Russell Brand Goes Off On John Heilemann Of MSNBC...Classic Exposure

[krealtarron]

But only for Russia, not for Canada or the US?

Of course it applies to the US and Canada as well. But our sphere of influence is here in North America not in Europe.

If Mexico were to join a Russian alliance and station nukes there, the US would be justified in considering Mexico a threat even if Russia wasn't going to launch them.

 

[krealtarron]

Welcomed to apply.
They weren't given membership and welcomed in.

By the way, now that Finland is joining NATO does that mean Putin is justified in nuking them before it gets official?
And you wouldn't want anyone to interfere or rebuke Putin for that justified action I assume?

Countries like Finland will be treated differently. Selective outrage as I mentioned earlier. Finland did not even have to join NATO. NATO would have run to their defence were they attacked. So Putin would not have attacked Finland one way or another.

 

[Frankfooter]

Of course it applies to the US and Canada as well. But our sphere of influence is here in North America not in Europe.

If Mexico were to join a Russian alliance and station nukes there, the US would be justified in considering Mexico a threat even if Russia wasn't going to launch them.

So then the US is justified in a proxy war as Ukraine is part of their sphere of influence with NATO.

Countries like Finland will be treated differently. Selective outrage as I mentioned earlier. Finland did not even have to join NATO. NATO would have run to their defence were they attacked. So Putin would not have attacked Finland one way or another.

So you think Ukraine should have been granted entry to NATO immediately?

 

[krealtarron]

So then the US is justified in a proxy war as Ukraine is part of their sphere of influence with NATO.



So you think Ukraine should have been granted entry to NATO immediately?

No they are not. The US's sphere of influence should not exist across continents. That is part of the problem. Infact in saying that you are justifying Russia's invasion. If Russia in its own continent is a threat to the US, 10,000 miles away, Russia is absolutely correct in saying that this is an existential threat to them and invading.

 

[Frankfooter]

No they are not. The US's sphere of influence should not exist across continents. That is part of the problem. Infact in saying that you are justifying Russia's invasion. If Russia in its own continent is a threat to the US, 10,000 miles away, Russia is absolutely correct in saying that this is an existential threat to them and invading.

But you already said the US sphere of influence includes NATO.

 

[krealtarron]

But you already said the US sphere of influence includes NATO.

I did not say that. You said that.

 

[Valcazar]

You're not being anti-war.

You are refusing to take a stand on a war of aggression, instead trying to justify it.
Through this you are supporting war.

He is only antiwar if it comes to other countries except for Russia. Russia can go in and wage war anywhere Putin's little black heart desires.

No no no.
You are both misunderstanding.

No one should be waging any wars.
No one should be interfering with any other country.

If someone does, though, no one should stop them or interfere with it, because that would violate the first rule.

But this is good, because if there are alliances that make wars more costly to engage in, it is because they make wars more dangerous.
So if you make wars less dangerous and easier for more powerful countries, you are less likely to have a giant war between large blocs.
You will increase the number of small wars, but that's ok, because killing people in small wars is anti war if it prevents bigger wars.

So the way to be anti-war is to allow more wars, but smaller wars that are easier for imperial powers to win.

It's all very logical and not stupid at all.

 

[Valcazar]

So…. Russell went off on a rant. Nothing new. He simply yelled at a guy from a Network he does not like. Good for him.

But… when presented with the “false equivalence” he was spewing… he couldn’t.

He was point blank asked to provide a specific example of where, say, anybody on the air knew the election was not stolen, and still went on the air and deliberately lied telling its audience that election was stolen… He could not give an example of something similar.

He started shouting about Ivermectin…. There were no clinical trials stating that Ivermectin was effective and approved for fighting Covid. Vicks vapo rubs helps with decongestion, still not an approved drug that cures Covid.

Russell is great… but he was out of his league on that desk. He was just too stupid to know it.

It’s the old, if I shout something loud and confident, it must be true.

Sure, but that is what "wins" on TV.
He shouted at the other guy and got off some quips.

That means he "won" according to his fans.
That he didn't answer the question is irrelevant.

 

[krealtarron]

No no no.
You are both misunderstanding.

No one should be waging any wars.
No one should be interfering with any other country.

If someone does, though, no one should stop them or interfere with it, because that would violate the first rule.

But this is good, because if there are alliances that make wars more costly to engage in, it is because they make wars more dangerous.
So if you make wars less dangerous and easier for more powerful countries, you are less likely to have a giant war between large blocs.
You will increase the number of small wars, but that's ok, because killing people in small wars is anti war if it prevents bigger wars.

So the way to be anti-war is to allow more wars, but smaller wars that are easier for imperial powers to win.

It's all very logical and not stupid at all.

This is a pretty stupid post. Its almost like you started off sensibly and then had a meltdown half way through

The bolded sentence wouldn't have happened in the case of Ukraine, if there was either a) No NATO or b) NATO exists but does not expand and/or threaten Russia by meddling in Ukraine.

The rest of your post makes no sense at all and I read it like 5 times.

 

[squeezer]

This is a pretty stupid post.

 

[krealtarron]

Calling something stupid because you refuse to see reason or because you dont agree with something, and actually saying something stupid are very different things.

I think you need to look in your own mirror.

 

[squeezer]

They were never "unwelcomed" by NATO. The direction has ALWAYS been that Ukraine will more closer to EU, be a part of EU and eventually NATO.

You are absolutely correct in saying NATO has been on Russia's doorstep since the 90s. Finally some truth. NOW LOOK UP RUSSIAN RESPONSES TO THAT. THROUGHOUT THE LAST 25 YEARS.

Then come back to me and tell me that Russia did not have a problem with that and tell me you did not see this coming.

They have ALWAYS considered NATO a threat. ALWAYS and yet, NATO kept pushing east towards their borders.

Whichever way you spin it, an anti-Russia military alliance moving closer and closer to their borders IS a legitimate threat.

We have been through this on another thread.

Your line of argumentation lacks nuance and you are repeating simplistic bullshit over and over again. Which is making me repeat myself.

Yet you do not see the stupidity in your posts when you infer Russia was under any threat from any country. You very well know that no country would have ever invaded Russia. No country will ever invade the US or China and yet you spout off complete and utter rubbish claiming Nato along with Ukraine are an existential threat to Russia and caused an illegal invasion that was carried out solely by, come on, say it with me, MOTHERFUCKING RUSSIA!!!!!

 

[squeezer]

Calling something stupid because you refuse to see reason or because you dont agree with something, and actually saying something stupid are very different things.

I think you need to look in your own mirror.

When you post about Russia and Ukraine everything you say falls under stupidity, to be honest.

 

[krealtarron]

Yet you do not see the stupidity in your posts when you infer Russia was under any threat from any country. You very well know that no country would have ever invaded Russia. No country will ever invade the US or China and yet you spout off complete and utter rubbish claiming Nato along with Ukraine are an existential threat to Russia and caused an illegal invasion that was carried out solely by, come on, say it with me, MOTHERFUCKING RUSSIA!!!!!

As I have said NUMEROUS times before, invasions are not the only threat.

Threatening Russia's ability to project power (political, economic and military) in their sphere of influence is also an existential threat. Not sure why you cannot get it through your head and keep making these naive, childish arguments.

 

[krealtarron]

When you post about Russia and Ukraine everything you say falls under stupidity, to be honest.

Simplistic arguments such as yours that dont take into account the intricacies of geo politics are infact stupid.

 

[squeezer]

As I have said NUMEROUS times before, invasions are not the only threat.

Threatening Russia's ability to project power (political, economic and military) in their sphere of influence is also an existential threat. Not sure why you cannot get it through your head and keep making these naive, childish arguments.

So tell me as an adult how their sphere of influence was being impacted before they decided to illegally invade a peaceful foreign country. Did they not sell their oil to whoever wanted to buy it? As a matter of fact, wasn't the US one of their buyers, and American companies conducting business in Russia and employing Russians? Isn't what they have done now shown they are not as powerful as they were trying to portray they were? Have they not actually diminished their sphere of influence by conducting a war that has shown them to be a useless tactical army?

Please try to present a valid argument, not one fed to a child by a dictator please.

 

[squeezer]

Simplistic arguments such as yours that dont take into account the intricacies of geo politics are infact stupid.

Says the puppet on strings being held by Putin.

 

[krealtarron]

So tell me as an adult how their sphere of influence was being impacted before they decided to illegally invade a peaceful foreign country. Did they not sell their oil to whoever wanted to buy it? As a matter of fact, wasn't the US one of their buyers, and American companies conducting business in Russia and employing Russians? Isn't what they have done now shown they are not as powerful as they were trying to portray they were? Have they not actually diminished their sphere of influence by conducting a war that has shown them to be a useless tactical army?

Please try to present a valid argument, not one fed to a child by a dictator please.

Do you understand how spheres of influence work? They dont work because countries trade with one another.

Russia is a political, military and economic power in the region. The same way the US is in this part of the world. Canada and Mexico are free, but we are heavily influenced by the US, to the extent the politics forum on a hooker board is dominated by arguments between Republicans and Democrats, our govt policies on trade and commerce, culture, military and security policy are all impacted by what the US does. Similarly Russia has influence in their region.

When you form a military alliance whose sole purpose is to challenge Russian military might and influence and is objectively adversarial, moving closer and closer to Russia's borders is objectively a threat to Russia. They are completely right in saying so. They asked for security guarantees, for NATO to not expand, to reduce troops and weapons and for Ukraine to remain neutral. All of that was rejected and Russia was backed into a corner.

And here we are.

 

[krealtarron]

Says the puppet on strings being held by Putin.

Its your standard MO. Make simplistic arguments and then call people Putin sympathizers.

 

[squeezer]

Do you understand how spheres of influence work? They dont work because countries trade with one another.

Russia is a political, military and economic power in the region. The same way the US is in this part of the world. Canada and Mexico are free, but we are heavily influenced by the US, to the extent the politics forum on a hooker board is dominated by arguments between Republicans and Democrats, our govt policies on trade and commerce, culture, military and security policy are all impacted by what the US does. Similarly Russia has influence in their region.

When you form a military alliance whose sole purpose is to challenge Russian military might and influence and is objectively adversarial, moving closer and closer to Russia's borders is objectively a threat to Russia. They are completely right in saying so. They asked for security guarantees, for NATO to not expand, to reduce troops and weapons and for Ukraine to remain neutral. All of that was rejected and Russia was backed into a corner.

And here we are.

and not they have Nato in Switzerland and Finland so tell me Einstien, how's that worked out for Russia?