• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

file this under so what

Steve

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
https://twitter.com/vo_svoboda

The Social-National Party of Ukraine changed its name to the All-Ukrainian Union "Svoboda" in February 2004 with the arrival of Oleh Tyahnybok as party leader.[2] Tyahnybok made significant efforts to moderate the party's extremist image.[39] The party not only replaced its name, but also abandoned the "I + N" ("Idea Natsii" ukr. "idea of a nation") Wolfsangel logo (a symbol popular among neo-Nazi groups)[2][27] with a three-fingered hand reminiscent of the 'Tryzub' pro-independence gesture of the late 1980s.


now look at what you are posting.. I must be missing it..
really why post this on two separate threads over and over again?

by now everyone on here knows their real name..

and the word that seems to upset you so much translates to freedom..



and my bet is they don't care any more then I do

if you have a point make it..
 

Steve

Well-known member
you are still wrong..

facts are facts.

the name of the party is All-Ukrainian Union

and has been since 2004... when they renounced the nazi crap, and icons.. and reformed into a new party.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Steve said:
you are still wrong..

facts are facts.

the name of the party is All-Ukrainian Union

and has been since 2004... when they renounced the nazi crap, and icons.. and reformed into a new party.



All-Український Союз "Свобода"

Provide some proof that they didn't change their name to All-Ukrainian Union "Svoboda" in 2004, and don't use the name Svoboda now.

You have yet to do that.
 

Steve

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Steve said:
you are still wrong..

facts are facts.

the name of the party is All-Ukrainian Union

and has been since 2004... when they renounced the nazi crap, and icons.. and reformed into a new party.



All-Український Союз "Свобода"

Provide some proof that they didn't change their name to All-Ukrainian Union "Svoboda" in 2004, and don't use the name Svoboda now.

You have yet to do that.

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

it really doesn't matter..

you ignored ALL the major points disproving your crap.. so now you settle on a minor insignificant point.

the word is freedom..

I don't have to prove anything to you.. I told you several times. I could care less what you think... or how little you think.

I have read insult after insult and accusations that were so baseless they crumbled under the slightest scrutiny.. nope..

why not tackle one of the claims you insisted on earlier.. like the snipers.. or the Ukraine being Germans' allie in WWII

or the smears against (new) the party members..

you won't because you know you are wrong..
 

Steve

Well-known member
50432a2dd060.jpg


let FREEDOM Ring.. :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
So what is right!... As far as I'm concerned we should be following the old conservative/current Libertarian platform of non intervention and keeping our nose out of it...

The twin pillars of a sane foreign policy are:

(1) Building positive relationships, with an emphasis on free trade, and

(2) Avoiding negative relationships, with an emphasis on military non-intervention.



Armed Neutrality: The Swiss Model of Defense

Of course, it seems odd to describe the years since the start of the 21st century as a relatively peaceful time, but that is because, as Americans, we are living with a military-industrial complex whose financial future depends on keeping us as scared as possible for as long as possible. Our country, as a result, has been a laggard. And US attempts to choose winners and losers in other countries have been marked by repeated disasters: Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and Muammar Gaddafi all received military support from the US before they became US enemies.

The military budget of the United States, conservatively measured at around $700 billion (but probably closer to $1 trillion once all security measures and veteran benefits are considered), is approximately equal to all of the military budgets of all other countries combined. If the US military budget were cut in half, it would still be the largest in the world. Then, if it were cut in half again, it would STILL be the largest in the world. Then, if it were cut in half a third time, reduced to only one-eighth its current size, it would STILL be the largest in the world. And that's using the conservative measure.

Whatever motivates this enormous budget, it is certainly not for the defense of American soil. Indeed, when the Department of Homeland Security was created, this was a virtual admission that the Department of Defense had goals other than homeland security. No foreign army has the slightest capacity to invade the United States, and as North Korea has demonstrated, even the possession of a single nuclear weapon is enough to deter invasion.

Economic Policy
Foreign Aid
The Issue: The federal government has used foreign aid as a tool of influencing the policy of other sovereign nations under the guise of aiding needy people in those nations. This forces American taxpayers to subsidize governments and policies of which they may not approve.

The Principle: Individuals should not be coerced via taxes into funding a foreign nation or group.

Solutions: All foreign aid should be voluntarily funded by individuals or private organizations.

Transitional Action: Eliminate all tax-supported military, economic, technical and scientific aid to foreign governments or other organizations. Abolish government underwriting of arms sales. Abolish all federal agencies that make American taxpayers guarantors of export-related loans, such as the Export-Import Bank and the Commodity Credit Corporation. End the participation of the U.S. government in international commodity circles that restrict production, limit technological innovation and raise prices. Repeal all prohibitions on individuals or firms contributing or selling goods and services to any foreign country or organization, unless such provision constitutes a direct threat to the people of the United States.

So far only Rand Paul has said anything that sounds anything close to the true old conservative values- now carried on by the Libertarian Party... If times are as tough as all say- we shouldn't be spending Trillions $ on military intervention or even Billions $ on foreign aid to the Ukraine...But even he doesn't go far enough and say we should completely stay out of it- and let Europe handle their own problems....
The Billions $ yearly spent on keeping our "worlds policemen" military all over the world could well be better spent by our own citizens and rebuilding our countries own infrastructure...


Paul said that he is likely to oppose a bill that is not paid for and has fundamental concerns about giving any money or loans to a country that he said ranks among the “most corrupt” in the world — an assessment neither Cruz, nor Rubio volunteered.

We really — literally and figuratively — would have to borrow money from China to send it to the Ukraine,” he said. “The other problem is Ukraine owes Russia money, so if we’re giving Ukraine money and they’re paying it to Russia, does that sound like a good idea or a bad idea?”

Paul questioned the legality of Ukraine’s recent power transition and said leaders there should prove “they’re going to be less corrupt” as a condition of receiving funds. Perhaps letting Ukraine go bankrupt to wipe the slate clean is the best path, the Kentucky senator surmised.

“If you go through 10 years of austerity that’s enforced by the West, then it just leads to unhappiness and all that. Maybe you’re better off having the swiftness of bankruptcy and restarting,” Paul said.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/ukraine-russia-crimea-2016-presidential-elections-ted-cruz-marco-rubio-rand-paul-104386.html#ixzz2vKYpIygf
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
So what is right!... As far as I'm concerned we should be following the old conservative/current Libertarian platform of non intervention and keeping our nose out of it...

The twin pillars of a sane foreign policy are:

(1) Building positive relationships, with an emphasis on free trade, and

(2) Avoiding negative relationships, with an emphasis on military non-intervention.



Armed Neutrality: The Swiss Model of Defense

Of course, it seems odd to describe the years since the start of the 21st century as a relatively peaceful time, but that is because, as Americans, we are living with a military-industrial complex whose financial future depends on keeping us as scared as possible for as long as possible. Our country, as a result, has been a laggard. And US attempts to choose winners and losers in other countries have been marked by repeated disasters: Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and Muammar Gaddafi all received military support from the US before they became US enemies.

The military budget of the United States, conservatively measured at around $700 billion (but probably closer to $1 trillion once all security measures and veteran benefits are considered), is approximately equal to all of the military budgets of all other countries combined. If the US military budget were cut in half, it would still be the largest in the world. Then, if it were cut in half again, it would STILL be the largest in the world. Then, if it were cut in half a third time, reduced to only one-eighth its current size, it would STILL be the largest in the world. And that's using the conservative measure.

Whatever motivates this enormous budget, it is certainly not for the defense of American soil. Indeed, when the Department of Homeland Security was created, this was a virtual admission that the Department of Defense had goals other than homeland security. No foreign army has the slightest capacity to invade the United States, and as North Korea has demonstrated, even the possession of a single nuclear weapon is enough to deter invasion.

Economic Policy
Foreign Aid
The Issue: The federal government has used foreign aid as a tool of influencing the policy of other sovereign nations under the guise of aiding needy people in those nations. This forces American taxpayers to subsidize governments and policies of which they may not approve.

The Principle: Individuals should not be coerced via taxes into funding a foreign nation or group.

Solutions: All foreign aid should be voluntarily funded by individuals or private organizations.

Transitional Action: Eliminate all tax-supported military, economic, technical and scientific aid to foreign governments or other organizations. Abolish government underwriting of arms sales. Abolish all federal agencies that make American taxpayers guarantors of export-related loans, such as the Export-Import Bank and the Commodity Credit Corporation. End the participation of the U.S. government in international commodity circles that restrict production, limit technological innovation and raise prices. Repeal all prohibitions on individuals or firms contributing or selling goods and services to any foreign country or organization, unless such provision constitutes a direct threat to the people of the United States.

So far only Rand Paul has said anything that sounds anything close to the true old conservative values- now carried on by the Libertarian Party... If times are as tough as all say- we shouldn't be spending Trillions $ on military intervention or even Billions $ on foreign aid to the Ukraine...But even he doesn't go far enough and say we should completely stay out of it- and let Europe handle their own problems....
The Billions $ yearly spent on keeping our "worlds policemen" military all over the world could well be better spent by our own citizens and rebuilding our countries own infrastructure...


Paul said that he is likely to oppose a bill that is not paid for and has fundamental concerns about giving any money or loans to a country that he said ranks among the “most corrupt” in the world — an assessment neither Cruz, nor Rubio volunteered.

We really — literally and figuratively — would have to borrow money from China to send it to the Ukraine,” he said. “The other problem is Ukraine owes Russia money, so if we’re giving Ukraine money and they’re paying it to Russia, does that sound like a good idea or a bad idea?”

Paul questioned the legality of Ukraine’s recent power transition and said leaders there should prove “they’re going to be less corrupt” as a condition of receiving funds. Perhaps letting Ukraine go bankrupt to wipe the slate clean is the best path, the Kentucky senator surmised.

“If you go through 10 years of austerity that’s enforced by the West, then it just leads to unhappiness and all that. Maybe you’re better off having the swiftness of bankruptcy and restarting,” Paul said.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/ukraine-russia-crimea-2016-presidential-elections-ted-cruz-marco-rubio-rand-paul-104386.html#ixzz2vKYpIygf

I thought all those "shovel ready" jobs your Dear Leader had lined up was supposed to take care of all our infrastructure?
 

Steve

Well-known member
I thought all those "shovel ready" jobs your Dear Leader had lined up was supposed to take care of all our infrastructure?

speaking of the stimulus has any figured out how much of that was wasted?



The most recent figures from the Congressional Budget Office, released in August 2010, put the total cost for the stimulus -- from February 2009 through 2019 -- at $814 billion
 

iwannabeacowboy

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
So what is right!... As far as I'm concerned we should be following the old conservative/current Libertarian platform of non intervention and keeping our nose out of it...

The twin pillars of a sane foreign policy are:

(1) Building positive relationships, with an emphasis on free trade, and

(2) Avoiding negative relationships, with an emphasis on military non-intervention.



Armed Neutrality: The Swiss Model of Defense

Of course, it seems odd to describe the years since the start of the 21st century as a relatively peaceful time, but that is because, as Americans, we are living with a military-industrial complex whose financial future depends on keeping us as scared as possible for as long as possible. Our country, as a result, has been a laggard. And US attempts to choose winners and losers in other countries have been marked by repeated disasters: Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and Muammar Gaddafi all received military support from the US before they became US enemies.

The military budget of the United States, conservatively measured at around $700 billion (but probably closer to $1 trillion once all security measures and veteran benefits are considered), is approximately equal to all of the military budgets of all other countries combined. If the US military budget were cut in half, it would still be the largest in the world. Then, if it were cut in half again, it would STILL be the largest in the world. Then, if it were cut in half a third time, reduced to only one-eighth its current size, it would STILL be the largest in the world. And that's using the conservative measure.

Whatever motivates this enormous budget, it is certainly not for the defense of American soil. Indeed, when the Department of Homeland Security was created, this was a virtual admission that the Department of Defense had goals other than homeland security. No foreign army has the slightest capacity to invade the United States, and as North Korea has demonstrated, even the possession of a single nuclear weapon is enough to deter invasion.

Economic Policy
Foreign Aid
The Issue: The federal government has used foreign aid as a tool of influencing the policy of other sovereign nations under the guise of aiding needy people in those nations. This forces American taxpayers to subsidize governments and policies of which they may not approve.

The Principle: Individuals should not be coerced via taxes into funding a foreign nation or group.

Solutions: All foreign aid should be voluntarily funded by individuals or private organizations.

Transitional Action: Eliminate all tax-supported military, economic, technical and scientific aid to foreign governments or other organizations. Abolish government underwriting of arms sales. Abolish all federal agencies that make American taxpayers guarantors of export-related loans, such as the Export-Import Bank and the Commodity Credit Corporation. End the participation of the U.S. government in international commodity circles that restrict production, limit technological innovation and raise prices. Repeal all prohibitions on individuals or firms contributing or selling goods and services to any foreign country or organization, unless such provision constitutes a direct threat to the people of the United States.

So far only Rand Paul has said anything that sounds anything close to the true old conservative values- now carried on by the Libertarian Party... If times are as tough as all say- we shouldn't be spending Trillions $ on military intervention or even Billions $ on foreign aid to the Ukraine...But even he doesn't go far enough and say we should completely stay out of it- and let Europe handle their own problems....
The Billions $ yearly spent on keeping our "worlds policemen" military all over the world could well be better spent by our own citizens and rebuilding our countries own infrastructure...


Paul said that he is likely to oppose a bill that is not paid for and has fundamental concerns about giving any money or loans to a country that he said ranks among the “most corrupt” in the world — an assessment neither Cruz, nor Rubio volunteered.

We really — literally and figuratively — would have to borrow money from China to send it to the Ukraine,” he said. “The other problem is Ukraine owes Russia money, so if we’re giving Ukraine money and they’re paying it to Russia, does that sound like a good idea or a bad idea?”

Paul questioned the legality of Ukraine’s recent power transition and said leaders there should prove “they’re going to be less corrupt” as a condition of receiving funds. Perhaps letting Ukraine go bankrupt to wipe the slate clean is the best path, the Kentucky senator surmised.

“If you go through 10 years of austerity that’s enforced by the West, then it just leads to unhappiness and all that. Maybe you’re better off having the swiftness of bankruptcy and restarting,” Paul said.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/ukraine-russia-crimea-2016-presidential-elections-ted-cruz-marco-rubio-rand-paul-104386.html#ixzz2vKYpIygf

Rand makes sense on a lot of things. I hope he is an option in 2016.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
So far only Rand Paul has said anything that sounds anything close to the true old conservative values-



Wow isn't that a Tea Party Don't Tread on me flag flying beside Rand while he is speaking at a Tea Party Event. And isn't Oldtimer agreeing with Rand?

OH THE SHAME OLDTIMER you believe a TEA PARTIER. :wink: :lol:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
if you are truly a libertarian, or Conservative, you would have to also respect Cruz's ideology.

Haven't really took the time to look at his foreign policy, but his domestic screams libertarian.

My guess would be that if he feels the need for any type of military intervention, it's with a "you broke it, you bought it" type of attitude.
 
Top