybolovlev, an oligarch responsible for helping Trump out of a debt crunch by purchasing a Trump Palm Beach property valued at $40 million for $95 million in 2008, was a member of the Kremlin delegation and present at the talks. https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story/news/2020/09/15/trumps-sale-palm-beach-mansion-gains-scrutiny-again/5798386002/ "Back in Palm Beach, I'm curious," a CNBC commentator said. "Are you going to make the Russian who bought your house put up an American flag, like the big controversy you had with the town?" Trump's reply: "I think what I'll do is I will demand that he puts up the American flag — and the Russian flag can fly right under it." In his book, Cohen wasn't hesitant to talk about Russians. He wrote that Russia’s oligarchs “are just fronts for (Russian President Vladimir) Putin. He puts them into wealth to invest his money. That’s all they are doing, investing Putin’s money …Trump was convinced the real buyer of that house was Vladimir Putin.” Edited Thursday at 01:37 PM by Joe Ferguson forever 1
Niagara Bill Posted Thursday at 02:25 PM Posted Thursday at 02:25 PM 55 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: why don't you do some research? https://www.kyivpost.com/analysis/47435 Images from Wednesday’s Riyadh meeting showed Russian businessman Dmitry Rybolovlev, an oligarch responsible for helping Trump out of a debt crunch by purchasing a Trump Palm Beach property valued at $40 million for $95 million in 2008, was a member of the Kremlin delegation and present at the talks. https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story/news/2020/09/15/trumps-sale-palm-beach-mansion-gains-scrutiny-again/5798386002/ "Back in Palm Beach, I'm curious," a CNBC commentator said. "Are you going to make the Russian who bought your house put up an American flag, like the big controversy you had with the town?" Trump's reply: "I think what I'll do is I will demand that he puts up the American flag — and the Russian flag can fly right under it." In his book, Cohen wasn't hesitant to talk about Russians. He wrote that Russia’s oligarchs “are just fronts for (Russian President Vladimir) Putin. He puts them into wealth to invest his money. That’s all they are doing, investing Putin’s money …Trump was convinced the real buyer of that house was Vladimir Putin.” For a long time there has been commentaries about Putin Trump relationship, as Trump has a few times in his life need serious financial aid. He may mig have been fully aware, but soon made aware. I think it is supported by his public proclamation of his position on Russia-Ukraine. What would anyone have to gain by publicly telling Zelensky he is wrong, he caused the war, and threaten he may lose hus country. Trump fears Putin...personally not politically is my read on this. Am I right, ? If not why is he doing this?
Joe Ferguson forever Posted Thursday at 02:47 PM Posted Thursday at 02:47 PM 20 minutes ago, Niagara Bill said: For a long time there has been commentaries about Putin Trump relationship, as Trump has a few times in his life need serious financial aid. He may mig have been fully aware, but soon made aware. I think it is supported by his public proclamation of his position on Russia-Ukraine. What would anyone have to gain by publicly telling Zelensky he is wrong, he caused the war, and threaten he may lose hus country. Trump fears Putin...personally not politically is my read on this. Am I right, ? If not why is he doing this? I think it's personal and political. trump clearly owes him monetarily. He's also aware of Putins ability to carry out executions even abroad. perhaps we've already seen a shot across the bow...
Motorin' Posted Thursday at 03:03 PM Posted Thursday at 03:03 PM 25 minutes ago, Niagara Bill said: For a long time there has been commentaries about Putin Trump relationship, as Trump has a few times in his life need serious financial aid. He may mig have been fully aware, but soon made aware. I think it is supported by his public proclamation of his position on Russia-Ukraine. What would anyone have to gain by publicly telling Zelensky he is wrong, he caused the war, and threaten he may lose hus country. Trump fears Putin...personally not politically is my read on this. Am I right, ? If not why is he doing this? Because Ukraine has drained American and European weapons stockpiles to dangerously low levels. Because he wants Europe to stop over relying on the US, get their ***** together and create a manufacturing base to be able to provide for their own defense. Because he sees the Ukraine war as unwinnable, short of NATO going all in on war with Russia. So he wants to avoid WWIII. Freezing this conflict along a DMZ will result in something more like the end of the Korean War than the appeasement of Hitler by ceding all of Czechoslovakia. There will be a demilitarized zone with peace keeping troops. Europe will get their ***** together, increase their defense spending and prepare for peace through strength. The idea that freezing the conflict zone in Eastern Ukraine will leave Europe susceptible to Russian aggression makes no sense if all of Europe commits to building for their common defense. The people that are most up in arms over the idea of peace are those who have been skimming off the top of US aid to enrich themselves. Ukraine can't win. To insist that they will win a war of attrition against a country many times it's size, who can rely on foreign troops is delusional to say the least. We've heard France and now England say they're willing to put boots on the ground. So far it's been all talk. Are they really willing to make their homeland targets for Russian missiles? I think not. And that's why we won't see French or English troops fighting en mass in Ukraine. Ending this war before it expands is the right thing to do for all parties, except the individuals enriching themselves from foreign aid. 1 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted Thursday at 03:17 PM Posted Thursday at 03:17 PM (edited) 14 minutes ago, Motorin' said: Europe will get their ***** together, increase their defense spending and prepare for peace through strength. The idea that freezing the conflict zone in Eastern Ukraine will leave Europe susceptible to Russian aggression makes no sense if all of Europe commits to building for their common defense. funny u should mention WW2. The US declined to enter early with many isolationist fools saying "it's not our war. It's Europes war". Then Pearl Harbor happened. The world is even smaller now. Edited Thursday at 03:18 PM by Joe Ferguson forever
Niagara Bill Posted Thursday at 03:33 PM Posted Thursday at 03:33 PM 18 minutes ago, Motorin' said: Because Ukraine has drained American and European weapons stockpiles to dangerously low levels. Because he wants Europe to stop over relying on the US, get their ***** together and create a manufacturing base to be able to provide for their own defense. Because he sees the Ukraine war as unwinnable, short of NATO going all in on war with Russia. So he wants to avoid WWIII. Freezing this conflict along a DMZ will result in something more like the end of the Korean War than the appeasement of Hitler by ceding all of Czechoslovakia. There will be a demilitarized zone with peace keeping troops. Europe will get their ***** together, increase their defense spending and prepare for peace through strength. The idea that freezing the conflict zone in Eastern Ukraine will leave Europe susceptible to Russian aggression makes no sense if all of Europe commits to building for their common defense. The people that are most up in arms over the idea of peace are those who have been skimming off the top of US aid to enrich themselves. Ukraine can't win. To insist that they will win a war of attrition against a country many times it's size, who can rely on foreign troops is delusional to say the least. We've heard France and now England say they're willing to put boots on the ground. So far it's been all talk. Are they really willing to make their homeland targets for Russian missiles? I think not. And that's why we won't see French or English troops fighting en mass in Ukraine. Ending this war before it expands is the right thing to do for all parties, except the individuals enriching themselves from foreign aid. He could cut off Ukraine from weapons and let Europe supply. He could just tell Russia to get out. He could privately tell Ukraine to give up Crimea He could pull out of Nato He could send in troups to support Ukraine, He could put more sanctions on Russia. Many things he could do BUT What he did do was hug Putin, threaten Ukraine, turn on NATO allies, offer Russia an economic relationship...... you see he offers help to Russia not as a carrot, because if it was he would not threaten Ukraine and you suggest Putin doesn't have something on Trump. Hmmmmm 1
Motorin' Posted Thursday at 03:49 PM Posted Thursday at 03:49 PM (edited) 16 minutes ago, Niagara Bill said: He could cut off Ukraine from weapons and let Europe supply. He could just tell Russia to get out. He could privately tell Ukraine to give up Crimea He could pull out of Nato He could send in troups to support Ukraine, He could put more sanctions on Russia. Many things he could do BUT What he did do was hug Putin, threaten Ukraine, turn on NATO allies, offer Russia an economic relationship...... you see he offers help to Russia not as a carrot, because if it was he would not threaten Ukraine and you suggest Putin doesn't have something on Trump. Hmmmmm You offer these claims as an interpretation. Not as evidence. I think you're missing parts of the big picture. Obama moved on Ukraine after the discovery of natural gas deposits off the coast of Crimea that are so large it could effectively put Russian natural gas out of business in Europe. Burisma was the CIA backed entity to leverage Ukrainian gas into profit for the US. Behind closed doors, Hillary and her neo-con partners on the Republican side were telling the Ukrainians that 2016 was going to be the year that the US was going to help them take back Crimea. (And thus get the gas deposits). Ukraine is Obama / Clinton Iraq, Burisma is their Haliburton. The fake demonization of Trump as a Russian stooge was part and parcel with the Clinton plan to grab Ukraine's natural gas. Smear Trump as a Russian asset because he was the only thing (in their mind) standing between them and the jackpot. The same swamp creatures were cooking up plans to launch an offensive during the Biden regime to get the gas back when Putin invaded... No, Putin isn't the good guy. But at least tell the truth. The Obama / Clinton / Biden regime have been angling for 15 years to get their hands on Ukraine's natural gas in order to enrich themselves. And in the process cut Russia out of supplying gas to Europe. Trump doesn't have any equity in the Burisma project, and Clinton paid for a fake Russian dossier to say he's a Russian asset and then had the MSM repeat the lie for ten years. The truth just might be that Trump doesn't have the same view of Russia because he doesn't stand to make billions from Ukrainian gas. Edited Thursday at 03:51 PM by Motorin' 1 1 2
Joe Ferguson forever Posted Thursday at 04:10 PM Posted Thursday at 04:10 PM (edited) 22 minutes ago, Motorin' said: You offer these claims as an interpretation. Not as evidence. I think you're missing parts of the big picture. Obama moved on Ukraine after the discovery of natural gas deposits off the coast of Crimea that are so large it could effectively put Russian natural gas out of business in Europe. Burisma was the CIA backed entity to leverage Ukrainian gas into profit for the US. Behind closed doors, Hillary and her neo-con partners on the Republican side were telling the Ukrainians that 2016 was going to be the year that the US was going to help them take back Crimea. (And thus get the gas deposits). Ukraine is Obama / Clinton Iraq, Burisma is their Haliburton. The fake demonization of Trump as a Russian stooge was part and parcel with the Clinton plan to grab Ukraine's natural gas. Smear Trump as a Russian asset because he was the only thing (in their mind) standing between them and the jackpot. The same swamp creatures were cooking up plans to launch an offensive during the Biden regime to get the gas back when Putin invaded... No, Putin isn't the good guy. But at least tell the truth. The Obama / Clinton / Biden regime have been angling for 15 years to get their hands on Ukraine's natural gas in order to enrich themselves. And in the process cut Russia out of supplying gas to Europe. Trump doesn't have any equity in the Burisma project, and Clinton paid for a fake Russian dossier to say he's a Russian asset and then had the MSM repeat the lie for ten years. The truth just might be that Trump doesn't have the same view of Russia because he doesn't stand to make billions from Ukrainian gas. Oil is no longer of global importance. Just asking Sherpa. and are you the same person who wrote an illiterate post about meta analyses recently? Your prose improved quickly. Good for you. Edited Thursday at 04:13 PM by Joe Ferguson forever
All_Pro_Bills Posted Thursday at 04:20 PM Posted Thursday at 04:20 PM 50 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: funny u should mention WW2. The US declined to enter early with many isolationist fools saying "it's not our war. It's Europes war". Then Pearl Harbor happened. The world is even smaller now. I contend people that believe the U.S. entering WW2 in Europe early would have some major impact on the war, like defeating Germany early in the conflict, are viewing the military capabilities of America through the lens of our current position as global leader. And not from the perspective of that era. In 1939 the size of the U.S. Army was 180,000 which ranked 19th in the world. By contrast, Germany at the time had a force of 4.5 million soldiers, 25 times larger than America's Army. Add in the superiority of German armor, aircraft, weapons systems, and technology at the time and I'd argue an early entry, which was opposed by so-called isolationists, well before a sufficiently large force size was marshaled, capably armed, was available would have left our country virtually undefended and quite possibly led to defeat against Japan in the Pacific. And victory by Nazi Germany in Europe because our forces would have been wiped out early on. The moral might be look before you leap. 2 1
Coffeesforclosers Posted Thursday at 04:33 PM Posted Thursday at 04:33 PM (edited) 45 minutes ago, Motorin' said: You offer these claims as an interpretation. Not as evidence. I think you're missing parts of the big picture. Obama moved on Ukraine after the discovery of natural gas deposits off the coast of Crimea that are so large it could effectively put Russian natural gas out of business in Europe. Burisma was the CIA backed entity to leverage Ukrainian gas into profit for the US. Behind closed doors, Hillary and her neo-con partners on the Republican side were telling the Ukrainians that 2016 was going to be the year that the US was going to help them take back Crimea. (And thus get the gas deposits). Ukraine is Obama / Clinton Iraq, Burisma is their Haliburton. The fake demonization of Trump as a Russian stooge was part and parcel with the Clinton plan to grab Ukraine's natural gas. Smear Trump as a Russian asset because he was the only thing (in their mind) standing between them and the jackpot. The same swamp creatures were cooking up plans to launch an offensive during the Biden regime to get the gas back when Putin invaded... No, Putin isn't the good guy. But at least tell the truth. The Obama / Clinton / Biden regime have been angling for 15 years to get their hands on Ukraine's natural gas in order to enrich themselves. And in the process cut Russia out of supplying gas to Europe. Trump doesn't have any equity in the Burisma project, and Clinton paid for a fake Russian dossier to say he's a Russian asset and then had the MSM repeat the lie for ten years. The truth just might be that Trump doesn't have the same view of Russia because he doesn't stand to make billions from Ukrainian gas. Or, hear me out... You could believe Yevgeniy Prighozin, former head of Wagner Group and part of the "SMO" since it was planned. Who stated Russia invaded Ukraine for national prestige and to generate a financial windfall for Putin and the Russian elite. No elaborate conspiracy. No principled stand against this or that. Just a jaded Russian ruling elite huffing its own fart until it convinced itself that it could make a pile of cash off a short, victorious war... Edited Thursday at 04:36 PM by Coffeesforclosers
Motorin' Posted Thursday at 04:34 PM Posted Thursday at 04:34 PM 20 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: Oil is no longer of global importance. Just asking Sherpa. and are you the same person who wrote an illiterate post about meta analyses recently? Your prose improved quickly. Good for you. Natural gas. Dip *****. Not oil. And unlike you, I don't feel the need to flaunt my degrees as proof of authority to claim victory. You should do yourself a favor and look into the psychological research on conflict of interest in medicine. Time and again the doctors with the highest status in the field, who happen to believe they are impervious to conflicts of interest, end up being most susceptible. Just now, Coffeesforclosers said: Or, hear me out... You could believe Yevgeniy Prighozin, former head of Wagner Group and part of the "SMO" since it was planned. Who stated Russia invaded Ukraine for national prestige and to generate a financial windfall for Putin and the Russian elite. Now you're taking the word of a murdering mercenary because it fits your narrative? 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted Thursday at 05:18 PM Posted Thursday at 05:18 PM 41 minutes ago, Motorin' said: Natural gas. Dip *****. Not oil. And unlike you, I don't feel the need to flaunt my degrees as proof of authority to claim victory. You should do yourself a favor and look into the psychological research on conflict of interest in medicine. Time and again the doctors with the highest status in the field, who happen to believe they are impervious to conflicts of interest, end up being most susceptible. Now you're taking the word of a murdering mercenary because it fits your narrative? Why don’t you point me in the direction of “the psychological research on conflict of interest in medicine”.? No idea what you’re talking about. And yes, I’m interested in your area of expertise and education. It would give perspective.
AlBUNDY4TDS Posted Thursday at 05:20 PM Posted Thursday at 05:20 PM 2 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: Why don’t you point me in the direction of “the psychological research on conflict of interest in medicine”.? No idea what you’re talking about. And yes, I’m interested in your area of expertise and education. It would give perspective. If you're looking for perspective, try removing your head from your ass. 3
Joe Ferguson forever Posted Thursday at 05:27 PM Posted Thursday at 05:27 PM (edited) 1 hour ago, All_Pro_Bills said: I contend people that believe the U.S. entering WW2 in Europe early would have some major impact on the war, like defeating Germany early in the conflict, are viewing the military capabilities of America through the lens of our current position as global leader. And not from the perspective of that era. In 1939 the size of the U.S. Army was 180,000 which ranked 19th in the world. By contrast, Germany at the time had a force of 4.5 million soldiers, 25 times larger than America's Army. Add in the superiority of German armor, aircraft, weapons systems, and technology at the time and I'd argue an early entry, which was opposed by so-called isolationists, well before a sufficiently large force size was marshaled, capably armed, was available would have left our country virtually undefended and quite possibly led to defeat against Japan in the Pacific. And victory by Nazi Germany in Europe because our forces would have been wiped out early on. The moral might be look before you leap. It took 1 year to go from roughly 180k to over a million between 1940 and 1941. By 1942 the number was 3 million., mostly because of the draft. The same results could have been obtained between 1939 and 1940. Likely saving millions of lives. There just wasn’t the will from people like you. https://www.nationalww2museum.org/students-teachers/student-resources/research-starters/research-starters-us-military-numbers Edited Thursday at 05:31 PM by Joe Ferguson forever
Recommended Posts