Comments by "turquoisestones" (@turquisestones) on "Sky News Australia" channel.

Whatever is between him and his wife is their own business and it doesn't give anyone the right to mock his wife publicly with a joke based on her health condition.
2
Morgan, wake up and smell some coffee. This war started not one year ago, but in 2014 when Kiev started shelling ethnic Russians in Donbas resulting in deaths of at least 14 000 people. Had Russia invaded Donbass then, there would have been no war there - just like there was no war in Crimea thanks to Russia's invasion of Crimea. Sadly, Russia only decided to provide military help to Donbass instead. You, the Westerners, yourselves were reporting then far and wide that Russia was providing military help to Donbas - something that now you prefer not to mention because you want to keep your audience in the myth that "Russia illegally and all of the sudden invaded peaceful Ukraine one year ago". When it was clear that Kiev wasn't able to submit Donbass by military means, the Minsk agreements were established. Both Olan, Merkel and Zelensky all admitted a few months ago that that was only for buying some time, not for having a real peace in the region. And since then you, the West, have been pumping Ukraine with all kinds of military help in order to go ahead and re-take Donbass. Only an idiot would think that Russia would be watching this peacefully and not doing anything.
2
You call that a crap? You must have missed the urgent US meeting called by Russia on the point of these labs.
1
No, Peterson, putting on "save-the-planet" face by the West is just a minor issue. The real issue of the West is that it turned its blind eye and even supported the gross act of violation of the Constitution of Ukraine in February 2014, the Revolution of Dignity, which is nothing else than a coup (Ukrainian Constitution forbids any form of revolution), and later supported the unconstitutional powers in Kiev when they started shelling civilians in those regions that had refused to submit to the unconstitutional authorities. This is, in fact, how this war started. It's been lasting already for 10 years.
1
@dmythica "Russia can end the war any time by withdrawing" - Are you trying to say that if Russia withdraws, Kyiv will not continue killing ethnic Russians in Donbas? LOL! How can you be so naive? Russia waited for eight years, starting in April 2014, for Kyiv to stop such actions and for the West to cease supplying and supporting them. Finally, in 2022, when enough was enough and it became clear that Kyiv and the West were merely bluffing and had no intention of stopping, Russia decided to take matters into its own hands to protect Donbas from Kyiv's aggression. So, if Russia lost any trust in Kyiv and the West two years ago, why would it suddenly start trusting them now?
1
The only thing she could have mentioned was the unconstitutional coup that took place in Kiev back in February 2013, which was fully supported by the hyppocritical West, which is, in fact, how this Ruso-Ukrainian wasr started.
1
@JOEYZ-nq2gn "it's not private if you host a talk show and air it for the world to see" - So what if the whole world knows? How does that makes it now the whole world's business? If I own a property in L.A. and the whole world knows about it, it still doesn't mean that now anyone can freely dispose of my property. My property is still just my business and not anyone else's.
1
@SammyJ96 "After that it became public knowledge" - So what if it's public knowledge? "Public knowledge" doesn't amount to "public business". If I have a house in Washington and you know that, it still doesn't mean that you can now freely dispose of my house. My house is still mine and not yours, no matter how much you know about it.
1
@travelhog "It's a joke. Nothing more. Nothing less" - Sure! And some jokes can be successful and result in a lot of laughter, and some jokes - like those about someone's health condition - can result in insult and consequently getting a deserved punch for that. This was one of those cases. Nothing more. Nothing less. Will crossed the line, but Chris crossed it first. A joke based on someone's poor health condition is an insult, like it or not.
1
@susanwilde81 "wouldn't be the first time at the oscars a joke was made at the expense of attendees" - Well, remind me when was the last time a joke was made at oscars at the expense of someone's poor health condition?
1
@JOEYZ-nq2gn "owning a property and airing your affairs and marriage on TV are different things ...try again" - Things are different but the end result is still the same: not your business. However, if you want me to try again, I'll do. Consider a couple, say Jack and Jenny, have a fight and publicly announce that they had cheated once on each other. So if you happen to know that, does this give you the right now to sleep with Jenny? I think the answer is clear.
1
@travelhog "So what he "insulted" her by telling a joke? Does not give him any right to commit batter" - Yes, it does. In the court the level of insult will always be considered. It's not like as long as you punched someone, you are definitely a 100% guilty criminal and the one who got punched is a 100% innocent victim.
1
@travelhog What was that joke about?
1
@JOEYZ-nq2gn "why are jack and Jenny announcing that they cheated?" - Why are you asking about the reason why? Does the reason why they announce really matter here? "Keep your private life private if you don't want scrutiny" - Scrutiny?! Did we even talk about scrutiny? Perhaps, they Jack and Jenny even wanted to have public scrutiny and that's the reason why they announced. However, how does that change the fact that how Jack and Jenny will from now on be treating each other is still to be decided solely by Jack and Jenny? No matter what people are saying now, Jack will still treat Jenny, and Jenny Jack, according to their own decisions, not anyone else's. "so is Jenny obliged to sleep with anyone who approaches her?" - Of course, not! Did I ever even imply that? No matter what and how much you know about Jack and Jenny, you won't have any access into their relationships, unless they allow you. Because their relationships are still their own business, no matter how much you know about it. It's just that simple!
1
@JOEYZ-nq2gn "yes you did imply that Jenny is obliged to sleep with anyone who approaches her" - No, I didn't imply that. Just for your info, I know better what I implied and what I didn't imply in my own words. "did you not state "does that give you the right to sleep with her" implying I have the sole decision of whether she opens her legs or not ..." - You could have noticed that that was not a statement, but a question. Plus, it was a retorical one. And the only implied answer was "No". That is, you don't have the right to sleep with her. And, of course, she is not obliged to sleep with you. "Also what are you making your private matters public for if you don't want the attention that will come with it?" - When did I say that Jack and Jenny didn't want attention? The whole reason why they made their private matters public might have been exactly that - to get more attention, more hype, and, in the end, more money. But then again, what they will decide upon their relationship will still be up only to them, and you won't have a slightest part in that decision.
1
@JOEYZ-nq2gn "...are you so dense that you cannot understand your own words ?" - :) Are you so dense that you presume to know better what I meant by my own words? ""does that give you the right to sleep with her" implies that she has no say in whether or not I sleep with her" - Dude, you seem to have a problem with basic logic. No, the question "Does that give you the right to sleep with her?" doesn't imply that she has no say. Perhaps, some dirty mind would see that implication, but that was definitely not my implication. And even logically it is quite an overstretch to say that that kind of implication is present there. It is just like the question "Do you have the right to use that guy's car?" doesn't imply that that guy has no say in allowing or not allowing you to use his car.
1
When I was four years old, a psychopath screamed right into my face. For the following five years, I suffered from nightmares and bouts of psychological stress, sometimes compounded by hallucinations. Even now, at age 50, I occasionally see his face in my nightmares and have an overly sensitive reaction to anyone screaming near me—not necessarily at me.
1
@Catfishwilly1 Yes, those are the facts.
1
LOL! It's almost a year since Tucker reported those labs and they decided to fire him only now?! Seriously, you couldn't you have come up with a better theory?
1
So, if China attacks Taiwan, it will be okay then, according to Piers, for the US to send their troops to Taiwan "to protect the democracy" and it will not be an act of invading a sovereign nation, even though the USA DO RECOGNIZE Taiwan as part of China. However, when Kiev started shelling ethnic Russian regions in Ukraine back in April 2014, killing thousands of civilians there, and Russia, after having waited for 8 years for Kiev to stop doing so and having lost all hopes that Kiev would stop, went ahead and firstly recognized those regions as separate states and then sent its troops there to protect them, for Piers it is an act of invading a sovereign nation. Where is your logic, Piers?
1
@Fanatic102nd Exactly! Morgan's logic here is just that.
1
"Russia should not have invaded Ukraine" - Guys, when will you finally realize that Russia DID NOT invade Ukraine. When you say "Ukraine", allow me to ask you which state exactly do you mean and what definition of that state do you follow? I guess for any democratical non-monarchial state, the document that defines the state is the Constitution of that state. So, if you refer to the Constitution of Ukraine, you will read clearly that the state of Ukraine is a state, in which the state power IN NO WAY can be changed by any means that is not provided for in the Constitution. As we know, what happened in February 2014 was a revolution - they themselves call that "Revolution of Dignity". In other words, the state power was changed outside the means provided for in the Constitution of Ukraine. Hence, from that point on, what we have there is perhaps some other kind of state, but definitely not the state of Ukraine defined in the Constitution. Now, as we all know all too well, right on the next day after that revolution took place both Crimea and Donbas declared their refusal to submit to the new unconstitutional authorities in Kiev, that is, they declared their independence. That was a factual collapse of the state of Ukraine. Therefore, if Russia invaded anything, it invaded Crimea and Donbass, but not Ukraine! And, of course, we know what happened in April 2014 - Kyiv while having no legal constitutional right to exercise any control over Donbas still decided to regain such control by deploying troops to Donbas and shelling its population. This was the first blood in this whole conflict and this was how this war started - in April 2014, not in February 2022.
1