I'll leave out your contortions of things I've said, willful ignorance of what I meant, and your attacks. They aren't worth the time. There were, however, two useful morsels in amongst the mess, otherwise:
> Are you trying to say the slave owners of the American South did not > actually benefit from their slave possessions? Big picture: the harm they did led to a civil war which enabled their federal government in a power grab. Small scale perspective? Yeah, they benefited. Larger scale? No, they lost a great deal, and the American south went from being wealthy to being poor. Thanks for the wonderful example, in fact. > Anyway, I take it you believe Putin is a calculating sociopath. Glad to > hear your enlightened objective, not-coloured-by-moral-relitvism > "opinion". Another perfect example of you putting words in my mouth, and then running with it "as my enlightened opinion" .. I don't think Putin is a sociopath. I don't think Hillary is a sociopath. I have no way to judge since I've never met either of them. I only have media which propagandizing ideologues have spun one way or the other to try to make me think one thing or the other. Knowing that, I know that I know nothing of the truth of the matter. Nor do you. But your ideology makes you think you do. But, even if Putin is truly, a kind, caring man.. what does that have to do with not being an ideologue, worrying about the "evil of the West", or being able to sit down, and play a position on the chess board? Nothing, of course. Nothing at all. He can do those things, and not be a sociopath. He can work in his country's best interests - i.e. do his job, without getting distracted by that. You can't stay on topic, on thread you started (if I'm not mistaken), without going into notions of moral relativity and philosophy and good vs. evil and all sorts of irrelevant shit. Because you're an ideologue. Putin, is not.
