News War with Russia

Wij

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,404
Scouse said:
Oh, I don't care whether they spend it or not - or the timescales for that matter (sent or agreed, who cares?)

I just read a tweet that wij posted that was said to be "entirely false" when it isn't.
Click to expand...
So if the upstairs produced a report on one of your projects vs another department and said that theirs was better run by comparing how much yours cost over its entire lifespan vs the cost of theirs only for the developers during the construction phase you'd say fair enough guv, some of those figures are on the spreadsheet, even though they are completely out of context, I'm shit.
 
Scouse

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,724
Wij said:
Fucks sake. Do you read?
Click to expand...
Not twitter, it's painful.

What are you miffed about, exactly? Stop expecting other people to know what's going on in your mind and be a little more explicit please :)
 
DaGaffer

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
18,509
Scouse said:
Not twitter, it's painful.

What are you miffed about, exactly? Stop expecting other people to know what's going on in your mind and be a little more explicit please :)
Click to expand...
Actually, for once, there's a very explicit line by line debunk of that story if you follow that link, all coherently laid out.
 
Scouse

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,724
DaGaffer said:
Actually, for once, there's a very explicit line by line debunk of that story if you follow that link, all coherently laid out.
Click to expand...
I might later if I lose the will to live. Having to check twatter posts just in case there's something intelligible posted for once isn't going to become default behaviour for me. I've only got one life and having to read something split up across multiple posts in a jarring format isn't high on my list of priorities.

Can't I just read the New York Times? They say 45bn, Glenn says 45bn, Zelinsky says 45bn, Biden says 45bn, Congress says 45bn, surely the 45 billion is the important bit - i.e. the actual cash?
 
Wij

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,404
Shame Facepalm GIF by MOODMAN
 
Aoami

Aoami

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
11,223
Amazing that Scouse is so anti-twitter given that he fits the profile of the average twitter user perfectly. A pseudo-intellect, obsessed with being correct about everything and failing to ever see nuance in any situation :D
 
Gwadien

Gwadien

Uneducated Northern Cretin
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
19,917
@Scouse the point is that it isn't just military aid.

(Although I suspect that any financial aid designated for things non military might well become military..)
 
Wij

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,404
Gwadien said:
@Scouse the point is that it isn't just military aid.

(Although I suspect that any financial aid designated for things non military might well become military..)
Click to expand...
And the figures Glem compared it to aren’t equivalent or even true. He’s comparing apples with oranges and insisting both are blackberries.
 
Scouse

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,724
Wij said:
Shame Facepalm GIF by MOODMAN
Click to expand...
Make an actual argument @Wij. You sit there saying "read twitter" but you don't do owt to help/explain yourself.

So I read the fucking thread. An additional 45bn is being earmarked for Ukraine - not sent today and not all missiles n shit - but it's 45bn to be spent on "stuff that supports Ukraine".

Is that not true? < Yes or No.
Second. 65 billion is the usual amount Russia spends on military a year. Not this year, for obvious reasons, but in a usual year.

Is that not true? < Yes or No?

For me, and when you add the article from the New York Times in then those are the important things. Money. Money that will be spent. On supporting Ukraine.

Now - I think that's a "good thing"TM.

So, what, exactly, are you frothing at the mouth about? (Other than: Glenn, and the fact that his tweet isn't 100% accurate, whilst the important detail (the amount of money to be spent), is.
 
Wij

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,404
Scouse said:
Make an actual argument @Wij. You sit there saying "read twitter" but you don't do owt to help/explain yourself.

So I read the fucking thread. An additional 45bn is being earmarked for Ukraine - not sent today and not all missiles n shit - but it's 45bn to be spent on "stuff that supports Ukraine".

Is that not true? < Yes or No.
Second. 65 billion is the usual amount Russia spends on military a year. Not this year, for obvious reasons, but in a usual year.

Is that not true? < Yes or No?

For me, and when you add the article from the New York Times in then those are the important things. Money. Money that will be spent. On supporting Ukraine.

Now - I think that's a "good thing"TM.

So, what, exactly, are you frothing at the mouth about? (Other than: Glenn, and the fact that his tweet isn't 100% accurate, whilst the important detail (the amount of money to be spent), is.
Click to expand...
He's making out it's a direct comparison of military spending in the 10 months of the war. It isn't. In any respect. The 45 billion isn't going to all be spent today. Probably over the next 2 years and it isn't all military. Russia has spent a lot more than 65 billion this year and Putin just announced that the military can have 'unlimited' funds. Glem's tweet is utterly misleading. That's the point. End of story.
 
Scouse

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,724
Gwadien said:
@Scouse the point is that it isn't just military aid.

(Although I suspect that any financial aid designated for things non military might well become military..)
Click to expand...
Thanks for explaining @Gwadien. Shame @Wij couldn't be arsed.

In that case, and as in my argument above - he's correct on the important point - that 45bn is gonna get spent. And he pointed to a good article in the New York Times.

This is just a fucking drama in @Wij's mind because he's continuing his campaign of "glenn greenwald is a cunt" - when most of the world doezn't really care.

For me "another 45bn" is the story. The true story.

The rest of the outrage is just twitter twaddle.
 
Scouse

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,724
Wij said:
He's making out it's a direct comparison of military spending in the 10 months of the war. It isn't. In any respect. The 45 billion isn't going to all be spent today. Probably over the next 2 years and it isn't all military. Russia has spent a lot more than 65 billion this year and Putin just announced that the military can have 'unlimited' funds. Glem's tweet is utterly misleading. That's the point. End of story.
Click to expand...
You could have just fucking said that instead of sitting there going "read twitter and try to decipher what I'm angry about" and "no, I'm not going to explain, even though you explicitly asked and read the linked New York Times article - YOU'RE NOT DOING ENOUGH SCOUSE"...


This just proves my point about twitter. You're angry with Glenn. This is what you're posting about.

Twitter-induced irrelevant personality rage :(
 
C

caLLous

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,520
Scouse said:
I've only got one life and having to read something split up across multiple posts in a jarring format isn't high on my list of priorities.
Click to expand...
Yet you have seemingly infinite amounts of time to write multiple paragraphs at a time about why the thing you can't be bothered to read is wrong.
 
Scouse

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,724
caLLous said:
Yet you have seemingly infinite amounts of time to write multiple paragraphs at a time about why the thing you can't be bothered to read is wrong.
Click to expand...
I read the New York Times article.

You know, an actual news source, not a gossip platform.
 
Wij

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,404
Scouse said:
I read the New York Times article.

You know, an actual news source, not a gossip platform.
Click to expand...
Me: Small post about ferrets being mammals.

Scouse: 20 posts about how tortoises are reptiles actually.
 
Scouse

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,724
Wij said:
Me: Small post about ferrets being mammals.
Click to expand...
You posted something and because I don't share your OUTRAGE about Glenn Greenwald I saw the 45bn and thought you were posting about that.
 
DaGaffer

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
18,509
Oh ffs.
@Scouse; the whole point of @Wij's post was about Glenn Greenwald misrepresenting the truth for Republican bullshit reasons, which, if you read the breakdown, he emphatically did. It was never just about spending $45bn so articles on the BBC or NYT are irrelevant.
@Wij; "read the link" repeatedly is the online equivalent of "smell my finger", you need to do better because I'm not going on to Twitter if I don't have to because it's just the fucking worst.

Stop being cunts, it's Christmas for fuck's sake.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top Bottom