Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Reason Roundup

No Cops Will Face Legal Consequences in Conjunction With Breonna Taylor Killing

Plus: Russians occupy Ukrainian nuclear plant, the results of misinformation bans, and more...

Elizabeth Nolan Brown | 3.4.2022 9:30 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
zumaamericasthirtytwo512545 | John Lamparski/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom
(John Lamparski/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom)

No police officers will face legal consequences in conjunction with the 2020 killing of Breonna Taylor. The only officer criminally charged in conjunction with the killing was former Louisville cop Brett Hankison, who faced three counts of wanton endangerment. On Thursday, a jury found Hankison not guilty.

At trial, Hankison said he did "absolutely" nothing wrong during the no-knock raid that led to Taylor's death and could have killed others also.

During the raid, Hankison shot at a glass door that led to an apartment neighboring Taylor's. That apartment was occupied by Cody Etherton, Chelsea Napper, and Napper's 5-year-old son. Etherton testified that Hankison's shots came dangerously close to hitting him—"one or two more inches and I would have been shot," he said.

Kentucky Assistant Attorney General Barbara Whaley told the court that Hankison had fired "with no target" and "his wanton conduct could have multiplied one tragic death, (that of) Breonna Taylor…by three, easily."

It was for endangering Taylor's neighbors that Hankison was charged—not for the killing of Taylor. Neither of the two officers—former Sergeant Jonathan Mattingly (who retired) and former Detective Myles Cosgrove (who was fired)— who executed the raid with Hankison were charged in Taylor's death, either. A member of a grand jury considering indictments said they were never presented with the option to charge the officers for Taylor's death.

Nor were any of those who planned the botched raid—part of a drug investigation into Jamarcus Glover—charged in her death, despite the dubious circumstances surrounding the raid itself. Glover had previously dated Taylor, but they were no longer together and he did not live at her apartment. The pretense for the raid was that Glover did sometimes receive what police called "suspicious packages" there. But these packages came from Amazon.

"The people [responsible for the raid] escaped criminal liability, vividly illustrating how the war on drugs transforms murder into self-defense," as Reason's Jacob Sullum wrote last month.

Taylor's killing was one of the major incidents—along with the murder of George Floyd—that set off a string of summer 2020 protests against police violence. People in countless cities called for reforms, including an end to no-knock raids and an end to qualified immunity, so that police officers can be held accountable for wrongful actions.

In the wake of the protests, a number of places—including Louisville and the state of Kentucky—passed measures to either limit or ban no-knock raids. But a federal measure to end the practice—the Justice for Breonna Taylor Act, from Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul—went nowhere. (Minnesota Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar recently introduced another attempt to limit the use of no-knock raids.) And while a federal investigation into Taylor's killing is ongoing, no charges have been filed.

The conclusion of Hankison's trial shows is yet another reminder of how little actually changed since Taylor was killed in her own home, after police broke in unannounced and her boyfriend Kenneth Walker III—thinking they were intruders—fired at them. The subsequent return fire from the police officers killed her.

"This was not justice for Mr. Etherton, Ms. Napper, or her young son," Frederick Moore III, one of Walker's lawyers, said in a statement responding to the Hankison verdict. "This was not justice for Breonna Taylor or Kenneth Walker. Kenneth Walker was assaulted by the state, and lives among us devoid of apology or recognition for the harm done to him."


UKRAINE UPDATES

Disaster has been averted after a fire broke out at a Ukrainian nuclear power plant following Russian shelling. The fire started in an administrative building at the Zaporizhzhia plant—the largest nuclear power plant in Europe—and was extinguished before it could do more damage. Russian forces are now occupying the plant.

"Unfortunately, there are dead and wounded among the Ukrainian defenders of the station," the plant's operator, Energoatom, said in a Telegram statement.

"Europe must wake up now. Europe's largest nuclear power plant is on fire," Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said in a statement posted to Facebook. "Right now, Russian tanks are firing upon nuclear units. These are tanks equipped with thermal imagers. That is, they know where they are shooting, they have been preparing for this!"

Authorities report no change in radiation levels at the plant.


FREE MINDS

On misinformation bans:

Bans now limit Western access to Putin's propaganda.

Most of us have no interest in propaganda. But there is reason to pause.

Not only are bans out of sync with the science of misinformation. They may also be detrimental to our fight for democracy.

An evidence-based ???? (1/16)

— Michael Bang Petersen (@M_B_Petersen) March 3, 2022


FREE MARKETS

Why don't people want to talk about FOSTA when they talk about Section 230 reform? Probably because the 2018 law—formally titled the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act—doesn't make congressional efforts to overhaul this federal communications law again look very good—something Quinta Jurecic explores at length in a new report from the Brookings Institution.

"FOSTA would seem to be an obvious touchstone for discussions around § 230 reform today. It's not only a recent precedent, but one that enjoyed bipartisan support by a wide margin—no small feat in a polarized time," notes Jurecic. However, FOSTA "does not make for an encouraging model":

Studies suggest that the law likely placed sex workers at increased risk, as people lost access to websites used to advertise and communicate about the sex trade and were forced to work on the street in dangerous conditions. And apart from FOSTA's changes to § 230, a July 2021 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) showed that federal prosecutors have had little use for the additional criminal penalties for sex trafficking established by FOSTA. The law may even have hindered efforts to investigate and prosecute trafficking.

But Congress seems to have little interest in reviewing its past work. The GAO report arrived to little fanfare from Capitol Hill. And FOSTA remains almost entirely absent from current political discussions around amending § 230.

To actually analyze FOSTA with clear eyes would mean lawmakers might have to not only admit they made a mistake but also that they're itching to repeat it. Being truthful and forthcoming about FOSTA means acknowledging that all these new proposals to reform Section 230 could be ineffective, have unintended consequences, and more.


QUICK HITS

• Ukrainians in the U.S. are getting temporary protected status, meaning they will not be deported even if their visas have expired.

• California Gov. Gavin Newsom is proposing "Care Courts" to force people into mental health and addiction treatment.

• Idaho moves forward on passing a Texas-style abortion ban. Meanwhile, Florida lawmakers have passed a measure that would ban abortion after 15 weeks.

• The school superintendent who made students take off their clothes so she could search for vaping devices is now facing six counts of false imprisonment.

• Ohio lawmakers have voted to eliminate permits for concealed carry weapons. The measure is now awaiting Gov. Mike DeWine's signature.

• Sherri Papini, a woman whose high-profile disappearance was publicized as an abduction with possible ties to sex trafficking, now faces criminal charges for allegedly making the whole thing up. Papini—who was arrested yesterday—"is accused of lying to investigators in 2020 when presented with evidence the kidnapping was faked; and of defrauding California out of more than $30,000 in victim assistance money," NBC News reports.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Review: The Batman

Elizabeth Nolan Brown is a senior editor at Reason.

Reason RoundupBreonna TaylorLaw enforcementCriminal JusticePolice AbuseBlack Lives MatterPoliceKentucky
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (421)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

    No police officers will face legal consequences in conjunction with the 2020 killing of Breonna Taylor.

    And it will be considered vindication.

    1. Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland   3 years ago

      I get charged with wanton endangerment every time I go to a Chinese buffet

    2. Moonrocks   3 years ago

      I'm still waiting on charges for the police chief that made no-knock raids a standard procedure and the judge that approved the warrant for this no-knock raid knowing that it wasn't necessary.

      1. Nardz   3 years ago

        ^this

      2. R Mac   3 years ago

        That’s what really needs to happen to stop this.

      3. Commenter_XY   3 years ago

        Perhaps a civil suit can be lodged.

      4. A Thinking Mind   3 years ago

        It probably goes back to a mayor or city council that approved use of no-knock raids in drug cases some number of years ago. The police are just an arm of the government, after all. The roots of this problem are political in nature.

      5. CE   3 years ago

        Those are standard procedures though. Need to change the law first.

        Spraying neighboring residences with gunfire is not standard procedure, and pretty much the definition of wanton endangerment. Not sure what the jury was thinking. Maybe that it couldn't happen in their own neighborhood.

  2. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

    At trial, Hankison said he did "absolutely" nothing wrong during the no-knock raid that led to Taylor's death and could have killed others also.

    That righteous arrogance is the only conviction you usually get in a cop trial.

    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

      Just following orders.

      1. CE   3 years ago

        If you don't want your apartment sprayed with police gunfire, don't live next door to a drug dealer. Or his girlfriend. Apparently.

  3. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

    Disaster has been averted after a fire broke out at a Ukrainian nuclear power plant following Russian shelling.

    Nuclear energy is the natural enemy of the Russkey.

  4. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

    Bans now limit Western access to Putin's propaganda.

    BETTER DEAD THAN READ

    1. Don't look at me!   3 years ago

      I enjoy not knowing.

      1. Unable2Reason   3 years ago

        It's also fun to deprive yourself of things.

        1. Fat Mike's Drug Habit   3 years ago

          Just ask David Carradine.

    2. Commenter_XY   3 years ago

      At a time where Americans need information and a lot of discussion and debate....the government, big tech and others are constraining the information flow to the American people. Why?

      We are being manipulated into trying to make Ukraine an American problem (which it is not).Ukraine is not an American fight. This is a European conflict that Europe needs to manage. As for America, we back our NATO allies, period. But we do NOT involve ourselves in the Ukrainian mess.

      1. Moonrocks   3 years ago

        Why?

        Because if Americans get information, they may misinterpret it.

        1. R Mac   3 years ago

          This guy gets it.

          —CDC

      2. Nardz   3 years ago

        Fuck NATO

      3. Ronbback   3 years ago

        But Europe is NATO and thus will involve the U.S., lets get out of NATO. France is already making moves and guess who got us into both Korea and N. Vietnam.

        1. Minadin   3 years ago

          China?

    3. Nardz   3 years ago

      Well played, fist

      1. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

        Finally, recognition.

  5. Don't look at me!   3 years ago

    The school superintendent who made students take off their clothes so she could search for vaping devices is now facing six counts of false imprisonment.

    She would be facing a much grimmer fate if it was my kid involved.

    1. Longtobefree   3 years ago

      No charges of sexual assault?
      No charges of child endangerment?
      How much does Clinton charge to arrange a suicide?

  6. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

    Ukrainians in the U.S. are getting temporary protected status, meaning they will not be deported even if their visas have expired.

    Enjoy your new limbo.

  7. Don't look at me!   3 years ago

    .. all these new proposals to reform Section 230 could be ineffective, have unintended consequences, …

    Since when is that a consideration?

    1. JesseAz   3 years ago

      Didnt' robbie experience unintended (or more likely intended) consequences in an article just yesterday?

      1. Longtobefree   3 years ago

        No.
        He woke up to the intended consequences of pretending the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence do not apply to all citizens.

  8. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom is proposing "Care Courts" to force people into mental health and addiction treatment.

    Puppy cuffs and sunshine straitjackets.

    1. R Mac   3 years ago

      Don’t forget the rainbow PRN’s.

    2. damikesc   3 years ago

      With DA's unlikely to use them in the first place.

    3. CE   3 years ago

      CARE stands for Community Assistance, Recovery and Empowerment. They will assist you into custody, where you will be empowered to recover.

      But they missed an opportunity when naming the CARE Court. They could have gone with:
      Community Assistance, Recovery and Empowerment for our Neighbors (CAREN)

  9. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

    Idaho moves forward on passing a Texas-style abortion ban.

    At least they didn't try appropriating Cajun-style abortions.

    1. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

      I honestly wonder if this is going to be a trend in the still-red Mountain West states to try and chase the Californians out.

      1. Fat Mike's Drug Habit   3 years ago

        Might have the opposite effect. Those Californians will feel the need to enlighten those poor hicks. It's not enough that California is already like California, EVERYWHERE has to be like California.

    2. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

      Idaho legislature is dominated by Mormons in South Idaho, are we surprised by this? The Florida law on the other hand is pretty standard across most of the western World, the US is really an outlier on how late in a pregnancy you can get an abortion. At some point it is no longer just a clump of cells but a human being, we just are arguing if that point is when they exit the uterus or before that.

      1. Isaac Bartram   3 years ago

        Unfortunately, when roughly 30% of voters are opposed to abortion at any stage and another 30% are opposed to any restrictions at any stage this is not an "argument" that is going to occur at any level of civil discourse. The voice of the minority 40% is simply drowned out.

      2. Isaac Bartram   3 years ago

        The Mormon "doctrine" on abortion is rather more complicated than one might think. Certainly, the average South Idaho Mormon voter is likely to be solidly "pro-life"* while Mormon intellectuals and the General Authorities are divided in much the same way as they were on the "Negro Question" until 1978 when Spencer Kimball announced that it was settled. The only question that was left to be settled was how their infallible prophets had been so wrong until then.

        *As in "anti-abortion". I'm not sure that anyone is actually "anti-life" or even "pro-abortion" but there you have it.

  10. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

    The school superintendent who made students take off their clothes so she could search for vaping devices is now facing six counts of false imprisonment.

    Small price to pay for keeping vaping out of our schools and looking at underage genitalia.

  11. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

    Ohio lawmakers have voted to eliminate permits for concealed carry weapons.

    What's round on both ends and high in the middle? THE HOLE IN YOUR SKULL AFTER OHIOANS GET DONE WITH YOU.

  12. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

    "California Gov. Gavin Newsom is proposing "Care Courts" to force people into mental health and addiction treatment."

    Is Newson eligible?

    1. Commenter_XY   3 years ago

      The Soviet Union used to do shit like that: involuntary institutional commitment for 'wrongthink'

  13. Ra's al Gore   3 years ago

    Freedom is bad

    The medicalization of freedom: how anti-science movements use the language of personal liberty and how we can address it
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01640-y

    ...Freedom can be seen as an extension of an individual’s psyche — psyche being a psychological state reflecting a feeling of (looming) social or medical vulnerability. As such, the medical community should consider how freedom can best be problematized as a medical phenomenon and how its manifestations can be treated. There are four primary steps needed to effectively address this medicalization of freedom as part of clinical engagement and public outreach efforts.

    ...Fourth, align the freedom mentality with a humanistic COVID-19 mitigation mentality. Freedoms are most intimately and persistently felt as, and equated with, human rights. However, without strategic integration, freedom becomes an individualistic paradigm focused on personal gain, disengaged from collectivist public health efforts. The embrace of mitigation should be promoted as an expression of freedom and support of human rights, a communal paradigm focused on maintaining personal health and dignity.

    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

      Author info:

      Author information
      Affiliations
      Africana Studies and Research Center, Cornell Center for Health Equity, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA
      Jerel M. Ezell

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

        As Ezell must know, there can be no equity until we eliminate liberty.

        1. Spiritus Mundi   3 years ago

          Actually, he wants to collectivize liberty. What ever the fuck that means. It pains me to see this garbage published in Nature and how far the scientific community has fallen. I don't know how we advance when 'scientist' reject the idea of objective truth.

          1. Moonrocks   3 years ago

            I don't know how we advance when 'scientist' reject the idea of objective truth.

            It probably involves our corrupt institutions burning down and new upstarts filling the resulting vacuum.

            1. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   3 years ago

              The country's medical professionals have been distracted spending all that money they got from the government for COVID diagnoses and are not paying attention to the political weaponization of medicine.

              1. R Mac   3 years ago

                They’ve been distracted by government money long before Covid.

    2. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   3 years ago

      I actually because nauseated reading the article.

      For many white people, freedom is perhaps most salient in colonial terms and as a direct means of enshrining personal preferences, expressed as freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, and so on. By contrast, the freedom of racial or ethnic minorities and low-income people are highly connected to historical trauma; for example, resistance to COVID-19 vaccination can be understood as a tactical response to generations of structural oppression including acts of land dispossession, forced assimilation, genocide and systemic racism

      your FREEDOM IS perpetuating SLAVERY

      There it is. Peer reviewed and annotated in the pages of Nature. The Science! is settled. Only Big Brother can keep us healthy.

    3. CE   3 years ago

      Shorter version: Top Men know what's best for you, better than you know what's best for yourself.

      1. DesigNate   3 years ago

        But only if they’re non-white Top Men.

    4. Utkonos   3 years ago

      Collectivism is good. Why am I not surprised to see “Equity” as part of the author’s pedigree? Reading Fromm as an instruction manual are we?

  14. Ra's al Gore   3 years ago

    Canadian soldiers no longer training Chinese troops, defence minister says
    https://globalnews.ca/news/7514605/canada-training-chinese-soldiers/

    Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan has confirmed Canadian soldiers are no longer training members of the Chinese military, amid scrutiny following a report that senior civil servants opposed a decision last year to stop training activities with the regime.

    A report by The Globe and Mail on Thursday cited documents mistakenly released under access to information laws which said Global Affairs Canada pushed back at the decision by Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Jonathan Vance last year to cancel the training.

    The training was set to see Canadian soldiers train Chinese soldiers in winter activities at CFB Petawawa.

    1. Isaac Bartram   3 years ago

      I'd love to blame Trudeau, but this training is because of an agreement signed by the previous Conservative government.

  15. Palin's Buttplug   3 years ago

    Wow, just five comments? What happened to the Peanut Gallery? Did Reason purge the Trump Cult?

    1. Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland   3 years ago

      Days since enbs last yglasias reffrence: 16

      Keep it up!

    2. sarcasmic   3 years ago

      If they did there'd only be a handful of commentors left.

      1. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

        Yup.

        Someone on Twitter was claiming the volume of right-wing Twitter activity has dramatically decreased since sanctions against Russia. I don’t know that they really have, but I wonder.

        1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

          I'm sure Nardz would know. He appears to live there. On Twitter that is.

          1. Nardz   3 years ago

            Yes, sarc, viewing other perspectives than the massive pro-Ukraine propaganda push is just unconscionable.

            1. Nardz   3 years ago

              Conservatives are divided on Ukraine, unlike leftists who are 100% pro US intervention (up to and including nuclear war).
              Some are still "America first" isolationist, some reverted to neocon roots, some are in between.

            2. sarcasmic   3 years ago

              You're telling this to someone who actually read Putin's declaration of war because he's interested in other points of view. So suck it.

              1. Nardz   3 years ago

                Fair enough, but I will suck nothing

          2. JesseAz   3 years ago

            More principled discussion on ideas and policy from the usual leftists. But don't dare call them leftists.

        2. CE   3 years ago

          Maybe they all moved to some other social media platform. Have there been any new ones announced this year?

          1. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

            Trump has a new one, but, reportedly, he hasn’t posted to his own social site.

        3. Outlaw Josey Wales   3 years ago

          Someone on Twitter was claiming the volume of right-wing Twitter activity has dramatically decreased since sanctions against Russia. I don’t know that they really have, but I wonder.

          For a reader who is always looking for a deeper dive I'm surprised you haven't researched this further. As with many things on the Twitters these days, what starts as a casual comment soon becomes the troot. It certainly feeds the 'Russians are everywhere and have infiltrated the Right' narrative, so good for you if that was your intention.

      2. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

        Gotta hand it to Ken, who is calling Nardz out below for posting some Nardzian b.s. or other.

        1. Nardz   3 years ago

          LOL
          I appreciate the support for my arguments, but it's gotta hurt Ken that he's now getting endorsements from the likes of Mike Laursen and strazele

        2. sarcasmic   3 years ago

          Nardz is presenting the other point of view while pointing out holes in the Western propaganda.

          Ken is treating Western propaganda as gospel and Nardz as an infidel.

          In short, Ken is being an ass.

          1. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

            Oh, well. I have to admit I can’t see Nardz’ side of the conversation, and just assumed he was posting b.s.

            1. R Mac   3 years ago

              Smart approach.

            2. Outlaw Josey Wales   3 years ago

              Supporting a one-sided argument. That's a fresh take. It keeps the cites down I suppose.

    3. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

      No, you've been re-directed to the TDS version.

    4. OpenBordersLiberal-tarian   3 years ago

      Have you checked the Warren Buffett Net Worth Index lately? It went up $1.3 billion yesterday which puts it almost plus $10 billion this year.

      #LibertariansForBiden

      1. Commenter_XY   3 years ago

        OBL, we breathlessly await your responses to higher gasoline prices.

        Here in the People's Republic of NJ, gas prices went from 3.19 in January to 3.79 (and climbing) in March. Wingnut.com is not telling me the answer here.

        Can you help us understand this HAPERINFLATION?

        1. OpenBordersLiberal-tarian   3 years ago

          I find it difficult to believe you're telling the truth, since Reason's leading economics expert has explained several times how spittin' tobaccy is the only item whose price has increased.

          I suppose it might be the case that one particular Republican-owned gas station raised prices in a desperate attempt to make Biden look bad.

          1. Commenter_XY   3 years ago

            You know, I never thought about the Republican-owned gas station aspect. You might be right, OBL.

            The gas stations with higher prices all have red, white, and blue as their colors....just like the damned Russian flag! They must all be Putin pals, am I right? I wonder of there any MAGA hats lying about their garage floors. 🙂

          2. Its_Not_Inevitable   3 years ago

            "I suppose it might be the case that one particular Republican-owned gas station raised prices in a desperate attempt to make Biden look bad."

            "That's gold, Jerry! Gold!"

          3. EISTAU Gree-Vance   3 years ago

            A more simple explanation might be that NJ uses spittin’ tobaccy in their winter fuel blend.

            For the environment, of course.

            1. Commenter_XY   3 years ago

              LOL

        2. Minadin   3 years ago

          Easy:

          It's not true that the price of a gallon of gasoline went up. It's just that the price of the dollars you pay for it with went down.

          1. CE   3 years ago

            yeah, there's no supply chain issues with the availability of dollars, at all.

        3. CE   3 years ago

          I paid 5.29 a gallon in California last week.

  16. Ra's al Gore   3 years ago

    Stop Letting Environmental Groups Funded By Russia Dictate America’s Energy Policy
    https://thefederalist.com/2022/03/01/stop-letting-environmental-groups-funded-by-russia-dictate-americas-energy-policy/

    In 2017, congressional investigators found that a money trail linked Russia to millions of dollars funding U.S. nonprofits to work against U.S. shale gas in order to influence the U.S. energy market. Specifically, investigators found that NRDC, Sierra Club, and Climate Action Network were all found to have received millions of dollars of funding in grants from a shady San Francisco-based company called “Sea Change” that a money trail linked back to the Russians. Indeed, it is an open secret that Russians have funded anti-fracking and anti-natural gas propaganda in America for decades, as environmental groups funded the campaigns of Democrats and pressured them to ban fossil fuels.

    These same environmental groups relentlessly attacked President Trump and his appointees (I was one) as “anti-science,” “enemies of the EPA,” and “climate change deniers,” pulling out all the stops to frame President Trump’s pro-American energy agenda as harmful to the environment. President Trump knew then what we are all seeing now: Energy independence is crucial to our security, and we don’t have to shut down industry with duplicative and costly regulations to protect our environment.

    After spending millions to elect Biden, the environmental left got its wish: Biden canceled America’s Keystone XL pipeline, blocking the safe transport of oil from one of our closest allies and killing thousands of jobs. At the same time, Biden removed President Trump’s sanctions on the Russian NordStream2 pipeline, giving Putin the green light to move forward.

    1. Ra's al Gore   3 years ago

      https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/december-2019/the-plot-against-fracking/

      The Russians also lobbied behind the scenes against shale gas, worried about losing their grip on the world’s gas supplies. Unlike most conspiracy theories about Russian meddling in Western politics, this one is out there in plain sight. The head of Nato, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, said the Russians, as part of a sophisticated disinformation operation, “engaged actively with so-called non-governmental organisations — environmental organisations working against shale gas — to maintain Europe’s dependence on imported Russian gas”.

      The Centre for European Studies found that the Russian government has invested $95 million in NGOs campaigning against shale gas. Russia Today television ran endless anti-fracking stories, including one that “frackers are the moral equivalent of paedophiles”. The US Director of National Intelligence stated that “RT runs anti-fracking programming … reflective of the Russian Government’s concern about the impact of fracking and US natural gas production on the global energy market and the potential challenges to Gazprom’s profitability.” Pro-Russian politicians such as Lord Truscott (married to a Russian army colonel’s daughter) made speeches in parliament against fracking.

      1. Ra's al Gore   3 years ago

        Intelligence: Putin Is Funding the Anti-Fracking Campaign
        https://www.newsweek.com/intelligence-putin-funding-anti-fracking-campaign-547873

        Buried within the U.S. intelligence community's report on Russian activities in the presidential election is clear evidence that the Kremlin is financing and choreographing anti-fracking propaganda in the United States. By targeting fracking, Putin hopes to increase oil and gas prices, destabilize the U.S. economy and threaten America's energy independence.

        1. Ra's al Gore   3 years ago

          White House Opposes Ban on Russian Oil Imports; Urges World to Reduce Reliance on Oil to Punish Vladimir Putin
          https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/03/03/white-house-opposes-ban-on-russian-oil-imports-urges-world-to-reduce-reliance-on-oil-to-punish-vladimir-putin/

          1. Moonrocks   3 years ago

            Does this make Biden Putin's puppet?

            1. Lord of Strazele   3 years ago

              The plan is to protect us from the effects of sanctions. We already hammer smashed their tiny little dick economy.

              1. Moonrocks   3 years ago

                Why would we feel any effects from sanctions on their non-existent economy if we've already crushed it?

                1. R Mac   3 years ago

                  Strudel’s pretty stupid.

                  1. Don't look at me!   3 years ago

                    Oh , yes he is.

              2. damikesc   3 years ago

                Funny...gas prices still going up here quite quickly.

                I guess Biden didn't do a good job.

                Or the Dems are still trying to increase gas prices to force Americans to do what they want.

                Know what will hurt Russia? US fracking more. But we allow Russian propaganda to kill that.

                1. Nardz   3 years ago

                  Up 20 cents overnight here

                  1. MT-Man   3 years ago

                    25 here

              3. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

                So, by restricting our supply, causing a shortage, and increasing the price of oil globally, Biden is protecting us against us from the effects of the sanctions? How does that make sense?

                Also, the sanctions may not have directly targeted Russian production, however, they indirectly did, because they targeted the banks that the Russian oil company uses, which has already reduced Russian production. Additionally, private corporations have withdrawn from the Russian oil company and the largest shipping company in the world won't work with the Russians anymore, both of which have decreased Russian production. They will ship much of that to China, while the rest of us get hosed, but it's all worth it if it makes Biden look tough.

                It would have an immediate impact if Biden announced he was going to increase domestic production, we are the world's leading petroleum producer, and it would reduce oil futures, or at least flatten their growth.

                1. EISTAU Gree-Vance   3 years ago

                  “How does that make sense?”

                  It doesn’t, but LoS seeks out opportunities to spew his “tiny little dick” projection. Again.

                  Dudes got issues.

    2. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

      But independence, of individuals or nations, gets in the way of one-world socialism.

    3. Minadin   3 years ago

      In a presser yesterday, Psaki told reporters that we couldn't just stop buying petroleum from Russia, because if the supply goes lower, the price will go higher.

      1. ElvisIsReal   3 years ago

        Yet if this was THE MOST IMPORANT CAUSE EVER, wouldn't paying a little more to fill up be a noble sacrifice?

        Surely the support for Ukraine isn't so thin that it would evaporate when prices go up a quarter a gallon, right?

        1. Minadin   3 years ago

          I would be content if she would simply apply this same sort of logic to domestic production and pipelines.

          For instance - why pay higher prices to support Ukraine and not buy from Russia, when alternatively you could crank up production to the point where you're exporting petroleum again? We could produce so much that we might lower the price of oil internationally - the main commodity upon which the export economy of Russia is based.

          That way, we get cheap gas, AND we screw Russia over much more directly. Win-Win.

          1. Nardz   3 years ago

            Because we are their true enemy

    4. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

      Nothing really new here. Fossil fuel companies were, and remain, a major contributor to the anti-nuclear power movement as well.

  17. Rich   3 years ago

    The pretense for the raid was that Glover did sometimes receive what police called "suspicious packages" there. But these packages came from Amazon.

    If *only* they had come from USPS!

    1. Ra's al Gore   3 years ago

      "Suspicious package" was my nickname in high school.

      1. Rich   3 years ago

        "Put a sock in it!"

    2. rbike   3 years ago

      Amazon delivers drugs now? Perfect cover.

    3. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

      I get over half of my Amazon packages from USPS.

  18. Not Robbers=Nut Rubbers   3 years ago

    something Quinta Jurecic explores at length

    If you're quoting Quinta Jurecic, you should be over at Mother Jones.

    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

      I stayed at La Quinta once.

      1. Longtobefree   3 years ago

        Is it true that La Quinta is Spanish for "next door to Denny's"?

  19. sarcasmic   3 years ago

    Is that Darth Invader? Israeli TV channel unwittingly runs 'live footage' from Ukraine... showing a crash-landed TIE fighter from Star Wars
    Channel 13 showed the clip of Star Wars stormtroopers standing by the aircraft
    The original video was made as an advert promoting a new Star Wars TV channel
    An investigation has been launched and the editor has been suspended

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10577615/Israeli-TV-channel-runs-live-footage-Ukraine-showing-crash-landed-TIE-fighter-Star-Wars.html

    1. R Mac   3 years ago

      Another commentator turns to Putin.

    2. Isaac Bartram   3 years ago

      It appears to me that a lot of the coverage has been a lot of inappropriate (and misleading) file footage.

      1. R Mac   3 years ago

        And another Putin puppet enters the chat!

        1. Isaac Bartram   3 years ago

          I'm complaining because I want to see what is actually happening, not some scene from a Star Wars movie or a video game.

          1. R Mac   3 years ago

            I know, and I agree.

      2. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

        Yeah, my son had really bought into it, was going on for several days about the Ghost of Kyiv (why the sudden spelling change?).

        1. Nardz   3 years ago

          It's not the fact that there's propaganda that's so concerning, it's the amount and coordination of the propaganda, and the brazen, frequent, low quality lying.
          As I've been saying: it's covid on steroids. That means something really stinks.

  20. Rich   3 years ago

    If people don’t follow through with forced treatment, they could be placed into conservatorships, a form of court-appointed guardianship that strips people of their rights to make basic decisions about their lives and care.

    And if they don't follow through with conservatorship, ... SOYLENT GREEN!!

    1. Moonrocks   3 years ago

      So the treatment isn't forced, you just need to deal with the consequences of not following through with the voluntary treatment.

      1. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

        It's one I'm not sure how much I care about. I am not a fan of forced treatment, however, many of the homeless and drug addicts have mental health issues that our current touchy feely policies don't address through strictly voluntary means. So, not sure...

        1. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

          I know some of the libertarians would argue that them not getting help doesn't harm anyone, but given the crime associated with homelessness and drug addicts, it isn't really a good argument (not to mention the costs to businesses and property values).

          I'm still for legalizing drugs, at least at the federal level, but recognize that this still won't magically solve the problem of criminal activity by addicts, especially those with mental illness.

  21. Ra's al Gore   3 years ago

    And we'll be buying oil from Iran

    Russians Announce US-Iran Deal as Tanks Roll Across Europe
    https://freebeacon.com/national-security/russians-announce-us-iran-deal-as-tanks-roll-across-europe/

    senior Russian official announced on Thursday that a new nuclear deal with Iran will be announced within 24 to 48 hours, signaling the Biden administration's continued reliance on and cooperation with Moscow even as it wages a full-scale war in Ukraine.

    Mikhail Ulyanov, Russia's ambassador for Iran negotiations, made the announcement in a video now circulating on social media. Ulyanov also said that he does not see the deal falling apart as a result of Russia's war, and that the two issues remain separate.

    The terms of the deal remain unknown as the Biden administration has sought to cut Congress out of the deal and prevent it from performing its legally mandated oversight. Under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, Congress must give its approval of any new agreement with Iran. While the Biden administration has promised to follow this law, Congress has not been presented with details of the deal or been asked to approve it before the United States signs.

    1. Rich   3 years ago

      The terms of the deal remain unknown as the Biden administration has sought to cut Congress out of the deal and prevent it from performing its legally mandated oversight.

      "It's an emergency. You understand."

      1. damikesc   3 years ago

        One of Trump's bigger failings was not putting odious BS like the Iran deal up to the Senate to approve/disapprove as a treaty.

    2. Derp-o-Matic 6000   3 years ago

      I know it's a meme or whatever, but seriously, fuck Joe Biden. This guy and his administration are just wretched human beings.

      1. Weigel's Cock Ring   3 years ago

        Just a couple more hours until he heads back to his basement in Rehoboth Beach to hide from the world, sleep 12 hours a day, watch old reruns of “Matlock” for the hundredth time, and shovel king-sized buckets full of Turkey Hill ice cream down his gullet.

    3. Moonrocks   3 years ago

      I guess those Iranian kickbacks take priority over the Russia outrage performance.

    4. Longtobefree   3 years ago

      Well, at least this time when they put Hunter of the board at $80,000/mo, he will actually have experience.

    5. Utkonos   3 years ago

      You know who else had the last name Ulyanov before he switched to a non de Guerrero?

  22. Ra's al Gore   3 years ago

    Biden voters:

    Wisconsin Special Counsel Finds ‘Widespread Election Fraud’ In 2020 Nursing Homes
    https://thefederalist.com/2022/03/03/wisconsin-special-counsel-finds-widespread-election-fraud-in-2020-nursing-homes/

    Further, the special counsel’s report showed that fraud found was not merely “technical” fraud but resulted in ballots cast and votes counted contrary to the intent of the nursing home residents. The “improbably high voting rates” alone creates a strong inference of fraud, but the special counsel also gathered evidence of fraud, such as suspected forgeries of residents’ signatures and situations in which the residents who “cast” a vote had been adjudicated mentally incompetent, meaning they no longer had a legal right to vote. Other residents, while not adjudicated mentally incompetent, “were unaware of their surroundings, with whom they are speaking at any given time, or what year it is.”

    1. Moonrocks   3 years ago

      No widespread widespread fraud!

    2. Rich   3 years ago

      Other residents, while not adjudicated mentally incompetent, “were unaware of their surroundings, with whom they are speaking at any given time, or what year it is.”

      So, low-information voters.

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

        Obviously, they voted for someone who looks like them.

    3. Derp-o-Matic 6000   3 years ago

      DEEEEEEBBBOOOOOOOOOOOOONNKED!!!!!!

      1. Outlaw Josey Wales   3 years ago

        This article debunks it nicely. haha

        https://democracyinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Chronicles-October-2021-Bidens-Inexplicable-Victory.pdf

    4. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

      The special prosecutor also stated that Zuckbucks were illegal and that the election volunteers hired by them interfered with normal election officials during the count, and placed illegal drop boxes contrary to Wisconsin law.

  23. Ra's al Gore   3 years ago

    ‘Red-Handed’: Bill Gates Developed Nuclear Reactors That Help China Overtake the U.S. Military
    https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2022/03/03/red-handed-bill-gates-developed-nuclear-reactors-that-help-china-overtake-the-u-s-military/

    Peter Schweizer’s new bestseller Red-Handed: How American Elites Get Rich Helping China Win devotes considerable attention to the troubling relationship between Microsoft founder Bill Gates and the Chinese Communist regime. One of the most disturbing episodes in that relationship occurred when Gates stepped outside the realm of personal computers to help the Chinese improve their nuclear reactors.

    1. Ra's al Gore   3 years ago

      Bill Gates' Ex-Wife Melinda Says His Relationship With Jeffrey Epstein Hurt Marriage
      https://www.newsweek.com/bill-gates-ex-wife-melinda-relationship-jeffrey-epstein-hurt-marriage-1684812

      Bill Gates' ex-wife Melinda French Gates has said that the business magnate's relationship with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein played a role in their divorce.

      The Gates' announced in May 2021 that they were divorcing after 27 years of marriage, as they revealed plans to continue working together through their eponymous philanthropic foundation.

      Almost one year later, French Gates has said in an interview with Gayle King on CBS Mornings that Microsoft co-founder Gates' frequent meetings with disgraced financier Epstein negatively impacted their marriage.

  24. Lord of Strazele   3 years ago

    Prof. Maxim Mironov on what sanctions are likely to mean for the Russian economy.
    "My scientific conclusion... is that the Russian economy is fucked. Double fucked, because most Russians don't know what's coming." Dmitry Grozoubinski @DmitryOpines

    1. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

      Putin just held a presser where he said Russia will be alright, they just have to “move a few things a little to the right”.

    2. Isaac Bartram   3 years ago

      Sanctions won't mean anything until oil and gas shipments are shut off.

      Unfortunately, the Germans are not willing to freeze after their government made them dependent on Russian oil and gas to the point that even turning down the thermostat a couple of degrees will save them from freezing in the dark.

      More on Biden's energy missteps when I calm down a bit. 🙂

  25. Lord of Strazele   3 years ago

    US Rig Count is at a current level of 650.00, up from 645.00 last week and up from 397.00 one year ago. This is a change of 0.78% from last week and 63.73% from one year ago.

    https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_rotary_rigs

    1. OpenBordersLiberal-tarian   3 years ago

      BOOM!

      And this is why I refuse to believe any poll that shows Biden with a mediocre approval rating, especially on the economy. Rig count up? Warren Buffett getting richer? Inflation nonexistent (besides spittin' tobaccy)? I bet his real approval is over 90%.

      #DefendBidenAtAllCosts

      1. EISTAU Gree-Vance   3 years ago

        Correct, OBL. It is unbelievable that Brandon has a mediocre approval rating.

    2. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   3 years ago

      You continue to prove just how dumb you are day after day after day.

      Next time, don't provide a link where you can easily look at the history to support your $.50 talking points, you odious twat. In 2019 the count was 1075.

    3. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

      Left out of Buttboy's analysis:

      US Rig count, March 2020: 793.
      US Rig count, August 2020: 244.
      US Rig count, Jan 2021: 360.

      Gee, I wonder what happened between March 2020 and today that might have affected those numbers, and why the rig count began climbing again after the summer of 2020?

      1. Super Scary   3 years ago

        "Gee, I wonder what happened between March 2020 and today that might have affected those numbers, and why the rig count began climbing again after the summer of 2020?

        I'm not sure either. Well, whatever happened, I am sure it had no effect on the employment stats whatsoever.

  26. Lord of Strazele   3 years ago

    U.S. economy adds 678K jobs in February, unemployment down to 3.8 percent.

    FUCK YOU PUTIN.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/now/video/u-s-economy-adds-678k-jobs-in-february-unemployment-down-to-3-8-percent-134587973798

    1. JesseAz   3 years ago

      Can you compare this to 2019 employment numbers for us Biden Shill? Bragging about jobs recovered from jobs killed by government isn't actually bragging. Total number of jobs is still millions under 2019 dummy.

    2. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

      What is the job participation rate compared to Trump's in January of 2020?

    3. Outlaw Josey Wales   3 years ago

      Does this account for all of the people who called it quits after Biden was elected?

  27. Lord of Strazele   3 years ago

    Sean Hannity's former Fox News producer was arrested for dodging sanctions to help Russia.

    FUCK YOU PUTIN!

    https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=RvpM1rpd&id=077C9DC5BA453AA392082AF1D7E1BA44E085FF0B&thid=OIF.JTzwnw6gaJkBnKIReSWwTQ&mediaurl=https%3A%2F%2Fi0.wp.com%2Fwww.thelocalreport.in%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2022%2F03%2FFormer-Fox-News-Producer-Jack-Hanick-Charged-With-Violating-US.jpg%3Fresize%3D1024%252C576%26ssl%3D1&cdnurl=https%3A%2F%2Fth.bing.com%2Fth%2Fid%2FR.46fa4cd6ba5d9bdff6375367367c7214%3Frik%3D%26pid%3DImgRaw%26r%3D0&exph=576&expw=1024&q=john+jack+hanick+image+fox+news&simid=166563887243&form=IRPRST&ck=253CF09F0EA06899019CA2117925B04D&selectedindex=5&qpvt=john+jack+hanick+image+fox+news&ajaxhist=0&ajaxserp=0&vt=4&sim=11

    1. R Mac   3 years ago

      Former Fox News producer?

      THE WALLS ARE CLOSING IN!

      1. MK Ultra   3 years ago

        Also worse than Watergate.

      2. Derp-o-Matic 6000   3 years ago

        BOMBSHELL

    2. JesseAz   3 years ago

      LOL. you use bing.

      1. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   3 years ago

        It puts him in mind of cherries, which puts him in mind of little girls, and ugh...

        I just threw up in my mouth a little.

    3. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

      And how many CNN producers were caught diddling kids?

  28. Derp-o-Matic 6000   3 years ago

    Under the existing legal regime, the cops shouldn't have been prosecuted and to do so would have been an injustice. Justice in this instance would involve reform of pre-dawn raids and no-knock warrants to only allow them in situations where it is necessary. There is no reason they could not have busted this guy (presuming they had their info right, which obviously, they didn't) at, say, 6:00 a.m., and it would have been less dangerous for the cops.

    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

      Or do it the Obama way. Drone strikes are even safer.

      1. R Mac   3 years ago

        Plus you might get a Nobel Peace Prize for it.

        1. Longtobefree   3 years ago

          https://babylonbee.com/news/putin-receives-nobel-prize-in-medicine-for-ending-covid-pandemic

          1. R Mac   3 years ago

            Perfect

    2. CE   3 years ago

      The no-knock raid and murdering Taylor wasn't the (legal) issue in this case. It was spraying a neighboring apartment with police gunfire. Apparently the jury was fine with that, if it saves even one child from drugs.

  29. wreckinball   3 years ago

    Well the problem is the no knock warrant. It's even unclear in this case whether they didn't knock anyways.

    Either way they are not guilty for executing the warrant and then defending themselves.

    I don't think there should be no knock warrant. This case is only being prosecuted because the victims are black and the cops are white. Change the victims skin color and its not prosecuted and its not even news.

    The Ashli Babbitt reaction versus the George Floyd reaction.

    1. Don't look at me!   3 years ago

      Skin color is the most important thing.

  30. JesseAz   3 years ago

    Michael Bang Petersen
    @M_B_Petersen
    Bans now limit Western access to Putin's propaganda.

    Most of us have no interest in propaganda. But there is reason to pause.

    State approved pro-Ukranian propaganda is just fine. And people have no interest? Polling shows people more willing to go to war due to it. The news is leading with Ukranian stories such as Snake Island often.

    1. wreckinball   3 years ago

      Agree, propaganda is a problem. Even if the side you are rooting for is producing it.
      And censorship is always bad. We had Baghdad Bob and everyone knows about him because he wasn't censored.

      Don't censor anyone. Otherwise your knowledge will be just what the state allows you to hear.

      1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

        I don't have a problem with Ukrainian or Russian propaganda aimed at influencing Westerners. Wartime propaganda is a duty.

        I have a big problem with Western propaganda about what is happening in Ukraine and Russia though.

      2. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

        Tokyo Rose and Axis Alice had no real impact on our troops morale, in fact most considered them pretty funny. I doubt Russian propaganda is any less ham handed or effective. People have made up their minds already that Russia is the bad guy. Why block their propaganda?

        1. Nardz   3 years ago

          Why indeed...

        2. Utkonos   3 years ago

          THIS IS RUSSIA CALLING

  31. JesseAz   3 years ago

    I will take Reasons' stance on the Taylor controversy more seriously when they finally discuss the 2 deaths at the J6 protest from Capitol police.

    Also no mention of the protestor suicide due to overprosecution? The person was waived into the capitol by a capitol officer with open doors, stayed within the walking area, took some selfies, and left 20 minutes later and was facing 51 months from the prosecutor. He committed suicide due to this. And Reason has no mention of it?

    1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

      That's different because they won't ever get prestigious gigs in the NYT or Atlantic if they talk about it.

    2. Derp-o-Matic 6000   3 years ago

      Local story

  32. Sevo   3 years ago

    "Jan. 6 Panel Finds Evidence Donald Trump May Have Committed Crimes to Overturn the Election"
    https://time.com/6154313/jan-6-panel-trump-crimes/

    The walls are closing in. It's the tipping point. The beginning of the end.
    Again.

    1. wreckinball   3 years ago

      Ha ha sarcasm?

      1. Sevo   3 years ago

        Absolutely! That's the reason for "again".

        1. Commenter_XY   3 years ago

          God, how many times in the last 7 years did we hear this, and it turned out to be a total fucking lie = walls closing in on POTUS Trump

          1. Sevo   3 years ago

            So often, there are multiple YT episodes of the TV talking heads, each repeating the same exact words.

    2. Moonrocks   3 years ago

      Worse Than Watergate.

      1. Sevo   3 years ago

        And the protest was the same as 9/11!!!!!!!!!!!

        1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

          Worse than Hitler.

    3. Derp-o-Matic 6000   3 years ago

      BOMBSHELL

    4. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

      As if anyone takes the January 6th committee seriously, outside the leftist zealots. I mean a panel of committed anti-Trump representatives, hand picked by Pelosi, whose promised to get Trump since November of 2016?

    5. Outlaw Josey Wales   3 years ago

      Jan. 6 Panel Finds Evidence Donald Trump May Have Committed Crimes to Overturn the Election

      Other fine weasel words peppered throughout the article:
      Evidence suggests
      ...and his associates
      crimes may have been committed
      ...working to spread misinformation
      ...and those working with him
      The 221-page filing marks the committee’s most formal effort to link the former president to a federal crime, though the actual import of the filing is not clear. Lawmakers do not have the power to bring criminal charges on their own and can only make a referral to the Justice Department. The department has been investigating last year’s riot, but it has not given any indication that it is considering seeking charges against Trump.
      ...trying to strong-arm Pence
      And more hyperbole, including hundreds of people brutally beat police
      The outrage! I thought the theatrics had run their course with the 2 farcical impeachments. I guess I was wrong.

  33. Nardz   3 years ago

    https://twitter.com/AristophanesTX/status/1497448091347308544?t=AgOrkjVl5u-lvbYxILYPpQ&s=19

    I'm gonna do a thread on something that many American posters might not know, about the rise of Zelensky to President of Ukraine. Buckle up,
    THREAD:

    1. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

      Is Nardz spreading pro-Kremlin propaganda because he wants Putin to win the war?

      Because that would make Nardz an excellent example of a useful idiot.

      1. R Mac   3 years ago

        Your obsession with this false dichotomy is disappointing, Ken.

        1. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

          It isn't a false dichotomy. He wants Putin to win the war. Putin is the enemy of the United States. You can tell because he's threatening us with nuclear weapons.

          1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

            I'm with R Mac on this one.
            And Putin is currently not the enemy of the United States. Saber rattling so others will fuck off isn't enemy action in any way.

            1. R Mac   3 years ago

              I’ve asked Nardz below if he wants Russia to win the war. I hope he answers simply so I can move on.

            2. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

              Keep watching as the days go on. Over numerous threads, you'll see the pattern.

              Just collect evidence.

              Here's Nardz calling me broken, last night, for criticizing the Russians for shelling a nuclear reactor.

              https://reason.com/2022/03/03/our-insane-government-spending-will-hurt-our-response-to-ukraine/?comments=true#comment-9386542

              1. Nardz   3 years ago

                Yep.
                It was, again, propaganda.

                1. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

                  What was propaganda?

                  That the Russians shelled a nuclear reactor?

                  1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

                    A nuclear power plant was attacked. All six nuclear reactors were unharmed. Words matter.

                    1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

                      Ugh, I can't believe that I'm going to do this but,
                      ^This.

                    2. R Mac   3 years ago

                      It’s a sign of the apocalypse.

                    3. Don't look at me!   3 years ago

                      Words matter indeed.

          2. Nardz   3 years ago

            Why is Putin the enemy of the US, neokeNN?

            My enemy, the enemy of the American people, is the globalist oligarchy you're now so slavishly devoted to.
            Did Putin impose mask mandates, travel restrictions, forced business closures, vax passports, political persecutions, denial of information on Americans?

            1. Sevo   3 years ago

              "My enemy, the enemy of the American people, is the globalist oligarchy you're now so slavishly devoted to."

              It doesn't take much thought at all to realize what a pile of shit this is:
              1) What, specifically, is the "globalist oligarchy"?
              2) What, specifically, could anyone "do" about this fantasy, and to what effect?

              1. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

                "Globalist oligarchy" is a bad name you call people who believe in capitalism.

                I once took the time to explain specialization and exchange to Nardz. He still didn't buy it.

                I'm not accusing Nardz of being dishonest. I don't remember him ever claiming to be a libertarian capitalist.

                He's looking for someone to believe in rather than something to believe in.

                It isn't about what to believe. It's about whether to believe in Trump or George Soros. It's about whether to believe in Putin or the news media.

                1. Nardz   3 years ago

                  Yea, the WEF is totes the paragon of capitalists.

                2. Nardz   3 years ago

                  "He's looking for someone to believe in rather than something to believe in."

                  I believe in myself, and I'm right a hell of a lot more consistently than Ken is.

            2. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

              "You can tell because he's threatening us with nuclear weapons."

              The legitimate purpose of the government is to protect our rights. It says so right in the Declaration of Independence.

              The legitimate purpose of the Constitution is to protect our rights. The First Amendment, the Second amendment, the separation of powers, the enumeration of the right powers to Congress and what that means about the proper purview of democracy--those are the kinds of things about our Constitution that make our country great because they protect our rights.

              The legitimate purpose of the U.S. military is to protect our rights from foreign threats to our rights. It's my understanding that every soldier takes an oath to defend the Constitution against its enemies--foreign and domestic.

              Putin has threatened the United States with nuclear weapons just in the last week. Vladimir Putin is a threat to our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and therefore both an enemy of the American people, an enemy of the Constitution, and an enemy of the United States.

              We can have reasonable disagreement about what we should do about him or why he's an enemy, but taking the argument that he isn't our enemy seriously, at this point, would make us guilty of bothsideism.

        2. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

          P.S. His Kremlin propaganda partner, over the last week, has pushed three points.

          1) The Ukrainian people would have wanted to lick Putin's boot if it wasn't for the CIA.

          2) The reason Putin is going after the Ukraine is because the U.S. wants to expand NATO into the Ukraine--not because the Ukrainian people want to join NATO.

          3) The reason Putin is surrounding the major cities and shelling them, rather than sending in ground troops, is because Putin wants to limit the number of civilian casualties.

          These are the not reasonable positions. This isn't a false dichotomy. This would be an extremely bad case of bothsideism at best. What we're looking at is a couple of useful idiots--at best. At worst, one of them is actively pushing propaganda on purpose. The other one probably isn't smart enough to realize he's making a fool of himself. Watch what they write going forward. I bet you see a pattern.

          1. Nardz   3 years ago

            Russia still losing, dumbass?
            Remember, Ken has been claiming for a week that Russia is getting their ass kicked and Putin will be desperate to save face by settling for some shitty deal and retreating. He's touted facially absurd figures like Ukraine's report of 5,000 Russian KIA through 4 days. Meanwhile, Ukraine's president Zelensky was spending all his time on TV begging for foreign intervention, conscripting the entire population, and emptying the prisons to fight.
            Maybe, just maybe, what the media has been telling Ken to think think about Russia's performance, strategy, and aims wasn't accurate?

            https://twitter.com/Todd4NY24/status/1499443291066150920?t=uUdYhGGwHVj0nge6GQndKA&s=19
            It’s starting to look like Putin had a plan that was based on geographic, demographic, and economic realities and was not acting like a madman trying to conquer Europe.
            [Link]
            Map 1: Putin has shown no interest in invading north western Ukraine, other than as necessary to encircle Kiev. He is after the Russian-speaking, resource-rich east, and that territory is secured by natural boundaries. He is not planning to reconquer USSR territories.
            Map 2: Natural boundaries make Putin’s territorial acquisitions easy to defend. Water and rough terrain are difficult to cross.
            Map 3: Lots of oil and gas in the regions that will fall to Russia. Makes this an economically beneficial geopolitical move. Short-term costs of war/sanctions can be paid for with long-term oil/gas revenue.
            Map 4: It’s always easier to integrate a territory with people who speak the same language. He doesn’t want to end up fighting a decades-long insurgency by Ukrainian speakers. Language divides always create more conflict, even in countries like Belgium/Canada.
            In summary: A limited conquest aimed to secure easily defended territory with a population that can be most easily integrated into Russia, and that has natural resources which will offset the cost of war/sanctions.

      2. I, Woodchipper   3 years ago

        how is this russian propoaanda? seems like a straightforward critique of a Ukrainian not a Russian

        1. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

          The Kremlin has been denigrating Zelensky as an ex-comedian, joke of a CIA puppet for a very long time. They've been circulating his self-denigrating comedy gags as well. The Russians have been pushing the story that this is all an operation to rescue Russian speakers from a ridiculous CIA asset, and going after Zelensky has been part of that.

          I've been posting directly to sources like the Kremlin website to expose and debunk their propaganda, but that all seems to be blocked now, with this as an example:

          http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181

          Can you get to that link? I can't. It's Putin's bullshit screed about how the Ukrainians and the Russians are one people.

          I maintain that free speech is the best argument against propaganda, and it's really hard to expose propaganda when the government or web host or whomever is blocking access to it.

          That being said, because it's Kremlin propaganda doesn't necessarily mean it isn't true just by virtue of the fact that the Kremlin said it, but when you meet someone whose views don't seem to vary much from the propaganda, it's reasonable to suspect that they've been influenced by Kremlin propaganda. And this is just another consistent piece of the puzzle. Put all the pieces together, and it looks a lot like the Kremlin.

          In business, the way to know whether your marketing is working is that your intended recipients repeat your marketing back to you. What these people are reading back looks an awful lot like it ultimately came from the Kremlin. Again, because it came from the Kremlin doesn't mean it isn't true, but it does mean it probably came from the Kremlin. Meanwhile, we're talking about someone who seems to be preoccupied with who to believe rather than what to believe. Those are the kinds of people who are especially susceptible to this sort of manipulation.

          Do I think the government should do something about it?

          Absolutely not. In a free society, it's the job of smart and intelligent individuals to debunk this crap.

      3. Derp-o-Matic 6000   3 years ago

        Spoiler: It was the JOOOOOOOOZZZZ!!!!!

        1. Sevo   3 years ago

          Paging Misek!

          1. Utkonos   3 years ago

            He’s still hibernating. SPRINGTIME starts March 20

      4. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   3 years ago

        Since when are anti-oligarch-puppet discussions somehow pro-Putin. Whoever ends up ruling south of the Carpathian Mountains has zero effect on the security of the United States or its defense treaties. All this attention on just another 3rd-world conflict is an obvious propaganda blitz.

        If staying to protect the Hmong from the Khmer Rouge was not worthy of a good faith effort, then why should we invest to protect the Carpathians from the Cossacks?

        1. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

          "Since when are anti-oligarch-puppet discussions somehow pro-Putin."

          Since 2014, when the Ukrainian people overthrew Putin's puppet specifically because he rejected the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement. That agreement obligates the Ukrainian government to reform its laws, transparency, government, and judicial system to fight corruption.

          "An entire section of the Association Agreement addresses Ukraine’s domestic reform agenda, with particular attention paid to judicial reform. It specifically identifies improving the efficiency of the Ukrainian judiciary as a key focus for cooperation.

          Further proof of Ukraine’s obligations can be found in article 476 of the Association Agreement, which states unambiguously: “Ukraine shall take any general or specific measures required to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement and ensure that its objectives are attained.”

          https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/ukraines-eu-association-agreement-obliges-kyiv-to-pursue-rule-of-law-reforms/

          Because the agreement to admit Ukraine into the EU was contingent on Ukraine reforming its legal system to be in compliance with EU standards, and fight corruption, Putin's attempt to stop the Ukraine from joining the EU was also an attempt to save Putin's corrupt cronies in positions of power in the Ukraine. Corruption in the Ukraine didn't disappear when Putin's puppet abdicated and fled the Ukraine for Russia. The fight for the Ukraine to join the EU is actually the fight against corruption (the oligarchs) in the Ukraine.

          It's like in the United States. Because Trump was elected and in power didn't mean Mark Zuckerberg and the FBI were on Trump's side. The dividing line between the corruption and the people who don't want it isn't a question of being Russian or Ukrainian. It's a question of whether you want Ukraine to reform its judicial system and political system to be independent and transparent--more like the EU. When 500,000 Ukrainians flooded Kyiv to demand the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement, they were demanding the end of that corruption. Putin's war to end that agreement is a fight in favor of the corruption that made the oligarchs you're talking about.

          1. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   3 years ago

            the Ukrainian people overthrew Putin's puppet specifically because he rejected the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement. That agreement obligates the Ukrainian government to reform its laws, transparency, government, and judicial system to fight corruption.

            So any call to offer up Zelensky's head on a platter is reasonable? He clearly failed in his responsibilities on every level. He can serve as an example to the next guy.

            1. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

              "So any call to offer up Zelensky's head on a platter is reasonable? He clearly failed in his responsibilities on every level. He can serve as an example to the next guy."

              I'm not sure what you mean by this exactly, but the guy has only been in office since 2019 amid a pandemic and with the Russians fomenting a break away region in the east--not to mention the annexation of Crimea.

              The process of joining the EU was designed to take years and years. Meanwhile, the Ukrainian swamp has deep roots just it does in the USA. There are Democrats in Chicago who vote for union backed candidates specifically because they expect those union cronies to keep their lavish benefits protected. Not everyone wants an immediate end to corruption. They may have opposed the reforms necessary to join the EU specifically because they want that kind of corruption to continue.

              Does that mean Putin should steamroll them all instead?

              No.

              As I said elsewhere, Putin has outlines his ambitions about his desire to reconstitute the borders of the old Soviet Union with the former satellite republics in tow, and those former satellite republics are full fledged members of NATO now. If and when Putin takes the Ukraine, he will turn is attention to the Balitcs, with their large Russian minority, next, and Poland is in line at some point as well. Putin's screed about how the Ukrainians and the Russians are all one people included plenty about the former greater Lithuania and Poland as well--and they know it. That's why they're arming the Ukrainians. They're next on the list.

              If you want to avoid going to war with Russia over the Baltics and Poland, hope that Putin fails miserably in the Ukraine. That's what people in the Baltics and Poland are doing.

              1. Nardz   3 years ago

                Or just pull out of NATO and let the Baltics and Europe take care of their own problems if/when Russia goes on its domino theory style run?
                NATO is exactly what Washington cautioned against.

                As for Ukraine's noble turn against corruption, and we'll ignore Biden's (+Kerry's, Pelosi's, Romney's)... advice,,, about their office holders for the moment, your evidence is that they went with the US backed Poroshenko for 5 years. Poroshenko was as bad or worse than Yanukovych, yet even he took exception to Zelensky's sponsor. Do you deny the facts put forth in the linked threads? And I mean facts there, not the conclusions or motivations alleged.

                Membership in the EU should be good for the Ukrainian people. Otherwise, how many of his people should Zelensky sacrifice to hold onto his office, join NATO, and continue the 8-year long bombardment of disfavored citizens?

    2. Sevo   3 years ago

      Just a week or so, Nardz used up a good bit of a page listing why we should not believe anything from the media, and now he's pitching a twitter thread on why we should help Putin take over Ukraine!

      1. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

        I didn't really wake up until I saw one of your posts. That was probably the thread. I sometimes think you go after people too early or go after the wrong people, but I always read your posts. And you were right to go off when you did. I should have seen it sooner. You were right, and I was wrong.

        I suspect Nardz is swallowing a bunch of Kremlin propaganda through third parties, without realizing it, and they're making pro-Trump people like him look like useful idiots for Putin.

        Want to make sure the progressives aren't kicked out of Congress this November? That's the way you do it--smear Trump as a pro-Putin apologist, and watch all the auto-pilot pro-Trumpers reflexively start defending Putin. Trump is pro-Putin--vote Democrat!!!

        That's how the progressives snatch victory from the jaws of defeat in November, and the time to stop it is now.

        1. Sevo   3 years ago

          Further, we are (as mentioned) encouraged to ignore anything the media broadcasts *EXCEPT* that beacon of honesty Twitter when Nardz finds something there which backs his point!

          1. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

            Yeah, the way to judge whether something is true is to measure it against the available facts and against logic. If the narrative doesn't stand up to that scrutiny, it should be discarded. We use our own heads--and each other's intelligence--to scrutinize the narrative and find out what's true or what can be understood from the available evidence. When this place is working optimally, it makes us all smarter.

            I suspect that Nardz thinks that because you can't trust the news media narrative, Twitter or Truth.social is just as good. But it isn't about the source. Because Zelensky was a comedian who played the piano with his testicles, doesn't mean that the Ukrainian people want Putin to rule them--if only the CIA would get out of the way. And the reason we don't believe that kind of Russian propaganda isn't because it came from the Kremlin. It's because the conclusion doesn't line up with the facts.

            Thousands of Ukrainians from all over the world are coming home through Poland to fight against Putin. The idea that they've all been manipulated by the CIA into opposing Putin is laughable. He's invaded their country, and he's shelling Ukrainian civilians. Still, Nardz is pushing a silly piece of the Kremlin narrative about how Zelensky is an incompetent boob. And the problem is that most Americans don't know that Zelensky used to be a comedian and is a CIA asset?

            Why is that important for Americans to know?

      2. Nardz   3 years ago

        Stroke out, sqrlvo.

    3. R Mac   3 years ago

      Nardz, simple question: do you want Russia to win the war?

      1. Nardz   3 years ago

        I don't care who wins the war between Russia and Ukraine. It shouldn't have anything to do with us.
        I find the pro-Ukraine forces far more threatening to my life than Russia though.

        1. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

          Told ya!

      2. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

        No matter how many times you ask that question, you may not get an simple yes or no answer.

        I want Putin to lose.

        I very much want Putin to lose badly.

        1. R Mac   3 years ago

          It was simple enough for me. And he clearly isn’t supporting Russia with that statement, which is your claim.

          I agree with you, I want Russia to lose. But being neutral is an actual, legitimate, position. And pointing out all the pro-war propaganda being spewed doesn’t contradict that position.

          1. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

            He isn't neutral--as he makes clear below.

            And because I don't want to go to war with Russia over the Ukraine doesn't make me neutral. IF IF IF that were his position, that wouldn't make him neutral either.

            There is no justification for apologizing for Putin's invasion of the Ukraine. The facts won't support it. The logic won't support it. And that's what he's doing.

            He's apologizing for the invasion of Ukraine, but he's not sure who he wants to win--who's supposed to buy that? Regardless, he's apologizing for Putin.

        2. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   3 years ago

          I very much want Putin to lose badly.

          You might want to be careful what you ask for. A bad loser doesn't just give up what he wants. He makes sure nobody else can have it either.

          Getting tried for war crimes for using nukes is no different that getting tried for war crimes for a few stray shells.

          Please note that this is a pro-Ukrainian citizen stance.

          1. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

            No doubt, there are serious risks there.

            That being said, if Putin is victorious in the Ukraine, our NATO allies are next on the list--with an eye on Lithuania specifically.

            The chances of a nuclear exchange are high now regardless of whether Putin loses. The chances of the U.S. getting into a conventional war with Russia grow if Putin wins in the Ukraine.

            Ukraine is just the first step. He wants Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland back, and like it or not, they're all NATO allies in good standing. We're obligated by a treaty that was ratified by two-thirds of the Senate to defend them.

            If you don't want to go to war with Russia, pray that Putin falls on his face in the Ukraine. That's the first rung of the ladder he's climbing.

            1. Nardz   3 years ago

              I'll just point out that Ken has been consistently wrong in his assessments regarding this conflict and others.

              He cannot explain how Russia is likely, or has a chance, to lose in Ukraine, but if victorious, will then be strong enough to take on Lithuania- who will be joined by at least Poland, Latvia, Estonia, and Romania.
              His logic that Putin/Russia would attack the Baltics relies on several assumptions: that Putin is evil, that Putin wants to rebuild the Soviet Union, that Putin is insane.

              Ken is willing to fight to the last Ukrainian to see Putin defeated, but would that be in the Ukrainians' best interests? Ukraine could end the conflict by: sending Zelensky into opulent exile in the US or western Europe and accepting a Russia-friendly government, recognizing Crimea as Russian and the Donbass republics as independent or autonomous (the latter is best for Russia to balance pro EU western Ukraine), pledging to reject NATO advances and dissolve relationships, and to stop taking foreign arms.
              Would peace under these terms be worse for Ukrainians than war to reject them?

              1. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   3 years ago

                Could they just shoot Zelensky in the head and drop his body at a Russian checkpoint? I prefer the idea of accountability for leaders who fail so miserably in securing the defense of their country.

                1. Nardz   3 years ago

                  That would almost certainly be in the best interests of the Ukrainians, but the US would blame it on Putin and go full war.

                  Zelensky, as I've said elsewhere, should challenge Putin to single combat to decide the war. Z wins, Russia withdraws. Putin wins, Z resigns, Russia friendly government takes over, promise no NATO and no weapons, Donbass given autonomy, Crimea officially recognized. Do it like men used to.
                  That's obviously not realistic in our much more civilized times, where bombs and bullets have to kill peasants so one group of oligarchs can hold their advantage over another.
                  So forgetting the duel approach, Zelensky should come to the table and negotiate peace- accept the above conditions, but keep Ukraine in the EU. It is unquestionably what is best for the Ukrainian people, which means many more peasants will have to be killed before it happens.
                  Zelensky is as big a piece of shit as anybody else, but I don't know if he really has permission from his oligarch and globalist sponsors to do much differently.

  34. Nardz   3 years ago

    https://twitter.com/SohrabAhmari/status/1499384870358953995?t=5HUtTMN4aYf3q1ryV38q7A&s=19

    Even taking into account the experience of the last few years, we’ve never been subjected to such a barrage of Western media propaganda, hysteria, wishcasting-as-analysis, cheap moralism and straight-up fake news (a la the Snake Island martyrs).

    I read the prestige papers, British and US, and every day, the message, blared loudly and univocally, is Russian military failure: “The offensive is stalling, faltering, setbacks!”

    The following day, they concede, “OK, actually, they made more gains — but today they’ll lose!”

    And the editorial pages, my God, the range of opinion is between moderately pro-escalation to pro-nuclear Holocaust to defend “democracy.”

    And people who I would’ve thought had learned the lessons of “collusion,” COVID, etc. are going along — again.

    1. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

      While you're apologizing for a vicious tyrant as he targets civilians in order to break their will and subjugate them, do you still think of yourself as a libertarian?

      Wait, have you ever thought of yourself as a libertarian?

      1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

        That's not really what he's doing and is a little unfair, Ken.

        1. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

          I'm not just talking about this thread. Across multiple threads.

          Watch for it going forward.

          Look at his responses to x/y below.

          Elsewhere in this thread, I linked to where he said I was broken for criticizing the Russians for shelling a nuclear reactor.

          He is apologizing for Putin.

          https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apologia

          In Plato's Apology and Xenophon's Apology, they weren't saying they were sorry for all the awful things Socrates did and said. They were defending Socrates. They were arguing both their defense of Socrates and Socrates' defense of himself at trial.

          That's what Nardz is doing. He isn't admitting Putin's blame and apologizing for Putin's misbehavior. He's actively arguing to defend Putin's actions and motives in the Ukraine. He is apologizing for Putin the way Plato and Xenophon apologized for Socrates and the way Socrates apologized for himself at trial.

          This is what people mean when they say someone is a Putin apologist. It's someone who argues in Putin's defense.

      2. I, Woodchipper   3 years ago

        How is it "apologizing for a vicious tyrant" to point out the media is lying and the Russians are winning the military conflict?

        1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

          If you question Western propaganda then you want Putin to win.

          If you questioned reports of Iraqi WMDs then you wanted Saddam to win.

          If you question Trump's election claims then you voted for Biden.

          If you question Global Warming then you want everyone to die.

          If you question [insert bullshit here] then you [insert strawman here].

          Ken is just like the leftists he hates.

        2. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

          I, Woodchipper,

          Take a look at this:

          "1. Was Russia justified in invading Ukraine? If yes...Why?
          2. Is Russia justified in occupying Ukraine?
          3. Is Russia justified in splitting Ukraine at the Dnieper river?
          4. Is Russia justified in invading any NATO country right now?

          We see eye to eye on many things. I'd like to hear what you think, and why.

          ----Commenter_XY

          Nardz response:

          1. I lean towards "yes". As I've looked at the actions, posture, and rhetoric from both NATO/the west and Russia, it's difficult to conclude that NATO's primary purpose and intent is anything other than the destruction of, or dominion over, Russia since 1991, as it was prior to 1991. Thus Russia finds itself today in much the same position as Israel in 1967.Would Israel be secure if it didn't control the Golan Heights?

          2 & 3. I'm not sure what you mean by occupying, but I imagine they'll set up a friendly government in Kyiv, and secure independence or autonomy for the Donbass states. Crimea had autonomy under the 1991 Ukraine constitution which post-Maidan Kyiv violated, and it's own constitution which it adhered to in voting overwhelmingly via referendum for first independence then annexation into Russia. Crimea is Russian. The referendums were closer in the Donbass, but secession won there as well.

          4. NATO has trained and equipped Ukraine for years, not appreciably different than Afghanistan allowing al queda to base there. Sanctions are arguably an act of war, especially when they target the population. Yes, Russia would be justified in attacking NATO states, but I hope they don't.

          ----Nardz

          https://reason.com/2022/03/04/no-cops-will-face-legal-consequences-in-conjunction-with-breonna-taylor-killing/?comments=true#comment-9387283

          He's arguing Putin's case, and that is the definition of apologizing for Putin.

          And it isn't just in this thread. It's across all of them.

          We can reasonably talk about his arguments, but he's clearly apologizing for Putin. There's no disputing that Nardz is a Putin apologist.

          1. Nardz   3 years ago

            Ken, you've been wrong or straight up lied, about everything you've posted on the subject.
            You've been spreading propaganda, proven propaganda, of the totalitarian tyrants who take our resources and freedoms, and put our well being at risk.
            You employ the very fallacies on this subject that you decry in others.

            1. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

              You forgot to deny that you're a pro-Putin apologist.

              1. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

                Jesus fuck, get off the internet for a while and go calm down.

                1. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

                  Calm as could be.

            2. sarcasmic   3 years ago

              Ken sees only one side: his. If you disagree, or seek out other points of view, then the only possible explanation is that you're defective. You must be shut down and silenced.

              Then he calls others useful idiots. Go figure.

      3. sarcasmic   3 years ago

        No, he's pointing out a barrage of Western propaganda which, like all propaganda, contains a heavy helping of bullshit. That isn't pro-Putin any more than pointing out Trump's bullshit is pro-Biden.

      4. Nardz   3 years ago

        Ken, you've been wrong or straight up lied, about everything you've posted on the subject.
        You've been spreading propaganda, proven propaganda, of the totalitarian tyrants who take our resources and freedoms, and put our well being at risk.
        You employ the very fallacies on this subject that you decry in others.
        The tweet posted is true regardless of your feelings.

        1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

          You employ the very fallacies on this subject that you decry in others.

          I've been pointing that out for a while. Not just him though. Seems to be quite common among Trumpistas.

        2. Nardz   3 years ago

          By the way, it looks like you were a bit off in your proclamations about the vax too

          1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

            Who me? I never made any proclamations. I attempted to clarify "the vaccine doesn't do anything hurr durr" with information that I thought was accurate. But if you want to shoot the messenger so be it.

            1. JesseAz   3 years ago

              LOL. You have been wrong for 2 years and you refuse to admit it. You decried morality to get shots and wear masks despite numerous amounts of evidence against it. You attacked the very politicians saying to get vaxxed but no mandates as well as the commenters saying the same. You attacked antivirals like Ivermectin because the media told you to.

              It is pathetic how much you lie about your past stances.

              1. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   3 years ago

                sarcasmic is more of a 'giving aid and comfort to the enemy' kind of lefty. He never takes any stance from which he can't retreat safely to his Motte. Meanwhile he supports idiot lefties and undermines anyone he thinks is conservative.

            2. Nardz   3 years ago

              No, Ken.
              C'mon, man, you know how threading works

            3. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   3 years ago

              Who me?

              8 posts into his fallacy filled takedown of Ken. What a shitweasel.

    2. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

      Nardz, I don't understand why you think that Ukrainian wartime propaganda is a bad thing. Propaganda during war is a very different thing than gaslighting and manipulating a democracy in peacetime.
      It's the difference between punching somebody in the head during a fist fight, and suddenly punching somebody in the head in the checkout line.

      The only real problem I can see is Western media corporations who print it as is without doing their job and investigating the veracity first.

      1. Cronut   3 years ago

        Ukrainian war time propaganda is fine. For Ulrainians. For Americans, it's not. We're not at war with Russia and we should not go to war with Russia as long as they stay out of NATO countries.

        The Ukraine war should be reported, but not to the ridiculous extent that it's being pimped.

        1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

          Well yes, that's what I just said.

          1. Cronut   3 years ago

            My problem with it all is that it's a major distraction from everything we in American SHOULD be talking about. We should be talking about what Trudeau did. We should be talking about how a bunch of pissed off truckers impacted policy in two countries. We should be talking about how Fauci gamed the system to do his mad scientist experiments and caused the deaths of millions of people. We should be talking about how Biden's disaterous energy policies have been choking the middle class to death.

            Instead, we're getting wall to wall coverage of a war we're not even in, and listening to these douchebags call for "sacrifices" to defend freedom in some other country on a whole different continent across the ocean, while the actually sponsored and cheered on a tyrant in the country next door.

            1. MT-Man   3 years ago

              +1000

            2. Nardz   3 years ago

              Well put, Cronut

            3. R Mac   3 years ago

              ^

            4. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

              Exactly.

              We've been talking for months about how the Democrats and the Davos crew were pushing for war as a distraction, and yet here we all are... falling for it.

            5. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

              I'd rather America focused on issues like spending and taxes, personally, but I think trading progressive wokism in for cold war discussions is probably a winner.

              I think we're probably shutting the door on a lot of that progressive shit, and free speech, etc. was better when our presidents and system of government were always subconsciously being contrasted with the Soviet Union.

              I think it'd be great if Biden were less like Putin.

              1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

                "I think trading progressive wokism in for cold war discussions is probably a winner"

                If you think that's what's happening you're dreaming. There's no chance in hell that a new Cold War's going to tamp down the establishment clerisy's passion for controlling speech.

                What we're going to get is Woke + McCarthyism.

              2. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

                There's no telling what sticks, but we are at an inflection point--and the progressive wokism was running out of steam already. Let's look at other countries for a second. Germany has had a taboo against sending arms to conflict areas owing to its guilt about World War II. Ukraine has got them past that for the first time since World War II.

                Both Germany and France have decided to raise their defense spending above 2% of their GDP--something they haven't been doing for eons. And the reason they're doing it is because of Ukraine. The reason these policies were in force in the first place is because that's what the French and German people wanted. I think these policies were changed in no small part because of popular demand. I think public opinion has also changed in North America. Justin Trudeau couldn't backpedal on his emergency powers fast enough. Six months ago, he might have been fine. Look at the election results in Virginia and New Jersey. Look at the election results for the school board in San Francisco.

                It isn't just the invasion of Ukraine. It's also the pandemic. I think woke progressivism may have played itself out. It'll still be there in the background, like it always was, but it won't be the dominant force it was. There are inflection points that hit the developed world at the same time, and I think we're probably at one of those inflection points.

                There was an inflection point where American culture left the Great Depression and World War II behind to focus on the Cold War. There was an inflection point where American culture went from the end of the Cold War to globalization and the beginning of the War on Terror. The pandemic and a new Cold War will probably bring a different focus than the culture had before--and woke progressivism was already running out of steam.

                The Cultural Revolution couldn't last forever either. CNN is firing their old managers, and they say they'll focus on doing more hard news and less opinion. It's because they can't make money selling woke progressivism anymore. There just isn't an audience for it like their used to be. In the Cold War, we had big movie franchise about Rambo and Soviet submarines. Did you ever see Red Dawn. That stuff used to sell like hotcakes. The punk rock bands all had a song about a nuclear holocaust.

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faQZOKGW5eA

                Yeah, there were feminists and civil rights activists and all that back then, too, but it wasn't at the center of the culture.

        2. Commenter_XY   3 years ago

          I'm with you on that last sentence.

          They've gone from reporting to attempted manipulation.

      2. Nardz   3 years ago

        "Nardz, I don't understand why you think that Ukrainian wartime propaganda is a bad thing."

        Because it's goal is emotionally extort resources from other countries and to draw NATO (more) into war. Because it's not a mix of truth and propaganda, it's a steady stream of lies. Because it isn't just Ukraine, it's an entire array of behind the scenes special interests manipulating the American, and world, public into supporting actions which have no possible benefit to us and massive costs.

        If the situation were as black/white as many of you see it, if the Ukrainian/globalist cause was truly righteous, if Putin/Russia were truly so evil... why all the lies? Why the need for such overwhelming deception if the truth is on your side?
        It's covid on steroids, a massive coordinated psyop. If that doesn't make you suspicious, nervous, and resistant then you haven't learned.

    3. Commenter_XY   3 years ago

      So Nardz....I've been reading your posts with interest this last week. I would like you to answer some questions that I think will help illuminate what differences there actually are. You've said some things I strongly agree with, some I strongly disagree with, and a few things where I am not sure I agree. Here goes.

      1. Was Russia justified in invading Ukraine? If yes...Why?
      2. Is Russia justified in occupying Ukraine?
      3. Is Russia justified in splitting Ukraine at the Dnieper river?
      4. Is Russia justified in invading any NATO country right now?

      We see eye to eye on many things. I'd like to hear what you think, and why.

      1. Nardz   3 years ago

        1. I lean towards "yes". As I've looked at the actions, posture, and rhetoric from both NATO/the west and Russia, it's difficult to conclude that NATO's primary purpose and intent is anything other than the destruction of, or dominion over, Russia since 1991, as it was prior to 1991. Thus Russia finds itself today in much the same position as Israel in 1967.
        Would Israel be secure if it didn't control the Golan Heights?
        2 & 3. I'm not sure what you mean by occupying, but I imagine they'll set up a friendly government in Kyiv, and secure independence or autonomy for the Donbass states. Crimea had autonomy under the 1991 Ukraine constitution which post-Maidan Kyiv violated, and it's own constitution which it adhered to in voting overwhelmingly via referendum for first independence then annexation into Russia. Crimea is Russian. The referendums were closer in the Donbass, but secession won there as well.
        4. NATO has trained and equipped Ukraine for years, not appreciably different than Afghanistan allowing al queda to base there. Sanctions are arguably an act of war, especially when they target the population. Yes, Russia would be justified in attacking NATO states, but I hope they don't.

        1. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

          Nardz is a useful idiot.

          That's the kindest reasonable explanation.

        2. Commenter_XY   3 years ago

          Well alright then, Nardz. Thanks for answering seriously. Quick thoughts.

          Israel would not be secure without the Golan Heights (to answer your question). But we disagree about Russia's situation in 2022 being analogous to Israel in 1967. Just not seeing that one.

          NATO was originally configured to match the Warsaw Pact. Notably, NATO did not intervene in Hungary (1956) or Czechoslovakia (1968). NATO is not intervening here. Nor are they seriously considering admitting Ukraine (NFW, they're corrupt AF). I am not saying NATO has clean hands, but I think you're making interpretative assumptions of their actions since 1991 that are not aligned with objective reality. NATO supported Yeltsin during the break-up, and pointedly did NOT take actions like economic sanctions, etc. The Warsaw Pact nations that did join NATO did so under their own free will. You're not taking that fact into account.

          Agree that Crimea is mostly ethnic Russians and they will never give up the naval base there. Just ain't happening. The Crimea conflict is over; Russia won. Also true of Donbas region.

          Ok, make the argument that economic sanctions are an act of war. That I just do not see. I don't know of a single legal definition where economic sanctions are an act of war. But you tell me, Nardz.

          I am highly skeptical of Ukraine, and have made no secret of my feelings that Ukraine is not an American issue. But I am not where you are in assuming the bad intent you ascribe to America (NATO).

          You do know that in a straight-up conventional conflict between NATO and Russia, that Russia would get absolutely creamed.

          Let's keep talking, Nardz. I think your points regarding media and politician manipulation of the American public are 100% correct.

          Give some thought to the idea that maybe NATO is not the ogre that some make them out to be.

          1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

            https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10545641/Putins-gives-chilling-warning-West-early-morning-TV-broadcast.html

            Scroll down about a third of the way and there's a big swath of blue. That's Putin's declaration of war. He lists a bunch of grievances as well as a bunch of bullshit. It's worth reading if you're at all interested in other points of view on the subject.

          2. Nardz   3 years ago

            "NATO supported Yeltsin during the break-up"
            That's a mark against them.

            Since 1991, NATO, or some members, has invaded Bosnia, Iraq, Somalia, Serbia & Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, arguably elsewhere. That's 30 years of almost continuous, aggressive warfare.
            During that span, NATO has rejected offers of alliance and painted Russia as The Enemy.

            Remember how offensive the (fictional) story about Russia paying Taliban bounties for Americans killed was?
            We've been funding and giving weapons to Ukraine to kill Russians since 2014.

            1. R Mac   3 years ago

              Let’s also look at the Trump Russia story from Putin’s POV.

              The left, including most corporate media in this country, stated as fact that Putin helped get Trump elected, and that Trump was Putin’s puppet. There was this big investigation into Trump about it.

              If Trump had been found by Mueller to be a Russian agent, it would be reasonable for Putin to assume that after we removed Trump from office for treason, we would be at war with Russia.

              Also during this whole time, many people in media and in government were comparing it to Pearl Harbor and 9/11. What did we do after Pearl Harbor? We went to war with Japan, and eventually nuked them. What did we do after 9/11? We went to war with Afghanistan and Iraq. If Putin getting Trump elected as his agent was as bad as 9/11 and Pearl Harbor, then of course war with Russia is a legitimate response.

              1. Nardz   3 years ago

                Russiagate is the point at which it became clear that a peaceful relationship could not exist between a nationalist Russia and deep state controlled US.
                Trump's election presented an opportunity to improve relations and establish a non hostile approach. The US deep state was killing two stones with Russiagate: Trump (populism) and Russia as not an enemy.

            2. Commenter_XY   3 years ago

              Nardz, I appreciate your being straightforward, and answering the questions. You and I disagree about the 'birth' of NATO, and NATOs goals. But I now better understand what you're saying.

              Let's keep the conversation going.

              1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

                ^ This.

              2. Nardz   3 years ago

                Yes, it's been fun going back and forth. Has helped me develop a clearer picture and conclusions.

                One thing though: why are you referring to the birth of NATO?
                All I've mentioned about pre-1991 NATO is that it was designed to oppose and deter the USSR (and allies). I have no problem with NATO prior to the Soviet Union's fall.
                But post-USSR, NATO has no reason to exist... unless it's goal is conquest (primarily, of Russia). How do you add up the facts of its expansion, rejection of Russia, lack of concern with China, and consistent hostility to Russia (to the point of creating actual fictions about its behavior)?
                And you'll have to explain how NATO hasn't been aggressive in undertaking 30 years of near continuous war abroad, because I can't see it.

            3. Commenter_XY   3 years ago

              Nardz...whoa, whoa, whoa. I can make the case that for Bosnia, Serbia & Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Syria, America was just cleaning up Russia's mess. Russia was there first, and we cleaned it up. That is an objective fact (e.g. Russia was involved way before us). America fucked up in managing Iraq and Libya.

              I happen to agree with you that America should not directly arm Ukraine. America should send Europe a fuck-ton of weapons that the Ukrainians actually need and let Europe decide what goes to Ukraine. It is in their backyard. They have more at stake here.

              My bigger point: I don't see America or NATO as the instigator of a bunch of world problems. That title goes to Russia and China, and more to China.

              1. Nardz   3 years ago

                ". I can make the case that for Bosnia, Serbia & Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Syria, America was just cleaning up Russia's mess. Russia was there first, and we cleaned it up. "

                Please do, I'm all ears. But if you argue what NATO did in the Balkans and Syria was cleaning up Russia's mess you open yourself up to having to acknowledge that Russian actions in Ukraine are cleaning up NATO's mess. There was no civil war prior to western agencies getting involved with the coup and post coup government.
                I think you're a bit naive. There are evil people in the world, but do you really think your government and media is honest when telling you who they are?

                But yes, I'd like to read "the case for NATO intervention as not aggressive military action".

                1. R Mac   3 years ago

                  ". I can make the case that for Bosnia, Serbia & Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Syria, America was just cleaning up Russia's mess. Russia was there first, and we cleaned it up. "

                  Please do, I'm all ears“

                  Second?

                2. Commenter_XY   3 years ago

                  Nardz, I'll take the challenge. 🙂 [the back and forth has been fun. I learn]. In brief (running out of reply space):

                  Bosnia, Serbia & Kosovo -> Aftermath of Yugoslavia dissolution; aligned with USSR historically. I call it mismanagement (in the same sense I say America fucked up managing Iraq, Libya) by Russia.
                  Afghanistan -> Were you around in 1979 when the USSR invaded? I was.
                  Syria -> Heavy involvement by USSR (and then Russia) post Suez Canal crisis in 1956.

  35. Nardz   3 years ago

    https://twitter.com/MrsT106/status/1499724607431102470?t=RTB3X-ONPcXZjji9xPSfyg&s=19

    Lindsey Graham & John McCain in Ukraine in December 2016 preparing for a proxy war with Russia all the way back then.

    Then, Trump came in and stopped it all from happening.
    [Video]

    1. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

      Putin invaded and annexed the Crimea in 2014 and immediately started fomenting pro-Kremlin rebellion in the eastern provinces of Ukraine after that.

      Why wouldn't we be prepared for a war in Ukraine?

      In fact, we've been in NATO since 1949. We've presumably been preparing for a war in every country of eastern Europe since.

      Meanwhile, John McCain was the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee in 2016--with the responsibility of overseeing the Pentagon. You're blaming him for doing his job, and that's stupid.

      1. Nardz   3 years ago

        https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2018/06/04/how-and-why-the-u-s-government-perpetrated-the-2014-coup-in-ukraine/

        1. Sevo   3 years ago

          Ah, yes. Something alleged to have occurred in 2014 justifies Putin's invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
          You never seem to answer regarding your response to that meeting between Hitler and Nixon in '56. The must have been conspiring to advance that "global oligarchy"!!!!!!!!

          1. Nardz   3 years ago

            Flog that strawman, sqrlvo.
            Did the events described in the link I posted happen or not?
            Are actions influenced by past events or is every moment created ex nihilo, with no connection to previous moments?

            1. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

              Do you know what a straw man is?

              What difference does it make if John McCain was doing his job as Chairman of the Armed Service Committee in 2016, and what does any of this have to do with a straw man?

              1. Nardz   3 years ago

                The strawman is alleging a posted link is "justifying" anything. It's information. People can read it and come to their own conclusions or look for further information.
                Your campaign against and labeling everything as "Kremlin propaganda" is the same bullshit we've seen for the last 2 years with anybody straying from the official covid narrative (of the moment) being labeled a conspiracy theorist or science denier.
                Go fuck yourself, neokeNN.

            2. Sevo   3 years ago

              "Did the events described in the link I posted happen or not?"
              I don't know and neither do you. YOU are the asshole whining that we shouldn't believe any media, and now you seem to be convinced what you read there is true. Why the change?

              "Are actions influenced by past events or is every moment created ex nihilo, with no connection to previous moments?"
              Of course they are, but if the events are so egregious as claimed in that article, you might imagine a bit more contemporaneous response.
              At least by those who aren't so driven by bullshit narratives, asshole.

              1. Nardz   3 years ago

                So you're ignorant of Maidan and the 2014 coup, but you know exactly what the situation is now.
                Is that really your take, sqrlvo?

  36. Nardz   3 years ago

    Poster is a DeSantis staffer, I think

    https://twitter.com/JeremyRedfernFL/status/1499746556131618823?t=0p41al7WbtMkCidxoKoJjA&s=19

    Had a reporter from the @washingtonpost email the office at 11:45pm with a 3:00am deadline.

    Totally normal work hours.

    1. D-Pizzle   3 years ago

      SOP

    2. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

      Honestly, the internet and the gradual takeover of Millennials in the industry has made these people incredibly fucking lazy. I read an article a few months ago by an old-school newspaper editor that talked about this. She was putting together an article on some local issue and told one of the cubs to contact the city POC. A week later, she asks the kid what information he got, and he said the guy didn't respond to the email he sent. "This official doesn't answer emails from reporters," she responded. "He figures if you want the info badly enough, you'll call him. Pick up the phone, dial his office, and ask to speak to him directly."

      We have two generations of Americans that are complete social retards now, thanks to smartphones and ubiquitous internet access.

      1. Nardz   3 years ago

        True, though I think in this case the writer was hoping for a "didn't respond to requests for comment" line.

  37. damikesc   3 years ago

    "Ukrainians in the U.S. are getting temporary protected status, meaning they will not be deported even if their visas have expired."

    And knowing it is temporary, Reason will demand it become permanent.

    1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

      "If we're doing it for the Ukrainians, shouldn't we be doing it for Mexicans too? Are we racists?" - Reason in a few weeks

      1. Moonrocks   3 years ago

        Reason in a few weeks hours

  38. Nardz   3 years ago

    https://twitter.com/davereaboi/status/1499771736023310341?t=Ioa6HEdCdrw8a7CW568oQg&s=19

    I don’t care all that much that these companies won’t service Russia or any other country—but it’s useful just to give you an idea of the massive scale of the corporate that’s more than happy to join a moral panic.
    [Link]

  39. Nardz   3 years ago

    https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1499761029114253313?t=nE_Fl5m5-L5zrN_Cy2lA2w&s=19

    Ukraine has asked all countries to ban Russians from their countries, suspensions of student and work visas of any Russian citizen.

    1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

      Good for them, Ukraine should try anything it can. But no other uninvolved country should do it.

      1. Nardz   3 years ago

        You need to reflect on what you just said.

        1. Moonrocks   3 years ago

          Which part, the one about a country fighting for its survival doing anything it can to win or the part about uninvolved countries not participating?

          1. Nardz   3 years ago

            Approval for requesting punishment of common people in other countries because of their nationality.
            It's like the US asking all other countries to pull permits and visa from Mexicans in those countries because millions of Mexicans illegally immigrate to the US.

            1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

              That isn't what I said, Nardz, and you know if isn't. Don't reinterpret what I said to suit your implication. You're doing exactly what Ken was doing earlier.

              1. Nardz   3 years ago

                "Ukraine has asked all countries to ban Russians from their countries, suspensions of student and work visas of any Russian citizen.

                Mother's Lament
                March.4.2022 at 10:51 am
                Flag Comment Mute User
                Good for them, Ukraine should try anything it can."

                If you're referring to Ukrainian requests other than the one you responded to, then ok. But you can see how the response "good for them, they should try anything they can" in response to "Ukraine has asked all countries to ban Russians from their countries, suspensions of student and work visas of any Russian citizen" might look like you're endorsing their request for "punishment of common people in other countries because of their nationality", no?

                1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

                  No.
                  There's nothing wrong with asking for other nations to hurt your mortal enemy and their citizens. It wouldn't be wrong if Russia did it either.
                  They're at war, Nardz, not having a boxing match.

                  Now if other countries acquiesced to their request, those countries would be in the wrong.

                  1. Nardz   3 years ago

                    I think it's wrong to ask other governments to collectively punish people for political reasons. You think it's wrong for one country to invade another.
                    Interesting how we come to our conclusions.
                    FWIW, I fail to see either the tactical or strategic value in the request. It just strikes me as petty, cruel, and elitist.

        2. damikesc   3 years ago

          Ukraine can make requests and should make requests. The problem is if other countries abide by them.

          I have no problem with things being asked for. I have a problem when idiotic things being asked for are done. I fail to see the problem in Ukraine asking for anything.

          They cannot make us do it, after all.

  40. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

    Meanwhile, Florida lawmakers have passed a measure that would ban abortion after 15 weeks.

    So like Sweden, Denmark, Holland and the rest of Europe then.

    I think Canada and the United States are still the only two countries in the world with no federal abortion limits.

    1. I, Woodchipper   3 years ago

      No, you dont understand. The USA needs to be more enlightened and be more like Europe. This will make us better in all ways. Now do you get it?

    2. Cronut   3 years ago

      There are some European countries where you have to get approval from the government to get an abortion. It's usually just a rubber stamp. But it still requires approval.

  41. Nardz   3 years ago

    https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1499573995657646106?t=EmKtwGN2KJGI9UKMHVBZVw&s=19

    This is false.

    Zaporizhzhia does not risk a "nuclear radiation catastrophe." If it did, he would've ordered it off.

    I'm afraid to say this looks like a coordinated effort to induce panic.

    This is a disservice to global public, which, admittedly, is not his focus at the moment.

    I have had many people reach out to me to advise that this sounds like taking a political side and that it devalues the technical content of my other reporting.
    Acknowledged. Will keep it as strictly neutral as possible on the nuclear safety meaning of any events.
    Thanks

    There are life and death emotions around this, as fits a life and death struggle.
    My contribution will be the safety and engineering context around events taking place in the energy systems and electrical grid in Ukraine, especially on the nuclear plants.

    [Link]

    1. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

      This is a classic example of how dumb the propaganda war has gotten. Hardly anyone seems to actually be on the ground getting information first-hand, and the ones who are, are deboonking the stuff getting sent out (such a sthe Ghost of Kiev and the Holocaust memorial getting bombed).

      Russia has a long and distinguished history of not giving a fuck about the lives of their grunts, but anyone with common sense would realize that the last thing they'd want is a nuclear reactor going off, for a multitude of reasons.

      1. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

        Please don't be a victim of Nardz's propaganda efforts in favor of Putin.

        "KYIV, Ukraine—Russian shelling in southern Ukraine caused a fire at Europe’s largest nuclear power plant before Russian troops took control of the area, according to local authorities and international observers, raising fears that Moscow’s increasingly indiscriminate war could cause a global environmental disaster."

        ----The Wall Street Journal

        https://www.wsj.com/articles/russias-shelling-of-ukrainian-nuclear-power-plant-sparks-alarm-11646377053

        Nardz is a useful idiot. Don't let him make a fool out of you.

        1. Fat Mike's Drug Habit   3 years ago

          Are you going to follow Nardz around doing this all day Ken? I thought higher of you.

          1. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

            Someone needed to debunk this horseshit.

            1. Nardz   3 years ago

              LOL
              You haven't debunked shit, you've just screeched unsupported allegations and insults.

        2. Nardz   3 years ago

          There's a string of several posts in last night's thread that describes what happened with a bit less spin than Ken would like to paint it with.

        3. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

          according to local authorities and international observers

          At this point, that has as much truck as "sources say."

          I don't trust this shit any more than I trust Russia's reports on their casualty and lost equipment count.

          1. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

            Nardz linking to a tweet is not a good reason to doubt that the fire at the nuclear plant was started by Russian shelling--especially considering that the Russians weren't in control of the plant yesterday, they were shelling the area, and the Russians are in control of the plant today. Nardz has gone full Putin apologist, and we should screw our critical thinking caps down tight when we read his claims--because he's claiming some seriously ridiculous pro-Putin bullshit right now.

            Don't let him fool you.

            1. Nardz   3 years ago

              A tweet that show closed circuit video, by the way

  42. Nardz   3 years ago

    Thread

    https://twitter.com/VarangianSkull/status/1499762754781163520?t=-bnporfgTgL_75cuQ8HwWA&s=19

    1/ Cancel Culture as applied to modern warfare... It's so 'tarded.

    Modern agitprop is so juvenile and fake, but that actually makes it BETTER for virtue signaling. You get more points if you show your devotion by sharing shit that's obviously false.

    Let's thread this.
    [Links]

    1. I, Woodchipper   3 years ago

      does this mean you love Russia and perhaps even you are working for them?

      /sarc

      1. Mickey Rat   3 years ago

        He is a cop, and this is Reason. Presumption of innocence for the accused does not apply.

        This is not to say that I necessarily agree with the jury's judgment, but he was acquitted.

        1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

          Cops are the only people the courts treat as innocent until proven guilty. Or should I say innocent until being rehired with back pay. Everyone is on the same team. If they get charged, which is rare, they are charged the bare minimum. They get a trial without being punished with excessive and unrelated charges for not taking a plea. When evidence contradicts their testimony, instead of being charged with lying to the court the evidence is thrown out. It's bread and circuses without the happy ending.

    2. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

      There's actually a ripe market at the moment to fleece these virtue signaling retards for their money. Just say you're a Ukrainian tranny artist, and watch the money flow in.

    3. Cronut   3 years ago

      "10/ If you're ethnically Russian, the West demands that you immediately denounce the war. But is anyone thinking that maybe Putin is demanding the same in reverse? And that some of the ethnic Russians are staying silent because they don't want to be punished by either side?"

      My kid has a Russian hockey coach. He's an American citizen. He's usually pretty quiet, but he's been more quiet than usual lately. I can only imagine what's going on in his head right now, with the way people are engaging in absurd acts of Russia Cancellation. He's usually somewhat aloof, but the past week or so, he's seemed particularly aloof, like he's trying to avoid being noticed.

      We had a moment this week. I said, "Hey coach. Everything good?" He said, "Yes. Good." I said, "Okay. Cool." He nodded once and said, "Thanks." That's the most words I've heard him say in a row off the ice.

      1. Nardz   3 years ago

        Russians are getting banned from restaurants (sound familiar?), fired, harassed around the world.
        It's insane.

        1. Cronut   3 years ago

          I actually have two sets of Russian nesting dolls that were brought back from Russia by a friend who spent some time there. One is the older, traditional style and the other is one of the newer styles that began to emerge after the USSR fell and people were freer to engage in artistic expression. They're both beautiful, handpainted works of art that are prominently displayed on my mantle. And I'm not fucking taking them down. And that doesn't mean I love Putin or want Ukrainians to die. It means that I love the art.

          1. Nardz   3 years ago

            Remember how out of our way leadership and people went over the last two decades to make sure Muslims weren't judged/associated with terrorist acts?

  43. Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland   3 years ago

    The most halarious thing about Russia and Ukraine is Christy Freeland (the Canadian cunt that is seizing bank accounts) waving a Ukrainian Nazi flag

  44. A Thinking Mind   3 years ago

    Is the fact that this officer went to trial not a legal consequence? The headline seems a tad disingenuous.

    1. Cronut   3 years ago

      Being tried and found not guilty is not enough. Someone must be punished.

      1. A Thinking Mind   3 years ago

        ENB is on the side of the people stoking up the mob, which should not come as a surprise.

        Officer indicted, officer brought to trial. 5 days of testimony, jury acquits the officer. The system did its thing.

        I didn't watch this trial, even though I've watched plenty of trials recently. Maybe the jury got this one wrong based on the evidence, but I don't know what came up at trial. Seems like this officer opened fire without knowing what his backstop was, but that's an idle musing and not me trying to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt.

        1. Cronut   3 years ago

          I didn't pay much attention to it either, so not 100% clear on the facts. I have plenty of issues with no-knock warrants, not the least of which is that they are needlessly reckless and dangerous for everyone on both sides of the door. It's possible the jury got it wrong, but he got a jury trial and that was the verdict. If the Say Her Name crowd has issue with the law, they should probably organize a campaign for substantive criminal justice reform that doesn't involve burning down cities and letting violent criminals who hurt other people walk free.

  45. Dillinger   3 years ago

    >>Disaster has been averted after a fire broke out at a Ukrainian nuclear power plant

    free Jack Lemmon!

  46. A Thinking Mind   3 years ago

    The conclusion of Hankison's trial shows is yet another reminder of how little actually changed since Taylor was killed in her own home, after police broke in unannounced and her boyfriend Kenneth Walker III—thinking they were intruders—fired at them. The subsequent return fire from the police officers killed her.

    Oh, fuck off.

    I have a lot of issues with the process of no-knock warrants. The officers who executed this warrant weren't the ones who asked for a no-knock and they allegedly knocked and announced before going in. They didn't go in guns blazing, they didn't return fire until an officer was shot and seriously wounded by fire coming from inside the house.

    Just because the death was tragic doesn't mean it was criminal. You can't say there is "no justice" here just because the officers weren't charged with murder-they were acting in self-defense just like the boyfriend was acting in self-defense.

    I've also learned a bit more about the warrant over the past days, by the way. It wasn't solely based on the idea that Breonna received "Amazon packages" with Glover's name. Police had a good bit more reason to suspect she and her apartment were connected with Glover's operation. When he had been in prison, they had recorded conversations with her talking with Glover about stuff being at the trap house (where the drugs were being sold). Glover told her which guy she had to call to get his money to bail him out. They have pictures of her, later on, at the actual trap house, then they followed her car back from the trap house to her apartment. Glover still had her apartment listed as his permanent address and was definitely getting mail there. They had plenty of probable cause to search her apartment.

    Now maybe this officer was reckless-he seemed to be shooting when he couldn't identify exactly where the threat was, and the direction of his shots seemed to have him aiming back at the muzzle flashes of the other officers. But I didn't watch this trial and I don't know what evidence the jury heard, and maybe they decided they had a reasonable doubt about his behavior being reckless. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is still the standard, even when you're pissed off at the police about shit.

    1. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

      Apparently, Brianna Muir at the WaPo had a stroke when someone accidentally called her "Brianna Taylor" on LinkedIn, claiming that it was some kind of deliberate attempt to traumatize her by calling her the name of Breonna.

      Like, bitch, the first names weren't even spelled the same and it was probably an autocorrect issue. Race Marxism in the universities and BLM simping in the media has really done a number of ramping up black paranoia.

  47. Dillinger   3 years ago

    also, my uncle who is on the AIDS quilt would have been 66 today. fuck you, Fauci.

    1. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   3 years ago

      If the US still exists in 75 years, we can only hope that they will be referring to Fauci the way we now refer to Lysenko - as a man that helped the West embrace the politicization of science.

      1. Dillinger   3 years ago

        hopes remain high.

    2. Cronut   3 years ago

      I'm sorry about your uncle.

      Fauci is a criminal and should be prosecuted for everything he's done, and all the lives he's cost.

      1. Dillinger   3 years ago

        gracias.

  48. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

    Let's face some reality. People supported police reform, most were disgusted by the video from Minneapolis. Then they went and made it about race, even claiming "all lives matter" was racist. They made it a left vs right issue. They attacked Rand Paul simply because he is a Republican, despite he was actually trying to get some meaningful police reforms passed. And they got violent, and people lost their lives as a result, and the media, including Reason at times, tried gaslighting us (ENB even did it in this story by not mentioning the violence associated with many of the protests) about "mostly peaceful protests". Add in progressive DAs that refuse to prosecute many crimes, defund the police, etc and are we surprised at all that people have turned away from police reform?

  49. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

    P.S. who else besides me is tired of the constant Ken v Nardz show? Who the fuck really cares who they believe is at fault at this point? They've both stated their positions, and no one is unaware of them now. Me I just don't war with Russia and the longer this goes on, the more likely someone is going to do something fatally stupid. Worrying about who is at fault misses the whole fucking point. We aren't leaving NATO, even if we want to, and the war drums are getting louder, and people seem to be more open to fighting Russia, or at least doing something really stupid which would likely result in us fighting Russia. I'd rather the whole thing was over. If we're worried about NATO countries, let's focus on protecting them, and stop worrying about Ukraine, because ain't nothing we can do now to stop that shit show.

    1. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   3 years ago

      who else besides me is tired of the constant Ken v Nardz show?

      Not me. It is infinitely better than the typical lefty shitstain v. the universe show.

      Nardz is exposing the utter corruption of Eastern European governments, Ken is referencing specific battles from WWII, it's all very exciting.

      1. tracerv   3 years ago

        I think it's been awesome too.

  50. Cronut   3 years ago

    https://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/1499835022546722818?s=20&t=9zIqW-n0hKV-G-XQguF2tw

    Jen Psaki says gas prices are up because of Putin, and not because of anything Biden has done.

    This is why Ukraine war propaganda pisses me off. The administration does not care about Ukraine. The goal of the socialist, progressive left has always been to eliminate the middle class, and they have been gifted a convenient boogeyman in the form of Putin and his invasion. Because they have failed to choke off the middle class and are losing control, they hope to use this war to induce more suffering in the name of "standing up for freedom," as means of duping the middle class into doing it themselves.

    Fuck Joe Biden.

    1. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   3 years ago

      Propaganda for useful idiots. It will take months for the availability of Russian crude oil for the last 2 weeks to affect the local prices of already refined gasoline. Plus Biden already promised to release oil from the reserves. What we are seeing is the effect of inflation increasing the cost of distribution in the U.S.

    2. Nardz   3 years ago

      "The goal of the socialist, progressive left has always been to eliminate the middle class, and they have been gifted a convenient boogeyman in the form of Putin and his invasion. Because they have failed to choke off the middle class and are losing control, they hope to use this war to induce more suffering in the name of "standing up for freedom," as means of duping the middle class into doing it themselves."

      Bingo

  51. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

    Nancy Rommelmann is heading to the Ukraine to do first-person reporting:

    https://twitter.com/nancyromm/status/1499727752232112130?s=21

    1. R Mac   3 years ago

      I hope she gets everyone’s official ID card so we can verify her reporting.

  52. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   3 years ago

    Of course it is to help people. It never starts in Room 101.

  53. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

    A simple yes or no would have sufficed.

    Are you one of those trolls that's gonna pretend like you don't understand what a simple yes or no means?

    I strongly suspect the reason Nardz won't simply say he wants Putin to lose is because he wants him to win. That is also a reasonable to explain Nardz apologizing for Putin--because he wants him to win.

    Do you want Putin to win?

    Why don't you show us that your idiot regurgitation of the Kremlin's talking points has nothing to do with your desire for Putin to win? Why don't you tell us in no uncertain terms that you want Putin to lose?

    I dare you.

  54. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

    Then Nardz is calling me broken for being a libertarian--because that's all American libertarianism 101.

    Incidentally, responding to reasonable arguments with name calling isn't libertarian either.

    You're not claiming to be a libertarian, are you?

  55. Nardz   3 years ago

    He's a broken, butthurt little bitch because I keep pointing out how he's been wrong.

  56. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

    You forgot to tell us that you want Putin to lose.

    Is there anyone apologizing for Putin in this thread who also wants Putin to lose?

    Anyone?

    We'd love to hear from you. Just tell us 1) that you want Putin to lose the war and 2) why Putin is justified in invading the Ukraine, 3) why the people of the Ukraine want Putin to rule over them if it wasn't for the CIA, and 4) that Putin is shelling Ukrainian cities from a distance because he wants to limit civilian casualties.

  57. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

    That's not name calling. That's a rational argument.

    General Premise: A useful idiot is someone who promulgates pro-Kremlin propaganda because they sincerely believe it to be true.

    Specific Premise: Nardz is promulgating pro-Kremlin propaganda because he sincerely believes it to be true.

    Conclusion: Nardz is a useful idiot.

  58. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

    He clearly is apologizing for Putin as outlined below in response to Commenter_XY.

    https://reason.com/2022/03/04/no-cops-will-face-legal-consequences-in-conjunction-with-breonna-taylor-killing/?comments=true#comment-9387347

  59. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

    After telling us that Putin was shelling Ukrainian cities from a distance--because he wants to limit civilian casualties--it became clear that we should all be laughing at you.

    "If armed civilians are unlikely to stop an invading force, the Russian regular army doesn't seem to think so. They're changing tactics and remain outside the cities after repeatedly being driven back by a force largely composed of armed civilian irregulars."

    ----Ken Shultz

    "Or, perhaps, it is because the Russians want to minimize civilian casualties and have no interest in killing, for all practical purposes, their own people. The cultural bonds between Russians and Ukrainians matter. Just something to consider."

    ----Geiger Goldstaedt

    https://reason.com/2022/03/02/ukrainians-take-up-arms-in-self-defense/?comments=true#comment-9382417

    How stupid and embarrassing for you, you pathetic Kremlin apologist!

  60. sarcasmic   3 years ago

    A useful idiot is someone who promotes a cause without fully understanding it. The first part makes them useful, the second part makes them idiots.

    I would argue instead that Ken is a useful idiot because he sticks his fingers in his ears and yells "La la I can't hear you!" whenever anyone presents an alternate point of view. On anything.

  61. Nardz   3 years ago

    See, Ken can't counter the arguments put for with logic based on the facts of the last 30 years, but his identity feels threatening and it outrages him. Look through this thread and find his arguments for what makes NATO an unquestionably positive force. They're not there.
    In other threads, Ken has said NATO's prevented war in Europe. From 2001-2014 maybe, but the Balkans were consumed by war in the 90s and war erupted in Ukraine in 2014. Further, NATO has spent 30 years at war, mostly in the mid east.
    I fail to see the evidence Ken has for NATO's existence having a peaceful effect.

  62. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

    That's not what I said at all.

    "1) The Ukrainian people would have wanted to lick Putin's boot if it wasn't for the CIA.

    "2) The reason Putin is going after the Ukraine is because the U.S. wants to expand NATO into the Ukraine--not because the Ukrainian people want to join NATO."

    "3) The reason Putin is surrounding the major cities and shelling them, rather than sending in ground troops, is because Putin wants to limit the number of civilian casualties."

    You've pushed those three positions, recently, and they're narratives that have been pushed as propaganda by the Kremlin.

    The reason they aren't worthy of serious consideration is because they aren't supported by logic or the facts.

    Pushing these three alone should be more than enough to make you a laughing stock around here, and as you continue to post more unsupportable bullshit, more and more people will start laughing at you--because they should.

    Taking any of those seriously would amount to bothsideism. It is often the case that both sides simply aren't worthy of equal consideration. If O.J. had told us why he stabbed his ex-wife to death, whatever that explanation was, it wasn't worth serious consideration. Stabbing your wife to death isn't justified. If bin Laden had some legitimate gripes about U.S. foreign policy, that's interesting I guess--but it doesn't justify murdering thousands of American citizens.

    Your claim that Putin is shelling Ukrainian cities because he wants to limit civilian casualties, likewise, isn't worthy of serious consideration. It's stupid. And if I gave that argument any serious consideration, my fellow libertarians should ridicule me for it--for engaging in bothsideism.

  63. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

    Absolutely.

    General Premise: An apologist for Putin's brutality is someone who defends Putin's brutality.

    Specific Premise: Geiger Goldstaedt defended Putin's brutality.

    Conclusion: Therefore, Geiger Goldstaedt is an apologist for Putin's brutality.

  64. R Mac   3 years ago

    “Incidentally, responding to reasonable arguments with name calling isn't libertarian either.”

    You fucking called Nardz Hanoi Jane the other day Ken.

  65. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   3 years ago

    Ken, did you miss the part I posted the other day about when the populace take up arms they are no longer classified as civilians under the rules of war? When Ukraine handed out weapons, which the Russians could watch on TV, for goodness sake, they became fair game. The buildings shown on CNN become valid targets.

    Show me footage of Russians shelling fleeing caravans and you might have a point.

  66. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

    "Assholes are someone that accuse anyone that disagrees with them of being enemy agents."

    So, what you do is attack the premises, attack the way the premises are put together (the logic), or you formulate a valid, factual counterargument.

    The facts here are a problem because I've been arguing with people here every day for more than a decade, and I haven't accused anyone of being an enemy agent in all that time.

    The first premise of your argument isn't fact based, and that's just getting started.

  67. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   3 years ago

    Do you understand that if Putin thinks he is going to lose that he might no longer care about turning Kiev into a crater? The last nation that proved willing to use a nuke has not had its borders violated for the next 75 years and still counting.

    Putin winning could be what is best for the region.

  68. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

    You've already told us that the reason Putin is shelling Ukrainian cities is because he wants to limit civilian casualties, so we know you're a Putin apologist, but you forgot to tell us that you want Putin to lose.

    Again, is there anyone apologizing for Putin in this thread who also wants Putin to lose?

  69. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

    "Putin winning could be what is best for the region."

    Considering that the Ukrainian people are fighting against him rather than laying down their arms, I don't think it's possible to separate what is best for the region from the Ukrainian people's desire to fight for their freedom. That way lies elitism. Meanwhile, the reason Putin invaded the Ukraine is because the Ukrainian people want to become part of the EU and because they want to join NATO.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union%E2%80%93Ukraine_Association_Agreement#Ratification

  70. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   3 years ago

    Considering that the Ukrainian people are fighting against him rather than laying down their arms, I don't think it's possible to separate what is best for the region from the Ukrainian people's desire to fight for their freedom.

    It certainly is possible. If they don't get assistance they will lose. They are watching the propaganda blitz in the West right along with us. But all the support on Facetwit or Tikogram is not going to stop a Russian from smashing their phone and shooting them in the head 2 seconds later.

    Plus, the Ukrainians themselves have emptied their prisons and supplied even the low level organized crime outfits with military ordinance. Even if they win, they will lose.

    It would take a full NATO occupation to restore order. You know who else knows that? The guy that is saying that NATO wants to occupy the Ukraine.

    The only scenario where Ukraine is not well and truly fucked is if someone manages to assassinate Putin, some pro-NATO oligarch takes his place and they discover a wild herd of unicorns up in the Carpathian foothills.

  71. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

    "If they don't get assistance they will lose."

    I'm not sure about that. They chased their last Russian puppet out with a persistent protest of 500,000 CIA agents dressed up as Ukrainian citizens (according to the Kremlin). The Putin puppet eventually had to flee Ukraine for Russia.

    See the protest for yourself:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJnZOwW3aXM

    Why would the next Putin puppet fare better?

    Even if this descends into an Iraq like situation, I doubt our NATO allies would stop funding the Ukrainian insurgency--even if the U.S. did. The Baltics and Poland have been especially forthcoming with arms because they know they're next on the list. The Sunni insurgency in Iraq never enjoyed as much support as the Ukrainian insurgency would, and look what they did to the U.S. occupation of Iraq.

    They might lose the government without our assistance. They probably will lose control of the country with or without our assistance. They will probably mount an effective insurgency with or without our assistance. It is not in our best interests to go to war with Russia over the Ukraine, but it is in our best interests for Putin to lose.

    I believe all of those things are true.

  72. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   3 years ago

    I believe all of those things are true.

    Opinions are like assholes.

    To be honest, I am at loss to assess if any of the commenters are being cynical or naïve or just relying on different bits of history to justify our positions. Except for that asshole sarcasmic. He is just here to troll you.

    I still think that if Putin is denied a prize he could very well throw a tactical nuclear shit fit to forestall a NATO occupation.

  73. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

    "I still think that if Putin is denied a prize he could very well throw a tactical nuclear shit fit to forestall a NATO occupation."

    We've been through this before.

    In the past, arming an insurgency hasn't triggered a nuclear war, and that used to be going on all over the world. The closest we ever got was probably during the Cuban missile crisis. Since then, going to war with each other's proxies hasn't risked a nuclear conflict. Regardless, I don't think Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland continuing to arm an insurgency--whether we do or not--is a matter of my personal opinion. I doubt we could stop them from arming the Ukrainians if we wanted. Likewise, I bet Turkey continues to send them all the drones they can use.

    And with all that support, I'm not sure it's up to us. Putin may not be any more successful in pacifying the Ukraine than we were in pacifying Iraq.

  74. Nardz   3 years ago

    ""If they don't get assistance they will lose."

    I'm not sure about that."

    But you are sure that Russia will go on to conquer the Baltic states?
    So... Russia might not be able to beat Ukraine, but will totes steamroll on if they do.
    That's an illogical opinion.

  75. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

    Regardless of whether you want to classify all the women and children in those cities as civilians or combatants, Putin's decision to shell the cities was not driven by a desire to limit casualties. That claim--by itself--is ridiculous on its face. Geiger Goldstaedt's claim was that Putin was trying to limit civilian casualties!

    Meanwhile, this has happened before (more than once), and the Russians' tactics are predictably consistent.

    "The initial assault resulted in considerable Russian casualties and demoralization in the Russian forces. It took another two months of heavy fighting, and a change in tactics, before the Russian Army was able to capture Grozny. The battle caused enormous destruction and casualties amongst the civilian population and saw the heaviest bombing campaign in Europe since the end of World War II.[9]

    ----Battle of Grozny

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_(1994%E2%80%931995)

    Doesn't that sound familiar?

    They used the same tactics in Syria.

  76. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

    Not because I said so. Because the claim itself is ludicrous. No serious person believes that the point of shelling a city is to limit casualties. That's just stupid.

  77. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

    "You fucking called Nardz Hanoi Jane the other day Ken."

    Um . . . is that name calling or is that a legitimate argument?

    I call it "Jane Fonda Syndrome", where people start off with a reasonable premise, like opposing the Vietnam War, and then somehow, over time, feel compelled to take the enemy's side.

    Jane Fonda was a useful idiot. She posed on an enemy AA gun, and she basically called tortured American POWS a bunch of liars. To the extent that Nardz acts like a useful idiot, he is acting like Jane Fonda.

  78. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

    P.S. I also argued, at the time, that Jane Fonda Syndrome undermines the argument against the war by hurting our credibility. It's sort of like Orwell trying to defend socialism by denouncing communism. My opposition to the U.S. going to war with Russia over the Ukraine doesn't depend on believing in or promulgating Kremlin propaganda in the least. The people who engage in that are hurting the cause of opposing a war. They're making us look like a bunch of naive Putin apologists. It's embarrassing, and I'm just calling it out like it is.

  79. Nardz   3 years ago

    Ken hopes you haven't read what I write and have written. If you do, you'll see a case being made that he doesn't approve of. Ken dismisses it as "Kremlin propaganda" because Ken himself relies on all of us accepting the pronouncements of our institutions as unquestionable gospel.
    I think it's fairly clear that I've arrived at my arguments by looking at events over many years and factors that may influence them and applied logic to posit what they mean.
    Readers are free to judge for themselves, and I welcome debate on the issues. It is that very debate which had helped me clarify my own thoughts on the subject.
    Unfortunately some people, like neokeNN and sqrlvo, don't want debate they want blind acceptance. They're entitled to have that wish, but they aren't entitled to have it granted.

  80. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

    The reason I said you're acting like Jane Fonda isn't because I insist that you accept the pronouncements of my approved news sources. The reason I said you're acting like Jane Fonda is because you're acting like Jane Fonda. It's time to come down off the AA gun already. It's time to stop spreading propaganda for America' enemy.

  81. sarcasmic   3 years ago

    Ken is arguing against you as a person, not what you said. He's not saying "What you said is wrong, here's the real history" he's saying "You like Putin so you're a poopy-head." Pretty soon he'll be calling you a leftist and saying you voted for Biden. That's how it works around here.

  82. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   3 years ago

    For the entire course of the war, the Russian political officers had orders to shoot any soldier or civilian who fled any conflict. They gave zero shits about nation of origin or what language they spoke.

    I have seen footage of unarmed Ukrainians walking out of occupied territory. Putin is limiting civilian casualties. The armed populace are not civilians.

    People cheered the Polish cavalry on, right up until the Panzers ran them the fuck over.

  83. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

    Your "argument" was exposed. That was the point.

    If I make a valid, fact based argument that Stalin was a murderer, that isn't a personal attack.

    If you don't know the difference between making a rational argument that hurts someone's feelings and an ad hominem fallacy, then you need to go educate yourself.

    Suffice it to say, a useful idiot for Putin is what it is regardless of whether you feel sorry for Nardz.

    "Person 1 is accused of Y, but person 1 is pathetic.

    Therefore, person 1 is innocent.

    ----Appeal to Pity

    https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Pity

  84. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

    "It wasn't an argument, Ken. I was insulting you."

    If a fool is someone who can't understand a rational argument, you're making a good case that you're a fool.

    I exposed your "argument" as an insult. Do you really not know what that means after I spelled it out for you?

    Does the term "scare quotes" mean anything to you?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes

  85. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

    For fuck's sake Ken, cut it out. You usually take the high ground.

  86. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

    How is watching some useful idiot flood Reason with Kremlin propaganda--and saying nothing to counter it--the high ground?

    Is it hard to believe that Nardz has been duped?

  87. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

    Nardz isn't flooding us with Kremlin propaganda, and you're not countering it. You're arguing against what you think he's standing for, rather than what he's actually said.

    And unfortunately he's doing the same thing to you.

    I really thought that you both were bigger than this.

  88. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

    Keep your eyes open.

    Everything he's saying is pro-Putin, and Kremlin propaganda is the ultimate source for all of it--whether he realizes it or not.

    He's just regurgitating Kremlin talking points. He means well. So did Jane Fonda.

    The last thing the libertarian movement needs is a bunch of Jane Fondas making us look bad, and I won't shut up about it.

  89. Nardz   3 years ago

    Fuck you, Ken.
    You are broken, not nearly as intelligent as you think you are, and I don't really give a shit if you judge me as pro Putin or not.
    You sound just like a progressive with TDS.
    It's pretty fucking clear which one of us has thought through their position and which of us is relying on the authority of media, politicians, and the mob for moral elevation.
    Keep acting like a bitch and being constantly surprised by the results. Like with Suleimani and covid.

  90. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

    At this point I'm sick and tired of both you and Nardz takes on Russia-v-Ukraine. You sound a little too pro-Ukrainian for me and Nardz sounds to Pro-Russian. Me, I'm pro-American, and could care less which of these countries is at fault, I simply don't care, because the longer the war goes on the greater the chance we'll do something stupid and get in a real hot war with Russia, and then it's just a question of time before the nukes start flying.

    Let's stop the stupid arguments about who is at fault and just realize that this whole debacle is a mess we never should have gotten involved in, and the longer it lasts the greater the likelihood that someone ends up doing something fatally stupid for everyone.

  91. Nardz   3 years ago

    I'm convinced

  92. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

    My intent is purely pro-American. I have repeatedly stated, in this thread and plenty of others, that we should not go to war with Russia over the Ukraine--because it isn't in the best interests of the United State to go to war with the Ukraine.

    It is, however, in the best interests of the United States for Putin to fail miserably in the Ukraine because Putin wants to bring the old satellites of the USSR back into his orbit, and they're NATO allies. I also believe that NATO is in the best interest of the United States--as a serious deterrent to war.

    Putin could not win a conventional war against NATO--not even if the United States cut its defense budget by two-thirds. The economies of NATO are so much larger than the Russian economy, that if every NATO member spent only 2% of its GDP on defense, they would still be spending so much on defense, that Putin would need to spend 50% of Russia's GDP just to match us on funding.

    I would have opposed the U.S. going to war in Vietnam because it wasn't in America's interests.

    I opposed the U.S. going into Rwanda because it wasn't in America's interests--which didn't require me to pretend there wasn't a genocide going on.

    I opposed the U.S. deposing Saddam Hussein and invading Iraq--because it wasn't in America's best interests. That didn't mean I had to pretend that Saddam Hussein wasn't an oppressive tyrant.

    I oppose the U.S. going to war in the Ukraine--can you guess why? That's right! It's because it isn't in our best interests to go to war with Russia over the Ukraine.

    In order to prevent Putin from provoking a war with one of NATO allies in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, or Poland, I believe it is in the best interests of the United States for Putin to lose and the Ukraine to win. In short, I want Putin to lose; I want the Ukraine to win, and I want that because I think it's in the best interests of the United States to avoid a war with Russia.

  93. Cronut   3 years ago

    Also, Russians are white, so no racial component. Since they're white, it could actually go in their favor with the lefties.

  94. Commenter_XY   3 years ago

    Ken, just so you know. I seek first to understand; then make myself understood.

    I am not interpreting Nardz' posts or responses to my questions as evidence he 'secretly supports and apologizes for' Putin. Not seeing that. A number of points Nardz makes are valid points. Now I don't agree with his jaundiced view of NATO, but I understand his frame of reference - it is a plausible interpretation of history (just incorrect, IMO). I also think Nardz is not making a correct analogy between Israel/Russia, geopolitically and militarily....but Ok, reasonable people disagree.

    The law has a wonderful principle called lenity. Basically, assume the most optimistic plausible interpretation for acts, words, and deeds. Maybe try some lenity here wrt Nardz?

  95. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

    "Nardz linking to a tweet is not a good reason to doubt that the fire at the nuclear plant was started by Russian shelling--especially considering that the Russians weren't in control of the plant yesterday, they were shelling the area, and the Russians are in control of the plant today."

    There is a claim and three facts listed there, and all you can do is talk about Wikipedia--despite the fact that I didn't link to Wikipedia. Again, all you can do is talk about the sources of information rather than the data itself. It isn't about whether what you believe is supported by facts and logic. It's about who you think I believe, and that's stupid. There's even a term for that particular kind of stupid. It's basically a function of the appeal to authority fallacy (or its flip side, the ad hominem). Nothing is true of false because of the person that says it.

    Even Kremlin propaganda can be true. The thing about Russian propaganda, however, is that 1) you can't deny it's Russian propaganda, and 2) they have a terrible track record. The question isn't whether my sources are reliable. The question is whether the statements are true and whether a rational conclusion can be drawn from it.

    1) Were the Russians in control of the nuclear plant the day before?

    2) Was there other shelling in the area?

    3) Are the Russians in control of the nuclear plant now?

    If all those things are true, from multiple sources, then Nardz' tweet isn't a good reason to dismiss stories from multiple sources that a fire broke out at the nuclear power plant because of Russian shelling.

    In fact, this is probably another one of those bothsideism issues.

    On the one hand, Multiple sources report Russian shelling led to a fire at nuclear power plant.

    On the other hand, maybe the CIA or someone is tricking people into thinking that the Russians shelled a nuclear power plant--just to make Putin look bad.

    One of those claims is probably unworthy of serious consideration.

  96. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   3 years ago

    Putin is not immoral, he is amoral. Immoral people can be negotiated with by appealing to their self-interest.

    Stalin didn't kill people because he hated them, he killed them for the good of all the people. Which as C.S. Lewis pointed out, is infinitely worse. At the end of the day, Putin was groomed to be a Soviet leader. He can justify killing people to liberate them.

    So the question really becomes, which system is more oppressive to the individual Ukrainian? The Ukrainian oligarchs, or the Russians. Because of their own government and Western propaganda, they may not have all the information to make a wise decision.

    It does not bode well that Zelensky has already been caught lying about personally fighting with his military. The guy is literally a bad actor.

  97. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

    "So the question really becomes, which system is more oppressive to the individual Ukrainian? The Ukrainian oligarchs, or the Russians."

    You seem to be completely ignoring the European Union Ukraine Association Agreement.

    Check the links yourself for the facts.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union%E2%80%93Ukraine_Association_Agreement

    The fact is that Ukrainian people rose up against their Putin puppet for getting in the way of this agreement, and this agreement is the ultimate reason why Putin invaded. It was ratified by every single individual legislature in the EU, and it makes the Ukraine change their laws and their Constitution so as to make their government and their judicial system transparent--like the EU. Putin is invading to prevent the Ukrainians from freeing themselves of the corruption you're referring to as "Ukrainian" oligarchy. Those oligarchs are holdovers from when Putin's puppet was in power.

    They still had a long way to go, but the choice wasn't between "Ukrainian" oligarchs and Putin. It was between freeing themselves from Putin's shadow--and the corruption that entails--or being subjugated by Putin.

  98. Chuck P. (The Artist formerly known as CTSP)   3 years ago

    The fact is that Ukrainian people rose up against their Putin puppet for getting in the way of this agreement, and this agreement is the ultimate reason why Putin invaded. It was ratified by every single individual legislature in the EU, and it makes the Ukraine change their laws and their Constitution so as to make their government and their judicial system transparent--like the EU.

    A note to the trolls that this is what honest discourse looks like in an open public forum. People state opinions, others present their own, each side attempting to persuade to other without appeals to authority or other fallacious twaddle. Resolution is not required as long as the rebuttals remain honest and logical.

    That being said, I will peruse the link. I am not sure I will be convinced that the EU is a great model for transparency or that such an agreement can address organized crime, but I will consider it.

    As to the Donbas and Crimea, the history of the U.S. complicates acknowledging regional autonomy as Taiwan well knows.

  99. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSwDONZURCA

  100. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWz5NSjlJ7Q

  101. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5L0A90RtZ0

  102. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kK7xG_Q0Tkg

  103. Nardz   3 years ago

    There's video of rockets being fired from the building the cctv camera is mounted on, which is what I linked to.

  104. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

    Eat shit.

  105. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

    Yeah, I tried that.

    Watch him going forward. Don't make up your mind just yet. Just watch and see what you get.

    I bet it's a bunch of pro-Putin propaganda, like we've been getting for the last week.

    I hope I'm wrong.

  106. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

    Excellent article. Everyone here should read it.

    Putin is very much a WEF creation. Whether he's playing along to the script or has gone rogue is the real question.

  107. Commenter_XY   3 years ago

    This Ukraine invasion has prompted me to look into the 1000+ years of history between Russia and Ukraine. Because of Nardz? Partly yes, and that is good. But also, I want to understand for myself whether there is even the potential that Ukraine could become a vital US national interest or not. Thusfar, I think not. And, Putin has explicitly stated he has no interest in militarily engaging NATO. Consequently, I feel even more strongly that it is a spectacularly bad idea for the US to ship weapons directly>/i> to Ukraine. Regardless of what happens in Europe, we have to keep a line of communication open between Russia and America (independent of Europe). If we ship weapons directly to Ukraine, that line of communication closes.

    My mind is not made up. I can understand (not agree with) the Russian historical perspective, and see how they arrived at their way of looking at competitors (i.e. America). Russia's history largely dictates their interpretative framework to assess history. There are many cultural, social and religious connections (similarities?) between Russia and Ukraine. It is not total bullshit when Putin talked about the shared history of Russia and Ukraine.

    Regardless, Ukraine's free choice on charting their path in history has been violated by Russia. There is no escaping this objective fact. That is the core wrong.

    Net net: Russia is in the wrong and we all know it. I also think Nardz will eventually concede this, just because of his libertarian oriented philosophy.

    For America, it is time to think about Putin's exit ramp, and find a way not to obstruct that exit ramp. Let the Europeans supply Ukraine with weapons, and America resupply Europe. The Ukrainians will keep Russia engaged for some time, provided they receive weapons from Europe. But America must not ship weapons directly into Ukraine. That is not in our interest. America must keep some line of communication open to Russia; they are a nuclear power and we can never, ever lose sight of that objective fact.

    I'll be watching, Ken. You make a 'fair ask'.

  108. Commenter_XY   3 years ago

    ah shit, messed up some html. 🙁

  109. Nardz   3 years ago

    "I think the reality is that Ukraine itself was and remains a deeply divided country, with many internal factions that wanted (and, continue to want) different things"

    Ukraine is like Iraq in some ways, with 3 identifiable divisions: pro EU Ukrainians, pro Ukrainian Russians, and moderates of both ethnicities that like and dislike both peoples. The 2014 coup legally isolated and targeted Russian ethnics and they were victimized by literal-nazi paramilitaries.
    It's Wikipedia, so as whitewashed and sympathetic to Maidan forces as possible, but...
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Odessa_clashes
    "Clashes between pro-Maidan and anti-Maidan demonstrators erupted in the southern Ukrainian city of Odessa in 2014, in reaction to Euromaidan. The clashes culminated on 2 May, when 46 anti-Maidan and two pro-Maidan activists were killed and over 200 people were injured during a confrontation in the city center and the Trade Unions House."
    It's similar to the sectarian tensions of Iraq with the literal-nazis filling the role the Suleimani backed Shia militias did there. But instead of AQI providing the response, it's Russia.

  110. Don't look at me!   3 years ago

    I barfed a little.

  111. Nardz   3 years ago

    "Whether he's playing along to the script or has gone rogue is the real question."

    This is the part I can't figure out. There's some evidence he's gone rogue, but there's evidence the other way, like the timing of this invasion, as well.

  112. Utkonos   3 years ago

    This coming Sunday is the 40th anniversary of the death of Ayn Rand. Wonder if Reason remembered to file a weekend thought piece?

  113. Utkonos   3 years ago

    I was posting this separately, how it got posted as a response is beyond me

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Science Needs Dissent: NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya on COVID, Autism, and Climate Change

Matthew Rozsa | 8.2.2025 7:00 AM

Chris Arnade on China, Wall Street, and Walking Around the World

Tyler Cowen | From the August/September 2025 issue

Trump Is Openly Using the Presidency To Enrich the Trump Brand

Matt Welch | 8.1.2025 5:00 PM

A Cop Lied, Fabricated a Sex-Trafficking Case, and Jailed a Teen on False Charges—and Still Can't Be Sued

Billy Binion | 8.1.2025 4:49 PM

Shattering Norms: Federal Immigration Agents Aren't Afraid to Smash Your Car Window

Autumn Billings | 8.1.2025 4:01 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2025 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!