McCarthy opens impeachment inquiry

[Elixir]

You know, it's not unheard of for a heroin dealer to also use heroin.

Heh. I think they usually stop when they get caught.
But not always, I guess.

Do they though? My impression was that junkie dealers were mostly on the revolving door plan.

I dunno. That kind of information is above my pay grade.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Here's the irony here: you claim to be anti-war. However, if the US government buried its head in the sand as you advocate, the world would be in much much greater conflict and war than today. You're okay with China and Russia invading only their immediate neighbors? Which ones are you okay with? I assume Taiwan and Ukraine are to be absorbed and its people thrown in gulags in your world view. How about the rest of Eastern Europe? And then what do you think the rest of Europe and Japan and South Korea would do in the US vacuum? They would dramatically rearm, add nukes and every other form of warfare that they could develop to stop the invaders. But you think you would be safe in your bubble of American isolation that you advocate? Doubtful. Clearly the rest of the world would be in chaos and conflict. You'd really want that?

The only way to stop war is to encourage stronger countries from not invading smaller ones. It's that simple. How to do this? Make it too costly for them. Band together. Create economic and defense alliances that will encourage the big guys to avoid war. Russia would not have invaded Ukraine if it had been in Nato. If Nato breaks up, which is a very real possibility if Trump gets elected, Europe will be in war again. Russia wants the Baltics, Finland, Poland and other countries. Your positions are not anti-war.

You think "not getting involved" is the same as "burying its head in the sand". That shows just how good a job the war party has brainwashed the public into thinking the US should bomb anyone anywhere anytime lest the world descend into chaos without our "benevolent" leadership. It's easy to say "oh it is okay that we do it because we're the good guys", but I doubt the people getting bombed think we're the good guys.

I could go into detail about how all those threats you named are exacerbated by US involvement, but that is actually the wrong argument to make because it concedes your core point that involvement is justified but sometimes goes wrong. Still, it is true that those threats you named are exacerbated by US involvement.

You think the solution to peace it to have the US at war with everyone you think of as a "bad buy".

Has Jason ever offered who he DID vote for?

Yes I have. Shall I repeat it? Obviously I need to.

2000: Harry Brown
2004: Michael Badnarik
2008: (write in) Ron Paul
2012: Gary Johnson
2016: Gary Johnson
2020: Jo Jorgensen

I suspect Lyndon LaRouche.

He was in your party, not mine. He's one of yours.



Back to topic. I asked what the Republicans would put in the articles of impeachment. Don2 linked to an article. I said "oh, the article says X, Y, and Z". I'm now accused of believing X, Y, and Z because I quoted what Don2 linked.

I guess Don2 and I both believe that article, since he offered it to me.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Here's the irony here: you claim to be anti-war. However, if the US government buried its head in the sand as you advocate, the world would be in much much greater conflict and war than today. You're okay with China and Russia invading only their immediate neighbors? Which ones are you okay with? I assume Taiwan and Ukraine are to be absorbed and its people thrown in gulags in your world view. How about the rest of Eastern Europe? And then what do you think the rest of Europe and Japan and South Korea would do in the US vacuum? They would dramatically rearm, add nukes and every other form of warfare that they could develop to stop the invaders. But you think you would be safe in your bubble of American isolation that you advocate? Doubtful. Clearly the rest of the world would be in chaos and conflict. You'd really want that?

The only way to stop war is to encourage stronger countries from not invading smaller ones. It's that simple. How to do this? Make it too costly for them. Band together. Create economic and defense alliances that will encourage the big guys to avoid war. Russia would not have invaded Ukraine if it had been in Nato. If Nato breaks up, which is a very real possibility if Trump gets elected, Europe will be in war again. Russia wants the Baltics, Finland, Poland and other countries. Your positions are not anti-war.

You think "not getting involved" is the same as "burying its head in the sand". That shows just how good a job the war party has brainwashed the public into thinking the US should bomb anyone anywhere anytime lest the world descend into chaos without our "benevolent" leadership. It's easy to say "oh it is okay that we do it because we're the good guys", but I doubt the people getting bombed think we're the good guys.

I could go into detail about how all those threats you named are exacerbated by US involvement, but that is actually the wrong argument to make because it concedes your core point that involvement is justified but sometimes goes wrong. Still, it is true that those threats you named are exacerbated by US involvement.

You think the solution to peace it to have the US at war with everyone you think of as a "bad buy".

Simple question: How many Ukrainians would be dead today if they didn't have weapons provided by the US and other allies?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Here's the irony here: you claim to be anti-war. However, if the US government buried its head in the sand as you advocate, the world would be in much much greater conflict and war than today. You're okay with China and Russia invading only their immediate neighbors? Which ones are you okay with? I assume Taiwan and Ukraine are to be absorbed and its people thrown in gulags in your world view. How about the rest of Eastern Europe? And then what do you think the rest of Europe and Japan and South Korea would do in the US vacuum? They would dramatically rearm, add nukes and every other form of warfare that they could develop to stop the invaders. But you think you would be safe in your bubble of American isolation that you advocate? Doubtful. Clearly the rest of the world would be in chaos and conflict. You'd really want that?

The only way to stop war is to encourage stronger countries from not invading smaller ones. It's that simple. How to do this? Make it too costly for them. Band together. Create economic and defense alliances that will encourage the big guys to avoid war. Russia would not have invaded Ukraine if it had been in Nato. If Nato breaks up, which is a very real possibility if Trump gets elected, Europe will be in war again. Russia wants the Baltics, Finland, Poland and other countries. Your positions are not anti-war.

You think "not getting involved" is the same as "burying its head in the sand". That shows just how good a job the war party has brainwashed the public into thinking the US should bomb anyone anywhere anytime lest the world descend into chaos without our "benevolent" leadership. It's easy to say "oh it is okay that we do it because we're the good guys", but I doubt the people getting bombed think we're the good guys.

I could go into detail about how all those threats you named are exacerbated by US involvement, but that is actually the wrong argument to make because it concedes your core point that involvement is justified but sometimes goes wrong. Still, it is true that those threats you named are exacerbated by US involvement.

You think the solution to peace it to have the US at war with everyone you think of as a "bad buy".

Simple question: How many Ukrainians would be dead today if they didn't have weapons provided by the US and other allies?

How many would be alive today if the US hadn't been pushing its sphere of influence ever farther eastward towards Russia's borders?

Oh, but those deaths are worth it so don't count.

I can't find the story anymore, but a few decades ago some forgettable country was engaged in a civil war. Both factions kept drawing it out hoping for the US to get involved on their side. The problem was, the US failed to notice (for once) and didn't get involved on either side. Ultimately both sides got angry at the US, made peace, and tried to accuse the US of negligence and claimed reparations were owed.

 

[ZiprHead]

Here's the irony here: you claim to be anti-war. However, if the US government buried its head in the sand as you advocate, the world would be in much much greater conflict and war than today. You're okay with China and Russia invading only their immediate neighbors? Which ones are you okay with? I assume Taiwan and Ukraine are to be absorbed and its people thrown in gulags in your world view. How about the rest of Eastern Europe? And then what do you think the rest of Europe and Japan and South Korea would do in the US vacuum? They would dramatically rearm, add nukes and every other form of warfare that they could develop to stop the invaders. But you think you would be safe in your bubble of American isolation that you advocate? Doubtful. Clearly the rest of the world would be in chaos and conflict. You'd really want that?

The only way to stop war is to encourage stronger countries from not invading smaller ones. It's that simple. How to do this? Make it too costly for them. Band together. Create economic and defense alliances that will encourage the big guys to avoid war. Russia would not have invaded Ukraine if it had been in Nato. If Nato breaks up, which is a very real possibility if Trump gets elected, Europe will be in war again. Russia wants the Baltics, Finland, Poland and other countries. Your positions are not anti-war.

You think "not getting involved" is the same as "burying its head in the sand". That shows just how good a job the war party has brainwashed the public into thinking the US should bomb anyone anywhere anytime lest the world descend into chaos without our "benevolent" leadership. It's easy to say "oh it is okay that we do it because we're the good guys", but I doubt the people getting bombed think we're the good guys.

I could go into detail about how all those threats you named are exacerbated by US involvement, but that is actually the wrong argument to make because it concedes your core point that involvement is justified but sometimes goes wrong. Still, it is true that those threats you named are exacerbated by US involvement.

You think the solution to peace it to have the US at war with everyone you think of as a "bad buy".

So let me ask you, people invade your home. They kill your wife and rape your daughter. How much of the rest of your home are you willing to give up to obtain peace?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Bad comparison is bad, and you should feel bad.

 

[ZiprHead]

Bad comparison is bad, and you should feel bad.

What's wrong with it?

 

[Patooka]

How many would be alive today if the US hadn't been pushing its sphere of influence ever farther eastward towards Russia's borders?

Zero. Putin was always going to invade Ukraine, his bullshit justification would have changed that's all. Baltic nations willingly joined NATO after the fall of the USSR for a very good fucking reason.

 

[crazyfingers]

Chamberlain tried appeasment

 

[AdamWho]

It seems that the "Impeachment" is dead because you are all talking about Ukraine

 

[Patooka]

It seems that the "Impeachment" is dead because you are all talking about Ukraine

Another way of saying that is we are giving this impeachment bullshit all the attention it deserves.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Here's the irony here: you claim to be anti-war. However, if the US government buried its head in the sand as you advocate, the world would be in much much greater conflict and war than today. You're okay with China and Russia invading only their immediate neighbors? Which ones are you okay with? I assume Taiwan and Ukraine are to be absorbed and its people thrown in gulags in your world view. How about the rest of Eastern Europe? And then what do you think the rest of Europe and Japan and South Korea would do in the US vacuum? They would dramatically rearm, add nukes and every other form of warfare that they could develop to stop the invaders. But you think you would be safe in your bubble of American isolation that you advocate? Doubtful. Clearly the rest of the world would be in chaos and conflict. You'd really want that?

The only way to stop war is to encourage stronger countries from not invading smaller ones. It's that simple. How to do this? Make it too costly for them. Band together. Create economic and defense alliances that will encourage the big guys to avoid war. Russia would not have invaded Ukraine if it had been in Nato. If Nato breaks up, which is a very real possibility if Trump gets elected, Europe will be in war again. Russia wants the Baltics, Finland, Poland and other countries. Your positions are not anti-war.

You think "not getting involved" is the same as "burying its head in the sand". That shows just how good a job the war party has brainwashed the public into thinking the US should bomb anyone anywhere anytime lest the world descend into chaos without our "benevolent" leadership. It's easy to say "oh it is okay that we do it because we're the good guys", but I doubt the people getting bombed think we're the good guys.

I could go into detail about how all those threats you named are exacerbated by US involvement, but that is actually the wrong argument to make because it concedes your core point that involvement is justified but sometimes goes wrong. Still, it is true that those threats you named are exacerbated by US involvement.

You think the solution to peace it to have the US at war with everyone you think of as a "bad buy".

Simple question: How many Ukrainians would be dead today if they didn't have weapons provided by the US and other allies?

How many would be alive today if the US hadn't been pushing its sphere of influence ever farther eastward towards Russia's borders?

Oh, but those deaths are worth it so don't count.

I can't find the story anymore, but a few decades ago some forgettable country was engaged in a civil war. Both factions kept drawing it out hoping for the US to get involved on their side. The problem was, the US failed to notice (for once) and didn't get involved on either side. Ultimately both sides got angry at the US, made peace, and tried to accuse the US of negligence and claimed reparations were owed.

Yes, we've been very mean to the Russians. Poor Russia. But that doesn't change the fact that Ukrainians are being killed. Not Americans. If we stop giving them weapons, it will be a blood bath. Shame on any person who is willing to allow Ukrainians to be killed to settle hurt feelings.

The real deal is that the US has great soft power, Russia does not. I understand that Russia would like to have a greater sphere of influence. It's just good for business. But if they want a greater sphere of influence, I have a suggestion: quit being assholes! If you want more friends on your border, quit stealing your neighbor's land! Quit bombing the shit out of them, targeting their infrastructure, stopping the flow of their shipments, raping their women, stealing their children. Yes, we've been very mean to Russia. But the Eastern European countries turning away from Russia is Russia's fault, not the west.

 

[ZiprHead]

Bad comparison is bad, and you should feel bad.

What's wrong with it?

Seems like quite an apt comparison to me.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It seems that the "Impeachment" is dead because you are all talking about Ukraine

There's really nothing happening for another two days when the inquiry hearings begin 28th at 10am. Also, there still won't really be anything new.

Republican Speaker of the House giving a speech while crying--done that
Freedum Caucus showing up with some kind of prop-done that many times
Republicans claiming they are being silenced by RINOs, the deep state, and the media so they are victims -- always do that
Incoherent connections from Hunter Biden's actions to Joe Biden- check.

You're going to wish they were talking about Ukraine by the time they really get into it.

 

[ZiprHead]

How many would be alive today if the US hadn't been pushing its sphere of influence ever farther eastward towards Russia's borders?

I find this to be a strange comment coming from a Libertarian. Russia has no business in the affairs of other nations that don't have any effect on Russia.

 

[laughing dog]

How many would be alive today if the US hadn't been pushing its sphere of influence ever farther eastward towards Russia's borders?

I find this to be a strange comment coming from a Libertarian. Russia has no business in the affairs of other nations that don't have any effect on Russia.

Come on, Russia’s record of pacifism and peace towards its neighbours is well documented. The Estonians, Poles and Ukrainians are war mongering ingrates. <sarcasm>

 

[Elixir]

How many would be alive today if the US hadn't been pushing its sphere of influence ever farther eastward towards Russia's borders?

I find this to be a strange comment coming from a Libertarian. Russia has no business in the affairs of other nations that don't have any effect on Russia.

Even stranger, would be a nation that is concerned about its borders, expanding the length of the border that needs defending by invading its neighbors, murdering the civilians, kidnapping the children and claiming that the nation they invaded never existed. Very strange defensive tactic indeed. Perhaps only in libberpublican fantasyland.

 

[Harry Bosch]

How many would be alive today if the US hadn't been pushing its sphere of influence ever farther eastward towards Russia's borders?

I find this to be a strange comment coming from a Libertarian. Russia has no business in the affairs of other nations that don't have any effect on Russia.

Come on, Russia’s record of pacifism and peace towards its neighbours is well documented. The Estonians, Poles and Ukrainians are war mongering ingrates. <sarcasm>

Agreed. Hard to understand why Ukraine would would be moving westward towards the meanies. Embrace Mother Russia and you get peace, trust and Vodka. People are funny..,.

 

[Elixir]

People are funny..,.

That's why I love stereotyping them.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Yes, we've been very mean to the Russians. Poor Russia. But that doesn't change the fact that Ukrainians are being killed. Not Americans. If we stop giving them weapons, it will be a blood bath. Shame on any person who is willing to allow Ukrainians to be killed to settle hurt feelings.

Either that is your option, or it is you painting a false picture of my opinion. So, do you really believe that or are you speaking out your nether regions?

How many would be alive today if the US hadn't been pushing its sphere of influence ever farther eastward towards Russia's borders?

I find this to be a strange comment coming from a Libertarian. Russia has no business in the affairs of other nations that don't have any effect on Russia.

Do you apply that standard to all countries? Didn't think so.

Even stranger, would be a nation that is concerned about its borders, expanding the length of the border that needs defending by invading its neighbors, murdering the civilians, kidnapping the children and claiming that the nation they invaded never existed. Very strange defensive tactic indeed.

Nice of you to tell us what you believe.


And in spite of my efforts, we got drawn into the wrong argument. Here, let's restate the right one.

North Elbonia attacks South Elbonia. Why should the US use US money and US supplies and US lives to support either non-US side?