Russian President, Country Viewed Negatively Worldwide, In US

[Derec]

More glorious leadership decisions by Czar Vladimir I.
Russia plans to stop condom imports despite rise in HIV

 

[Cerberus]

Even Dick Cheney?
And Poroshenko, is he counted as western leader?

Yes.
Putin's plan to destroy Western food en masse is causing a huge public backlash

From the link:

"Notwithstanding the petition, no one starves in modern Russia, unlike in the Soviet era when countless millions perished between the 1920s and 1940s from hunger and related disease in both peacetime and World War Two."

Unlike in 'one of the richest countries in the world' the United Kingdom' (think neuro-linguistic conditioning? ), where we've had food banks for the past 5 years:

http://www.trusselltrust.org/mid-year-stats-2014-2015

 

[Cerberus]

More glorious leadership decisions by Czar Vladimir I. Russia plans to stop condom imports despite rise in HIV

"President Vladimir Putin hasn't said whether he backs the idea."

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...ort-hit-list-Condoms/articleshow/48408960.cms

 

[barbos]

More glorious leadership decisions by Czar Vladimir I.
Russia plans to stop condom imports despite rise in HIV

Well, Czar Vladimir has not decided that yet. I hope he fires these idiots who came up with that retarded idea, especially that clown Onishenko.

 

[Will Wiley]

Russia has defeated two powers seemingly bent on world domination Hitler and Napoleon. they are very proud of that, and probably they see themselves as the ones who could do it again. I think their plan could be to remove the USD as the worlds reserve currency. Hopefully this is the plan rather than a nuclear war.
This might sound bad for America but I think it would be good. America's unmanageable debt would be easier to pay off, and the elite in America would no longer be able to fund wars all over the globe.
It could lead to more peace, as the current imbalance of power seems to spawn wars everywhere


http://www.westernjournalism.com/heres-putin-attack-dollar/

The de-dollarization of the world economy continues to proceed as countries around the world sign swap agreements to trade in their own currencies and remove the US dollar from transactions with their non-U.S. trading partners.

It is no secret that Russian President Vladimir Putin would love to further this process and damage the United States economically as much as possible by minimizing the use of the dollar globally, and undermining its status as a global reserve currency. The Western sanctions on Russia are starting to bite as the Ruble approaches forty to the dollar.

 

[Cerberus]

Russia has defeated two powers seemingly bent on world domination Hitler and Napoleon. they are very proud of that, and probably they see themselves as the ones who could do it again. I think their plan could be to remove the USD as the worlds reserve currency. Hopefully this is the plan rather than a nuclear war.
This might sound bad for America but I think it would be good. America's unmanageable debt would be easier to pay off, and the elite in America would no longer be able to fund wars all over the globe.
It could lead to more peace, as the current imbalance of power seems to spawn wars everywhere


http://www.westernjournalism.com/heres-putin-attack-dollar/

The de-dollarization of the world economy continues to proceed as countries around the world sign swap agreements to trade in their own currencies and remove the US dollar from transactions with their non-U.S. trading partners.

It is no secret that Russian President Vladimir Putin would love to further this process and damage the United States economically as much as possible by minimizing the use of the dollar globally, and undermining its status as a global reserve currency. The Western sanctions on Russia are starting to bite as the Ruble approaches forty to the dollar.

I thought you were gonna say Obama and Cameron - hence your smiley I guess.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes.
Putin's plan to destroy Western food en masse is causing a huge public backlash

From the link:

"Notwithstanding the petition, no one starves in modern Russia, unlike in the Soviet era when countless millions perished between the 1920s and 1940s from hunger and related disease in both peacetime and World War Two."

Unlike in 'one of the richest countries in the world' the United Kingdom' (think neuro-linguistic conditioning? ), where we've had food banks for the past 5 years:

http://www.trusselltrust.org/mid-year-stats-2014-2015

But it's pushing poor people closer and closer to the edge.

 

[barbos]

From the link:

"Notwithstanding the petition, no one starves in modern Russia, unlike in the Soviet era when countless millions perished between the 1920s and 1940s from hunger and related disease in both peacetime and World War Two."

Unlike in 'one of the richest countries in the world' the United Kingdom' (think neuro-linguistic conditioning? ), where we've had food banks for the past 5 years:

http://www.trusselltrust.org/mid-year-stats-2014-2015

But it's pushing poor people closer and closer to the edge.

poor people don't eat most of that food anyway.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

poor people don't eat most of that food anyway.

Well, they won't get no dessert until they clean off their plates, so they need to eat it. Just eat it.

 

[dystopian]

Unlike in 'one of the richest countries in the world' the United Kingdom' (think neuro-linguistic conditioning? ), where we've had food banks for the past 5 years:

http://www.trusselltrust.org/mid-year-stats-2014-2015

I can't tell if you're joking, or if you're just a complete idiot who doesn't understand how to interpret words and concepts in anything approaching a reality-based manner.

Does anyone seriously think that the existence of food banks (which I can assure you have existed in the UK for much longer than 5 years) in a country that has more than enough food to go around in order to help low-income families supplement their food purchases who have trouble because of conservative government welfare cutbacks (and benefit delays which can be a serious if temporary problem for a low-income household) is at all even remotely similar to a country that is faced both external and self-inflicted sanctions with actual food shortages and skyrocketing prices?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But it's pushing poor people closer and closer to the edge.

poor people don't eat most of that food anyway.

Because they can't afford it. Russia is making it even less affordable. Maybe not to the point of starvation but it will weaken them and make them more likely to die of other causes.

 

[barbos]

poor people don't eat most of that food anyway.

Because they can't afford it. Russia is making it even less affordable. Maybe not to the point of starvation but it will weaken them and make them more likely to die of other causes.

Boy, you are really something. I wonder where have you been in the 90s with you profound and informative thoughts.

 

[Cerberus]

From the link:

"Notwithstanding the petition, no one starves in modern Russia, unlike in the Soviet era when countless millions perished between the 1920s and 1940s from hunger and related disease in both peacetime and World War Two."

Unlike in 'one of the richest countries in the world' the United Kingdom' (think neuro-linguistic conditioning? ), where we've had food banks for the past 5 years:

http://www.trusselltrust.org/mid-year-stats-2014-2015

But it's pushing poor people closer and closer to the edge.

Well in spite of that, I understand he's extremely popular. If only he wouldn't keep taking his shirt off!

 

[Cerberus]

Unlike in 'one of the richest countries in the world' the United Kingdom' (think neuro-linguistic conditioning? ), where we've had food banks for the past 5 years:

http://www.trusselltrust.org/mid-year-stats-2014-2015

I can't tell if you're joking, or if you're just a complete idiot who doesn't understand how to interpret words and concepts in anything approaching a reality-based manner.

Does anyone seriously think that the existence of food banks (which I can assure you have existed in the UK for much longer than 5 years) in a country that has more than enough food to go around in order to help low-income families supplement their food purchases who have trouble because of conservative government welfare cutbacks (and benefit delays which can be a serious if temporary problem for a low-income household) is at all even remotely similar to a country that is faced both external and self-inflicted sanctions with actual food shortages and skyrocketing prices?

That's the longest sentence I've ever seen. If you can reconstruct it, and use fewer parentheses, I might be able to understand where you're coming from.

 

[dystopian]

That's the longest sentence I've ever seen. If you can reconstruct it, and use fewer parentheses, I might be able to understand where you're coming from.

Or you could just read it to understand it, <snip>... who thinks finding a spelling/grammar/formatting mistake in someone's post is just as good as actually addressing what they've said. <snip> It's just a short paragraph that's missing a few dots, you're not trying to decypher a quantum physics paper.

 

[Cerberus]

Or you could just read it to understand it, <snip> It's just a short paragraph that's missing a few dots, you're not trying to decypher a quantum physics paper.

Remember writing this: 'you're just a complete idiot who doesn't understand how to interpret words and concepts in anything approaching a reality-based manner.'

You readily insult me but can't hack a robust response even though the grammatical fault - in this case confusing prolixity - is yours. You're the troll around here and I can't be bothered to keep countering it. So over and out.

 

[Will Wiley]

Or you could just read it to understand it, instead of acting like a typical internet troll who thinks finding a spelling/grammar/formatting mistake in someone's post is just as good as actually addressing what they've said. Doing so you only ends up looking like a total derp because apparently you can't understand things unless momma bird chewed it into easily digestable chunks for you first. It's just a short paragraph that's missing a few dots, you're not trying to decypher a quantum physics paper.

Remember writing this: 'you're just a complete idiot who doesn't understand how to interpret words and concepts in anything approaching a reality-based manner.'

You readily insult me but can't hack a robust response even though the grammatical fault - in this case confusing prolixity - is yours. You're the troll around here and I can't be bothered to keep countering it. So over and out.

Make you of the "ignore" function on here is you see fit . You can ignore users so you don't see their projections

 

[dystopian]

You readily insult me but can't hack a robust response even though the grammatical fault - in this case confusing prolixity - is yours.

The faultYou're the troll around here and I can't be bothered to keep countering it. So over and out.

First of all, I'll note that your response does nothing to address the point I made; namely that dismissing someone's posts based on grammatical errors (although there aren't any, as I'll explain below) is a typical internet troll tactic to avoid having to deal with the actual points and arguments that have been raised. Whether or not someone makes mistakes in terms of grammatical details in their posts is not very relevant to the contents of said posts and the validity thereof. You are still engaging in this evasive behavior, and appear to be doing it for the sole purpose of being able to declare some sort of churlish "victory". As to who the actual troll is out of the two of us, I think I'll let our posting histories do the talking.

Now then, onto the accusation that I'm somehow at fault here. Prolixity is not a grammatical fault; it's a subjective opinion. There's no grammatical rule in the English language that establishes the maximum length a sentence may be; one may construct a sentence of any length one pleases without breaking any rules. There are sentences that are perfectly grammatically valid that are much, much, longer than the one I gave you. Consider for instance Joyce's Ulysses, which has a sentence in it that counts 4,391 words. Quite a few more than any sentence I've ever constructed. And that one isn't even close to the record.

So the fault is still yours for either not being capable of parsing it; or for refusing to and coming up with a weak excuse so you won't have to.

Incidentally, there is a certain irony in complaining about the way someone else conveys their thoughts whilst simultaneously using relatively obscure words like 'prolixity'. You could, after all, simply use more common words and thereby increase the likelihood that other people will understand what you're saying. But then, irony is fate's most common figure of speech.

 

[Cerberus]

First of all, I'll note that your response does nothing to address the point I made; namely that dismissing someone's posts based on grammatical errors (although there aren't any, as I'll explain below) is a typical internet troll tactic to avoid having to deal with the actual points and arguments that have been raised. Whether or not someone makes mistakes in terms of grammatical details in their posts is not very relevant to the contents of said posts and the validity thereof. You are still engaging in this evasive behavior, and appear to be doing it for the sole purpose of being able to declare some sort of churlish "victory". As to who the actual troll is out of the two of us, I think I'll let our posting histories do the talking.

I've forgotten what the topic was now!

Now then, onto the accusation that I'm somehow at fault here. Prolixity is not a grammatical fault; it's a subjective opinion. There's no grammatical rule in the English language that establishes the maximum length a sentence may be; one may construct a sentence of any length one pleases without breaking any rules. There are sentences that are perfectly grammatically valid that are much, much, longer than the one I gave you. Consider for instance Joyce's Ulysses, which has a sentence in it that counts 4,391 words. Quite a few more than any sentence I've ever constructed. And that one isn't even close to the record.

Nothing wrong with prolixity provided the volume of words can sustain the readers'/listeners' interest and attention. I don't think Joyce's could've done that? Speaking for myself I'd have lost the will to live after the first 100 or so words. The thing is that prolixity can easily become rambling, doncha agree?

So the fault is still yours for either not being capable of parsing it; or for refusing to and coming up with a weak excuse so you won't have to.

It wasn't a question of my not having to, more one of not wanting to; as I recall you were becoming a bit pedantic, and after all, it's only a message board.

Incidentally, there is a certain irony in complaining about the way someone else conveys their thoughts whilst simultaneously using relatively obscure words like 'prolixity'. You could, after all, simply use more common words and thereby increase the likelihood that other people will understand what you're saying. But then, irony is fate's most common figure of speech.

I don't agree at all that 'prolixity' is such an obscure word in a forum of this calibre; and as I've said - I'm a published writer so I don't think I need grammar lessons from you or anybody else.

 

[RavenSky]

This thread is being closed for clean up. The discussion has devolved into name-calling, and the edits are going to take time. We suggest everyone go cool off while we address the TOU violations and consistency edits.

~~ mod