Fixed.you said that I said all those things, when in reality those were from excerpts, not me.
Last edited:
Fixed.you said that I said all those things, when in reality those were from excerpts, not me.
As I coined the phrase long ago, "Shto what?" Putin gets to pick his opposition. That's what happens here, only we disguise it better. Ksenia Sobchak is even the daughter of Putin's first political mentor.In spite of that, Putin won that election with 63.6% of the vote. The #2 candidate was Zyuganov of the Communist Party.
I've heard that elsewhere, but where is this popular opposition that can't run? It doesn't exist.Putin gets to pick his opposition.
I'm sure that Putin understands the script of the Book of Revelation, it translates the same in Russian.6) If the Empire choses to to go war it will face a completely united Russia
One would think that the Communist Party would be real opposition in a Capitalist Russia, but they aren't doing so well.
You know my opinion, contra-Vltchek, about Communism - as opposed to Socialism, especially hybrid Socialism / Capitalism. As such, using Communism in any argument in this regard is a non-starter.On second thought, I do find myself wondering if "the fix is in" regarding the Communist Party in Russia?
By golly you're right, he is a nationalist. And I don't care if you support him. All I'm asking you to do is quit repeating the blatant lies that are told about him in Western propaganda.I'm not interested in supporting such blatant, chauvinistic nationalists
Apparently, the Western media is all in a tizzy that he's doing a pretty great job of PR. They must be worried that too many of us are getting wise to the Anglo-American hatchet job, otherwise they wouldn't be working so hard to squelch this on social media.If Putin is an authentic dialectic to the evil Anglo-American empire then he is doing a very crappy job of PR to the world outside of Russia.
Georgism is a hybrid of capitalism and socialism, right? There's nothing to prevent the existence of successful businessmen under Georgism? Not that I am saying Putin is consistent in this regard.If Putin is such as great Georgist, then why does he yet have his second generation oligarchs?
Now this is a good point.I'm sure that Putin understands the script of the Book of Revelation, it translates the same in Russian.
OK, so what is the truth about him?All I'm asking you to do is quit repeating the blatant lies that are told about him in Western propaganda.
I'm not a denizen of social media so I don't know what is being squelched.Apparently, the Western media is all in a tizzy that he's doing a pretty great job of PR. They must be worried that too many of us are getting wise to the Anglo-American hatchet job, otherwise they wouldn't be working so hard to squelch this on social media.
I don't think he is even close to being a Georgist.Georgism is a hybrid of capitalism and socialism, right? There's nothing to prevent the existence of successful businessmen under Georgism? Not that I am saying Putin is consistent in this regard.
Well shoot (pun intended) Jerry, how is a good apocalypse supposed to come about if Russia is conquered so easily. We need criminals so that cops can have employment. What have you got against the police Jerry?One could argue that Russia was better off in one sense back in the Yeltsin days, when their nuclear deterrent was falling apart and they were being invaded by Angl0-American bankers. "The Empire" nearly conquered the place without firing a shot.
Better to be broke and starving, than killed in a nuclear holocaust, right?
Is this a Postflavian question?The question is whether Putin is actually seeking a nuclear disaster, or whether he's trying to prevent one by modernizing his forces?
So you're saying that the nationalization of Yukos was more of a move to benefit Lukoil by shutting down the competition? So that Putin could go on collecting graft, perhaps? I can't discount the possibility.Are you in a position to claim that Yukos's claim about selective prosecution is wrong?
I saw this in Wikipedia, but I'm not sure what it means. I think they're saying BNY is the transfer agent, not the owner.Interesting that Lukoil is partially owned by the Bank of Cyprus, recently ran by Wilbur "The Sleeping Whorse" Ross, now America's oligarchic Secretary of Rigged Commerce. The majority is owned by the Bank of New Yorkski.
Interesting. Perhaps Lukoil could create an American subsidiary, and channel funding that way to Cambridge Analytica? Would that be legal?BTW, Lukoil just got caught with their pants down with Cambridge Analytica, wanting to know how to influence American voters.
Is this really something that happened? Not enough information here for me to even figure out what you're talking about.Curious that Putin's musician friend would suddenly come into hundreds of millions of dollars at this time, for no apparent reason.
In the US election, there was a Libertarian candidate: Gary Johnson, who got 3.2 percent. It's quite a stretch to say that the 45% who stayed home, were frustrated Libertarians.As with the frustrated Libertarian vote, for "None of the Above", this was also the largest 'democratic' opposition to Putin.
Here's what I think. If there was any actual, substantive dirt against him, the mainstream media would not have to go to such lengths to whip up easily discredited phony propaganda.OK, so what is the truth about him?
I can't for the life of me figure out why your claiming that I'm treating Putin differently to others, when, clearly I'm treating him consistently. My view on him is consistent with my meta-narrative. I see him as part of the larger construct, more than likely a role player like Trump. I see no reason to play the usual game of: if A is Bad, then B must be Good.In this situation, what you're doing is just blaming the victim. The rape victim deserved it, she was wearing lipstick.
Your meta-narrative is creating a confirmation bias. There's no actual evidence that Putin is part of the grand international conspiracy, or that he's a role player like Trump.I can't for the life of me figure out why your claiming that I'm treating Putin differently to others, when, clearly I'm treating him consistently. My view on him is consistent with my meta-narrative. I see him as part of the larger construct, more than likely a role player like Trump.