|
|
|
|
This is probably too obvious to state out loud, but Russian propaganda (of which Yanukovich has been part for more than a decade), you don't hear innovative new accusations towards their opponents, you hear repeated whatever they are accused of currently. If they are accused of corruption, they start accusing everyone else of corruption. If they are accused of supporting fascist groups (nashi, etc), they start accusing others of being fascist. If they are accused of rigging elections, they start accusing others of election fraud. Etc. Etc. You basically know what they're up to by listening to what they're accusing other of.
|
A couple pages back there was a link to the choices of the referendum next week. One was to join Russia, the other was to roll back the laws/constitution to an older version that would allow them to join Russia quickly. Is it really true that there is no option to maintain the status quo? Do people like zeo see this as legitimate if it is true?
|
You want corruption? http://kurier.at/chronik/wien/ukrainischer-premier-jazenjuk-am-wiener-flughafen-von-cobra-gestoppt/54.780.528 (German, sorry)
Basically it's about that an airplane with Arseni Jazenjuk on board was stopped and searched for "terrorists" But another item catched my eyes:
" und hatte unter anderem angekündigt, dass seine Regierung "alle Bedingungen des Internationalen Währungsfonds, inklusive einer Privatisierung des Öl- und Gassektors" erfüllen werde."
Meaning: The not elected, interims president already confirms, that the Ukraine will give up their (quite big!) Oil and Gas reserves to "private entrepreneurs" for the help of the IWF. You need more proof, that here is more going on then the eye can see?
|
^ It is true. I posted the link.
Ukraine is taking steps against Russian propaganda:
This will make a great many people in the West think long and hard, on the one hand, media freedom and `the strongest argument wins' are essential concepts, on the other hand, those channels are not free and they do not allow their viewers to see dissenting views. So, anyone who ONLY watches those channels receives no free media.
|
The land of freedom23126 Posts
On March 11 2014 22:00 Saryph wrote: A couple pages back there was a link to the choices of the referendum next week. One was to join Russia, the other was to roll back the laws/constitution to an older version that would allow them to join Russia quickly. Is it really true that there is no option to maintain the status quo? Do people like zeo see this is legitimate if it is true?
Nah, one point is to join Russia, second is revert to 1992 Consitution which is same to Autonomic Crimea in Ukraine.
|
On March 11 2014 22:17 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 22:00 Saryph wrote: A couple pages back there was a link to the choices of the referendum next week. One was to join Russia, the other was to roll back the laws/constitution to an older version that would allow them to join Russia quickly. Is it really true that there is no option to maintain the status quo? Do people like zeo see this is legitimate if it is true? Nah, one point is to join Russia, second is revert to 1992 Consitution which is same to Autonomic Crimea in Ukraine.
How can you not give people a choice to keep the law the way it is now? When I am faced with a choice on a law when I vote, it is 'Do you want to add this law or not (maintain status quo)."
|
On March 11 2014 22:00 Saryph wrote: A couple pages back there was a link to the choices of the referendum next week. One was to join Russia, the other was to roll back the laws/constitution to an older version that would allow them to join Russia quickly. Is it really true that there is no option to maintain the status quo? Do people like zeo see this is legitimate if it is true? The acting government in Kiev is illegitimate, whatever is happening now in Ukraine is the direct result of euromaidan. I mean look at the title of this thread, if you want everything to go back to status quo the rule of Ukraine must not be in the hands of brass-knuckle wearing thugs, it should be given back to democratically elected representatives.
If I were to use a vampire analogy, euromaiden would be the queen vampire while Crimea is a baby one. Spending too much time going after the baby vampires while ignoring the queen that is making them is silly.
|
On March 11 2014 22:17 oo_Wonderful_oo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 22:00 Saryph wrote: A couple pages back there was a link to the choices of the referendum next week. One was to join Russia, the other was to roll back the laws/constitution to an older version that would allow them to join Russia quickly. Is it really true that there is no option to maintain the status quo? Do people like zeo see this is legitimate if it is true? Nah, one point is to join Russia, second is revert to 1992 Consitution which is same to Autonomic Crimea in Ukraine. The problem is that the 2nd option gives the Crimea government the power to declare themselves a part of Russia.\ Since its common knowledge they want to join its a yes/yes vote.
|
On March 11 2014 22:21 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 22:00 Saryph wrote: A couple pages back there was a link to the choices of the referendum next week. One was to join Russia, the other was to roll back the laws/constitution to an older version that would allow them to join Russia quickly. Is it really true that there is no option to maintain the status quo? Do people like zeo see this is legitimate if it is true? The acting government in Kiev is illegitimate, whatever is happening now in Ukraine is the direct result of euromaidan. I mean look at the title of this thread, if you want everything to go back to status quo the rule of Ukraine must not be in the hands of brass-knuckle wearing thugs, it should be given back to democratically elected representatives. If I were to use a vampire analogy, euromaiden would be the queen vampire while Crimea is a baby one. Spending too much time going after the baby vampires while ignoring the queen that is making them is silly.
What about the crimean government. Is it legitimate? The prime minister of crimea or who ever he is got 4% in election in crimea...
|
Ukraine's parliament has warned the regional assembly in Crimea that it faces dissolution unless it cancels a referendum it has called to join the region to Russia. Source.
|
On March 11 2014 22:21 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 22:00 Saryph wrote: A couple pages back there was a link to the choices of the referendum next week. One was to join Russia, the other was to roll back the laws/constitution to an older version that would allow them to join Russia quickly. Is it really true that there is no option to maintain the status quo? Do people like zeo see this is legitimate if it is true? The acting government in Kiev is illegitimate, whatever is happening now in Ukraine is the direct result of euromaidan. I mean look at the title of this thread, if you want everything to go back to status quo the rule of Ukraine must not be in the hands of brass-knuckle wearing thugs, it should be given back to democratically elected representatives. If I were to use a vampire analogy, euromaiden would be the queen vampire while Crimea is a baby one. Spending too much time going after the baby vampires while ignoring the queen that is making them is silly.
They already did that, hence the Rada governs. Your ability to ignore reality continues to astound me.
Edit:
Also, welcome to the 21st century everyone.
|
On March 11 2014 22:24 Fjodorov wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 22:21 zeo wrote:On March 11 2014 22:00 Saryph wrote: A couple pages back there was a link to the choices of the referendum next week. One was to join Russia, the other was to roll back the laws/constitution to an older version that would allow them to join Russia quickly. Is it really true that there is no option to maintain the status quo? Do people like zeo see this is legitimate if it is true? The acting government in Kiev is illegitimate, whatever is happening now in Ukraine is the direct result of euromaidan. I mean look at the title of this thread, if you want everything to go back to status quo the rule of Ukraine must not be in the hands of brass-knuckle wearing thugs, it should be given back to democratically elected representatives. If I were to use a vampire analogy, euromaiden would be the queen vampire while Crimea is a baby one. Spending too much time going after the baby vampires while ignoring the queen that is making them is silly. What about the crimean government. Is it legitimate? The prime minister of crimea or who ever he is got 4% in election in crimea... Sergey Aksyonov was voted in to the position of Prime Minister of Crimea with 55 out of 64 votes by the democratically elected Crimean parliament. If someone who received 0% of the vote in presidential elections can somehow be elected president of Ukraine than it would be hypocritical to claim that Crimeans wouldn't have the same rights.
|
On March 11 2014 22:38 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 22:24 Fjodorov wrote:On March 11 2014 22:21 zeo wrote:On March 11 2014 22:00 Saryph wrote: A couple pages back there was a link to the choices of the referendum next week. One was to join Russia, the other was to roll back the laws/constitution to an older version that would allow them to join Russia quickly. Is it really true that there is no option to maintain the status quo? Do people like zeo see this is legitimate if it is true? The acting government in Kiev is illegitimate, whatever is happening now in Ukraine is the direct result of euromaidan. I mean look at the title of this thread, if you want everything to go back to status quo the rule of Ukraine must not be in the hands of brass-knuckle wearing thugs, it should be given back to democratically elected representatives. If I were to use a vampire analogy, euromaiden would be the queen vampire while Crimea is a baby one. Spending too much time going after the baby vampires while ignoring the queen that is making them is silly. What about the crimean government. Is it legitimate? The prime minister of crimea or who ever he is got 4% in election in crimea... Sergey Aksyonov was voted in to the position of Prime Minister of Crimea with 55 out of 64 votes by the democratically elected Crimean parliament. If someone who received 0% of the vote in presidential elections can somehow be elected president of Ukraine than it would be hypocritical to claim that Crimeans wouldn't have the same rights.
so both are legitimate or both are illegitimate? Which is it?
|
On March 11 2014 22:38 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 22:24 Fjodorov wrote:On March 11 2014 22:21 zeo wrote:On March 11 2014 22:00 Saryph wrote: A couple pages back there was a link to the choices of the referendum next week. One was to join Russia, the other was to roll back the laws/constitution to an older version that would allow them to join Russia quickly. Is it really true that there is no option to maintain the status quo? Do people like zeo see this is legitimate if it is true? The acting government in Kiev is illegitimate, whatever is happening now in Ukraine is the direct result of euromaidan. I mean look at the title of this thread, if you want everything to go back to status quo the rule of Ukraine must not be in the hands of brass-knuckle wearing thugs, it should be given back to democratically elected representatives. If I were to use a vampire analogy, euromaiden would be the queen vampire while Crimea is a baby one. Spending too much time going after the baby vampires while ignoring the queen that is making them is silly. What about the crimean government. Is it legitimate? The prime minister of crimea or who ever he is got 4% in election in crimea... Sergey Aksyonov was voted in to the position of Prime Minister of Crimea with 55 out of 64 votes by the democratically elected Crimean parliament. If someone who received 0% of the vote in presidential elections can somehow be elected president of Ukraine than it would be hypocritical to claim that Crimeans wouldn't have the same rights.
This discussion is asking all the wrong questions, it's not about whether the PM of Crimea WOULD BE LEGITIMATE if they received 55/64 votes (out of 81 members of the Parliament btw...), it's whether the actual votes, especially on the referendum/joining Russia are legitimate. Here's an article which explains why it's not.
Member of the Crimean parliament Nicolay Sumulidi voted for the proposal to hold a referendum on joining Russia. At least this is what the official voting records say. The problem is, however, that he was never present. It was 04:30 in the morning on Thursday last week that several dozens of masked soldiers, armed with Kalashnikov-rifles, stormed into the regional assembly in Simferopol. At dawn, the Russian tricolor was flying over the parliament building. Russia’s president Vladimir Putin says he has no plans to annex the Crimea, but maintains that the citizens must be allowed to decide for themselves. Aftenposten’s correspondent interviewed a dozen members of the regional assembly, and talked to a number of central players and eyewitnesses. The conclusion is that the people’s will is far from deciding events in the Crimea. *** Rules require that at least 51 representatives be present in order to hold a qualified vote. The new goverment says 61 members of parliament took part. Aftenposten’s research shows, however, that only 36 were present. - The system which registers who voted, and what we voted for or against, shows I did cast a vote. But I was not there. Neither were a large majority of my colleagues, says Sumulidi. Representative Irina Klyuyeva also participated in the vote, according to the official records, but she was not present either. Source.
|
On March 11 2014 22:40 Fjodorov wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 22:38 zeo wrote:On March 11 2014 22:24 Fjodorov wrote:On March 11 2014 22:21 zeo wrote:On March 11 2014 22:00 Saryph wrote: A couple pages back there was a link to the choices of the referendum next week. One was to join Russia, the other was to roll back the laws/constitution to an older version that would allow them to join Russia quickly. Is it really true that there is no option to maintain the status quo? Do people like zeo see this is legitimate if it is true? The acting government in Kiev is illegitimate, whatever is happening now in Ukraine is the direct result of euromaidan. I mean look at the title of this thread, if you want everything to go back to status quo the rule of Ukraine must not be in the hands of brass-knuckle wearing thugs, it should be given back to democratically elected representatives. If I were to use a vampire analogy, euromaiden would be the queen vampire while Crimea is a baby one. Spending too much time going after the baby vampires while ignoring the queen that is making them is silly. What about the crimean government. Is it legitimate? The prime minister of crimea or who ever he is got 4% in election in crimea... Sergey Aksyonov was voted in to the position of Prime Minister of Crimea with 55 out of 64 votes by the democratically elected Crimean parliament. If someone who received 0% of the vote in presidential elections can somehow be elected president of Ukraine than it would be hypocritical to claim that Crimeans wouldn't have the same rights. so both are legitimate or both are illegitimate? Which is it? Please read my previous posts, its all there.
|
Could someone who speaks the language give me a rough outline/confirmation about the link below? Also let me know if the website is known for unreasonable bias?
My google translate of it makes it seem to say that the Ukrainian government arrested a Russian (who they suspect is GRU?) with explosives who they suspect was planning bombing attacks, possibly to provoke a response? Seems like news.
http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2014/03/11/7018402/
|
On March 11 2014 22:43 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 22:40 Fjodorov wrote:On March 11 2014 22:38 zeo wrote:On March 11 2014 22:24 Fjodorov wrote:On March 11 2014 22:21 zeo wrote:On March 11 2014 22:00 Saryph wrote: A couple pages back there was a link to the choices of the referendum next week. One was to join Russia, the other was to roll back the laws/constitution to an older version that would allow them to join Russia quickly. Is it really true that there is no option to maintain the status quo? Do people like zeo see this is legitimate if it is true? The acting government in Kiev is illegitimate, whatever is happening now in Ukraine is the direct result of euromaidan. I mean look at the title of this thread, if you want everything to go back to status quo the rule of Ukraine must not be in the hands of brass-knuckle wearing thugs, it should be given back to democratically elected representatives. If I were to use a vampire analogy, euromaiden would be the queen vampire while Crimea is a baby one. Spending too much time going after the baby vampires while ignoring the queen that is making them is silly. What about the crimean government. Is it legitimate? The prime minister of crimea or who ever he is got 4% in election in crimea... Sergey Aksyonov was voted in to the position of Prime Minister of Crimea with 55 out of 64 votes by the democratically elected Crimean parliament. If someone who received 0% of the vote in presidential elections can somehow be elected president of Ukraine than it would be hypocritical to claim that Crimeans wouldn't have the same rights. so both are legitimate or both are illegitimate? Which is it? Please read my previous posts, its all there. Only thing there is constant repeating of same propaganda and Russian lies that you probably think are going to become truth if you repeat it enough times. But I really think you are paid to do this, nobody puts in as much effort in being this onesided and this often without getting something in return.
|
On March 11 2014 22:43 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 22:40 Fjodorov wrote:On March 11 2014 22:38 zeo wrote:On March 11 2014 22:24 Fjodorov wrote:On March 11 2014 22:21 zeo wrote:On March 11 2014 22:00 Saryph wrote: A couple pages back there was a link to the choices of the referendum next week. One was to join Russia, the other was to roll back the laws/constitution to an older version that would allow them to join Russia quickly. Is it really true that there is no option to maintain the status quo? Do people like zeo see this is legitimate if it is true? The acting government in Kiev is illegitimate, whatever is happening now in Ukraine is the direct result of euromaidan. I mean look at the title of this thread, if you want everything to go back to status quo the rule of Ukraine must not be in the hands of brass-knuckle wearing thugs, it should be given back to democratically elected representatives. If I were to use a vampire analogy, euromaiden would be the queen vampire while Crimea is a baby one. Spending too much time going after the baby vampires while ignoring the queen that is making them is silly. What about the crimean government. Is it legitimate? The prime minister of crimea or who ever he is got 4% in election in crimea... Sergey Aksyonov was voted in to the position of Prime Minister of Crimea with 55 out of 64 votes by the democratically elected Crimean parliament. If someone who received 0% of the vote in presidential elections can somehow be elected president of Ukraine than it would be hypocritical to claim that Crimeans wouldn't have the same rights. so both are legitimate or both are illegitimate? Which is it? Please read my previous posts, its all there. I wont let you spit your shit like that. You have no morals at all. What is happening right now in Ukraine is caused by Putin, a fucking and disgusting dictator who will manage to annex a part of Ukraine because he took advantage of a revolution. And no it s not a coup d etat because the protesters were mostly normal people and not militaries unlike in cremea where we can talk about a coup d etat or more likely an invasion.
The votes in Cremea are completely absurd because all pro ukr mps are held up in their house by paramilitary groups, because there is an heavy and evil propaganda ongoing, and ofc because there is the fucking russian army controling evefything. How can there be normal votes if the russian army is present and wont allow any observers? It s just pure bullshit, not democratic at all nor moral.
"But the true ukr president didnt resign..." Ofc not the ukrainian constitution is retarded and he managed to flee the country before he could be judged. Anyway what strikes me is the lack of any sense of morality and justice in the name of nationalism and yes the same kind that justified genocides and conquest before with the most laughable arguments.
|
On March 11 2014 22:43 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 22:40 Fjodorov wrote:On March 11 2014 22:38 zeo wrote:On March 11 2014 22:24 Fjodorov wrote:On March 11 2014 22:21 zeo wrote:On March 11 2014 22:00 Saryph wrote: A couple pages back there was a link to the choices of the referendum next week. One was to join Russia, the other was to roll back the laws/constitution to an older version that would allow them to join Russia quickly. Is it really true that there is no option to maintain the status quo? Do people like zeo see this is legitimate if it is true? The acting government in Kiev is illegitimate, whatever is happening now in Ukraine is the direct result of euromaidan. I mean look at the title of this thread, if you want everything to go back to status quo the rule of Ukraine must not be in the hands of brass-knuckle wearing thugs, it should be given back to democratically elected representatives. If I were to use a vampire analogy, euromaiden would be the queen vampire while Crimea is a baby one. Spending too much time going after the baby vampires while ignoring the queen that is making them is silly. What about the crimean government. Is it legitimate? The prime minister of crimea or who ever he is got 4% in election in crimea... Sergey Aksyonov was voted in to the position of Prime Minister of Crimea with 55 out of 64 votes by the democratically elected Crimean parliament. If someone who received 0% of the vote in presidential elections can somehow be elected president of Ukraine than it would be hypocritical to claim that Crimeans wouldn't have the same rights. so both are legitimate or both are illegitimate? Which is it? Please read my previous posts, its all there.
How about you just answer that question, crisp and clear instead of dodging it?
You took the time to answer in general, just to "not answer the question". Seems like his question was spot on, and you can't answer it properly without making you look like a fool.
Btw, where were you when we talked about russian fascists? Missed you there.
|
|
|
|
|
|