Ukrainian Government Acknowledges that Some of Its Leaders Are Nazis

originally posted by: YouPeople
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

I see no source saying it wasnt ratified.

I see no source saying it was. What was the final vote? When was it held?

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
a reply to: YouPeople

It is Monday morning.

Really? On my screen at least the timestamp says Aug 2, 2015. Maybe you can check a calendar and see what day that is. Hint: it is not Monday.

a reply to: DJW001

I see no source saying it was. What was the final vote? When was it held?

Me neither. I do see a source implying that it was going to be ratified and that the opposition "vowed to postpone it". I see no sources claiming they actually stopped the ratification. Since it was just a formality, since it was a government decision and they were the ones in power with the oppposition not having a say in it, I can only assume it was ratified, especially since the deal obviously went into effect.

Now let's say the opposition actually stopped it, would that have been a legal and democratic move? Again, they were not in the government and had no legal power to stop it.

So if it wasn't ratified like you suggest it was because of illegal action.

a reply to: YouPeople

Me neither. I do see a source implying that it was going to be ratified and that the opposition "vowed to postpone it". I see no sources claiming they actually stopped the ratification. Since it was just a formality, since it was a government decision and they were the ones in power with the oppposition not having a say in it, I can only assume it was ratified, especially since the deal obviously went into effect.

But it's not "just a formality!" Only a dictator negotiates and executes foreign policy without the consent of the representatives of the people. Filibustering is a perfectly legal way of killing legislation on the part of a minority party. That appears to be what the opposition parties did. Your assumption is clearly wrong, since you are unable to verify it. Yanukovych violated the Constitution and was going to be impeached for his actions; that is why he took his dirty Russian money and fled.

originally posted by: YouPeople

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
a reply to: YouPeople

It is Monday morning.

Really? On my screen at least the timestamp says Aug 2, 2015. Maybe you can check a calendar and see what day that is. Hint: it is not Monday.

Apparently you are unfamiliar with the concept of time zones.

Edit to add:

a reply to: DJW001

But it's not "just a formality!" Only a dictator negotiates and executes foreign policy without the consent of the representatives of the people

Sigh, It seems you guys have no clue how this political system works. It was a formality because the government that made the deal has the majority vote. Ratification was never going to be stopped by a vote, since the government has the majority. The opposition had no say in it. That's why I say it was a formality.

Why did the opposition need to block parliament in order to defer the ratification if they could've just voted it down?

Answer, there was no legal and democratic way for them to stop the ratification.

a reply to: DJW001


It sure was Sunday where I was at, when I made the comment. It sure was Sunday in the country this site is based at.


And really, you took a screenshot of the post I just made? Yes it is Monday the 3rd now. Why didn't you take a screenshot of the initial post that the Gaul responded to, because that's what I was obviously talking about.

Or were you in such a hurry to dispense your drivel all over me that, again, the proper context was completely disregarded. Maybe you guys should pay a little bit more attention when you are replying to posts that are not directed at you, because you can't seem to get it right.

a reply to: YouPeople

Answer, there was no legal and democratic way for them to stop the ratification.

There obviously was a legal and democratic way, because it was never ratified. Please look up the word "filibuster."

a reply to: DJW001

There obviously was a legal and democratic way,

The only way is a vote. Did the opposition vote it down?

You obviously have no clue and are still making up stuff as you go.

If they could have stopped the ratification by using the normal democratic process, then why did they have to try and stop the vote from happening?

Helloo?

They obviously knew the ratification was a done thing, since they were, by default, unable to stop it, since they were the minority.

If you are unable to grasp this then there really is no sense in continuing this particular discussion with you.

a reply to: YouPeople

If you are unable to grasp this then there really is no sense in continuing this particular discussion with you.

But there are perfectly legal ways of preventing a vote so as to block the ratification of a treaty. It is probably going to happen here in the US over the Iran deal. If you are unable to grasp this then there really is no sense in continuing this particular discussion with you.

a reply to: DJW001

But there are perfectly legal ways of preventing a vote so as to block the ratification of a treaty. It is probably going to happen here in the US over the Iran deal.

The minority is physically going to block the building so the vote can't be held? And this is a democratic move?

a reply to: DJW001

But there are perfectly legal ways of preventing a vote so as to block the ratification of a treaty.

There is only ONE way. By voting on it.

You can't win the vote if you don't have the majority. Does the opposition have the majority?

No, so they knew the deal was going to be ratified, as a result of the democratic process.

They then tried to disturb the democratic process by preventing the vote from even happening.

originally posted by: YouPeople
a reply to: DJW001


So if it wasn't ratified like you suggest it was because of illegal action.

do you have any evidence to support the claim that whatever action "prevented ratification" was illegal?

I have seen you last few posts - you whine and complain that the opposition blocked parliament - but as usualy you don't do any more than give us your views on the matter......which is fine....but as per usual the rest of the world is entitled to point at you and laugh.

originally posted by: YouPeople

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
a reply to: YouPeople

It is Monday morning.

Really? On my screen at least the timestamp says Aug 2, 2015. Maybe you can check a calendar and see what day that is. Hint: it is not Monday.

It was here - now it is Tuesday - sorry if you are behind the times!!

a reply to: YouPeople

I don't' have a team - try to tone back your paranoia.

There is no "source" for it not being ratified....because when something does NOT happen you don't get evidence for that!!

Arguing that someone needs to show evidence to show that something didn't happen is called argument from ignorance, and is a logical fallacy.

On the other hand, if something DID happen and would have evidence to show that it happened, then the absence of that evidence is evidence of absence.

guys, are you still on this thing? Sure nationalist supremacy agenda ruling everywhere in the country for now since it's official internal policy. Pips in power looking for a historically powerful personality that could lead that identity. With nothing better at hands US State Department has suggested to pull Bandera icon in hopes to unite Ukraine in self identity paradigm.

Does it work? Yes for now.


cheers from the cave)))


D0. peace to all.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

It was here

Yes, when you made your comment, not when I made the comment you responded to.

a reply to: YouPeople

nope - it was Monday here when you wrote your comments. Just like it is Tuesday right now.

Boy it must suck to be wrong as often as you - my sympathies!!

a reply to: darkorange

With nothing better at hands US State Department has suggested to pull Bandera icon in hopes to unite Ukraine in self identity paradigm.

Please explain. Are you saying that the US State Department told the Ukrainian government to stop using Bandera as a hero figure? How much influence do you believe they have?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: darkorange

With nothing better at hands US State Department has suggested to pull Bandera icon in hopes to unite Ukraine in self identity paradigm.

Please explain. Are you saying that the US State Department told the Ukrainian government to stop using Bandera as a hero figure? How much influence do you believe they have?

I think he meant the opposite of what you thought. But your right it's been shown the state drparrtmenr has no control over them. See Russia wants you to believe this is more than a very small percent of voters. They want to push this whole Nazi thing. Ironic that government troops end up in shooting matches with this same group. Ukraine knows they have to go but for now easier to point them at the russians. After all the more Russians they kill the better it is for ukraine.