War in Ukraine

#54,276
#54,276
hog88 said:
1. The source of the money is us, our tax dollars.

2. The administration, its bureaucrats are using Ukraine, MIC contractors to obfuscate the source of the money being returned to them. If that isn’t laundering I don’t know what is.

3. Even the POTUS just can’t openly stuff his pockets with our tax dollars. The source has to look legitimate.
Click to expand...

1. Ok? Technically it's tax revenue collected by the federal government, just like every other dollar of foreign aid and/or the defense budget. Not sure what you are getting at.

2. If you have evidence of some sort of fraud being committed related to military aid sent to Ukraine, please provide it. Baseless allegations and vague conspiracy is just that. The purpose of "money laundering' is to conceal the origin of financial gains. There is no concealing the origin of military aid to Ukraine, and as yet, you've provided no evidence of that money being used in some sort of graft/kickback scheme.

3. I've yet to see any evidence that Biden is "stuffing his pockets" with military aid earmarked for Ukraine. If you have such evidence I'd be happy to entertain it.

You don't seem to have a very good grasp on how the aid to Ukraine is allotted.

Aid to Ukraine Explained in Six Charts
 
#54,277
#54,277
AM64 said:
Ever notice when somebody uses a term like "salty" these days, you have to try and figure out from context and source just which version of the term "salty" the are trying to use. "Salty" language didn't used to have a damn thing to do with being teary eyed.
Click to expand...

That guy is just another extreme liberal
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary and AM64
#54,278
#54,278
hog88 said:
1. The source of the money is us, our tax dollars.

2. The administration, its bureaucrats are using Ukraine, MIC contractors to obfuscate the source of the money being returned to them. If that isn’t laundering I don’t know what is.

3. Even the POTUS just can’t openly stuff his pockets with our tax dollars. The source has to look legitimate.
Click to expand...

I thought this was a pretty clear money laundering scheme. Take money from source A and move it to B and then B moves the money to C. A in this case is the federal government, B is Ukraine and C is thousands of crooks from the Ukrainian oligarchs to the US politicians.

Apparently, the bearded fellow needs to figure out what money laundering really entails.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DonjoVol, Rasputin_Vol, norrislakevol and 2 others
#54,280
#54,280
evillawyer said:
Not clear what point you're trying to make. Is it, (1) only "moral saint" states have a right to exist, (2) only "moral saint" states should get our funding, even when attacked by states that are even more corrupt, or (3) something else.

I don't think anyone denies Ukraine has had a spotted past in terms of good governance, but why is that of relevance to whether we should support them given that (a) they're an ally, (b) they're a functioning democracy, and (c) they were attacked by an imperialistic dictatorship that wants to deny them independent statehood and take some or all of their lands or turn them into a vassel state (a la Belarus).
Click to expand...

Remember there's a lot of the past/present stuff to consider here - like are or are the Russians Soviets or not Soviets (or were the Soviets just Russian puppets). Russians were the people who corrupted an entire region and turned it into a communist/Soviet wonderland controlled from Moscow which as I recall is Russia. It seems really that Ukraine was a corrupt Soviet state that got too uppity and maybe tried to throw off the old Soviet (read "corrupt ways"), and the Russians wanted to nip that kind of behavior in the bud and pull Ukraine back into the fold. Maybe Ras will be along to fix the Soviet/Russian ... context again ( and yeah, Marx was German and Stalin was Georgian, blah, blah, blah all the way home).
 
#54,281
#54,281
VolStrom said:
I thought this was a pretty clear money laundering scheme. Take money from source A and move it to B and then B moves the money to C. A in this case is the federal government, B is Ukraine and C is thousands of crooks from the Ukrainian oligarchs to the US politicians.

Apparently, the bearded fellow needs to figure out what money laundering really entails.
Click to expand...

Anything to defend Biden and his handlers.
 
#54,282
#54,282
hog88 said:
1. The source of the money is us, our tax dollars.

2. The administration, its bureaucrats are using Ukraine, MIC contractors to obfuscate the source of the money being returned to them. If that isn’t laundering I don’t know what is.

3. Even the POTUS just can’t openly stuff his pockets with our tax dollars. The source has to look legitimate.
Click to expand...

You'd think the priority would be to break the cycle - that lawmakers and families couldn't benefit financially from decisions they make. To do that would require first that we acknowledge the problem exists, but we aren't, and we the voters aren't running the show. I think the problem lies with us - the electorate because we elect the same people again and again and never force an end or an investigation. The Chad Mitchell Trio had a great protest song covering it

[Verse 3]
I learned that wars are not so bad
I learned of the great ones we have had
We fought in Germany and in France
And someday I might get my chance
And that's what I learned in school today
That's what I learned in school (Well)

[Chorus]
(What did you learn in school today
Dear little boys of mine?
What did you learn in school today
Dear little boys of mine?)

[Verse 4]
I learned our government must be strong
It's always right, never wrong
Our leaders are the finest men
And so we elect them again and again
And that's what I learned in school today
That's what I learned in school
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tbwhhs and hog88
#54,283
#54,283
BeardedVol said:
1. Ok? Technically it's tax revenue collected by the federal government, just like every other dollar of foreign aid and/or the defense budget. Not sure what you are getting at.

2. If you have evidence of some sort of fraud being committed related to military aid sent to Ukraine, please provide it. Baseless allegations and vague conspiracy is just that. The purpose of "money laundering' is to conceal the origin of financial gains. There is no concealing the origin of military aid to Ukraine, and as yet, you've provided no evidence of that money being used in some sort of graft/kickback scheme.

3. I've yet to see any evidence that Biden is "stuffing his pockets" with military aid earmarked for Ukraine. If you have such evidence I'd be happy to entertain it.

You don't seem to have a very good grasp on how the aid to Ukraine is allotted.

Aid to Ukraine Explained in Six Charts
Click to expand...

How much luck has any regular person ever had in causing an investigation of government activity - from how members of congress become wealthy while in office (on a "moderate" income) to questions of election integrity. Clue: the answer is pretty much zip - not happening. If all else fails the courts fall back on "no evidence" or standing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbwhhs, Orangeburst and hog88
#54,285
#54,285
Liberal Media


FkoDM6vWYAIcH0z





Fkno9CdX0AI6C5j
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, DonjoVol, Rasputin_Vol and 3 others
#54,288
#54,288
AM64 said:
How much luck has any regular person ever had in causing an investigation of government activity - from how members of congress become wealthy while in office (on a "moderate" income) to questions of election integrity. Clue: the answer is pretty much zip - not happening. If all else fails the courts fall back on "no evidence" or standing.
Click to expand...

By that logic if we are to assume that every federal dollars spent involve some sort or corruption, regardless of the absence of any evidence, is there any reason to bring it up?
 
#54,290
#54,290
Orangeburst said:
Biden's Unprecedented Ukraine Aid Raises Red Flags
Click to expand...
Great ending paragraph that resonates with me. I don’t think we should send one penny of hard cash that’s too tempting. Any aid provided should be goods and services, in this case weapons and training. Let the EU pay the allowance of their newborn child.

It's clear that Ukraine needs outside help in its fight against Russia. The question is not whether we should support Ukraine. The question is the breakneck speed of Ukraine-bound aid that outpaces controls, money siphoned off by corrupt actors, and red flags at every turn. Fiscal responsibility and administrative transparency for American taxpayers should not be ignored, despite the urgency of the need.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, InVOLuntary, norrislakevol and 1 other person
#54,291
#54,291
NorthDallas40 said:
Great ending paragraph that resonates with me. I don’t think we should send one penny of hard cash that’s too tempting. Any aid provided should be goods and services, in this case weapons and training. Let the EU pay the allowance of their newborn child.
Click to expand...

I thought she raised good points on Drawdowns.
Won't have to worry about that for awhile now with a budget of $40B
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#54,293
#54,293
Orangeburst said:
I thought she raised good points on Drawdowns.
Won't have to worry about that for awhile now with a budget of $40B
Click to expand...
We are committing entirely too much way too fast. And sending cold hard cash is asking for trouble. And we absolutely should be auditing every piece of aid provided. That’s Congress’s job FFS. Or at least their responsibility.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, norrislakevol and tbwhhs
#54,295
#54,295
BeardedVol said:
By that logic if we are to assume that every federal dollars spent involve some sort or corruption, regardless of the absence of any evidence, is there any reason to bring it up?
Click to expand...

Sure. If you don't admit to a problem, then you won't deal with the problem. We first have to deal with the fact that politicians are corrupt and at least quit electing the ones who have mastered it - that probably means anybody who has been in place of at least one term. Yeah, it's guilt by association for some, but by and large all politicians eventually fall into the corrupt category. The old adage about "power corrupts" didn't come from nothing.

The "evidence" may be circumstantial (and to quote the very wealthy Fauci "anecdotal") but it's hard to deny that there is some propensity for members of congress to become wealthy when they don't make enough to get that way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#54,296
#54,296
AM64 said:
Sure. If you don't admit to a problem, then you won't deal with the problem. We first have to deal with the fact that politicians are corrupt and at least quit electing the ones who have mastered it - that probably means anybody who has been in place of at least one term. Yeah, it's guilt by association for some, but by and large all politicians eventually fall into the corrupt category. The old adage about "power corrupts" didn't come from nothing.
Click to expand...

A Pentagon that failed to account for $2.1T?
Our government is a joke.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol and AM64
#54,299
#54,299
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst and AM64
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top