https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-could-collapse-into-new-states-after-ukrainian-victory-economist/ar-AA16ELhD
If Joe can make this happen before the end of his term he could go down in history as one of the greatest presidents of modern times.
Even though he really has been screwing around and slow rolling with ever "escalation" line loitered over before moving on to the next.
The results would outweigh all the dawdling and even put the Afghan debacle into the presidential footnote category.
On Monday, January 23, 2023 at 7:01:34 PM UTC-6, ScottW wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-could-collapse-into-new-states-after-ukrainian-victory-economist/ar-AA16ELhD
If Joe can make this happen before the end of his term he could go down in history as one of the greatest presidents of modern times.
Even though he really has been screwing around and slow rolling with ever "escalation" line loitered over before moving on to the next.
The results would outweigh all the dawdling and even put the Afghan debacle into the presidential footnote category.The Afghan withdrawal is forgotten already and who remembers GHW Bush as overthrowing the Soviets? Biden will get credit for unifying Europe against the Russians and other diplomatic efforts behind the scenes.
On Tuesday, January 24, 2023 at 7:32:11 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On Monday, January 23, 2023 at 7:01:34 PM UTC-6, ScottW wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-could-collapse-into-new-states-after-ukrainian-victory-economist/ar-AA16ELhD
If Joe can make this happen before the end of his term he could go down in history as one of the greatest presidents of modern times.
Even though he really has been screwing around and slow rolling with ever "escalation" line loitered over before moving on to the next.
Who will remember that if the effort was all for naught? Nobody.The results would outweigh all the dawdling and even put the Afghan debacle into the presidential footnote category.The Afghan withdrawal is forgotten already and who remembers GHW Bush as overthrowing the Soviets? Biden will get credit for unifying Europe against the Russians and other diplomatic efforts behind the scenes.
Biden will be held to account for not doing enough. And calling Europe unified is a joke with Poland threatening to send Leopards to Ukraine without German approval and Sweden and Norway questioning their dependence on German arms industry.
Meanwhile....how many countries still aren't meeting their Nato pledge on defense spending that Trump brought to the forefront?
On Tuesday, January 24, 2023 at 12:54:45 PM UTC-6, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, January 24, 2023 at 7:32:11 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On Monday, January 23, 2023 at 7:01:34 PM UTC-6, ScottW wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-could-collapse-into-new-states-after-ukrainian-victory-economist/ar-AA16ELhD
If Joe can make this happen before the end of his term he could go down in history as one of the greatest presidents of modern times.
Even though he really has been screwing around and slow rolling with ever "escalation" line loitered over before moving on to the next.
I'm cautiously optimistic Ukraine will survive.Who will remember that if the effort was all for naught? Nobody.The results would outweigh all the dawdling and even put the Afghan debacle into the presidential footnote category.The Afghan withdrawal is forgotten already and who remembers GHW Bush as overthrowing the Soviets? Biden will get credit for unifying Europe against the Russians and other diplomatic efforts behind the scenes.
Biden will be held to account for not doing enough. And calling Europe unified is a joke with Poland threatening to send Leopards to Ukraine without German approval and Sweden and Norway questioning their dependence on German arms industry.Quibbles. None of those are siding with Russia.
Meanwhile....how many countries still aren't meeting their Nato pledge on defense spending that Trump brought to the forefront?Who cares?
On Tuesday, January 24, 2023 at 11:50:13 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On Tuesday, January 24, 2023 at 12:54:45 PM UTC-6, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, January 24, 2023 at 7:32:11 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On Monday, January 23, 2023 at 7:01:34 PM UTC-6, ScottW wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-could-collapse-into-new-states-after-ukrainian-victory-economist/ar-AA16ELhD
If Joe can make this happen before the end of his term he could go down in history as one of the greatest presidents of modern times.
Even though he really has been screwing around and slow rolling with ever "escalation" line loitered over before moving on to the next.
Can you be any more vague?I'm cautiously optimistic Ukraine will survive.Who will remember that if the effort was all for naught? Nobody.The results would outweigh all the dawdling and even put the Afghan debacle into the presidential footnote category.The Afghan withdrawal is forgotten already and who remembers GHW Bush as overthrowing the Soviets? Biden will get credit for unifying Europe against the Russians and other diplomatic efforts behind the scenes.
Wow....you've just made unified irrelevant to their actual support for Ukraine.Biden will be held to account for not doing enough. And calling Europe unified is a joke with Poland threatening to send Leopards to Ukraine without German approval and Sweden and Norway questioning their dependence on German arms industry.Quibbles. None of those are siding with Russia.
I do. You should but you're apparently too stupid to realize this BS played a part in Russia's aggression.Meanwhile....how many countries still aren't meeting their Nato pledge on defense spending that Trump brought to the forefront?Who cares?
On Tuesday, January 24, 2023 at 9:23:45 PM UTC-6, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, January 24, 2023 at 11:50:13 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On Tuesday, January 24, 2023 at 12:54:45 PM UTC-6, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, January 24, 2023 at 7:32:11 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On Monday, January 23, 2023 at 7:01:34 PM UTC-6, ScottW wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-could-collapse-into-new-states-after-ukrainian-victory-economist/ar-AA16ELhD
If Joe can make this happen before the end of his term he could go down in history as one of the greatest presidents of modern times.
Even though he really has been screwing around and slow rolling with ever "escalation" line loitered over before moving on to the next.
Leopards on the way, Abrams on the way, Challengers on the way and "survive" is plenty specific.Can you be any more vague?I'm cautiously optimistic Ukraine will survive.Who will remember that if the effort was all for naught? Nobody.The results would outweigh all the dawdling and even put the Afghan debacle into the presidential footnote category.The Afghan withdrawal is forgotten already and who remembers GHW Bush as overthrowing the Soviets? Biden will get credit for unifying Europe against the Russians and other diplomatic efforts behind the scenes.
The Poland thing is moot due to Germany's announcement. NATO unity doesn't depend on Norway and Sweden dependence on German manufacturers.Wow....you've just made unified irrelevant to their actual support for Ukraine.Biden will be held to account for not doing enough. And calling Europe unified is a joke with Poland threatening to send Leopards to Ukraine without German approval and Sweden and Norway questioning their dependence on German arms industry.Quibbles. None of those are siding with Russia.
Russia thought Europe and NATO too timid to stand up to him, as had been the case in Georgia, Chechnya, Syria and so on. Putin wasn't watching for a magic 2% threshold before deciding his actions.I do. You should but you're apparently too stupid to realize this BS played a part in Russia's aggression.Meanwhile....how many countries still aren't meeting their Nato pledge on defense spending that Trump brought to the forefront?Who cares?
On Wednesday, January 25, 2023 at 8:12:45 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On Tuesday, January 24, 2023 at 9:23:45 PM UTC-6, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, January 24, 2023 at 11:50:13 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On Tuesday, January 24, 2023 at 12:54:45 PM UTC-6, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, January 24, 2023 at 7:32:11 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On Monday, January 23, 2023 at 7:01:34 PM UTC-6, ScottW wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-could-collapse-into-new-states-after-ukrainian-victory-economist/ar-AA16ELhD
If Joe can make this happen before the end of his term he could go down in history as one of the greatest presidents of modern times.
Even though he really has been screwing around and slow rolling with ever "escalation" line loitered over before moving on to the next.
No, he was gauging Nato's military readiness to respond. They were not. Remember, Ukraine survived Russia's initial invasion largely due to Russian military incompetence.Leopards on the way, Abrams on the way, Challengers on the way and "survive" is plenty specific.Can you be any more vague?I'm cautiously optimistic Ukraine will survive.Who will remember that if the effort was all for naught? Nobody.The results would outweigh all the dawdling and even put the Afghan debacle into the presidential footnote category.The Afghan withdrawal is forgotten already and who remembers GHW Bush as overthrowing the Soviets? Biden will get credit for unifying Europe against the Russians and other diplomatic efforts behind the scenes.
The Poland thing is moot due to Germany's announcement. NATO unity doesn't depend on Norway and Sweden dependence on German manufacturers.Wow....you've just made unified irrelevant to their actual support for Ukraine.Biden will be held to account for not doing enough. And calling Europe unified is a joke with Poland threatening to send Leopards to Ukraine without German approval and Sweden and Norway questioning their dependence on German arms industry.Quibbles. None of those are siding with Russia.
Russia thought Europe and NATO too timid to stand up to him, as had been the case in Georgia, Chechnya, Syria and so on. Putin wasn't watching for a magic 2% threshold before deciding his actions.I do. You should but you're apparently too stupid to realize this BS played a part in Russia's aggression.Meanwhile....how many countries still aren't meeting their Nato pledge on defense spending that Trump brought to the forefront?Who cares?
The one part of Nato and Biden's strategy that was an unmitigated failure was deterrence.
On Wednesday, January 25, 2023 at 10:30:06 AM UTC-6, ScottW wrote:
On Wednesday, January 25, 2023 at 8:12:45 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On Tuesday, January 24, 2023 at 9:23:45 PM UTC-6, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, January 24, 2023 at 11:50:13 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On Tuesday, January 24, 2023 at 12:54:45 PM UTC-6, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, January 24, 2023 at 7:32:11 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On Monday, January 23, 2023 at 7:01:34 PM UTC-6, ScottW wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-could-collapse-into-new-states-after-ukrainian-victory-economist/ar-AA16ELhD
If Joe can make this happen before the end of his term he could go down in history as one of the greatest presidents of modern times.
Even though he really has been screwing around and slow rolling with ever "escalation" line loitered over before moving on to the next.
https://news.usni.org/2022/03/25/stronger-nato-reaction-to-russian-actions-in-georgia-crimea-would-have-prevented-ukraine-invasion-says-latvian-presidentNo, he was gauging Nato's military readiness to respond. They were not. Remember, Ukraine survived Russia's initial invasion largely due to Russian military incompetence.Leopards on the way, Abrams on the way, Challengers on the way and "survive" is plenty specific.Can you be any more vague?I'm cautiously optimistic Ukraine will survive.Who will remember that if the effort was all for naught? Nobody.The results would outweigh all the dawdling and even put the Afghan debacle into the presidential footnote category.The Afghan withdrawal is forgotten already and who remembers GHW Bush as overthrowing the Soviets? Biden will get credit for unifying Europe against the Russians and other diplomatic efforts behind the scenes.
The Poland thing is moot due to Germany's announcement. NATO unity doesn't depend on Norway and Sweden dependence on German manufacturers.Wow....you've just made unified irrelevant to their actual support for Ukraine.Biden will be held to account for not doing enough. And calling Europe unified is a joke with Poland threatening to send Leopards to Ukraine without German approval and Sweden and Norway questioning their dependence on German arms industry.Quibbles. None of those are siding with Russia.
Russia thought Europe and NATO too timid to stand up to him, as had been the case in Georgia, Chechnya, Syria and so on. Putin wasn't watching for a magic 2% threshold before deciding his actions.I do. You should but you're apparently too stupid to realize this BS played a part in Russia's aggression.Meanwhile....how many countries still aren't meeting their Nato pledge on defense spending that Trump brought to the forefront?Who cares?
The one part of Nato and Biden's strategy that was an unmitigated failure was deterrence.
You're begging the question. How would Putin see " Europe and NATO too timid" without "gauging"?
Biden led a unified response unlike after Georgia, Crimea, etc.
On Wednesday, January 25, 2023 at 9:09:32 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
You're begging the question. How would Putin see " Europe and NATO too timid" without "gauging"?
Biden led a unified response unlike after Georgia, Crimea, etc.
Throwing Obama under the bus now for Biden? Typical.
On 1/25/23 12:00 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Wednesday, January 25, 2023 at 9:09:32 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
You're begging the question. How would Putin see " Europe and NATO too timid" without "gauging"?
Biden led a unified response unlike after Georgia, Crimea, etc.
Throwing Obama under the bus now for Biden? Typical.Are you defending Obama? You could make a good case his hands were tied
by Congressional Republicans.
On Wednesday, January 25, 2023 at 12:16:06 PM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 1/25/23 12:00 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Wednesday, January 25, 2023 at 9:09:32 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:Are you defending Obama? You could make a good case his hands were tied
You're begging the question. How would Putin see " Europe and NATO too timid" without "gauging"?
Biden led a unified response unlike after Georgia, Crimea, etc.
Throwing Obama under the bus now for Biden? Typical.
by Congressional Republicans.
No...I can't. He did absolutely nothing.
As he did through most of his presidency.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-could-collapse-into-new-states-after-ukrainian-victory-economist/ar-AA16ELhD
If Joe can make this happen before the end of his term he could go down in history as one of the greatest presidents of modern times.
Even though he really has been screwing around and slow rolling with ever "escalation" line loitered over before moving on to the next.
The results would outweigh all the dawdling and even put the Afghan debacle into the presidential footnote category.
ScottW
On 1/25/23 10:21 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Wednesday, January 25, 2023 at 12:16:06 PM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 1/25/23 12:00 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Wednesday, January 25, 2023 at 9:09:32 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:Are you defending Obama? You could make a good case his hands were tied
You're begging the question. How would Putin see " Europe and NATO too timid" without "gauging"?
Biden led a unified response unlike after Georgia, Crimea, etc.
Throwing Obama under the bus now for Biden? Typical.
by Congressional Republicans.
No...I can't. He did absolutely nothing.You aren't even trying to argue with facts, are you? How did Trump do
As he did through most of his presidency.
with his expectation Russia would return Crimea?
However, we can agree Obama didn't do enough and what he did wasn't effective. OTOH, Magnitsky Act:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/manafort-magnitsky-browder-1.4385860
On 24/01/2023 12:01 pm, ScottW wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-could-collapse-into-new-states-after-ukrainian-victory-economist/ar-AA16ELhD
If Joe can make this happen before the end of his term he could go down in history as one of the greatest presidents of modern times.
Even though he really has been screwing around and slow rolling with ever "escalation" line loitered over before moving on to the next.
The results would outweigh all the dawdling and even put the Afghan debacle into the presidential footnote category.
ScottW**And let us never forget:
Trump, who said:
"I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said,
'This is genius.' Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine—of Ukraine—Putin declares it as independent," Trump said on The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show on February 22.
About Putin, Trump stated:
"The problem is not that Putin is smart, which of course he's smart, but
the real problem is that our leaders are dumb,"
And this:
During an interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity on March 10, Trump said
the situation unfolding in Ukraine was "sad," but he repeatedly avoided Hannity's encouragement to call Putin evil.
"When you look, this doesn't seem to be the same Putin I was dealing
with," Trump said. "But I will tell you, he wouldn't have changed if I
were dealing with him."
About Putin, Trump stated:
"The problem is not that Putin is smart, which of course he's smart, but
the real problem is that our leaders are dumb,"
"The problem is not that Putin is smart, which of course he's smart, but the real problem is that our leaders are dumb,"
That particular statement is about our leaders being dumb, which is a spot on assessment.
On Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 10:22:43 AM UTC-8, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 24/01/2023 12:01 pm, ScottW wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-could-collapse-into-new-states-after-ukrainian-victory-economist/ar-AA16ELhD**And let us never forget:
If Joe can make this happen before the end of his term he could go down in history as one of the greatest presidents of modern times.
Even though he really has been screwing around and slow rolling with ever "escalation" line loitered over before moving on to the next.
The results would outweigh all the dawdling and even put the Afghan debacle into the presidential footnote category.
ScottW
Trump, who said:
"I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said,
'This is genius.' Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine—of
Ukraine—Putin declares it as independent," Trump said on The Clay Travis >> and Buck Sexton Show on February 22.
About Putin, Trump stated:
"The problem is not that Putin is smart, which of course he's smart, but
the real problem is that our leaders are dumb,"
And this:
During an interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity on March 10, Trump said
the situation unfolding in Ukraine was "sad," but he repeatedly avoided
Hannity's encouragement to call Putin evil.
"When you look, this doesn't seem to be the same Putin I was dealing
with," Trump said. "But I will tell you, he wouldn't have changed if I
were dealing with him."
And that should tell you something. Trump has always been reluctant to engage
in personal insult of international leaders who he would have to sit down and negotiate with.
I'll refer you to Biden's not so successful relationship with the Saudi's.
But in any case, your forever lasting case of TDS is boring when it comes
to discussions of this war. He isn't a factor outside of your head.
On Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 7:57:04 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 1/25/23 10:21 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Wednesday, January 25, 2023 at 12:16:06 PM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:You aren't even trying to argue with facts, are you? How did Trump do
On 1/25/23 12:00 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Wednesday, January 25, 2023 at 9:09:32 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:Are you defending Obama? You could make a good case his hands were tied >>>> by Congressional Republicans.
You're begging the question. How would Putin see " Europe and NATO too timid" without "gauging"?
Biden led a unified response unlike after Georgia, Crimea, etc.
Throwing Obama under the bus now for Biden? Typical.
No...I can't. He did absolutely nothing.
As he did through most of his presidency.
with his expectation Russia would return Crimea?
I can tell when you've got nothing when your only resort is a "what about Trumpism".
Obama, however ineffectually, did respond directly to Crimea with sanctions.However, we can agree Obama didn't do enough and what he did wasn't
effective. OTOH, Magnitsky Act:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/manafort-magnitsky-browder-1.4385860
On 1/26/23 6:19 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 7:57:04 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 1/25/23 10:21 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Wednesday, January 25, 2023 at 12:16:06 PM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:You aren't even trying to argue with facts, are you? How did Trump do
On 1/25/23 12:00 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Wednesday, January 25, 2023 at 9:09:32 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:Are you defending Obama? You could make a good case his hands were tied >>>> by Congressional Republicans.
You're begging the question. How would Putin see " Europe and NATO too timid" without "gauging"?
Biden led a unified response unlike after Georgia, Crimea, etc.
Throwing Obama under the bus now for Biden? Typical.
No...I can't. He did absolutely nothing.
As he did through most of his presidency.
with his expectation Russia would return Crimea?
I can tell when you've got nothing when your only resort is a "what about Trumpism".I supplied something in the next paragraph.
Obama, however ineffectually, did respond directly to Crimea with sanctions.However, we can agree Obama didn't do enough and what he did wasn't
effective. OTOH, Magnitsky Act:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/manafort-magnitsky-browder-1.4385860
Your argument is Trump's plan to allow Russia into Ukraine was delayed because Zelensky gained power in place of Russian stooges.
Funny Shmoo, your maker calls to you.
"The problem is not that Putin is smart, which of course he's smart, but the real problem is that our leaders are dumb,"
That particular statement is about our leaders being dumb, which is a spot on assessment.
How many times did Lyin' Trump call a woman "a terrible person"? How many of those
instances did you agree with?
How many times did Lyin' Trump call a woman "a terrible person"? How many of thoseWhen he referred to Hillary and Pelosi
instances did you agree with?
Update from our correspondent on Planet Misogyny. What's the news, Funny?
How many times did Lyin' Trump call a woman "a terrible person"? How many of thoseWhen he referred to Hillary and Pelosi
instances did you agree with?
Are those two brave women "terrible" because they're female, or because their politics scare the crap out of you?
Overall, you've admitted you agree with Pumpkin-Face on 17% of
his "terrible person" whines. That's 2 out of 12, in case you're drunk.
It is impossible to have a rational discussion with you
On 1/28/23 8:00 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
It is impossible to have a rational discussion with youHow does the Flea compare to your usual contribution of non-sequitors?
It is impossible to have a rational discussion with youHow does the Flea compare to your usual contribution of non-sequitors?
MINe109 wrote:
[Funny Shmoo]
It is impossible to have a rational discussion with youHow does the Flea compare to your usual contribution of non-sequitors?
I thought we were supposed to make allowances for Funny's infirmities. Sometimes you can tell from his blithering that he's tanked. Other times,
he seems sober, but his prattling is so disjointed that he's probably
got alcoholic dementia. Funny's occasionally lucid posts reinforce
the impression that he's cycling toward complete senility.
[Funny Shmoo]
It is impossible to have a rational discussion with youHow does the Flea compare to your usual contribution of non-sequitors?
I thought we were supposed to make allowances for Funny's infirmities. Sometimes you can tell from his blithering that he's tanked. Other times, he seems sober, but his prattling is so disjointed that he's probablyI'm actually President Frump, posting from an alias.
got alcoholic dementia. Funny's occasionally lucid posts reinforce
the impression that he's cycling toward complete senility.
MINe109 wrote:
[Funny Shmoo]
I thought we were supposed to make allowances for Funny's infirmities. Sometimes you can tell from his blithering that he's tanked. Other times,It is impossible to have a rational discussion with youHow does the Flea compare to your usual contribution of non-sequitors?
he seems sober, but his prattling is so disjointed that he's probably
got alcoholic dementia. Funny's occasionally lucid posts reinforce
the impression that he's cycling toward complete senility.
On 1/29/23 12:47 PM, Fascist Flea wrote:
MINe109 wrote:With his references to 'rock-bottom' and lack of empathy, I vote for dry drunk.
[Funny Shmoo]
I thought we were supposed to make allowances for Funny's infirmities. Sometimes you can tell from his blithering that he's tanked. Other times, he seems sober, but his prattling is so disjointed that he's probablyIt is impossible to have a rational discussion with youHow does the Flea compare to your usual contribution of non-sequitors?
got alcoholic dementia. Funny's occasionally lucid posts reinforce
the impression that he's cycling toward complete senility.
Your position seems to be to allow the addict to continue being an addict but try to
reduce associated harm to him. That reeks of futility.
On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 6:43:23 PM UTC-5, MINe109 wrote:
On 1/29/23 12:47 PM, Fascist Flea wrote:
MINe109 wrote: [Funny Shmoo]With his references to 'rock-bottom' and lack of empathy, I vote
I thought we were supposed to make allowances for Funny'sIt is impossible to have a rational discussion with youHow does the Flea compare to your usual contribution of
non-sequitors?
infirmities. Sometimes you can tell from his blithering that he's
tanked. Other times, he seems sober, but his prattling is so
disjointed that he's probably got alcoholic dementia. Funny's
occasionally lucid posts reinforce the impression that he's
cycling toward complete senility.
for dry drunk.
In the world of drug addiction recovery, empathetic enabling is
referred to as nursing the addict to death. The most empathetic
posture toward a reluctant drug addict is to steer him towards his rock-bottom, where his drug addiction is so uncomfortable, that
treatment begins to look like the most comfortable option.
I am assuming that you would prefer to see the addict rehabilitated
and live free from drugs, rather than be an addict until death.
that's what I would prefer to see, and i condider that to be the
empathetic point of view. Being on agreement with that, the question
is the best way to get the addict ito treatment before he overdoses.
Your position seems to be to allow the addict to continue being an
addict but try to reduce associated harm to him. That reeks of
futility.
I think that there needs to be professional help to deal with the addicts' life traumas.
On 1/29/23 9:12 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 6:43:23 PM UTC-5, MINe109 wrote:
On 1/29/23 12:47 PM, Fascist Flea wrote:
MINe109 wrote: [Funny Shmoo]With his references to 'rock-bottom' and lack of empathy, I vote
I thought we were supposed to make allowances for Funny'sIt is impossible to have a rational discussion with youHow does the Flea compare to your usual contribution of
non-sequitors?
infirmities. Sometimes you can tell from his blithering that he's
tanked. Other times, he seems sober, but his prattling is so
disjointed that he's probably got alcoholic dementia. Funny's
occasionally lucid posts reinforce the impression that he's
cycling toward complete senility.
for dry drunk.
In the world of drug addiction recovery, empathetic enabling is
referred to as nursing the addict to death. The most empathetic
posture toward a reluctant drug addict is to steer him towards his rock-bottom, where his drug addiction is so uncomfortable, that
treatment begins to look like the most comfortable option.
I am assuming that you would prefer to see the addict rehabilitatedYes, I understand your position and the AA-type world view that can
and live free from drugs, rather than be an addict until death.
that's what I would prefer to see, and i condider that to be the
empathetic point of view. Being on agreement with that, the question
is the best way to get the addict ito treatment before he overdoses.
Your position seems to be to allow the addict to continue being an
addict but try to reduce associated harm to him. That reeks of
futility.
succeed in helping some addicts. Those who advocate harm-reduction argue
they meet addicts where they are.
Both approaches are valid and do not exclude the other.
On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 10:27:33 AM UTC-5, MINe109 wrote:
On 1/29/23 9:12 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 6:43:23 PM UTC-5, MINe109 wrote:Yes, I understand your position and the AA-type world view that can
On 1/29/23 12:47 PM, Fascist Flea wrote:
MINe109 wrote: [Funny Shmoo]With his references to 'rock-bottom' and lack of empathy, I vote
I thought we were supposed to make allowances for Funny'sIt is impossible to have a rational discussion with youHow does the Flea compare to your usual contribution of
non-sequitors?
infirmities. Sometimes you can tell from his blithering that he's
tanked. Other times, he seems sober, but his prattling is so
disjointed that he's probably got alcoholic dementia. Funny's
occasionally lucid posts reinforce the impression that he's
cycling toward complete senility.
for dry drunk.
In the world of drug addiction recovery, empathetic enabling is
referred to as nursing the addict to death. The most empathetic
posture toward a reluctant drug addict is to steer him towards his
rock-bottom, where his drug addiction is so uncomfortable, that
treatment begins to look like the most comfortable option.
I am assuming that you would prefer to see the addict rehabilitated
and live free from drugs, rather than be an addict until death.
that's what I would prefer to see, and i condider that to be the
empathetic point of view. Being on agreement with that, the question
is the best way to get the addict ito treatment before he overdoses.
Your position seems to be to allow the addict to continue being an
addict but try to reduce associated harm to him. That reeks of
futility.
succeed in helping some addicts. Those who advocate harm-reduction argue
they meet addicts where they are.
Both approaches are valid and do not exclude the other.
Not so.
Nurturing and enabling is counterproductive to the interventionist approach.
And my approach is NOT the specifically the AA model, which focuses on self help.
I think that there needs to be professional help to deal with the addicts' life traumas.
On 1/30/23 2:01 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
Both approaches are valid and do not exclude the other.
Not so.You're mischaracterizing harm reduction with your terminology and
Nurturing and enabling is counterproductive to the interventionist approach.
there's nothing about the model to stop someone from leaving rehab to go directly to AA or equivalent.
https://drugabuse.com/addiction/rock-bottom-myth/
As is often the case, there is some truth in the “rock bottom” myth. Some research has shown that resource loss is a good predictor of
treatment completion (Gruszczy?ska, Kaczmarek, Chodkiewicz, 2016). The difference is that resource loss does not have to be catastrophic to be impactful.
This is the concept behind “raising the bottom.” If the person abusing substances can respond to minor changes in their life, they will not
need to experience “rock bottom.”
There's a class element, too, as the rich can hit "rock bottom" in a relatively luxurious rehab while helping a street addict avoid medical problems is considered "enabling."
On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 4:47:01 PM UTC-5, MINe109 wrote:
On 1/30/23 2:01 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
You're mischaracterizing harm reduction with your terminology andBoth approaches are valid and do not exclude the other.
Not so.
Nurturing and enabling is counterproductive to the interventionist approach.
there's nothing about the model to stop someone from leaving rehab to go
directly to AA or equivalent.
Your ignorance of the subject matter is evident.
There is no reason anyone would choose to leave rehab to
focus on AA. AA principles are included in rehab
https://drugabuse.com/addiction/rock-bottom-myth/
As is often the case, there is some truth in the “rock bottom” myth.
Some research has shown that resource loss is a good predictor of
treatment completion (Gruszczy?ska, Kaczmarek, Chodkiewicz, 2016). The
difference is that resource loss does not have to be catastrophic to be
impactful.
Your ignorance of the subject matter is evident.
Rock bottom is used to get the addict to choose to go into rehab.
It is irrelevant to completion. But the completion stats could be lower, because an intervention employing rock bottom is, by necessity, employed towards resistive addicts.
Non resistive addicts readily volunteering for treatment would be expected to have a higher completion rate.
Rock bottom approaches are net needed with the addict with enough awareness to volunteer
for rehab, but are absolutely necessary for the resistive.
This is the concept behind “raising the bottom.” If the person abusing >> substances can respond to minor changes in their life, they will not
need to experience “rock bottom.”
Your ignorance of the subject matter is evident.
Well, those minor changes might very well be their rock bottom. Its an individual thing.
Each addicts rock bottom might be different.
There's a class element, too, as the rich can hit "rock bottom" in a
relatively luxurious rehab while helping a street addict avoid medical
problems is considered "enabling."
Your ignorance of the subject matter is evident.
Little Richie Rich's rock bottom might very well be
the loss of using his daddy's Ferrari
You don't understand the term rock bottom as it applies to addiction recovery.
Rock bottom might be homelessness, loss of family contact, loss of cellphone access, loss children, jail, loss of an XBox, whatever.
It is the amount or specificity of loss that in the mind of that particular addict, that
leads him to the conclusion that rehab is a better option. and, all joking aside, it could very well
be the loss of borrowing daddy's Ferrari.
On 1/30/23 10:57 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 4:47:01 PM UTC-5, MINe109 wrote:
On 1/30/23 2:01 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
You're mischaracterizing harm reduction with your terminology andBoth approaches are valid and do not exclude the other.
Not so.
Nurturing and enabling is counterproductive to the interventionist approach.
there's nothing about the model to stop someone from leaving rehab to go >> directly to AA or equivalent.
Your ignorance of the subject matter is evident.Thankfully I don't have direct experience but I do know there are rehabs that do not follow 12-step programs.
There is no reason anyone would choose to leave rehab to
focus on AA. AA principles are included in rehab
https://drugabuse.com/addiction/rock-bottom-myth/
As is often the case, there is some truth in the “rock bottom” myth. >> Some research has shown that resource loss is a good predictor of
treatment completion (Gruszczy?ska, Kaczmarek, Chodkiewicz, 2016). The
difference is that resource loss does not have to be catastrophic to be >> impactful.
Your ignorance of the subject matter is evident.
Rock bottom is used to get the addict to choose to go into rehab.Unless you read what was quoted which says resource loss is a possible motivator.
It is irrelevant to completion. But the completion stats could be lower, because an intervention employing rock bottom is, by necessity, employed towards resistive addicts.This a statement of faith, not science.
Non resistive addicts readily volunteering for treatment would be expected to have a higher completion rate.
Rock bottom approaches are net needed with the addict with enough awareness to volunteer
for rehab, but are absolutely necessary for the resistive.
This is the concept behind “raising the bottom.” If the person abusing
substances can respond to minor changes in their life, they will not
need to experience “rock bottom.”
Your ignorance of the subject matter is evident.So all you have to do is redefine 'rock-bottom' for the individual?
Well, those minor changes might very well be their rock bottom. Its an individual thing.
Each addicts rock bottom might be different.
There's a class element, too, as the rich can hit "rock bottom" in a
relatively luxurious rehab while helping a street addict avoid medical
problems is considered "enabling."
Your ignorance of the subject matter is evident.Money and resources make no difference in treatment?
Little Richie Rich's rock bottom might very well be
the loss of using his daddy's Ferrari
You don't understand the term rock bottom as it applies to addiction recovery.I understand it's an article of faith for you.
Rock bottom might be homelessness, loss of family contact, loss of cellphoneResource loss.
access, loss children, jail, loss of an XBox, whatever.
It is the amount or specificity of loss that in the mind of that particular addict, thatAnd there are people who have simply decided to not drink. Good for
leads him to the conclusion that rehab is a better option. and, all joking aside, it could very well
be the loss of borrowing daddy's Ferrari.
them, but it's not a useful method of treatment. OTOH, since the success rate for 12-step programs is said to be 20% or lower, telling someone to pull themselves up by their bootstraps wouldn't be that much worse statistically.
On Saturday, January 28, 2023 at 6:56:51 PM UTC-5, Fascist Flea wrote:
Update from our correspondent on Planet Misogyny. What's the news, Funny? >>>
Are those two brave women "terrible" because they're female, or because theirHow many times did Lyin' Trump call a woman "a terrible person"? How many of thoseWhen he referred to Hillary and Pelosi
instances did you agree with?
politics scare the crap out of you?
Overall, you've admitted you agree with Pumpkin-Face on 17% of
his "terrible person" whines. That's 2 out of 12, in case you're drunk.
It is impossible to have a rational discussion with you
Are those two brave women "terrible" because they're female, or because their
politics scare the crap out of you?
Overall, you've admitted you agree with Pumpkin-Face on 17% of
his "terrible person" whines. That's 2 out of 12, in case you're drunk.
It is impossible to have a rational discussion with you**It's impossible for YOU to have a rational discussion.
On 29/01/2023 1:00 pm, Art Sackman wrote:
On Saturday, January 28, 2023 at 6:56:51 PM UTC-5, Fascist Flea wrote:
Update from our correspondent on Planet Misogyny. What's the news, Funny? >>>
Are those two brave women "terrible" because they're female, or because theirHow many times did Lyin' Trump call a woman "a terrible person"? How many of thoseWhen he referred to Hillary and Pelosi
instances did you agree with?
politics scare the crap out of you?
Overall, you've admitted you agree with Pumpkin-Face on 17% of
his "terrible person" whines. That's 2 out of 12, in case you're drunk.
It is impossible to have a rational discussion with you**It's impossible for YOU to have a rational discussion.
WTF are you reading? I'm talking about getting addicts into rehab, not talking about abstinence.
On 1/31/23 1:44 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
WTF are you reading? I'm talking about getting addicts into rehab, not talking about abstinence.https://www.wbur.org/news/2014/04/07/defense-12-step-addiction
"These studies show that 12-step treatment improves outcomes by up to
20% for as long as two years post-treatment
On Wednesday, February 1, 2023 at 8:10:41 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 1/31/23 1:44 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
WTF are you reading? I'm talking about getting addicts into rehab, nothttps://www.wbur.org/news/2014/04/07/defense-12-step-addiction
talking about abstinence.
"These studies show that 12-step treatment improves outcomes by up to
20% for as long as two years post-treatment
This discussion is annoying as it's frought with confusion when comparing
AA 12-step programs to drug addiction treatment.
And AA is supposed to be lifelong commitment. There is no post treatment.
But AA starts with NO DRINKING. You can't go to meetings drunk.
They'll send you to a detox house if one is available and you've shown a willingness and
desire to really quit. Miminum two weeks, usually four.
If you fail there....they won't keep taking you in. Too many waiting in line.
Yes you will learn about the 12 steps while your keep the booze out of your system
and used to being sober.
Drug addiction detox they cannot handle.
I'm not arguing that once a person has broken the physical addiction to drugs,
a 12 step support program might help them overall.
But so many have mental health issues from their drug addiction that a 12 step
program would not help.
And harm reduction is BS. It just makes living drugged out a little easier. A bad example for young people who might be tempted to try drugs.
Addicts in the street only use is to scare the shit out of anyone considering trying addictive drugs
and not wanting to end up like that.
On 2/1/23 11:13 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Wednesday, February 1, 2023 at 8:10:41 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 1/31/23 1:44 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
WTF are you reading? I'm talking about getting addicts into rehab, not >>> talking about abstinence.https://www.wbur.org/news/2014/04/07/defense-12-step-addiction
"These studies show that 12-step treatment improves outcomes by up to
20% for as long as two years post-treatment
This discussion is annoying as it's frought with confusion when comparing AA 12-step programs to drug addiction treatment.The real conversation is over harm-reduction. I'm open to various
treatment programs existing.
And AA is supposed to be lifelong commitment. There is no post treatment.
But AA starts with NO DRINKING. You can't go to meetings drunk.
They'll send you to a detox house if one is available and you've shown a willingness and
desire to really quit. Miminum two weeks, usually four.
If you fail there....they won't keep taking you in. Too many waiting in line.
Yes you will learn about the 12 steps while your keep the booze out of your system
and used to being sober.
Drug addiction detox they cannot handle.
I'm not arguing that once a person has broken the physical addiction to drugs,The anti-12 stepper I found argues addiction is a displacement, a
a 12 step support program might help them overall.
But so many have mental health issues from their drug addiction that a 12 step
program would not help.
substitute behavior.
While that makes some reductive sense, it ignores
the possibility of genetic or other contributing factors.
Yes, the mental health aspect complicates the 12-step approach.
And harm reduction is BS. It just makes living drugged out a little easier. A bad example for young people who might be tempted to try drugs.Addicts are not restricted to the street and harm reduction covers much
Addicts in the street only use is to scare the shit out of anyone considering trying addictive drugs
and not wanting to end up like that.
more than you imply.
On Wednesday, February 1, 2023 at 11:21:14 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 2/1/23 11:13 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Wednesday, February 1, 2023 at 8:10:41 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 1/31/23 1:44 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
WTF are you reading? I'm talking about getting addicts into rehab, not >>> talking about abstinence.https://www.wbur.org/news/2014/04/07/defense-12-step-addiction
"These studies show that 12-step treatment improves outcomes by up to
20% for as long as two years post-treatment
This discussion is annoying as it's frought with confusion when comparing AA 12-step programs to drug addiction treatment.The real conversation is over harm-reduction. I'm open to various
treatment programs existing.
And AA is supposed to be lifelong commitment. There is no post treatment.
But AA starts with NO DRINKING. You can't go to meetings drunk.
They'll send you to a detox house if one is available and you've shown a willingness and
desire to really quit. Miminum two weeks, usually four.
If you fail there....they won't keep taking you in. Too many waiting in line.
Yes you will learn about the 12 steps while your keep the booze out of your system
and used to being sober.
Drug addiction detox they cannot handle.
This all BS speak. Addiction is a medical condition.I'm not arguing that once a person has broken the physical addiction to drugs,The anti-12 stepper I found argues addiction is a displacement, a substitute behavior.
a 12 step support program might help them overall.
But so many have mental health issues from their drug addiction that a 12 step
program would not help.
If you don't take the drugs or drink the booze, you'll suffer a
medical response to detoxification.
That's addiction. After that it's all mental with a strong dose
of cultural/societal thrown in.
While that makes some reductive sense, it ignoresNo one is born addicted who wasn't exposed to drugs via their mother.
the possibility of genetic or other contributing factors.
Nor is anyone genetically destined to become addicted.
(Sounds potentially racist to me). What's next...addiction is related to sickle cell?
People may be more or less susceptible for many reasons but no has proven
a specific genetic trait that leads to addiction.
Yes, the mental health aspect complicates the 12-step approach.It's a smokescreen for any real and meaningful habilitation.
And harm reduction is BS. It just makes living drugged out a little easier.Addicts are not restricted to the street and harm reduction covers much more than you imply.
A bad example for young people who might be tempted to try drugs.
Addicts in the street only use is to scare the shit out of anyone considering trying addictive drugs
and not wanting to end up like that.
And "harm reduction" for meth addiction is simply criminal.
Your condoning a poison that will inevitably make the user permanently psychotic.
There is no way to justify enabling use of drugs like that.
ScottW
Harm reduction does not get the addict into treatment. I only
prolongs the addiction. Harm reduction does not mitigate the harm of
the drug use itself, nor the harms of homelessness, prostitution,
criminal activity, and suicide. It merely makes injections safer, and
only some of the addicts injections, as harm reduction centers are
not 24/7 and are not always ;ocated near where the addict is
arranging for his next fix.
On Wednesday, February 1, 2023 at 11:21:14 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 2/1/23 11:13 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Wednesday, February 1, 2023 at 8:10:41 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:The real conversation is over harm-reduction. I'm open to various
On 1/31/23 1:44 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
WTF are you reading? I'm talking about getting addicts into rehab, not >>>>> talking about abstinence.https://www.wbur.org/news/2014/04/07/defense-12-step-addiction
"These studies show that 12-step treatment improves outcomes by up to
20% for as long as two years post-treatment
This discussion is annoying as it's frought with confusion when comparing >>> AA 12-step programs to drug addiction treatment.
treatment programs existing.
And AA is supposed to be lifelong commitment. There is no post treatment. >>>The anti-12 stepper I found argues addiction is a displacement, a
But AA starts with NO DRINKING. You can't go to meetings drunk.
They'll send you to a detox house if one is available and you've shown a willingness and
desire to really quit. Miminum two weeks, usually four.
If you fail there....they won't keep taking you in. Too many waiting in line.
Yes you will learn about the 12 steps while your keep the booze out of your system
and used to being sober.
Drug addiction detox they cannot handle.
I'm not arguing that once a person has broken the physical addiction to drugs,
a 12 step support program might help them overall.
But so many have mental health issues from their drug addiction that a 12 step
program would not help.
substitute behavior.
This all BS speak. Addiction is a medical condition.
If you don't take the drugs or drink the booze, you'll suffer a
medical response to detoxification.
That's addiction. After that it's all mental with a strong dose
of cultural/societal thrown in.
While that makes some reductive sense, it ignores
the possibility of genetic or other contributing factors.
No one is born addicted who wasn't exposed to drugs via their mother.
Nor is anyone genetically destined to become addicted.
(Sounds potentially racist to me). What's next...addiction is related to sickle cell?
People may be more or less susceptible for many reasons but no has proven
a specific genetic trait that leads to addiction.
Yes, the mental health aspect complicates the 12-step approach.
And harm reduction is BS. It just makes living drugged out a little easier. >>> A bad example for young people who might be tempted to try drugs.Addicts are not restricted to the street and harm reduction covers much
Addicts in the street only use is to scare the shit out of anyone considering trying addictive drugs
and not wanting to end up like that.
more than you imply.
It's a smokescreen for any real and meaningful habilitation.
And "harm reduction" for meth addiction is simply criminal.
Your condoning a poison that will inevitably make the user permanently psychotic.
There is no way to justify enabling use of drugs like that.
On 2/1/23 7:57 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Wednesday, February 1, 2023 at 11:21:14 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 2/1/23 11:13 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Wednesday, February 1, 2023 at 8:10:41 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:The real conversation is over harm-reduction. I'm open to various
On 1/31/23 1:44 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
WTF are you reading? I'm talking about getting addicts into rehab, not >>>>> talking about abstinence.https://www.wbur.org/news/2014/04/07/defense-12-step-addiction
"These studies show that 12-step treatment improves outcomes by up to >>>> 20% for as long as two years post-treatment
This discussion is annoying as it's frought with confusion when comparing >>> AA 12-step programs to drug addiction treatment.
treatment programs existing.
And AA is supposed to be lifelong commitment. There is no post treatment. >>>The anti-12 stepper I found argues addiction is a displacement, a
But AA starts with NO DRINKING. You can't go to meetings drunk.
They'll send you to a detox house if one is available and you've shown a willingness and
desire to really quit. Miminum two weeks, usually four.
If you fail there....they won't keep taking you in. Too many waiting in line.
Yes you will learn about the 12 steps while your keep the booze out of your system
and used to being sober.
Drug addiction detox they cannot handle.
I'm not arguing that once a person has broken the physical addiction to drugs,
a 12 step support program might help them overall.
But so many have mental health issues from their drug addiction that a 12 step
program would not help.
substitute behavior.
This all BS speak. Addiction is a medical condition.There's that all-purpose dismissal of anything you don't like.
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 8:46:31 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 2/1/23 7:57 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Wednesday, February 1, 2023 at 11:21:14 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
There's that all-purpose dismissal of anything you don't like.The anti-12 stepper I found argues addiction is a displacement, a
substitute behavior.
This all BS speak. Addiction is a medical condition.
I dismiss unnecessary complication by grifters and their supporters, like you.
Next thing you'll be calling addictive drug use self-medication.
On 2/2/23 12:23 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 8:46:31 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 2/1/23 7:57 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Wednesday, February 1, 2023 at 11:21:14 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
There's that all-purpose dismissal of anything you don't like.The anti-12 stepper I found argues addiction is a displacement, a
substitute behavior.
This all BS speak. Addiction is a medical condition.
I dismiss unnecessary complication by grifters and their supporters, like you.It also keeps you from accidentally accepting common ground.
Next thing you'll be calling addictive drug use self-medication.Sounds like someone who has heard the term before and therefore knows it exists.
On 2/2/23 1:25 AM, Art Sackman wrote:
Harm reduction does not get the addict into treatment. I onlyYour definition of harm reduction is too narrow but even if we take it
prolongs the addiction. Harm reduction does not mitigate the harm of
the drug use itself, nor the harms of homelessness, prostitution,
criminal activity, and suicide. It merely makes injections safer, and
only some of the addicts injections, as harm reduction centers are
not 24/7 and are not always ;ocated near where the addict is
arranging for his next fix.
only to be about safe injection sites, there is evidence it works:
https://ontario.cmha.ca/harm-reduction/
Overdose prevention sites have been known to reduce costs for the health
care system, prevent blood borne illnesses such as HIV or Hepatitis C,
helps individuals access support services and prevent overdose deaths.
In addition, research shows that the existence of an overdose prevention
site in a community does not lead to increased crime, and works to
decrease public substance consumption. These facilities are helpful in reducing the harms related to substances, particularly opioids. Overdose prevention sites are an evidence-based component to a comprehensive
treatment response.
Contains these cites:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20653622/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17523986/
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 493 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 169:24:19 |
| Calls: | 9,703 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 13,735 |
| Messages: | 6,178,284 |