Thread: Putin

Do you think that Putin is doing a good job with Russia?

No.
1. He’s against freedom of speech
2. He dislikes businessmen.
3. He’s a KGBman.
4. He’s a wonna-be-dictator t**t.

Cmon Veedey, I thought you were FSB yourself

What about in comparison to Yeltsin?

Just wanted to know your opinions, hey, what do you think about my avatar?

Originally Posted by Pravit

What about in comparison to Yeltsin?

Мой президент не пьет и не курит,
А лучше бы пил и курил
(lirycs by Splean)

Originally Posted by Veedey

No.
1. He’s against freedom of speech
2. He dislikes businessmen.
3. He’s a KGBman.
4. He’s a wonna-be-dictator t**t.

It is not possible to know now how good he is. At this moment he looks at least much better than Eltsin.
1. I dont think that it is true. Kremlin administration destroyed independent TV channels, but TV is always someone's toy and I think it's better to not watch it at all. I can read independent newspapers and journals (ЕЖ for example). Even Berezovskiy's newspapers are alive and I even don't speak about the internet.
2. If you mean Hodorkovsky, I totaly disagree. From my point of view it was all right. I read some articles in _western_ newspapers and now I can say that a man who wants to buy a power using money witch were actualy stolen from the state should be in a jail. I was shoked when I had read that he was planning to change the constitution to become a prime minister with all power in his hands and with a president as a decoration in a backyard.
3. And what?
4. What is your proof?

Originally Posted by AndrewK

It is not possible to know now how good he is.

He has been already doing his job for 4 years. Is it not enough?

Originally Posted by AndrewK

Kremlin administration destroyed independent TV channels, but TV is always someone's toy and I think it's better to not watch it at all.

So you’re against freedom of speech too?

Originally Posted by AndrewK

I can say that a man who wants to buy a power using money witch were actualy stolen from the state should be in a jail.

Hmm… I thought only criminals should be in jail.

Originally Posted by AndrewK

4. What is your proof?

You sound like a prosecutor. We’re not in court mate it’s just a forum.

Originally Posted by Veedey

Originally Posted by AndrewK

It is not possible to know now how good he is.

He has been already doing his job for 4 years. Is it not enough?

And? Denying economic growth, are we? Denying people's receiving their salaries and pensions?

Originally Posted by AndrewK

Kremlin administration destroyed independent TV channels, but TV is always someone's toy and I think it's better to not watch it at all.

So you’re against freedom of speech too?

Personal attack? Way to go, my friend. I can already see a mind hardened in debates.

Originally Posted by AndrewK

I can say that a man who wants to buy a power using money witch were actualy stolen from the state should be in a jail.

Hmm… I thought only criminals should be in jail.

The concise Oxford dictionary of current English.--8th ed:

jail n. & v. (also gaol) --n. 1 a place to which persons are committed by a court for detention.

Do you see the word "criminal" in the definition anywhere? Stop being creative with words, Veedey.

Originally Posted by AndrewK

4. What is your proof?

You sound like a prosecutor. We’re not in court mate it’s just a forum.

But you got it backwards nonetheless. "What is your proof" is a question that an advocate asks. You're the prosecutor here, Veedey. So beef up your ... er... argument.

Originally Posted by bad manners

Originally Posted by Veedey

Hmm… I thought only criminals should be in jail.

The concise Oxford dictionary of current English.--8th ed:

jail n. & v. (also gaol) --n. 1 a place to which persons are committed by a court for detention.

Do you see the word "criminal" in the definition anywhere? Stop being creative with words, Veedey.

Sorry...

As far as I know
jail = тюрьма
criminal = преступник

So what's wrong with my sentence?

Originally Posted by Veedey

Originally Posted by bad manners

Originally Posted by Veedey

Hmm… I thought only criminals should be in jail.

The concise Oxford dictionary of current English.--8th ed:

jail n. & v. (also gaol) --n. 1 a place to which persons are committed by a court for detention.

Do you see the word "criminal" in the definition anywhere? Stop being creative with words, Veedey.

Sorry...

As far as I know
jail = тюрьма
criminal = преступник

So what's wrong with my sentence?

In your sentence you say "a jail can only contain criminals". This is wrong. The rest of your argument, which is apparently "but since Khodorkovskiy is not a criminal, he must not be in a jail." is wrong as a consequence. Khodorkovskiy is a suspect, and a court has put him there.

Originally Posted by bad manners

beef up your ... er... argument.

Well I start my deadly serious arguments.
1. Putin ordered to close all big private TV channels in Russia (НТВ, ТВ-6, ТВС). He canceled free access to his administration’s official events for journalists. Now only loyal journalists can give information. As a result we’ve got here on TV endless propaganda of his party (Единая Россия) and no more different political opinions. That’s why I do think Putin’s against freedom of speech.
2. Of course it was Putin’s decision to arrest Chodorkovsky. Yes I know he kinda said ‘It’s not my business, let’s allow a court to do its job’. Unfortunately any court in Russia is totally dependent on power. And another day Putin said ‘Nobody can earn billions for several years without violations’ i. e. Chodorkovsky is guilty cause he’s a billionaire. Putin doesn’t need any court to make that statement. That’s why I say he dislikes businessmen.
(Irony is Putin said that rubbish during his visit to Italy. His friend Berlusconi who’s made his billions for several years was sitting next to him).
3. Chodorkovsky is in jail before a trial. Prosecutors said he ‘has stole’ from the state about $1 billion using loopholes in law i. e. by LEGAL way. Chodorkovsky is ready внести денежный залог to be free until a trial starts. 100 Duma’s deputies gave their guaranties he’s won’t hide. But these court muppets refused to realize him. So it’s anything but justify. Ordinary job by KGB we in Russia know. That’s why I don’t like he’s a KGBman.
4. Apparently Chodorkovsky is in jail because his political activities. So Putin imprisoned his political opponent. I suppose only dictators do this way.
5. Economic growth? It started in 1999 when Eltsin was the president. Thanks to high oil prices and a default that was in 1998. It’s easy to accelerate after you nearly stopped. Putin did nothing for this growth, didn’t he?

Originally Posted by Veedey

Well I start my deadly serious arguments.
1. Putin ordered to close all big private TV channels in Russia (НТВ, ТВ-6, ТВС). He canceled free access to his administration’s official events for journalists. Now only loyal journalists can give information. As a result we’ve got here on TV endless propaganda of his party (Единая Россия) and no more different political opinions. That’s why I do think Putin’s against freedom of speech.

What?! NTV is closed?
Than that I watched yesterday evening must be some fake NTV. :P

Originally Posted by Veedey

2. Of course it was Putin’s decision to arrest Chodorkovsky. Yes I know he kinda said ‘It’s not my business, let’s allow a court to do its job’. Unfortunately any court in Russia is totally dependent on power. And another day Putin said ‘Nobody can earn billions for several years without violations’ i. e. Chodorkovsky is guilty cause he’s a billionaire. Putin doesn’t need any court to make that statement. That’s why I say he dislikes businessmen.
(Irony is Putin said that rubbish during his visit to Italy. His friend Berlusconi who’s made his billions for several years was sitting next to him).

Although I'm not Putin, I must admit I dislike "businessmen" like Khodorkovsky or Al Capone too.

Originally Posted by Veedey

3. Chodorkovsky is in jail before a trial.

I'm afraid, that if he will be in Majorca before trial, getting him back for the trial could be certain problem. That what "preemptive imprisonment" is for.

Originally Posted by Veedey

Ordinary job by KGB we in Russia know. That’s why I don’t like he’s a KGBman.

Funny. As we in Russia know, in the times then KGB existed, the "oligarchs" did not.

Originally Posted by Veedey

4. Apparently Chodorkovsky is in jail because his political activities. So Putin imprisoned his political opponent. I suppose only dictators do this way.

Apparently Khodorkovsky became very politically active, when he faced the perspective of criminal charge. And he is not alone...

Originally Posted by Veedey

5. Economic growth? It started in 1999 when Eltsin was the president. Thanks to high oil prices and a default that was in 1998.

Say "It started in 1999 when Primakov was the premier", and I shall agree completely.

Originally Posted by Veedey

It’s easy to accelerate after you nearly stopped. Putin did nothing for this growth, didn’t he?

We "nearly stopped" in 1993-94. If it's so easy to accelerate, why it took five years???

Originally Posted by Veedey

Originally Posted by bad manners

beef up your ... er... argument.

Well I start my deadly serious arguments.

Is the stuff below your idea of serious arguments? My dear.

1. Putin ordered to close all big private TV channels in Russia (НТВ, ТВ-6, ТВС).

And of course you have evidence to back up this claim. That he ordered. May I have a look at it? Not to mention I'm being told NTV is alive and thriving.

He canceled free access to his administration’s official events for journalists. Now only loyal journalists can give information.

Same question. Oh, and he's not obliged to talk to journalists in the first place, nor is his administration. And of course they might be selective. If I were a president, I would not allow "Hustler" to interview me.

As a result we’ve got here on TV endless propaganda of his party (Единая Россия) and no more different political opinions.

"As a result" is used to introduce a corollary. But this "corollary" does not follow from the prior "arguments", and even if it did, false arguments result in false corollaries anyway.

That’s why I do think Putin’s against freedom of speech.

Funny, you say that the freedom of speech is threatened in Russia, yet you speak freely. What is the freedom of speech then?

2. Of course it was Putin’s decision to arrest Chodorkovsky.

"Of course". Prove it first, Mister Prosecutor.

Yes I know he kinda said ‘It’s not my business, let’s allow a court to do its job’. Unfortunately any court in Russia is totally dependent on power.

Putin's fault too? And no evidence, of course.

And another day Putin said ‘Nobody can earn billions for several years without violations’ i. e. Chodorkovsky is guilty cause he’s a billionaire. Putin doesn’t need any court to make that statement. That’s why I say he dislikes businessmen.

Oh. So if I make that statement, it is good and well. If you make it, it's fine, too. But if Putin makes it, he is a wanna-be dictator. Brilliant logic.

(Irony is Putin said that rubbish during his visit to Italy. His friend Berlusconi who’s made his billions for several years was sitting next to him).

I don't care about this guy here.

3. Chodorkovsky is in jail before a trial.

After the trial. Don't start that BS again. The court had good grounds to believe they might not be able to see him again should they have let him free.

Prosecutors said he ‘has stole’ from the state about $1 billion using loopholes in law i. e. by LEGAL way.

I recall there was "tax evasion on big scale" in the charges. Was that legal too?

Chodorkovsky is ready внести денежный залог to be free until a trial starts. 100 Duma’s deputies gave their guaranties he’s won’t hide. But these court muppets refused to realize him.

You seriously believe that a guy who earns millions monthly cannot spent a few thousands or even millions to buy himself freedom? Enough of this nonsense. You're embarrassing yourself. Even in the States, which is apparently an "оплот демократии" for you, the court may detain a suspect in prison and may reject any guarantee. There have been cases when millions of dollars were rejected.

So it’s anything but justify.

Right. The guy faced preliminary court hearings. He had the most expensive and most (in)famous lawyers. The court decided to detain the guy. What injustice, indeed!

Ordinary job by KGB we in Russia know. That’s why I don’t like he’s a KGBman.

Tell us what you know about KGB. Don't keep it to yourself.

4. Apparently Chodorkovsky is in jail because his political activities. So Putin imprisoned his political opponent. I suppose only dictators do this way.

Speculations. No evidence whatsoever. Typical.

5. Economic growth? It started in 1999 when Eltsin was the president. Thanks to high oil prices and a default that was in 1998. It’s easy to accelerate after you nearly stopped. Putin did nothing for this growth, didn’t he?

In 1999 Yeltsin was comatose. As he had been for years. In 1999 Putin was the head of the government and then "acting president". Get your facts straight. High oil prices do not explain positive rates of industrial production and a few other things.

Do you have anything but hot air to back your claims?

16 my quotes…

Bad Manners, you sound pathetic a bit.

As I said before it’s just a forum and Ночь-проводник wanted to know people’s opinions about Putin’s job.
I wrote my one and it made you nervous as if it was something personal to you.
You started to make your insulting comments but even didn’t offer your version, mr. Show-me-the-proof-Putin-did-it-all.
Please don’t pretend being a virgin. Which proof? Have you ever heard about телефонное право? Which court? Don’t you know every court in Russia does what power offers?
Now I’m returning to what I said in my first post in this thread. Any different opinions?

Блин... two Russians are arguing about Putin in their bad English. Funny

Not that anyone cares, but as an american I always looked at Yeltsin as a vodka sipping bumbling drunk (similar to our own Ted Kennedy). At least Putin has a strong assertive appearance. I'm not sure why everyone thinks Putin is pulling a fast one when some rich guys end up in jail. I wish our president had the guts to go after some rich guys i.e. Enron, but the truth of the matter is that our politicians are all drinking from the same well.

Originally Posted by Veedey

16 my quotes…

Bad Manners, you sound pathetic a bit.

Right. With your nonsensical "arguments" demonstrated nonsensical, you switch to personal attack. You're so predictable.

As I said before it’s just a forum and Ночь-проводник wanted to
know people’s opinions about Putin’s job.
I wrote my one and it made you nervous as if it was something personal to you.

When you wrote your opinion, I did not say anything at all. It was your hypocritical response to somebody else's critique of your opinion that I replied to. I do not like hypocrites, you see. Nor do I like the types who cannot prove what they claim.

You started to make your insulting comments

I have not started yet. I have merely shown that your "arguments" are nothing but hot air.

but even didn’t offer your version, mr. Show-me-the-proof-Putin-did-it-all.

What version, Veedey? Putin is the only reasonable head of the Russian state within the last fifty years or so. Granted he might be better, but even what he is now is already something.

Please don’t pretend being a virgin. Which proof?

More hot air...

Have you ever heard about телефонное право?

Tell us all about it, Veedey.

Which court? Don’t you know every court in Russia does what power offers?

More "arguments", which you're not going to back up with any evidence, that is to say, more hot air...

Now I’m returning to what I said in my first post in this thread. Any different opinions?

Having reading comprehension problems, Veedey? You're the only poster so far with this "opinion". Everybody else disagrees.

Блин... two Russians are arguing about Putin in their bad English. Funny

You describe your language skill very aptly, Veedey. And who's the other Russian?

Originally Posted by bad manners

Putin is the only reasonable head of the Russian state within the last fifty years or so.

tell us all about it

you're the only poster so far with this "opinion"

you're so predictable

:P

Bad manners tell me please why on earth every time I post here about Putin you start debate about me?

Are you a member of his fun club?
It’s very strange then. With your aptitude for demagogy and ‘personal attacks’ you should be a Zhirinovsky supporter.

And are you from Russia aren't you?

Originally Posted by Veedey

Bad manners tell me please why on earth every time I post here about Putin you start debate about me?

About you? Unlike you I do not ask where you come from and so on. Unlike you I don't conjecture that you are somebody's supporter. Unlike you I don't call you a demagogue. And unlike you I don't start personal attacks, only to accuse the opponent of personal attack later. No, Veedey, unlike you, I do not discuss posters, I discuss what they post. I discuss what I disagree with, not whom I disagree with. You have a lot to learn in this regard.

Are you a member of his fun club?
It’s very strange then. With your aptitude for demagogy and ‘personal attacks’ you should be a Zhirinovsky supporter.

And are you from Russia aren't you?

What does the above have to do with Putin? If you do not have anything to say on the topic, don't waste the bandwidth.

Only 2 quotes,
6 lines,
no insults,

only 1 false establishment (‘Unlike you I don't call you a demagogue’)
and 1 pathetic c**p (‘You have a lot to learn in this regard’)

That’s your most correct post in this thread BM.

Growing up?
Or just in bad form today?

Originally Posted by Veedey

Only 2 quotes,
6 lines,
no insults,

I understand you find it difficult to believe someone may talk without insulting the opponent. It is not very difficult, Veedey, try it. On the other hand, I do not even have to insult you, Veedey, because, just like I said, you're embarrassing yourself with your ignorance. Your broken English, too.

only 1 false establishment (‘Unlike you I don't call you a demagogue’)

Can you cite me calling you a demagogue? You're a liar, Veedey.

and 1 pathetic c**p (‘You have a lot to learn in this regard’)

'Crap' is an uncountable noun, Veedey. You have to learn that, too.

That’s your most correct post in this thread BM.

A few English words, such as "correct", "unique" and a few others do not have the superlative form. Saying "most correct" is illiterate.

To recapitulate: you are a poorly educated liar, Veedey. You make broad statements that you cannot support with any evidence. When asked to do so, you switch to insults and personal attack.