In reply to Teslag

Teslag said:

---

It's not. The senate was not going to accept a combined bill. It wasn't going to happen. And Biden wasn't going to sign it.

Johnson stood up to Russia and their agents like MTG and delivered.

---

And hes not going to sign the border bill because the Senate will kill it. Thus, your assertion is still wrong no matter how many times you post.

In reply to Logos Stick

Logos Stick said:

---

Teslag said:

---

It's not. The senate was not going to accept a combined bill. It wasn't going to happen. And Biden wasn't going to sign it.

Johnson stood up to Russia and their agents like MTG and delivered.

---

And hes not going to sign the border bill because the Senate will kill it. Thus, your assertion is still wrong no matter how many times you post.

---

Yep. But this way we at least get the bipartisan and necessary Ukraine aid

In reply to Tea Party They did try. They refused.

In reply to jrdaustin

jrdaustin said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

YouBet said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

YouBet said:

---

The objective is stalemate for 2024. That's been stated by many and the media even runs with that now.

Until one of two things happen (1) West Ukroane joins NATO or (2) Europe takes their turn in 2025 to fund that year until (1) can get done.

---

So why would Johnson support stalemate for 2024, while reversing his previous stance and giving Dems an election year win to do so?

Is he a closet supporter of the Biden administration?

---

Because the larger plan is to admit them to NATO and they want Ukraine to maintain as much of their landmass integrity as they can before they can make that happen.

Johnson has said it's a principle decision for him regardless of party politics.

---

Here's where I get totally confused.

Russia has been understandably concerned with NATO being an aggressor/encroacher since 1990, when they opposed the addition of former sattelite states of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. NATO added insult to injury in 2004 with the additions of former Soviet states Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, & Slovenia, followed by two more in 2009, Albania and Croatia.

[...]

---

I guess I missed it when NATO invaded Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. And again in 2004. Did NATO send in troops to destroy farmland, shell cities, knock out the power infrastructure, kill their citizens, and kidnap their children? I guess the evil Obama regime just memory-holed all that so we wouldn't notice. Sneaky.

---

Where did I say that NATO invaded anyone?

Are you saying that it is unreasonable to assume Russia might view NATO expansion as a threat worth acting upon? If you are, that is a colossally naive view of the Russian perspective.

---

No, you never did say that NATO invaded anyone. Because they didn't. It was Russia who invaded Ukraine, destroyed farmland, shelled cities, knocked out the power infrastructure, killed the citizens, and kidnapped the children. In short, Russia engaged in war against an independent state while, at the time, telling the world they weren't intending to invade.

You seem to think that Russia should feel justified for invading Ukraine because the independent states of Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, et. al., did not like living under Russian rule and, perhaps, felt that NATO offered them a better opportunity at remaining independent with the security of a stronger defense then they could provide for themselves. After all, Ukraine might just get the same idea. Somewhat ironic that as a direct result of Russia's aggression towards Ukraine, both Sweden and Finland rapidly joined NATO, countries that had resisted joining NATO for 70 years.

So, yes, I am saying that it is unreasonable for Russia to declare war on another country because Russia thought this other country might not like being a vassal state to Russia. Ukraine did not directly threaten Russia. The only threat to Russia of NATO expansion is that it reduces the number of countries Russia can invade without retaliation.

They will be back for more in 6 months, then what?

In reply to Artorias

Artorias said:

---

Teslag said:

---

They did try. They refused.

---

The Dems never give in and always get what they want. The Rs always give in because they are spineless *****es

---

Almost half the republicans in the house also want this

How much of the billions going to Ukraine is going into the foreign accounts of their corrupt leaders? How much is coming back into the banks of the Bidens and OB?

In reply to Teslag

Teslag said:

---

Artorias said:

---

Teslag said:

---

They did try. They refused.

---

The Dems never give in and always get what they want. The Rs always give in because they are spineless *****es

---

Almost half the republicans in the house also want this

---

Many of them have stocks in these companies, not suprised.

In reply to Kozmozag

Kozmozag said:

---

They will be back for more in 6 months, then what?

---

In reply to samurai_science If they are back in 6 months we will give them more.

In reply to Teslag

Teslag said:

---

If they are back in 6 months we will give them more.

---

And that is the real goal/desire of the MIC. Keep getting rich off the US taxpayer via proxy wars around the world.

In reply to Teslag

Teslag said:

---

Artorias said:

---

Teslag said:

---

They did try. They refused.

---

The Dems never give in and always get what they want. The Rs always give in because they are spineless *****es

---

Almost half the republicans in the house also want this

---

They say they want border security too…. But they give in like *****es

In reply to Teslag

Teslag said:

---

Artorias said:

---

Teslag said:

---

They did try. They refused.

---

The Dems never give in and always get what they want. The Rs always give in because they are spineless *****es

---

Almost half the republicans in the house also want this

---

Yet over half of the electorate doesn't.

In reply to Funky Winkerbean Correct, and if Democrats are repudiated in November then it's likely this is the last such bill;

Quote:

---

POLITICAL UNCERTAINTY
Beyond 2024, however, uncertainties await Ukraine.
These include the possible reelection of former U.S. President Donald Trump, who has voiced skepticism over large amounts of Ukraine aid and has questioned how fast the U.S. and European defense industries can ramp up weapons production.
Trump won the Republican nomination in March and will face Biden, a Democrat, in the presidential election on Nov 5. The former president and hardline Republicans in Congress oppose further aid to Ukraine, with the possible exception of a loan.
"Ukraine needs to use 2024 to rebuild its force for the long war," Bergman said. "Europe's goal should be to put itself in a position to potentially fill a future gap left by the United States should it not pass another supplemental."
If signed into law the U.S. package could have a powerful signaling effect, not just in terms of Ukrainian morale but for other U.S. allies to contribute aid, said Jeffrey Pryce, international lawyer and senior fellow at the foreign policy institute at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.

---

Sorry, war fans.

In reply to Funky Winkerbean

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Artorias said:

---

Teslag said:

---

They did try. They refused.

---

The Dems never give in and always get what they want. The Rs always give in because they are spineless *****es

---

Almost half the republicans in the house also want this

---

Yet over half of the electorate doesn't.

---

We aren't a democracy and never have been

In reply to Teslag

Teslag said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Artorias said:

---

Teslag said:

---

They did try. They refused.

---

The Dems never give in and always get what they want. The Rs always give in because they are spineless *****es

---

Almost half the republicans in the house also want this

---

Yet over half of the electorate doesn't.

---

We aren't a democracy and never have been

---

Didn't say otherwise.

In reply to Watermelon Man

Watermelon Man said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

YouBet said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

YouBet said:

---

The objective is stalemate for 2024. That's been stated by many and the media even runs with that now.

Until one of two things happen (1) West Ukroane joins NATO or (2) Europe takes their turn in 2025 to fund that year until (1) can get done.

---

So why would Johnson support stalemate for 2024, while reversing his previous stance and giving Dems an election year win to do so?

Is he a closet supporter of the Biden administration?

---

Because the larger plan is to admit them to NATO and they want Ukraine to maintain as much of their landmass integrity as they can before they can make that happen.

Johnson has said it's a principle decision for him regardless of party politics.

---

Here's where I get totally confused.

Russia has been understandably concerned with NATO being an aggressor/encroacher since 1990, when they opposed the addition of former sattelite states of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. NATO added insult to injury in 2004 with the additions of former Soviet states Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, & Slovenia, followed by two more in 2009, Albania and Croatia.

[...]

---

I guess I missed it when NATO invaded Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. And again in 2004. Did NATO send in troops to destroy farmland, shell cities, knock out the power infrastructure, kill their citizens, and kidnap their children? I guess the evil Obama regime just memory-holed all that so we wouldn't notice. Sneaky.

---

Where did I say that NATO invaded anyone?

Are you saying that it is unreasonable to assume Russia might view NATO expansion as a threat worth acting upon? If you are, that is a colossally naive view of the Russian perspective.

---

No, you never did say that NATO invaded anyone. Because they didn't. It was Russia who invaded Ukraine, destroyed farmland, shelled cities, knocked out the power infrastructure, killed the citizens, and kidnapped the children. In short, Russia engaged in war against an independent state while, at the time, telling the world they weren't intending to invade.

You seem to think that Russia should feel justified for invading Ukraine because the independent states of Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, et. al., did not like living under Russian rule and, perhaps, felt that NATO offered them a better opportunity at remaining independent with the security of a stronger defense then they could provide for themselves. After all, Ukraine might just get the same idea. Somewhat ironic that as a direct result of Russia's aggression towards Ukraine, both Sweden and Finland rapidly joined NATO, countries that had resisted joining NATO for 70 years.

So, yes, I am saying that it is unreasonable for Russia to declare war on another country because Russia thought this other country might not like being a vassal state to Russia. Ukraine did not directly threaten Russia. The only threat to Russia of NATO expansion is that it reduces the number of countries Russia can invade without retaliation.

---

Once again, you are trying once again to put words in my mouth. You are accusing me of thinking that Russia SHOULD feel justified for its actions. I am doing nothing of the sort.

I am suggesting that Russia DOES think they are justified in their actions. Rightly or wrongly, continued expansion of NATO, to Russia, is an evolving threat TO THEM.

I fail to understand why a simple analysis of what Russia might be thinking is viewed by some as advocacy for Russia. As for my views, I'm in more of a "put up or shut up" state of mind. If Russia invading Ukraine is so untenable, why continue to pump tons of money into a corrupt state that has no hope by itself of defeating Russia? If it's so bad, let's go all in and send troops. What we're doing now is just pounding sand into a rat hole. And in a couple of months, it's gonna need more sand.

And all the while, we as a country continue to weaken ourselves as we travel the current path.

In reply to Teslag

Teslag said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Artorias said:

---

Teslag said:

---

They did try. They refused.

---

The Dems never give in and always get what they want. The Rs always give in because they are spineless *****es

---

Almost half the republicans in the house also want this

---

Yet over half of the electorate doesn't.

---

We aren't a democracy and never have been

---

Which is why our government has survived and evolved so well. The Founding Fathers did a great job at setting us up.

pic.twitter.com/xX4P9Hmc0P

— The Right To Bear Memes (@grandoldmemes) April 22, 2024

In reply to Teslag

Teslag said:

---

Artorias said:

---

Teslag said:

---

They did try. They refused.

---

The Dems never give in and always get what they want. The Rs always give in because they are spineless *****es

---

Almost half the republicans in the house also want this

---

Those Republicans are ****ing morons.

We have **** here that needs taken care of and we are BROKE because libs in both parties spend money we don't have on stupid ass *****

In reply to BigRobSA Killing Russians wholesale is never stupid

In reply to BigRobSA

Quote:

---

If you're so Gung ho to kill Russians, go over and do some wet work.

---

No point. The Ukes are doing a great job and all we have to do is give them weapons for pennies on the dollar.

In reply to Teslag

Teslag said:

---

Killing Russians wholesale is never stupid

---

It is when we're selling Ukes weapons for pennies on the dollar subsidized with our taxes.

In reply to Slicer97 Taxes well spent

In reply to Teslag

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

If you're so Gung ho to kill Russians, go over and do some wet work.

---

No point. The Ukes are doing a great job

---

At stealing from the American taxpayer? A GREAT job!

In reply to jrdaustin

jrdaustin said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

YouBet said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

YouBet said:

---

The objective is stalemate for 2024. That's been stated by many and the media even runs with that now.

Until one of two things happen (1) West Ukroane joins NATO or (2) Europe takes their turn in 2025 to fund that year until (1) can get done.

---

So why would Johnson support stalemate for 2024, while reversing his previous stance and giving Dems an election year win to do so?

Is he a closet supporter of the Biden administration?

---

Because the larger plan is to admit them to NATO and they want Ukraine to maintain as much of their landmass integrity as they can before they can make that happen.

Johnson has said it's a principle decision for him regardless of party politics.

---

Here's where I get totally confused.

Russia has been understandably concerned with NATO being an aggressor/encroacher since 1990, when they opposed the addition of former sattelite states of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. NATO added insult to injury in 2004 with the additions of former Soviet states Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, & Slovenia, followed by two more in 2009, Albania and Croatia.

[...]

---

I guess I missed it when NATO invaded Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. And again in 2004. Did NATO send in troops to destroy farmland, shell cities, knock out the power infrastructure, kill their citizens, and kidnap their children? I guess the evil Obama regime just memory-holed all that so we wouldn't notice. Sneaky.

---

Where did I say that NATO invaded anyone?

Are you saying that it is unreasonable to assume Russia might view NATO expansion as a threat worth acting upon? If you are, that is a colossally naive view of the Russian perspective.

---

No, you never did say that NATO invaded anyone. Because they didn't. It was Russia who invaded Ukraine, destroyed farmland, shelled cities, knocked out the power infrastructure, killed the citizens, and kidnapped the children. In short, Russia engaged in war against an independent state while, at the time, telling the world they weren't intending to invade.

You seem to think that Russia should feel justified for invading Ukraine because the independent states of Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, et. al., did not like living under Russian rule and, perhaps, felt that NATO offered them a better opportunity at remaining independent with the security of a stronger defense then they could provide for themselves. After all, Ukraine might just get the same idea. Somewhat ironic that as a direct result of Russia's aggression towards Ukraine, both Sweden and Finland rapidly joined NATO, countries that had resisted joining NATO for 70 years.

So, yes, I am saying that it is unreasonable for Russia to declare war on another country because Russia thought this other country might not like being a vassal state to Russia. Ukraine did not directly threaten Russia. The only threat to Russia of NATO expansion is that it reduces the number of countries Russia can invade without retaliation.

---

Once again, you are trying once again to put words in my mouth. You are accusing me of thinking that Russia SHOULD feel justified for its actions. I am doing nothing of the sort.

I am suggesting that Russia DOES think they are justified in their actions. Rightly or wrongly, continued expansion of NATO, to Russia, is an evolving threat TO THEM.

I fail to understand why a simple analysis of what Russia might be thinking is viewed by some as advocacy for Russia. As for my views, I'm in more of a "put up or shut up" state of mind. If Russia invading Ukraine is so untenable, why continue to pump tons of money into a corrupt state that has no hope by itself of defeating Russia? If it's so bad, let's go all in and send troops. What we're doing now is just pounding sand into a rat hole. And in a couple of months, it's gonna need more sand.

And all the while, we as a country continue to weaken ourselves as we travel the current path.

---

Again, you are trying to say I said something I never did. I never accused you of thinking that Russia SHOULD feel justified, only that your arguments make it seem that way. They do.

When someone advocates for an enemy, it is natural to assume it is someone who supports that enemy. Suggesting that Russia feels threatened by NATO expansion to justify their aggression, a position that Russia hasn't actually formally made, is advocating. If Russia does feel threatened by NATO, you would think they would address their concerns with NATO, not attack (ruthlessly, I might add) a non-NATO country. Of course, NATO might not be receptive to Russia's concerns while they are invading another country.

If you don't want to be seen as a Russian sympathizer, don't sympathize with the Russians.

Our stand with Ukraine has significantly strengthened the perception of the US as a world power. NATO is also significantly stronger. Unlike what the propaganda machine wants you to believe, the US is not the only country that is supporting the effort in Ukraine. In fact, with contributions of less than 0.32% of its GDP, the US ranks 19th. Each country in northern Europe has individually contributed a greater percentage of their GDP, and combined contributed more dollar-wise than the US to the effort.

In reply to Teslag

Teslag said:

---

Taxes well spent

---

Liberals

In reply to Teslag

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

If you're so Gung ho to kill Russians, go over and do some wet work.

---

No point. The Ukes are doing a great job using our tax dollars to let their oligarchs show us how to buy exotic cars and smoke crack on tic tock. It only increasing our inflation situation… what's the issue?

---

In reply to Watermelon Man

Watermelon Man said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

YouBet said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

YouBet said:

---

The objective is stalemate for 2024. That's been stated by many and the media even runs with that now.

Until one of two things happen (1) West Ukroane joins NATO or (2) Europe takes their turn in 2025 to fund that year until (1) can get done.

---

So why would Johnson support stalemate for 2024, while reversing his previous stance and giving Dems an election year win to do so?

Is he a closet supporter of the Biden administration?

---

Because the larger plan is to admit them to NATO and they want Ukraine to maintain as much of their landmass integrity as they can before they can make that happen.

Johnson has said it's a principle decision for him regardless of party politics.

---

Here's where I get totally confused.

Russia has been understandably concerned with NATO being an aggressor/encroacher since 1990, when they opposed the addition of former sattelite states of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. NATO added insult to injury in 2004 with the additions of former Soviet states Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, & Slovenia, followed by two more in 2009, Albania and Croatia.

[...]

---

I guess I missed it when NATO invaded Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. And again in 2004. Did NATO send in troops to destroy farmland, shell cities, knock out the power infrastructure, kill their citizens, and kidnap their children? I guess the evil Obama regime just memory-holed all that so we wouldn't notice. Sneaky.

---

Where did I say that NATO invaded anyone?

Are you saying that it is unreasonable to assume Russia might view NATO expansion as a threat worth acting upon? If you are, that is a colossally naive view of the Russian perspective.

---

No, you never did say that NATO invaded anyone. Because they didn't. It was Russia who invaded Ukraine, destroyed farmland, shelled cities, knocked out the power infrastructure, killed the citizens, and kidnapped the children. In short, Russia engaged in war against an independent state while, at the time, telling the world they weren't intending to invade.

You seem to think that Russia should feel justified for invading Ukraine because the independent states of Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, et. al., did not like living under Russian rule and, perhaps, felt that NATO offered them a better opportunity at remaining independent with the security of a stronger defense then they could provide for themselves. After all, Ukraine might just get the same idea. Somewhat ironic that as a direct result of Russia's aggression towards Ukraine, both Sweden and Finland rapidly joined NATO, countries that had resisted joining NATO for 70 years.

So, yes, I am saying that it is unreasonable for Russia to declare war on another country because Russia thought this other country might not like being a vassal state to Russia. Ukraine did not directly threaten Russia. The only threat to Russia of NATO expansion is that it reduces the number of countries Russia can invade without retaliation.

---

Once again, you are trying once again to put words in my mouth. You are accusing me of thinking that Russia SHOULD feel justified for its actions. I am doing nothing of the sort.

I am suggesting that Russia DOES think they are justified in their actions. Rightly or wrongly, continued expansion of NATO, to Russia, is an evolving threat TO THEM.

I fail to understand why a simple analysis of what Russia might be thinking is viewed by some as advocacy for Russia. As for my views, I'm in more of a "put up or shut up" state of mind. If Russia invading Ukraine is so untenable, why continue to pump tons of money into a corrupt state that has no hope by itself of defeating Russia? If it's so bad, let's go all in and send troops. What we're doing now is just pounding sand into a rat hole. And in a couple of months, it's gonna need more sand.

And all the while, we as a country continue to weaken ourselves as we travel the current path.

---

Again, you are trying to say I said something I never did. I never accused you of thinking that Russia SHOULD feel justified, only that your arguments make it seem that way. They do.

When someone advocates for an enemy, it is natural to assume it is someone who supports that enemy. Suggesting that Russia feels threatened by NATO expansion to justify their aggression, a position that Russia hasn't actually formally made, is advocating. If Russia does feel threatened by NATO, you would think they would address their concerns with NATO, not attack (ruthlessly, I might add) a non-NATO country. Of course, NATO might not be receptive to Russia's concerns while they are invading another country.

If you don't want to be seen as a Russian sympathizer, don't sympathize with the Russians.

Our stand with Ukraine has significantly strengthened the perception of the US as a world power. NATO is also significantly stronger. Unlike what the propaganda machine wants you to believe, the US is not the only country that is supporting the effort in Ukraine. In fact, with contributions of less than 0.32% of its GDP, the US ranks 19th. Each country in northern Europe has individually contributed a greater percentage of their GDP, and combined contributed more dollar-wise than the US to the effort.

---

What a crock of horsecrap. You continue to confuse analysis with advocacy and sympathy. Though I'm beginning to think that you are not confused about that at all, rather just being obtuse for kicks. Unlike the MSM which is well versed in advocacy, I am simply pointing out a known fact that Russial has stated multiple times.

https://www.iir.cz/lies-provocations-or-myths-pretexts-nato-and-the-ukraine-crisis

The fact that Russia hasn't gone hat-in-hand to NATO to make their case is irrelevant. And the fact that Watermelon Man discounts what Putin has previously stated as motivations doesn't mean that Putin is lying and is not threatened at all by the expansion of NATO. (Ever play the game "Risk"? There's no diplomacy in Risk. You take countries to achieve your goals, as well as defend your territory. With Ukraine, Putin may very well be playing his own version of Risk.)

To be sure, it continues to be a contradiction to state that NATO is no threat to Russia (from their perspective), while simultaneously saying that Russia would never think of attacking a NATO country.

Totally lost on you is my overall point that the possibility exists that as we continue to box Russia in closer and closer to their borders, the risk (see what I did, there?) increases that a massive escalation will result. I state again that it is naive to assume that Putin will back down and cower as we add the banner of NATO to Ukraine. He might just do the opposite.

As for perception of us as an increasing world power, we currently have open borders, lack of vetting of those crossing our borders, a military who is more interested in LGBTQ issues than they are in military readiness, and an increasingly hostile Russia, China, North Korea, Iran & muslim proxy countries. We are as vulnerable as we have been in decades from an external attack or a multiple theatre conflict.

ETA: Before you point it out, I specifically linked the above article BECAUSE it refutes Russia's position on NATO being a threat. I'm trying to look at this from all sides. Not just one.

In reply to Im Gipper

Im Gipper said:

---

Has Trump said anything about this garbage yet??

Need more than just Rand Paul on this!!

---

Well, so much for that.

Trump’s Truth feed right now.

NOT ONE WORD criticizing Johnson or the Ukraine aid package. Not one.

Trump was all in. pic.twitter.com/qEF4K3ctLN

— John Cardillo (@johncardillo) April 21, 2024

President Trump says despite the opposition, he is standing by Speaker Johnson.

“We have a majority of ONE…” pic.twitter.com/PtakSWK3p4

— intheMatrixxx (@intheMatrixxx) April 23, 2024

Sorry, this "it's okay because it's a loan that will be forgivin" is garbage!