It’s Official: US Abandoning Ukraine | Scheerpost

[Scott75]

On 1/27/2025 at 12:22 PM, myata said:

On 1/27/2025 at 11:26 AM, Scott75 said:

I'm no fan of Trump,

Yes you are in fact his fan

No, I'm not.

On 1/27/2025 at 12:22 PM, myata said:

you're peddling Putin's lies and the supposed "deal" was nothing better than Munich 1938 which led to the consequences every sane person in the world knows or should.

What "lies" do you think I'm "peddling"? As to the 2022 peace deal that Russia offered Ukraine, it would have been -far- better than what Ukraine will have to accept now. Russia had agreed to leave all the territory it had taken since the start of its military operation/war in Ukraine. That deal is off the table now. At this point, it's unlikely that Russia will cede back much if any of the land that it has taken. However, if Ukraine were to negotiate a peace deal now, it could at least have a good possibility of preventing Russia from taking yet more land.

There's also another very important point here, which is that it was actually Ukraine that started hostilities in this war, by attacking eastern Ukraine about a week before Russia's military operation. It seems pretty clear to me that this was the final straw that got Russia to start its military operation. Former Swiss Intelligence Officer Jacques Baud gets into the details in an article that he wrote shortly after Russia's military operation in Ukraine began. It can be seen here:

https://scheerpost.com/2022/04/09/former-nato-military-analyst-blows-the-whistle-on-wests-ukraine-invasion-narrative/

 

[Scott75]

On 1/27/2025 at 1:30 PM, DUI_Offender said:

On 1/27/2025 at 11:26 AM, Scott75 said:

I'm no fan of Trump, but I believe that abandoning Ukraine militarily is the right option. Trump has said some good things recently, such as his point that Zelensky passed on a very reasonable peace deal back in April 2022:

https://scheerpost.com/2025/01/26/trump-zelensky-passed-on-deal-decided-to-fight/

What Trump -doesn't- mention is that he was encouraged to pass on it by western powers. From the article:

**

When Zelensky was close to signing the deal, then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson traveled to Kiev where he pushed Zelensky to forgo diplomacy and attempt to drive the Russian forces from Ukraine. At the time, members of NATO promised to give Ukraine everything it needed to win the war.

**

There's also the fact that Biden et al never expected Ukraine to win in its war with Russia, as the article in the opening post reveals. I think the oft quoted saying of "to the last Ukrainian" was always the underlying motto. Some realized this early on:

https://scheerpost.com/2022/09/14/lee-camp-how-the-us-uk-stopped-peace-deal-in-ukraine/

You may want to use a better source than a borderline Communist Independant news company:

 

These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation.  They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports, and omit information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Left Bias sources.

• Overall, we rate ScheerPost as left-biased due to its consistent focus on progressive issues and critiques of capitalism and militarism. We also rate it Mixed in factual reporting due to the publication of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/scheerpost-bias-and-credibility/

For starters, since when has liberalism and the left wing been the same thing as communism? Scheerpost was launched by Robert Scheer in March 2020, but he's been an American journalist for a lot longer than that. From his Wikipedia page:

**

Robert Scheer (born April 4, 1936) is an American left-wing journalist who has written for Ramparts, the Los Angeles Times, Playboy, Hustler Magazine, Truthdig, ScheerPost and other publications as well as having written many books. His column for Truthdig was nationally syndicated by Creators Syndicate in publications such as The Huffington Post and The Nation. He is a clinical professor of communications at the Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism at the University of Southern California. Scheer is the former editor in-chief for the Webby Award-winning^[1] online magazine Truthdig.^[2] For many years, he co-hosted the nationally syndicated political analysis radio program Left, Right & Center on National Public Radio (NPR), produced at public radio station KCRW in Santa Monica.^[3] The Society of Professional Journalists awarded Scheer the 2011 Sigma Delta Chi Award for his column.^[4]

**

Source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Scheer

 

Furthermore, some of the writers that Scheerpost publishes are actually on the right wing. Patrick Lawerence is a good example. He's been pretty harsh with the Biden Administration:

https://scheerpost.com/2024/12/06/patrick-lawrence-the-biden-family-of-liars/

That doesn't mean he lets Trump off the hook though:

https://scheerpost.com/2025/01/27/patrick-lawrence-trumps-failures-americas-failures/

[Scott75]

On 1/27/2025 at 2:08 PM, WestCanMan said:

On 1/27/2025 at 4:59 AM, Scott75 said:

Interesting article from Kit Klarenberg published today on Scheerpost. Quoting the introduction and conclusion of the article:

**

[snip]

The US always intended to abandon Ukraine after setting up the country for proxy war with Russia,

[snip]

**

Full article:

https://scheerpost.com/2025/01/27/its-official-us-abandoning-ukraine/

Oh, snap!

Some leftists' heads are gonna pop 🤣

Looks like the leftists here didn't even notice, or refuse to believe it. That, or they didn't care. I'm really hoping it's the former.

[Scott75]

On 1/27/2025 at 2:14 PM, User said:

On 1/27/2025 at 2:08 PM, WestCanMan said:

Oh, snap!

Some leftists' heads are gonna pop 🤣

Nope, not really. (I am not a leftists) I don't frame my POV on some random website, I have never even heard of before off of some baseless assertion someone I have never heard of before wrote. 

Scheerpost was referencing a Time article. Surely you have heard of Time magazine?

Edited January 29 by Scott75

[NAME REMOVED]

3 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

Looks like the leftists here didn't even notice, or refuse to believe it. That, or they didn't care. I'm really hoping it's the former.

You use far left sources to validate your points. It seems you are confused politically where you stand.

[Scott75]

On 1/27/2025 at 2:14 PM, DUI_Offender said:

You do realise that Scott's article is from a socialist website?

First communist, now socialist, you certainly do ascribe a lot of labels to Scheerpost :-p. The funny thing is that when you actually quoted a source critiquing the site, it didn't say it was communist or socialist. Perhaps most importantly, the article I quoted in the opening post was referencing a Time magazine article. Do you think they are communist/socialist as well?

[Scott75]

38 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

45 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

On 1/27/2025 at 8:16 AM, DUI_Offender said:

We all knew that if Trump won, he would abandon Ukraine. It was so obvious.

It wasn't completely obvious to me- even now, I have some doubts that he will follow through. But I always found him to be more realistic on the pros and cons of staying in that conflict than the democrats, so I definitely believed and continue to believe that the odds are greater that he pulls out of there sooner then if Kamala had been made President. 

If you actually legitimise Trump, than I am not sure you understand anything in regards to how the World works.

I have no idea what you mean by 'legitimise Trump'. I've already said that I'm not one of his fans. I simply said that I think he's more likely to pull out of Ukraine sooner than Kamala would have been. I also think it was good that he recognized the stupidity of helping Ukraine bomb Russia:

https://www.ap.org/news-highlights/spotlights/2024/trump-says-it-was-stupid-for-biden-to-let-ukraine-use-us-weapons-to-strike-deeper-into-russia/

[NAME REMOVED]

4 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

I have no idea what you mean by 'legitimise Trump'. I've already said that I'm not one of his fans. I simply said that I think he's more likely to pull out of Ukraine sooner than Kamala would have been. I also think it was good that he recognized the stupidity of helping Ukraine bomb Russia:

https://www.ap.org/news-highlights/spotlights/2024/trump-says-it-was-stupid-for-biden-to-let-ukraine-use-us-weapons-to-strike-deeper-into-russia/

We all knew you have two accounts, trying to rationalise Russian assets like Scott Ritter, and others. To actually side with Russia in this war, makes you misguided, and extremely gullible, in terms of believing Russian propaganda.

Edited January 29 by DUI_Offender

[Scott75]

11 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

16 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

Looks like the leftists here didn't even notice, or refuse to believe it. That, or they didn't care. I'm really hoping it's the former.

You use far left sources to validate your points.

What "far left" source are you referring to? The opening post referenced an article from Scheerpost. Your -own- source said nothing about it being a "far left" source. Your source also said that it has a "consistent focus on progressive issues and critiques of capitalism and militarism" and -that- I can definitely agree with.

Perhaps more importantly though, is that the article I referenced in the opening post was itself referring to an article from Time Magazine. Do you also believe that this is a "far left" source?

[User]

20 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

Scheerpost was referencing a Time article. Surely you have heard of Time magazine?

Then quote Time magazine here instead. Lets see it. 

[Scott75]

7 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

12 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

I have no idea what you mean by 'legitimise Trump'. I've already said that I'm not one of his fans. I simply said that I think he's more likely to pull out of Ukraine sooner than Kamala would have been. I also think it was good that he recognized the stupidity of helping Ukraine bomb Russia:

https://www.ap.org/news-highlights/spotlights/2024/trump-says-it-was-stupid-for-biden-to-let-ukraine-use-us-weapons-to-strike-deeper-into-russia/

We all knew you have two accounts, trying to rationalise Russian assets like Scott Ritter, and others.

I've never had two accounts here. I'm guessing your issue is that you can't seem to conceptualize a poster who leans left or progressive on some issues, and right or conservative on others. I think it makes perfect sense for many Americans to not want to finance a war on the other side of the world. I also think that Americans need to accept the new trends in gender identity. I don't need to have two accounts to have both of these views. As to Scott Ritter, I think he's had some very relevant things to say in regards to various wars, including the one in Ukraine. If you want to talk more about his personal life, you can always do so in the thread I made specifically for that subject:

8 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

To actually side with Russia in this war, makes you misguided, and extremely gullible, in terms of believing Russian propaganda.

I think Russia's position makes sense, just as I think that the United States' position during the Cuban missile crisis made sense. No nation wants to have a clear threat right next to its border. Superpowers tend to go to great lengths to ensure that such threats are neutralized.

[NAME REMOVED]

Well I guess you changed your name from phoenyx75, after you were shamed for defending a pedophile. 

 

Imagine defending a bully, who invades an innocent nation, and them demonising Ukraine for defending itself, from a much larger invader. Your sense of morality is warped.

 

Edited January 29 by DUI_Offender

[Scott75]

30 minutes ago, User said:

Then quote Time magazine here instead. Lets see it. 

Fine. Here's the introduction to their article:

**

When Russia invaded Ukraine nearly three years ago, President Joe Biden set three objectives for the U.S. response. Ukraine’s victory was never among them. The phrase the White House used to describe its mission at the time—supporting Ukraine “for as long as it takes”—was intentionally vague. It also raised the question: As long as it takes to do what?

“We were deliberately not talking about the territorial parameters,” says Eric Green, who served on Biden’s National Security Council at the time, overseeing Russia policy. The U.S., in other words, made no promise to help Ukraine recover all of the land Russia had occupied, and certainly not the vast territories in eastern Ukraine and the Crimean Peninsula taken in its initial invasion in 2014. The reason was simple, Green says: in the White House’s view, doing so was beyond Ukraine’s ability, even with robust help from the West. “That was not going to be a success story ultimately. The more important objective was for Ukraine to survive as a sovereign, democratic country free to pursue integration with the West.” 

 

That was one of the three objectives Biden set. He also wanted the U.S. and its allies to remain united, and he insisted on avoiding direct conflict between Russia and NATO. Looking back on his leadership during the war in Ukraine — certain to shape his legacy as a statesman — Biden has achieved those three objectives. But success on those limited terms provides little satisfaction even to some of his closest allies and advisers. “It’s unfortunately the kind of success where you don’t feel great about it,” Green says in an interview with TIME. “Because there is so much suffering for Ukraine and so much uncertainty about where it’s ultimately going to land.” 

**

Source:

https://time.com/7207661/bidens-ukraine-win-zelensky-loss/

I think it's clear that Ukraine has already be thoroughly wrecked by this war, but the sad thing is, I'm pretty sure it will only get worse the longer it goes on. You gotta hand it to those times writers, though- saying "for as long as it takes" was "intentionally vague"? That's really something. More like "as long as it's politically expedient". That time is ending.

Edited January 29 by Scott75

[NAME REMOVED]

3 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

 

I think it's clear that Ukraine has already be thoroughly wrecked by this war, but the sad thing is, I'm pretty sure it will only get worse then longer it goes on. You gotta hand it to those times writers, though- saying "for as long as it takes" was "intentionally vague"? That's really something. More like "as long as it's politically expedient". That time is ending.

For comparison sake, much of Britain was wrecked by the Blitzkrieg. However, the British retaliated, and fought off the Nazis. What were they thinking?. Perhaps they should have just listened to you, took the knee and let the Germans conquer them, according to your bizarre takes. 

 

Edited January 29 by DUI_Offender

[User]

9 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

I think it's clear that Ukraine has already be thoroughly wrecked by this war, but the sad thing is, I'm pretty sure it will only get worse then longer it goes on. You gotta hand it to those times writers, though- saying "for as long as it takes" was "intentionally vague"? That's really something. More like "as long as it's politically expedient". That time is ending.

Yes, when you have a country like Russia waging war against you, targeting your infrastructure, fighting the war like it is WWII and just firing as much artillery as they can get their hands on and warp their barrels with... it tends to wreck a country. 

So why do you support Russia doing this?

[Scott75]

16 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

Well I guess you changed your name from phoenyx75, after you were shamed for defending a pedophile. 

I'm going to assume you're claiming this of Scott Ritter. As I've mentioned in the past, I made a thread specifically to address any concerns you or others may have about Mr. Ritter. For the audience, I've responded in detail to DUI's claim in a new post I just made there. It can be seen here:

 

Edited January 29 by Scott75

[NAME REMOVED]

2 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

I'm going to assume you're claiming this of Scott Ritter. As I've mentioned in the past, I made a thread specifically to address any concerns you or others may have about Mr. Ritter. For the audience, I've responded in detail to DUI's claim in a new post I just made there. It can be seen here:

 

Ritter is a pedophile. He has been caught multiple times sexting underage girls, yet you defend him.

[Barquentine]

So if Russia gets a big chunk (or all) of Ukraine they will not only have one of the largest reserve of oil in the world but also control of one of the largest food exporters in the world. I don't think the West wants that. And Europe wants that buffer zone. The U.S. won the Cold War by outspending the USSR. They can do the same now.  At the same time, everywhere the U.S. retreats from, whether its military aid, humanitarian aid, trade deals,... China will step in to fill the void. Trump on Mt. Rushmore? More like Mt. Flushmore".

[Deluge]

2 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

If you actually legitimise Trump, than I am not sure you understand anything in regards to how the World works.

Drunk_Offender thinks that because he idolizes Karl Marx, and that automatically makes him an expert on every subject. 

Edited January 29 by Deluge

[NAME REMOVED]

1 hour ago, Scott75 said:

I'm going to assume you're claiming this of Scott Ritter. As I've mentioned in the past, I made a thread specifically to address any concerns you or others may have about Mr. Ritter. For the audience, I've responded in detail to DUI's claim in a new post I just made there. It can be seen here:

 

He is a pedophile. For you to defend him, is deplorable. Others have pointed this out to you, in regards to Ritter being a sexual deviant. He has been caught twice, and served time in prison for it.

Edited January 29 by DUI_Offender

[User]

2 hours ago, Scott75 said:

I made a thread specifically to address any concerns you or others may have about Mr. Ritter.

Yeah, and we soundly rejected your absurd arguments trying to defend this guy. 

[Scott75]

5 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

5 hours ago, Scott75 said:

I think it's clear that Ukraine has already be thoroughly wrecked by this war, but the sad thing is, I'm pretty sure it will only get worse the longer it goes on. You gotta hand it to those times writers, though- saying "for as long as it takes" was "intentionally vague"? That's really something. More like "as long as it's politically expedient". That time is ending.

For comparison sake, much of Britain was wrecked by the Blitzkrieg. However, the British retaliated, and fought off the Nazis. What were they thinking?. Perhaps they should have just listened to you, took the knee and let the Germans conquer them, according to your bizarre takes.

World War II started before Germany's attack on Britain. From what I understand, the official start was when it invaded Poland. There were some major differences between this event and Russia's military operation in Ukraine though:

1- Poland wasn't killing ethnic Germans and German speakers in some part of Poland for 8 years prior to Germany's invasion of the country.

2- Poland certainly hadn't agreed to not one, but 2 treaties stipulating that the ethnic Germans and German speakers residing therein were to be treated with respect.

The last straw, ofcourse, was when Ukraine once again attacked the self proclaimed Donbass Republics in the Donbass region of Ukraine to kill yet more ethnic Russians and Russian speakers living there.

I think Former Swiss Intelligence Officer captured Putin's predicament quite well in the days leading up to his decision to start a military operation in Ukraine:

**

In fact, as early as February 16, Joe Biden knows that the Ukrainians began to shell the civilian populations of Donbass, putting Vladimir Putin in front of a difficult choice: to help Donbass militarily and create an international problem or to sit idle and watch Russian speakers from the Donbass being run over.

If he decides to intervene, Vladimir Putin can invoke the international obligation of “  Responsibility To Protect  ” (R2P). But he knows that whatever its nature or scale, the intervention will trigger a shower of sanctions. Therefore, whether its intervention is limited to the Donbass or whether it goes further to put pressure on the West for the status of Ukraine, the price to be paid will be the same. This is what he explains in his speech on February 21.

That day, he acceded to the request of the Duma and recognized the independence of the two Republics of Donbass and, in the process, he signed treaties of friendship and assistance with them.

The Ukrainian artillery bombardments on the populations of Donbass continued and, on February 23, the two Republics requested military aid from Russia. On the 24th, Vladimir Putin invokes Article 51 of the United Nations Charter which provides for mutual military assistance within the framework of a defensive alliance.

In order to make the Russian intervention totally illegal in the eyes of the public we deliberately obscure the fact that the war actually started on February 16th. The Ukrainian army was preparing to attack the Donbass as early as 2021, as certain Russian and European intelligence services were well aware… The lawyers will judge.

**

Full article:

https://scheerpost.com/2022/04/09/former-nato-military-analyst-blows-the-whistle-on-wests-ukraine-invasion-narrative/

Edited January 29 by Scott75

[NAME REMOVED]

1 hour ago, Scott75 said:

World War II started before Germany's attack on Britain. From what I understand, the official start was when it invaded Poland. There were some major differences between this event and Russia's military operation in Ukraine though:

1- Poland wasn't killing ethnic Germans and German speakers in some part of Poland for 8 years prior to Germany's invasion of the country.

2- Poland certainly hadn't agreed to not one, but 2 treaties stipulating that the ethnic Germans and German speakers residing therein were to be treated with respect.

The last straw, ofcourse, was when Ukraine once again attacked the self proclaimed Donbass Republics in the Donbass region of Ukraine to kill yet more ethnic Russians and Russian speakers living there.

I think Former Swiss Intelligence Officer captured Putin's predicament quite well in the days leading up to his decision to start a military operation in Ukraine:

**

In fact, as early as February 16, Joe Biden knows that the Ukrainians began to shell the civilian populations of Donbass, putting Vladimir Putin in front of a difficult choice: to help Donbass militarily and create an international problem or to sit idle and watch Russian speakers from the Donbass being run over.

If he decides to intervene, Vladimir Putin can invoke the international obligation of “  Responsibility To Protect  ” (R2P). But he knows that whatever its nature or scale, the intervention will trigger a shower of sanctions. Therefore, whether its intervention is limited to the Donbass or whether it goes further to put pressure on the West for the status of Ukraine, the price to be paid will be the same. This is what he explains in his speech on February 21.

That day, he acceded to the request of the Duma and recognized the independence of the two Republics of Donbass and, in the process, he signed treaties of friendship and assistance with them.

The Ukrainian artillery bombardments on the populations of Donbass continued and, on February 23, the two Republics requested military aid from Russia. On the 24th, Vladimir Putin invokes Article 51 of the United Nations Charter which provides for mutual military assistance within the framework of a defensive alliance.

In order to make the Russian intervention totally illegal in the eyes of the public we deliberately obscure the fact that the war actually started on February 16th. The Ukrainian army was preparing to attack the Donbass as early as 2021, as certain Russian and European intelligence services were well aware… The lawyers will judge.

**

Full article:

https://scheerpost.com/2022/04/09/former-nato-military-analyst-blows-the-whistle-on-wests-ukraine-invasion-narrative/

If you want to spread BS, the least you can do, is not source some irrelevant nobody. I searched Google for "Jacques Baud," and found literally nothing (except a bunch of YouTube videos, and him promoting his book). While you're at it, you may as well ask Roger Waters of his opinions of the conflict. Better to source a washed up musician that people actually have heard of...

The only thing I managed too find in regards for this "Jacques Baud" was a French language Wikipedia entry. Apparently, he is some conspiracy nut, that nobody takes seriously:

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Baud#Conspirationnisme_et_désinformation

Edited January 29 by DUI_Offender

[Scott75]

On 1/29/2025 at 8:53 AM, User said:

On 1/29/2025 at 8:42 AM, Scott75 said:

I think it's clear that Ukraine has already be thoroughly wrecked by this war, but the sad thing is, I'm pretty sure it will only get worse the longer it goes on. You gotta hand it to those times writers, though- saying "for as long as it takes" was "intentionally vague"? That's really something. More like "as long as it's politically expedient". That time is ending.

Yes, when you have a country like Russia waging war against you, targeting your infrastructure, fighting the war like it is WWII and just firing as much artillery as they can get their hands on and warp their barrels with... it tends to wreck a country. 

So why do you support Russia doing this?

I support Russia's defense of the people of the Donbass, which I believe was the main reason Russia started its military operation when it did to begin with. Putin himself mentioned the people of the Donbass in the speech he gave on the day he started the military operation in Ukraine. Quoting from it:

**

This brings me to the situation in Donbass. We can see that the forces that staged the coup in Ukraine in 2014 have seized power, are keeping it with the help of ornamental election procedures and have abandoned the path of a peaceful conflict settlement. For eight years, for eight endless years we have been doing everything possible to settle the situation by peaceful political means. Everything was in vain.

As I said in my previous address, you cannot look without compassion at what is happening there. It became impossible to tolerate it. We had to stop that atrocity, that genocide of the millions of people who live there and who pinned their hopes on Russia, on all of us. It is their aspirations, the feelings and pain of these people that were the main motivating force behind our decision to recognise the independence of the Donbass people’s republics.

[snip]

Let me remind you that in 2000–2005 we used our military to push back against terrorists in the Caucasus and stood up for the integrity of our state. We preserved Russia. In 2014, we supported the people of Crimea and Sevastopol. In 2015, we used our Armed Forces to create a reliable shield that prevented terrorists from Syria from penetrating Russia. This was a matter of defending ourselves. We had no other choice.

The same is happening today. They did not leave us any other option for defending Russia and our people, other than the one we are forced to use today. In these circumstances, we have to take bold and immediate action. The people’s republics of Donbass have asked Russia for help.

In this context, in accordance with Article 51 (Chapter VII) of the UN Charter, with permission of Russia’s Federation Council, and in execution of the treaties of friendship and mutual assistance with the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Lugansk People’s Republic, ratified by the Federal Assembly on February 22, I made a decision to carry out a special military operation.

The purpose of this operation is to protect people who, for eight years now, have been facing humiliation and genocide perpetrated by the Kiev regime. To this end, we will seek to demilitarise and denazify Ukraine, as well as bring to trial those who perpetrated numerous bloody crimes against civilians, including against citizens of the Russian Federation.

**

Full transcript:

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/statements/67843

 

What I'd like to know is what you know of the Ukrainian civil war prior to Russia's military operation in Ukraine. I highly suspect you haven't seen the following documentary from a german team of journalists:

 

Why not give it a try? Or, if you'd prefer to only read articles on the subject, I recommend the following one from Canadian American journalist Eva Bartlett:

https://www.mintpressnews.com/under-fire-from-ukraine-everyday-life-in-the-donetsk-peoples-republic/262363/

Edited February 4 by Scott75
Added information

[Scott75]

On 1/29/2025 at 8:59 AM, DUI_Offender said:

Ritter is a [highly derogative term].

Look, you can continue to snipe at someone who I didn't even bring up in the opening post, or you can discuss Mr. Ritter in the thread I made for the subject. The choice is yours, but I for one would greatly appreciate it if you would please stop polluting this thread with your vitriolic statements of the man. Again, the thread to discuss Mr. Ritter is here:

 

Edited February 4 by Scott75