Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Give it up already - the tactic you pull every time someone has something relevant to say and you have no comeback is to attack the poster. They've brought up some very relative points.
I personally see Hillary as a dog who's all bark and no action. She will do nothing in regards to Russia. She helped, while Sec of State - set up businesses in Russia who donated more than 26 million dollars to the Clinton Foundation of Sweden - many of which are on our blacklist. In addition to the uranium deal - they're a cash cow and she won't do anything to jeopardize that cash flow.
There's nothing "relevant" in a thread when it has been hijacked by a collection of post-Soviet posters whose idea of debate is a comical Putin video with a list of pro-Putin voices in the West. You might as well throw in Alexander Dugin and his dream of a vast Eurasian Alliance between Europe and Russia. All of this is so far from the reality of U.S.-European-Russian relations as to be almost self-parody.
I fully understand the hurt and feelings of slight in the former Soviet Union. Now Russia has been further isolated from the West, and European sanctions have been renewed. The fact is that Hillary is no different from most Western politicians in this matter. Any dream of some transformative pro-Russia governments in the West is a pipe dream. True, Clinton will take a hard line with Putin, but even if she loses, that will continue with the U.S. Congress. As for NATO, the alliance will not be affected much by a Trump presidency. If you live in the U.S. -- and I truly doubt most posters on this thread reside here, considering the quirks and egregious errors in their written English -- you will have face the prospect of continued U.S.-Russia tensions, both here and in western Europe.
Status:
"Smartened up and walked away!"
(set 25 days ago)
11,780 posts, read 5,789,903 times
Reputation: 14201
Quote:
Originally Posted by masonbauknight
There's nothing "relevant" in a thread when it has been hijacked by a collection of post-Soviet posters whose idea of debate is a comical Putin video with a list of pro-Putin voices in the West. You might as well throw in Alexander Dugin and his dream of a vast Eurasian Alliance between Europe and Russia. All of this is so far from the reality of U.S.-European-Russian relations as to be almost self-parody.
I fully understand the hurt and feelings of slight in the former Soviet Union. Now Russia has been further isolated from the West, and European sanctions have been renewed. The fact is that Hillary is no different from most Western politicians in this matter. Any dream of some transformative pro-Russia governments in the West is a pipe dream. True, Clinton will take a hard line with Putin, but even if she loses, that will continue with the U.S. Congress. As for NATO, the alliance will not be affected much by a Trump presidency. If you live in the U.S. -- and I truly doubt most posters on this thread reside here, considering the quirks and egregious errors in their written English -- you will have face the prospect of continued U.S.-Russia tensions, both here and in western Europe.
Sorry but I disagree with your tin hat theory that all these posters are trolls from overseas posting here to debate you. As far as grammar and spelling. I more often than not have to edit my posts due to grammatical errors as I can't type worth a darn.
The posters have every right to discuss the way they see things in reference to our relationship with Russia which is essentially what this thread is about. I've heard Hillary's pitches before - when she was running for NY State Senate and know that she did not one thing she promised to do for upstate NY - hence my dissatisfaction with her. She's a blowhard and says what will appease the people she is talking to at that moment and then poof - she does 180 degree swing because it would offend the next group.
This is a forum, not a Kremlin blog. Posters on this thread repeatedly showcase obscure videos lauding Putin while they vilify a U.S. presidential candidate for "warmongering" and "attacking Russia." They cannot claim to be simply "concerned Americans" when they are in fact beholden to hard-line post-Soviet perspectives and prejudices.
I never make excuses to nobody when I am 100% right. And I really don't care your bigoted view and false appraisal of others.
Right -- and I'm located in Minsk. You could begin by spelling Hillary's first name correctly and perhaps avoiding comic lines like "how the Russian President rationally explains..." Otherwise, your posts are obsessively focused on Putin and promote obscure videos worthy of the Kremlin's PR department. You don't even address Hillary's (two l's) negatives from the standpoint of our Socialist Workers' Party, much less from that of any American voter this side of Belarus. At the very least, though, you will have to accept the possibility that Trump may not be elected -- and that even if he is, nothing in the U.S.-Russia relationship will essentially change. Hillary is perhaps no friend of Russia, but Russia has very few fans in the U.S. Congress. Anything else from you is wishful thinking.
You have nothing of substance to add or defend the warmongers in the US like yourself and Hilary Clinton and John McCaine other than to accuse anyone in the US not buying into your warmongering lies as being from a foreign country. As apparently you are trying to imply ALL Americans think a like. So, apparently, no Americans support Donald Trump or supported Bernie Sanders. All Americans think as you do--so you insinuate.
Here is a former CIA agent who specialized in Russia explaining why nuclear war with Russia is becoming a real threat. Notice he puts the blame on the United States as both are aware of nuclear strategy and the US is nearly attempting to force Russia's hand on launching a massive nuclear strike on every major US city. I know from reading American experts views on Russian nuclear bombs and targets that the US Government predicts every US city with a population of 100,000 or more people will be obliterated by Russian nuclear ICBM's.
But you probably already know that given you work for either the CIA, Lockheed Martin, Haliburton or some defense contractors standing to make hundreds of millions if not billions if you can get millions of Americans killed bringing Russia and the US to war.
Not sure what you're blabbering on about in terms of me not critiquing Hilary in a way only an American can, in your view. Aside from the No True Scotsman logical fallacy that sounds like, my IP address I would hazard a guess, and location can all be traced. It will show Milwaukee. And I type on iPad from different locations in Milwaukee. But your CIA/Lockheed Martin talking points are ridiculous anyways when you have educated Americans in these videos teaching and informing me through their video commentary.
From about the 34 minute mark to about the 38 minute he explains why nuclear war with Russia has become a big threat. Why Russia would in reason--per nuclear strategy--launch nukes first at the US and Europe.
So, the video above between the 34 and 38 minute marks, by the former CIA agent Ray McGovern, puts the warning by Gilbert Doctorow of potential nuclear war with Russia in better context for me.
Admittedly, whoever uploaded the video to YouTube did a lot of editing for dramatic effect.
Gilbert Doctorow's warning or thoughts concerning voting in this coming election between Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump.
She wants the U.S. to 'lead the world in setting the rules of cyberspace.' Cripes, she and the U.S. can't even follow the rules for using email in our own government.
LOL. I never thought of that. Comic. But you have a good point.
You have nothing of substance to add or defend the warmongers in the US like yourself and Hilary Clinton and John McCaine other than to accuse anyone in the US not buying into your warmongering lies as being from a foreign country. As apparently you are trying to imply ALL Americans think a like. So, apparently, no Americans support Donald Trump or supported Bernie Sanders. All Americans think as you do--so you insinuate.
Here is a former CIA agent who specialized in Russia explaining why nuclear war with Russia is becoming a real threat. Notice he puts the blame on the United States as both are aware of nuclear strategy and the US is nearly attempting to force Russia's hand on launching a massive nuclear strike on every major US city. I know from reading American experts views on Russian nuclear bombs and targets that the US Government predicts every US city with a population of 100,000 or more people will be obliterated by Russian nuclear ICBM's.
But you probably already know that given you work for either the CIA, Lockheed Martin, Haliburton or some defense contractors standing to make hundreds of millions if not billions if you can get millions of Americans killed bringing Russia and the US to war.
Not sure what you're blabbering on about in terms of me not critiquing Hilary in a way only an American can, in your view. Aside from the No True Scotsman logical fallacy that sounds like, my IP address I would hazard a guess, and location can all be traced. It will show Milwaukee. And I type on iPad from different locations in Milwaukee. But your CIA/Lockheed Martin talking points are ridiculous anyways when you have educated Americans in these videos teaching and informing me through their video commentary.
Like this corner CIA agent:
From about the 34 minute mark to about the 38 minute he explains why nuclear war with Russia has become a big threat. Why Russia would in reason--per nuclear strategy--launch nukes first at the US and Europe.
Brilliant post! Thank you, Frogburn! This is what I was trying to say to some dull-witted patriots who obviously don't realize about the real risk of WWIII. They brainlessly support this shady warmongering candidate as sheep. If you are not in this herd with them, then you can't be considered a "concerned american". Great!
She is a traitor who supports jihadists and wants WWIII to cover up the unpayable debt for the banksters.
She without doubt has supported jihadist. And according to some young pro-American professor from Libya who is a Muslim Libyian (and supported the US led overthrow of Gaddafi), being interviewed by Tariq Ali the guy said he and other supporters became disillusioned when they voted in a secular governmen. But then Hilary Clinton he said instructed them that the United States wanted the country to be divided by ruling factions of hardline Muslims. Al Qaida in one area, the Muslim Brotherhood controlling things in another area, and some other group he mentioned in another area (this might have been the secular Muslims but I don't recall).
We use double quotation marks (never single ones) in our country. It's probably more automatic for us than spelling "Hillary" correctly, but thanks for remembering the extra "L" in her first name. Sometimes eastern European educational systems are impressive.
Grammar nazi, technically you are incorrect about single quotation marks never being used in the custom of American writing.
It is true that it is standard practice in the United States to quote a person or source using the double quotation marks. However, it is custom in American writing to use the single quotation marks for certain purposes. Such as when quoting a quote. When a quote is already given you place the single quotation marks inside the double quotation marks.
But few Americans--except those that do extensive professional, academic, or literary writing on some level--know that. Assuming you are American you are a case in point.
You also try--foolishly--to imply that writing names in American English (like Hilary vs Hillary) is somehow akin to the more culturally set differences in spelling English words between Americans and people of the U.K. like "color" vs "colour" (my iPad frequently automatically changes words I write, but now that gets into technologies impact on writing online) or "gray" vs "grey" or "check" vs "cheque" (or however the Brits spell the American monetary check word).
The single quotation marks are common and custom among the writing done in the United Kingdom. However, I've seen plenty of Americans use them in place of the double quotation marks. The fact is... not many Americans are good at the techical part of American grammar.
Take you for example, you stated flatly that single quotation marks are never used in American writing. You are completely wrong. But maybe you're Russian?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
