Yep, including Big Oil and corporate America. From the article above. Again, nice to see even when you pretend to care about this issue you can't help...
Seems a ridiculous thing to do. But if he did so on purpose— fine. Prosecute. It’s just hilarious that MAGA wants to scream about it. It’s just pure v...
Yeah, except no one is advocating that. It’s just another mental block you can’t seem to overcome. This will not be solved individually. We need colle...
I know what non sequitur means. You apparently don't. You've also proven my point about misunderstanding English nuance. I'm not talking about Ukraine...
So your entire argument rests on the fact that I can only give an opinion, not definitive proof, of what might have happened. An odd line to take. Yes...
Straight from Big Oil’s boardrooms to your brain. What a shocker. Big oil coined ‘carbon footprints’ to blame us for their greed. Keep them on the hoo...
This is incorrect. Which is why I asked about NATO activities after 2014. If you’d like to move on to that now, I’d be happy to. Because it’s very rel...
There was no war in Ukraine prior to 2008. So there — I just proved it. How silly. NATO was the most direct cause of the war in Ukraine. There’s plent...
Packaging research and innovation that is publicly funded into a pretty package for consumers isn’t that valuable in my view. The claim was that innov...
You could, had I talked about my feelings. But I don’t. I assume no one is interested in my gut-feeling predictions. You, on the other hand, have cont...
Really? I guess that’s changed over the years. In any case, in honor of RATM, I’ll drop this here in the off chance you haven’t seen it: https://youtu...
The point is exactly what you mentioned: if they do it, we’ll do it too— regardless of evidence. The point of the shutdown is, as usual, to create as ...
So I’m supposed to argue for something that didn’t happen. No thank you. No, I don’t think there would be a war today if it weren’t for NATO involveme...
I'm sorry that your reading comprehension is poor. But that's not my fault. I assume you're not a native English speaker, and in that case I'm not mak...
Because it was stated explicitly, for years, that there would be consequences and that Russia would react to further provocation. When they actually d...
It wasn’t close to a non sequitur. Try learning what words mean before trying to sound smart. The only one embarrassing themselves is you. NATO didn’t...
Russian imperialists? I guess that’s just assumed. Given that, we can make up a nice story that removes any US responsibility. How convenient. No one ...
Not completely accurate, but irrelevant in any case. Whatever the causes of Russia’s stance, it was indeed their stance in 2008, which is where this c...
https://web.archive.org/web/20080410213408/http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080331/ap_on_re_eu/russia_vs_nato_1 What is unclear about the bolded part? Wha...
It is very different in fact. It has been all along. But things do change at different points in time— which you’re apparently unwilling to understand...
Is this serious? Oh good — glad you feel that way. The Russians felt differently. Our own ambassador acknowledges the sentiment in the memo I cited ab...
It’s not all because of NATO expansion. But that’s the most direct cause. Also, it wasn’t “sudden.” As explained earlier. You seem to ignore changes f...
He didn’t say it wasn’t a threat in 2002. But recall this was after 9/11, and the issue was terrorism. Yes, things changed between 2002 and 2008. Is t...
Learn what these words mean before using them. Nope. That was your projection. I just did above. Plenty more. That Russia has imperial ambitions, that...
That’s fairly straightforward. This is 2008. It wasn’t just Putin, of course. The US ambassador, William Burns, said as much in his memo to the secret...
Because Russia had stated, for years, that NATO membership in Ukraine was considered a red line. There was no reason to do so. You’re confusing the ve...
Where is the mention of Russian imperialism? Where is the Russian threat that warranted NATO membership, after it was made clear this would be conside...
It wasn’t a typo. 1993 and 2013 are vastly different. You simply misread the fact that the article was accessed in the 2010s. You just carelessly used...
70 years ago. That’s not what was argued in 2008. Right— which makes the Bucharest Summit an unnecessary and stupid provocation. No, it wasn’t. Nor wa...
You’ve been corrected on this several times now. The US government is NOT spending 2.2 trillion on climate change. Not even close. And that figure is ...
The same Mearsheimer who agrees there was no evidence whatsoever of Putin’s imperialism for the NATO provocation in 2008? Sure. Russian history? That’...
Still, after 510 pages, no one has given a shred of evidence for the “Russian threat” prior to 2008, when the NATO provocation began. No one was claim...
A year and a half into the US-provoked war*, and they’re fighting hard with Ukrainian lives to keep the war going. It’s been a windfall for defense co...
In explaining climate change, for people who are truly interested in learning about it, I always like to start with an easy experiment: you can take t...
:snicker: Yeah we’ve gone over this already. I think @"unenlightened" did a good job unpacking that statement. My house burning down has positive aspe...
Comments