Yea and Ney's counted - House advances Foreign Aid Bills

[Faithoverbelief]

How is sending more money to Ukraine to get more Ukrainians killed by Russian bullets in the US interest? So far as I can tell, if you aren't actually receiving any of the graft, you're simply being lined up in front of a Russian firing squad to be executed. Now I understand the desire to participate in the graft, what I don't understand is how is sending your old men and boys to the front line to be shot by the Russians, any indication of patriotism.

While the beneficiaries of this graft are eating caviar in Kyiv, you've got Americans dying in the streets, working class people experiencing inflation this literally driving them out of their homes, and a land invasion over our southern border.

Every Republican yes vote on this bill has put themselves on a hit list. I don't know if the best course is to vacate the speaker seat before November, but it's not an unreasonable idea.

It is a pitiful shame that the Republican Party is so full of thoroughly disreputable elitist scoundrels. Republican voters will figure out a way to hold them to account even if they have to vote for them in November, because obviously voting for Democrats is not a viable alternative.

DOD Official Restates Why Supporting Ukraine Is in U.S. Interest

As Congress again addresses U.S. military aid to Ukraine, helping Ukraine defeat Russian aggression is in the United States' interest, the assistant secretary of defense for international security

www.defense.gov

Why it's in the USA interest in helping Ukraine.

 

[Thistle]

DOD Official Restates Why Supporting Ukraine Is in U.S. Interest

As Congress again addresses U.S. military aid to Ukraine, helping Ukraine defeat Russian aggression is in the United States' interest, the assistant secretary of defense for international security

www.defense.gov

Why it's in the USA interest in helping Ukraine.

America could help Ukraine by finding them the first seat of the negotiating table, that opens up. Happily the seats of the negotiating table are all open. So if they show up so will the Russians. Unfortunately, America did exactly the opposite. When the Istanbul agreement was already signed sealed and delivered we sent Boris Johnson to parachute in and blow up the Peace deal. Every Ukrainian death from that time until now is unambiguously on America's hands. Furthermore all of the deaths before that we're on America's hams because there was an absolutely no misunderstanding what was going to happen before the invasion occurred. Proof positive of this is that we correctly predicted it exactly when it happened. Furthermore the exact circumstances under which it would occur we had known since 2008.

There are about four or five equally fanciful arguments in you were ridiculous article. If you actually want to defend any or all of these, by all means let's have a discussion.

 

[Faithoverbelief]

America could help Ukraine by finding them the first seat of the negotiating table, that opens up. Happily the seats of the negotiating table are all open. So if they show up so will the Russians. Unfortunately, America did exactly the opposite. When the Istanbul agreement was already signed sealed and delivered we sent Boris Johnson to parachute in and blow up the Peace deal. Every Ukrainian death from that time until now is unambiguously on America's hands. Furthermore all of the deaths before that we're on America's hams because there was an absolutely no misunderstanding what was going to happen before the invasion occurred. Proof positive of this is that we correctly predicted it exactly when it happened. Furthermore the exact circumstances under which it would occur we had known since 2008.

There are about four or five equally fanciful arguments in you were ridiculous article. If you actually want to defend any or all of these, by all means let's have a discussion.

Can't have Russia and China invading countries. If you think that is wise I disagree.

The USA is the strongest country and will defend that power that China and Russia want to grab.

It is in the best interest of the USA to help Ukraine with bullets rather than boys.

 

[Thistle]

Can't have Russia and China invading countries.

Russia is not a communist country. China is. Are you confused about that? We won the Cold War. Are you confused about that? The only reason that Russia is not a member of NATO is the Bill Clinton ostensibly told Vladimir Putin to go pound sand when he suggested it. Do you think this war would be fought if Russia and Ukraine were both NATO members?

If you think that is wise I disagree.

We left the realm of "wise" in 2008 when we insisted over the objections of Macron and Merkel that we include language in the NATO Bucharest summit communiqué that Georgia and Ukraine become members of NATO. So the "unwise "horse has been out of the barn for a very, very, very long time. Unfortunately, we are just now experiencing the inevitable consequences of that breach of wisdom. Russia made it absolutely clear that there would be war if this policy were pursued, and it didn't take long before they in fact fought that war in Georgia. This is just the second half of a policy and consequences that we knew beyond all claim of ignorance would inevitably ensue.

The USA is the strongest country and will defend that power that China and Russia want to grab.

We're not talking about a power grabbing Ukraine. Russia would not be defensible if an attack on that country were launched from Ukraine. They simply want neutrality. Now they're not going to give up anything that they have annexed to be sure. Ukraine is proven that they will coddle nazis have proven over and over again that they will make life impossible for Russian speaking Ukrainians. Russia doesn't want the rest of Ukraine and the only solution to this conflict is a negotiating table. They certainly don't want anything beyond Ukraine.

It is in the best interest of the USA to help Ukraine with bullets rather than boys.

It would be in the best interest of the United States to help Ukraine diplomatically. Russia's concern is the United States intention toward Russia; and they have reason to be concerned if this administration's policy is any indication.

 

[Faithoverbelief]

Russia is not a communist country. China is. Are you confused about that? We won the Cold War. Are you confused about that? The only reason that Russia is not a member of NATO is the Bill Clinton ostensibly told Vladimir Putin to go pound sand when he suggested it. Do you think this war would be fought if Russia and Ukraine were both NATO members?

We left the realm of "wise" in 2008 when we insisted over the objections of Macron and Merkel that we include language in the NATO Bucharest summit communiqué that Georgia and Ukraine become members of NATO. So the "unwise "horse has been out of the barn for a very, very, very long time. Unfortunately, we are just now experiencing the inevitable consequences of that breach of wisdom. Russia made it absolutely clear that there would be war if this policy were pursued, and it didn't take long before they in fact fought that war in Georgia. This is just the second half of a policy and consequences that we knew beyond all claim of ignorance would inevitably ensue.

We're not talking about a power grabbing Ukraine. Russia would not be defensible if an attack on that country were launched from Ukraine. They simply want neutrality. Now they're not going to give up anything that they have annexed to be sure. Ukraine is proven that they will coddle nazis have proven over and over again that they will make life impossible for Russian speaking Ukrainians. Russia doesn't want the rest of Ukraine and the only solution to this conflict is a negotiating table. They certainly don't want anything beyond Ukraine.

It would be in the best interest of the United States to help Ukraine diplomatically. Russia's concern is the United States intention toward Russia; and they have reason to be concerned if this administration's policy is any indication.

Communist does not matter. The USA is going to have Russia violating treaties and setting an an example for China.

To note I am not defending any of the actions simply telling you why the USA has made this foreign policy decision.

 

[Thistle]

Communist does not matter.

Of course it doesn't matter to you, you're a communist. To regular Americans it makes a little difference.

The USA is going to have Russia violating treaties and setting an an example for China.

Who made us Russia's nursemaid? We're not! We imposed sanctions on Cuba when I was in diapers. Those sanctions are still there. Being in close proximity to a regional hegemon has consequences which Ukraine full well knew which is precisely why they signed the agreement in Istanbul.

If you pay somebody enough money to agree with you, after a certain number of billions of dollars they will come over to your side, given that you're going to make them wealthy beyond the wildest dreams of any human in the history of mankind. That is hardly a valid claim of being on the side of the "Ukrainians."

The old man and boys being shot by Russian bullets probably have a very different view than the people who are swallowing caviar in Kyiv.

And by the way, all those Americans who are being displaced by the invasion across our southern border who are not getting any of the goodies that are being doled out to bribe people to invade the United States, they're not swallowing a lot of caviar like the Ukrainians in Kyi either. Do you have any thing to say to those Americans about the billions that were sending to Ukraine?

To note I am not defending any of the actions simply telling you why the USA has made this foreign policy decision.

I doubt that very seriously. It would probably be more accurate to say that speaker Johnson was hauled into a security briefing in which he was told it if he didn't push this through, the FBI would kick in his door at 6 o'clock in the morning and download kiddy porn onto all of his computers. Which is precisely why the FBI and the CIA have to go pronto.

 

[Faithoverbelief]

Of course it doesn't matter to you, you're a communist. Two regular Americans it makes a little difference.

Who made us Russia's nursemaid? We're not! We imposed sanctions on Cuba when I was in diapers. Those sanctions are still there. Being in close proximity to a regional hegemon has consequences which Ukraine full well knew which is precisely why they signed the agreement in Istanbul.

If you pay somebody enough money to agree with you, after a certain number of billions of dollars they will come over to your side, given that you're going to make them wealthy beyond the wildest dreams of any human in the history of mankind. That is hardly a valid claim of being on the side of the "Ukrainians."

The old man and boys being shot by Russian bullets probably have a very different view than the people who are swallowing caviar in Kyiv.

And by the way, all those Americans who are being displaced by the invasion across our southern border who are not getting any of the goodies that are being doled out to bribe people to invade the United States, they're not swallowing a lot of caviar like the Ukrainians in Kyi either. Do you have any thing to say to those Americans about the billions that were sending to Ukraine?

I doubt that very seriously. It would probably be more accurate to say that speaker Johnson was hauled into a security briefing in which he was told it if he didn't push this through, the FBI would kick in his door at 6 o'clock in the morning and download kiddy porn onto all of his computers. Which is precisely why the FBI and the CIA have to go pronto.

Sigh........ I am not a communist or socialist for that matter though as I have stated before I would take ANARCHIST forms of those over capitalism which is exactly what the USA is fighting for....more capital and maintaining their power and #1 status.

I get the feeling you would rather some other country be #1 but I could be wrong.

 

[Thistle]

Sigh........ I am not a communist or socialist for that matter

That would certainly be comforting to believe.

though as I have stated before I would take ANARCHIST forms of those over capitalism which is exactly what the USA is fighting for....more capital and maintaining their power and #1 status.

If by "capitalism" you mean cronyism I couldn't agree more. However, cronyism is not capitalism and you see a lot more cronyism in Socialism than you do in capitalism. Cronyism is what happens to ex-capitalists when they give up on what deliver their initial wealth. At that point they abandon capitalism and engage in rent seeking behaviors as a pale substitute.

I get the feeling you would rather some other country be #1 but I could be wrong.

Did you get that impression watching Donald Trump execute his foreign-policy? If you did, I'm astonished!

There will never be another country to emerge that will play the role of the United States has played since World War II. There has never been one since the beginning of time, and they're likely will never be one again.

The unipolar moment after the fall of the soviet empire is a unique event in history, and will likely never be duplicated. The lack of someone to step into the United States shoes will mean that Europe will have no choice but to support the institutions established at the end of World War II as long as they can be perpetuated, which means there's no alternative to the United States.

But the policy of printing US dollars to ship to foreign countries in order to shore up the US dollars reserve currency status, is going to have to be replaced by a more sustainable policy. The monetarist insanity of recent decades did not get the United States to it's current position, and unless it's corrected the United States can't stay in it's current position.

NATO is not a protection against Russia. It's a protection against European nations competing militarily with each other. That is a infinitely more rational fear if history tells us anything. Nevertheless, to keep NATO still viable and useful for its purpose, European countries are going to have to spend more on their military. Russia would be insane to pick a fight with NATO and there's absolutely no indication that they would ever elect to do that in a million years. If we only had the good sense to take Russia up on their offer when they proposed it to become part of NATO we wouldn't have a war in Europe right now. And as a direct consequence of that policy China would be infinitely easier to deal with.

 

[Faithoverbelief]

That would certainly be comforting to believe.

If by "capitalism" you mean cronyism I couldn't agree more. However, cronyism is not capitalism and you see a lot more cronyism in Socialism than you do in capitalism. Cronyism is what happens to ex-capitalists when they give up on what deliver their initial wealth. At that point they abandon capitalism and engage in rent seeking behaviors as a pale substitute.

Did you get that impression watching Donald Trump execute his foreign-policy? If you did, I'm astonished!

There will never be another country to emerge that will play the role of the United States has played since World War II. There has never been one since the beginning of time, and they're likely will never be one again.

The unipolar moment after the fall of the soviet empire is a unique event in history, and will likely never be duplicated. The lack of someone to step into the United States shoes will mean that Europe will have no choice but to support the institutions established at the end of World War II as long as they can be perpetuated, which means there's no alternative to the United States.

But the policy of printing US dollars to ship to foreign countries in order to shore up the US dollars reserve currency status, is going to have to be replaced by a more sustainable policy. The monetarist insanity of recent decades did not get the United States to it's current position, and unless it's corrected the United States can't stay in it's current position.

NATO is not a protection against Russia. It's a protection against European nations competing militarily with each other. That is a infinitely more rational fear if history tells us anything. Nevertheless, to keep NATO still viable and useful for its purpose, European countries are going to have to spend more on their military. Russia would be insane to pick a fight with NATO and there's absolutely no indication that they would ever elect to do that in a million years. If we only had the good sense to take Russia up on their offer when they proposed it to become part of NATO we wouldn't have a war in Europe right now. And as a direct consequence of that policy China would be infinitely easier to deal with.

Imo capitalism is cronyism. It is the government working with the corporations and those with capital to protect them.

I would ideally prefer a free market which capitalism is not.

You are correct that socialist governments can be corrupt it I should say those that call themselves communist or socialist.

I would think you have read Marx and in his ideal there are no millionaires etc.

I am at odds with Marx and Leninists and Trotskyists as I do not support authoritarian politics. I would say I am closer to Kropotkins political ideals

 

[Watchdog]

The USA is the strongest country and will defend that power that China and Russia want to grab.

Not any longer. We are basically bankrupt (34 trillion dollars in debt) and our military is woke.

 

[inertia]

Oh stop it! It’s called, observation-based logic.

Observation: Influence operations continue to be carried out by Russia and have deeply penetrated Western politics and society.

American tax payers are not responsible for “the worlds” needs.

Of course. The need for isotopes won't go away just because American taxpayers are not responsible.

___
.

 

[Faithoverbelief]

Not any longer. We are basically bankrupt (34 trillion dollars in debt) and our military is woke.

We are by far the most powerful country. No one else is that close.

 

[Thistle]

Imo capitalism is cronyism.

That would explain your prejudice. This is the essence of capitalism, "thou shalt not steal." That rules out pretty much everything but capitalism. If I can't figure out how to get someone to voluntarily give me money, I'm out of luck. That's capitalism, the voluntary exchange of goods and services for money. Essentially every alternative is some form of larceny including taxes.

It is the government working with the corporations and those with capital to protect them.

A minimal government is good for the voluntary exchange of goods and services in so far as it engages in less larceny through taxes then would otherwise exist through criminal activity. Under this view some small amount of larceny has to be tolerated one way or the other. This is why "big government" is an anathema to capitalism.

I would ideally prefer a free market which capitalism is not.

I don't care if you call the free market a hippopotamus. It is capitalism, however.

You are correct that socialist governments can be corrupt it I should say those that call themselves communist or socialist.

I love it when we agree. I just can't figure out who sold you on the idea that the free market is not capitalism.

I would think you have read Marx and in his ideal there are no millionaires etc.

His is not the only take on Socialism both before his appearance and after. But in great relevance to today, please note that the billionaires who claim allegiance to the CCP are claiming to be thoroughgoing Marxists. The CCP is absolutely unequivocal on this point, that they are all thoroughgoing marxists in good standing.

I am at odds with Marx and Leninists and Trotskyists as I do not support authoritarian politics.

In theory communism doesn't really lead to totalitarianism, because in theory they've achieved "synthesis." Of course, we both know better.

I would say I am closer to Kropotkins political ideals

If the means of production should be held in common by society as Kropotkins an Anarcho-communism suggests you're not free to do as you please with the fruit of your labor. After all you might want to buy a shovel which would be of course "means of production." I'm sure I'm missing something very fundamental. But I'm having a very hard time seeing how this is better than other kinds of communism.

If someone were actually to attempt to impose the system on any society it's hard for me to see how they would do that without becoming a tyrant.

Maybe I take very good care of my shovel each day as I do my work and everybody else would like to use my shovel at the beginning of the day because I've taken very good care of it. But they want to leave me with the shovels that they have abused mercilessly which I can't use without great difficulty. You don't think I should be able to acquire my own shovel that I could take care of as though it were my own actual property?

Why won't you let me buy a shovel? Sounds like tyranny to me!

 

[Watchdog]

We are by far the most powerful country. No one else is that close.

We are being torn apart internally and that makes us weak as well, China does not have to worry about that.

 

[Watchdog]

Influence operations continue to be carried out by Russia and have deeply penetrated Western politics and society.

China is doing the same.

 

[Faithoverbelief]

That would explain your prejudice. This is the essence of capitalism, "thou shalt not steal." That rules out pretty much everything but capitalism. If I can't figure out how to get someone to voluntarily give me money, I'm out of luck. That's capitalism, the voluntary exchange of goods and services for money. Essentially every alternative is some form of larceny including taxes.

A minimal government is good for the voluntary exchange of goods and services in so far as it engages in less larceny through taxes then would otherwise exist through criminal activity. Under this view some small amount of larceny has to be tolerated one way or the other. This is why "big government" is an anathema to capitalism.

I don't care if you call the free market a hippopotamus. It is capitalism, however.

I love it when we agree. I just can't figure out who sold you on the idea that the free market is not capitalism.

His is not the only take on Socialism both before his appearance and after. But in great relevance to today, please note that the billionaires who claim allegiance to the CCP are claiming to be thoroughgoing Marxists. The CCP is absolutely unequivocal on this point, that they are all thoroughgoing marxists in good standing.

In theory communism doesn't really lead to totalitarianism, because in theory they've achieved "synthesis." Of course, we both know better.

If the means of production should be held in common by society as Kropotkins an Anarcho-communism suggests you're not free to do as you please with the fruit of your labor. After all you might want to buy a shovel which would be of course "means of production." I'm sure I'm missing something very fundamental. But I'm having a very hard time seeing how this is better than other kinds of communism.

If someone were actually to attempt to impose the system on any society it's hard for me to see how they would do that without becoming a tyrant.

Maybe I take very good care of my shovel each day as I do my work and everybody else would like to use my shovel at the beginning of the day because I've taken very good care of it. But they want to leave me with the shovels that they have abused mercilessly which I can't use without great difficulty. You don't think I should be able to acquire my own shovel that I could take care of as though it were my own actual property?

Why won't you let me buy a shovel? Sounds like tyranny to me!

Anarcho-communism calls for the abolition of private property but retention of personal property.

 

[Faithoverbelief]

That would explain your prejudice. This is the essence of capitalism, "thou shalt not steal." That rules out pretty much everything but capitalism. If I can't figure out how to get someone to voluntarily give me money, I'm out of luck. That's capitalism, the voluntary exchange of goods and services for money. Essentially every alternative is some form of larceny including taxes.

A minimal government is good for the voluntary exchange of goods and services in so far as it engages in less larceny through taxes then would otherwise exist through criminal activity. Under this view some small amount of larceny has to be tolerated one way or the other. This is why "big government" is an anathema to capitalism.

I don't care if you call the free market a hippopotamus. It is capitalism, however.

I love it when we agree. I just can't figure out who sold you on the idea that the free market is not capitalism.

His is not the only take on Socialism both before his appearance and after. But in great relevance to today, please note that the billionaires who claim allegiance to the CCP are claiming to be thoroughgoing Marxists. The CCP is absolutely unequivocal on this point, that they are all thoroughgoing marxists in good standing.

In theory communism doesn't really lead to totalitarianism, because in theory they've achieved "synthesis." Of course, we both know better.

If the means of production should be held in common by society as Kropotkins an Anarcho-communism suggests you're not free to do as you please with the fruit of your labor. After all you might want to buy a shovel which would be of course "means of production." I'm sure I'm missing something very fundamental. But I'm having a very hard time seeing how this is better than other kinds of communism.

If someone were actually to attempt to impose the system on any society it's hard for me to see how they would do that without becoming a tyrant.

Maybe I take very good care of my shovel each day as I do my work and everybody else would like to use my shovel at the beginning of the day because I've taken very good care of it. But they want to leave me with the shovels that they have abused mercilessly which I can't use without great difficulty. You don't think I should be able to acquire my own shovel that I could take care of as though it were my own actual property?

Why won't you let me buy a shovel? Sounds like tyranny to me!

I forgot to add it also supports collectively owned items goods and services It supports social ownership of property and the distribution of resources "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".

 

[inertia]

The Ukraine is hopelessly corrupt,

I disagree especially since Ukraine's leadership is actively firing people caught. Their goal of joining the EU significantly depends on their ferreting out corruption in all levels of their society. They desperately need to get out of the murderous grip of Putin's 3-day special military action.

The problem is for years Ukraine was in the Russian orbit, so why should we care about them

Because they too are children of God in need of escaping Russia's new form autocratic statehood.

and leave our own borders open?

As long as there are people that want ultra-cheap labor, there will be leaks in our borders, and they will do anything to keep them open. All of the borders including Mexico, every seaport, and every airport should be upgraded with tightly enforced regulations.

Our own open border is more critical to our national security

I can't agree with you more. The airports are a special concern.

than providing all this free money to the Ukraine that we cannot afford

The proverbial lion's share of the budget is sending old, need to be replaced munitions and military hardware. At home, actual dollars ($$$) are spent replacing the old, need to be replaced munitions and military hardware in order to be prepared for a future war against the United States.
This creates thousands of real good-paying jobs.

due to our 34 trillion dollar debt.

Doing something about ^that^ must be a bipartisan priority that neither party has paid significant attention and effort to eliminate.

___
.

 

[inertia]

China is doing the same.

I have reason to believe China's influence operations go back multiple generations. It's no coincidence that when China produces a new bomber it looks nearly identical to United States bombers.

___
.

 

[Thistle]

Anarcho-communism calls for the abolition of private property but retention of personal property.

If my personal property is not private property how can I tell someone that, that's my shovel. It is very hard to see how it's not means of production.