Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by poncho, Mar 22, 2015.
From another thread.
So how about it is there anyone left on this board with any integrity?
Poncho, you have said that botox face did not invade the Ukraine and Crimea and South Ossetia. Those were crimes against humanity. Botox face is a Stalinist, as in Uncle Joe Stalin.
So what's up with you and all the names for people that aren't their names?
It's a common tactic to dehumanize your opponent. It makes them feel better, like they are dealing with animals or objects, and not human beings.
Oh, I can't take credit for calling Putin "botox face." That nickname comes from the members of the Russian public that he hasn't executed yet. Here is this thug who wants the world to know how tough he is but he runs to the Kremlin doctors to take the wrinkles out of his face so he can keep his boyish face. Kinda sensitive for a murderer, don't you think?
Do you think that I should just start calling Putin "#botox" for short?
Do you admire Putin? Do you think that it is wrong of the Russian public to call Putin "botox face"? Do you think that it was wrong of Lester Roloff, for example, to call Lucifer "smutty face"?
I think it's pretty immature. Why can't we debate and disagree with facts rather than personal attacks and name calling?
Oh, you don't exactly answer the questions, do you?
It was not me that gave Putin the nickname--I just happened to be the first one on the board to pick up the fact that the Russians have a widespread nickname for their dictator. I can't see that laughing at Putin causes him to lose much sleep but then he is very narcissistic, isn't he?
Would you be opposed to calling the German dictator "schicklgruber"?
Do you think that it is immature to call Lucifer "smutty face"?
Because it's Baptist Board?
(BTW, I did like CMG's "Pootie Poo" moniker from another thread.)
Thanks--I forget where I read that one--perhaps Front Page Magazine or perhaps the Cuban blogs--but it was a spin-off of a name that Hillary called Putin.
Do I admire Putin? No.
All your other questions can be answered with "I think it's pretty immature."
So it is immature to call Lucifer "smutty face"?
For the record, Hillary make fun of Putin and recently compared him to Hitler:
Speaking before a group of California college students, the former U.S. Secretary of State said the Nazi leader used the same kind of lies to start World War II.
“The claims by Putin that they had to go into Crimea, because they had to protect Russian minorities, is reminiscent of claims that were made back in the 1930’s,” she told University of California, Los Angeles, students Wednesday.
“Germany, under the Nazis claimed they had to protect German minorities in Czechoslovakia ... and throughout Europe.”
The former KGB lieutenant colonel appeared to lash out at U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton — a leading Democratic candidate for president — when one reporter quoted her as saying that former KGB officers have no soul:
"At a minimum, a head of state should have a head," Putin said.
Is it wrong to say that the Russian dictator does not have a soul?
Hillary makes fun of the Russian dictatorship political process:
Why do I care what Hillary did? I think it's immature no matter who does it.
Because CMC would have to acknowledge and respond to the OP.
It is much easier to continually derail threads which make CMC uncomfortable with inane drivel. The simple fact is if the challenge could be refuted it would be and Poncho would be put in his place. It can't, so it won't.
The whole premise is false because not only does Hillary say that the Russians invaded Ukraine but she also compares Putin to Hitler and it is the Russian people who have called Putin #botox, sometimes translated as botox face in English. So it is the Russian people who realize that they have a murderous dictator who worries about his face.
I never made any such claims. Hence my challenge to you. I did however show you how it really went down in South Ossetia. And I provided evidence to support my claim that Washington and NATO were the instigators in that affair also.
I have asked you and OR several times now to show me the evidence you have that Russia has invaded Ukraine and Crimea. Because you and OR have claimed Russia invaded Ukraine and Crimea. My asking you to provide evidence to support your own claims does not = me claiming an invasion never happened.
So far you have done everything but show me the evidence you have that Russia invaded Ukraine and Crimea.
All you and your buddy OR seem to be able to do is make up silly names and excuses, post silly images, make more allegations, post unfounded allegations devoid of any real evidence from "mainstream" sources and accuse me of saying things I've never said.
My status here as a "conspiracy theorist", "Putin lover", "die hard friend of Russia" or anything else and what "Hillary does" is irrelevant. Either you can prove your claims are true or you can't.
My status here as a "conspiracy theorist", "Putin lover", "die hard friend of Russia" or what "Hillary does" does not mean you get a free pass and don't have to prove your claims are true. Either you can prove your claims are true or you can't.
If as you keep claiming, "Russia has invaded Ukraine and Crimea" there would no doubt be ample evidence of that and you should have no trouble providing it.
What would that evidence look like?
If Russia were to invade Ukraine Thursday morning, it would probably look something like this . . .
1. Ukrainian artillery fell silent almost immediately. They are no longer shelling residential districts of Donetsk and Lugansk. This is because their locations had been pinpointed prior to the operation, and by Thursday afternoon they were completely wiped out using air attacks, artillery and ground-based rocket fire, as the first order of business. Local residents are overjoyed that their horrible ordeal is finally at an end.
2. The look of military activity on the ground in Donetsk and Lugansk has changed dramatically. Whereas before it involved small groups of resistance fighters, the Russians operate in battalions of 400 men and dozens of armored vehicles, followed by convoys of support vehicles (tanker trucks, communications, field kitchens, field hospitals and so on). The flow of vehicles in and out is non-stop, plainly visible on air reconnaissance and satellite photos. Add to that the relentless radio chatter, all in Russian, which anyone who wants to can intercept, and the operation becomes impossible to hide.
3. The Ukrainian military has promptly vanished. Soldiers and officers alike have taken off their uniforms, abandoned their weapons, and are doing their best to blend in with the locals. Nobody thought the odds of the Ukrainian army against the Russians were any good. Ukraine's only military victory against Russia was at the battle of Konotop in 1659, but at the time Ukraine was allied with the mighty Khanate of Crimea, and, you may have noticed, Crimea is not on Ukraine's side this time around.
4. There are Russian checkpoints everywhere. Local civilians are allowed through, but anyone associated with a government, foreign or domestic, is detained for questioning. A filtration system has been set up to return demobilized Ukrainian army draftees to their native regions, while the volunteers and the officers are shunted to pretrial detention centers, to determine whether they had ordered war crimes to be committed.
5. Most of Ukraine's border crossings are by now under Russian control. Some have been reinforced with air defense and artillery systems and tank battalions, to dissuade NATO forces from attempting to stage an invasion. Civilians and humanitarian goods are allowed through. Businessmen are allowed through once they fill out the required forms (which are in Russian).
6. Russia has imposed a no-fly zone over all of Ukraine. All civilian flights have been cancelled. There is quite a crowd of US State Department staffers, CIA and Mossad agents, and Western NGO people stuck at Borispol airport in Kiev. Some are nervously calling everyone they know on their satellite phones. Western politicians are demanding that they be evacuated immediately, but Russian authorities want to hold onto them until their possible complicity in war crimes has been determined.
7. The usual Ukrainian talking heads, such as president Poroshenko, PM Yatsenyuk and others, are no longer available to be interviewed by Western media. Nobody quite knows where they are. There are rumors that they have already fled the country. Crowds have stormed their abandoned residences, and were amazed to discover that they were all outfitted with solid gold toilets. Nor are the Ukrainian oligarchs anywhere to be found, except for the warlord Igor Kolomoisky, who was found in his residence, abandoned by his henchmen, dead from a heart attack. (Contributed by the Saker.)
Continue . . . http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2014/08/how-can-you-tell-whether-russia-has.html
Do see any of that on Fox News, CNN, ABC, NBC or CBS? No? How can that be if your claims are true? If we know one thing about the "corporate mass media" it's this, it loves to air footage of death and destruction in endless looping videos and gruesome images, even if it has to fake the videos. Think Iraqi "shock and awe". Americans do so love a good fireworks show. So, why aren't we seeing all the death and destruction in endless looping videos and gruesome images plastered all over our TV screens 24/7?
If the Russians were to "invade" Ukraine and Crimea there would be no doubt about it what so ever and OR could give his poor overworked little monkey a much needed rest.
I take it the silence means no?