Barney
7 Mar 2015 #3151
Here we go again...
I have explained three times what I meant which is the exact opposite of attempting to wriggle out of anything. You can check what I said above. If there is something you don't understand perhaps you could point to it or since you think I'm trying to wriggle out of something you could explain what that something is.
For the fourth time.....
With this new regime the question of openness is not possible and is not achievable simply because they have obstructed openess. They have hampered their own investigation they have created a "ministry of truth" to censor and manipulate the media.
Again my words (below) in full and in context replying to you talking about what was possible (for this new regime) to achieve
Jon, Yanukovych was democratically elected in a process deemed fair.
Most regimes wishing to establish democratic legimitacy do so by being open and transparent, if they wish to demonstrate how Yanukovich's removal was constitutional it would be very easy for them to do so. It's not a question of what is possible or achievable, this regime is not attempting to be open or transparent, it's blocking its own, admittedly very weak, investigation.
Most regimes wishing to establish democratic legimitacy do so by being open and transparent, if they wish to demonstrate how Yanukovich's removal was constitutional it would be very easy for them to do so. It's not a question of what is possible or achievable, this regime is not attempting to be open or transparent, it's blocking its own, admittedly very weak, investigation.
Now you were wrong and shown to be wrong on the first part, the links you provided proved you wrong. You were confused about the chronology and exact events and threw mud and abuse like a child.
Now the second part of my post, I have explained it to you four times something you have never done for me or anyone else preferring to post comments you thought made you look smart and refusing to explain when challenged.
Ok, For the fifth time now my comment replying to you means.....
1 democracy means open and transparent government
2 new regime not open, not transparent
3 they could have an investigation
4 they chose not to
5 it's not about what is possible in this investigation
6 because there is no will to make it possible
7 they are sabotaging their own investigation.
Nothing was possible, nothing was achievable because they didn't and don't want openness.
I have explained my comment now you explain what is disingenuous about expecting a democratic state to adhere to democratic norms. You continually refuse to explain what you meant yet demand others to jump to your command. It's clear you posted your comment because you thought it was rather smart.
Vox
Thank you, I have teenage children and keeping calm comes easily to me. An experience that has taught me when to explain When to deflect abuse and when to ignore lunatics.