Traces of explosives found at Nord Stream pipelines, confirming 'gross sabotage,' Sweden says

[saturnz]

Haha. Keep simping for Russia.

as I have asked of Dave, what is the objective criteria you are using to determine whether someone is simping for russia or not

your opinion is really of no value

 

[Mirai]

as I have asked of Dave, what is the objective criteria you are using to determine whether someone is simping for russia or not

your opinion is really of no value

You have a pro-Russian stance in reference to Ukraine and Europe. Regions of the world you have no knowledge about.

 

[saturnz]

You have a pro-Russian stance in reference to Ukraine and Europe. Regions of the world you have no knowledge about.

so you have no objective criteria then, just more opinion

 

[ToxicBunny]

so you have no objective criteria then, just more opinion

OK then, in you objective criteria why is Sachs the most qualified person?

 

[saturnz]

OK then, in you objective criteria why is Sachs the most qualified person?

Jeffrey David Sachs (/sæks/ SAKS; born 5 November 1954)[4] is an American economist, academic, public policy analyst, and former director of The Earth Institute at Columbia University, where he holds the title of University Professor.[5][6] He is known for his work on sustainable development, economic development, and the fight to end poverty.[7]

Sachs has worked as an economic adviser to governments in Latin America, Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. A practice trained macroeconomist, he advised a number of national governments in the transition from Marxism–Leninism or developmentalism to market economies.

In 1989, Sachs advised Poland's anticommunist Solidarity movement and the government of Prime Minister Tadeusz Mazowiecki. He wrote a comprehensive plan for the transition from central planning to a market economy which became incorporated into Poland's reform program led by Finance Minister Leszek Balcerowicz.

Sachs's ideas and methods of transition from central planning were adopted throughout the transition economies. He advised Slovenia in 1991 and Estonia in 1992 on the introduction of new stable and convertible currencies. Based on Poland's success, he was invited first by Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and then by Russian President Boris Yeltsin on the transition to a market economy.

When Russia fell into poverty after adopting his market-based shock therapy in the early 1990's,[31] some Western media called him a cold-hearted neo-liberal.[32][33]

his experience and qualifications can be objectively tested

its also quite amazing that someone who is described as a neo-liberal is pro-russian

and someone who favours market economies over centrally planned ones is "pro-russian"

is that one of the objective criterion for establishing whether someone is pro-russian, that they must be neo-liberal and in favour of market economies?

 

[Mirai]

his experience and qualifications can be objectively tested

That's called a classification error. You've misclassified the problem.

its also quite amazing that someone who is described as a neo-liberal is pro-russian

Being called something by someone in relation to something does not make him that for all time. And being a neo-liberal and pro-Russian is not contradictory.

and someone who favours market economies over centrally planned ones is "pro-russian"

Except Russia did not follow through his reforms. Russia is oligarch run and state run. Did he call for that?

is that one of the objective criterion for establishing whether someone is pro-russian, that they must be neo-liberal and in favour of market economies?

These things are totally irrelevant here. The guy is an economist.

 

[Mirai]

so you have no objective criteria then, just more opinion

It's objectively true that your opinions and comments tend to be pro-Russia.

 

[saturnz]

It's objectively true that your opinions and comments tend to be pro-Russia.

still waiting on the objective criteria for pro-russia

just like you failed to provide evidence for your "tiny blemish" you will fail here as well, your opinions don't matter

 

[Mirai]

still waiting on the objective criteria for pro-russia

Every post can have a stance. Your stance tends to be pro-Russian. You support Russia and you ignore the brutal war of aggression the Russian Federation is carrying out against the people of Ukraine.

just like you failed to provide evidence for your "tiny blemish" you will fail here as well, your opinions don't matter

Tiny blemish compared to the Russians. Read the Black Book of Communism to get an idea of what Russia is about.

 

[saturnz]

Every post can have a stance. Your stance tends to be pro-Russian. You support Russia and you ignore the brutal war of aggression the Russian Federation is carrying out against the people of Ukraine.



Tiny blemish compared to the Russians. Read the Black Book of Communism to get an idea of what Russia is about.

every post can have a stance, or it can not have a stance

you still haven't stated what it means to be pro russian, its just a slur you use

you simply are asserting things, without providing actual evidence

you were wrong about the tiny blemish remember, you even apologised, I wasn't complaining about a tiny blemish, that was an assertion you made which turned out to have no evidence to support it

you mention communism now, but Jeffrey Sachs is for free markets, is communism for free markets? I am an anarchist politcally (edit: and lean to austrian economics), I would be against central planning by definition, you see how this works?

 

[Mirai]

every post can have a stance, or it can not have a stance

you still haven't stated what it means to be pro russian, its just a slur you use

You take it as a slur. I am just stating the pattern I've noticed. It's on you if you take it as a slur.

you simply are asserting things, without providing actual evidence

We can look at countries which are allied with the US and we can look at countries which were under Russia. Eastern Europe was under Russia since after ww2 and they couldn't wait to get away from the Russians. Now they're most anti-Russian war of aggression because they've experienced the Russian Mir on their own skin.

you were wrong about the tiny blemish remember, you even apologised, I wasn't complaining about a tiny blemish, that was an assertion you made which turned out to have no evidence to support it

I only apologised conditionally if you weren't pro Russian. But it seems that your posts are slanted toward Russia.

you mention communism now, but Jeffrey Sachs is for free markets, is communism for free markets? I am an anarchist politcally (edit: and lean to austrian economics), I would be against central planning by definition, you see how this works?

You're again misclassifying the problem. Russia has been communist and before that it was authoritarian, tsarist and repressive/oppressive. The tsars were scumbags to people whose countries they took over. And even to their own people. Guess who said the collapse of the USSR was the biggest geopolitical catastrophe.
Guess which government said this:

RIA NOVOSTI has clarified Russia’s plans vis-à-vis Ukraine and the rest of the free world in a program like article: What Russia should do with Ukraine? - Центр громадянських свобод

Back in April last year, we wrote about the inevitability of the denazification of Ukraine. We do not need Nazi (read Ukrainian), Bandera type of Ukraine (read Ukrainian), as the enemy of Russia and the West’s tool for the destruction of Russia. Today, the issue of denazification has moved into...

ccl.org.ua

If you think US did bad things in Iraq and Afghanistan you should be openly opposing Russia now. Assuming you actually oppose war and violence against civilians per se and not when your friends do it.

 

[saturnz]

You take it as a slur. I am just stating the pattern I've noticed. It's on you if you take it as a slur.

which pattern?, you haven't quoted a single post of mine to substantiate your claim

I only apologised conditionally if you weren't pro Russian. But it seems that your posts are slanted toward Russia.

conditional apologies are not apologies

You can't define the terms you use, you use them loosely simply as slurs. Your comments were deleted for a second time in our exchange yesterday because it was completely off topic, and it seems this is just going down the same hill.

I've already stated my political and economic positions. You have failed to provide a definition of your terms and evidence to back up your assertion, so I'm done here.

 

[Mirai]

which pattern?, you haven't quoted a single post of mine to substantiate your claim

Well I don't see you in the Ukrainian war forum criticising Russia but I do see you here for example. You're even quoting a guy who is used by Russian propaganda (Sachs) to have the West abandon Ukraine to the Russians.

conditional apologies are not apologies

If you read what I wrote at the time you will see.

You can't define the terms you use, you use them loosely simply as slurs. Your comments were deleted for a second time in our exchange yesterday because it was completely off topic, and it seems this is just going down the same hill.

You need to re-read what I wrote. You're the one taking this as a slur.

I've already stated my political and economic positions. You have failed to provide a definition of your terms and evidence to back up your assertion, so I'm done here.

I destroyed your positions and justifications. They are irrational.

This is boring. You can support Russia if you wish, but every time you attack the US for old sins, I will ask why you don't criticise Russia for her ongoing and current destruction of Ukraine.

 

[saturnz]

Well I don't see you in the Ukrainian war forum criticising Russia but I do see you here for example. You're even quoting a guy who is used by Russian propaganda (Sachs) to have the West abandon Ukraine to the Russians.

you see what you want to see, that much is clear

 

[Paulsie]

Saturnz I wasn't confused. You are simping for Russia.

Amazing how liberal is now conservative and neutral is now anti establishment.

Russia is like that research site which poisons FDA inspectors, bribes the EMA ones, fabricates results and their stuff can't be reproduced. At this stage one can't trust anything they say. They even cheat at Olympics.

Maybe you should hit the report button.

The criteria for reliability for your side is: Does he oppose the US? If yes, he is the real deal. After all US is evil and they mind control everyone in Europe and Ukraine to fight Russia or support the fight against Russia.

I haven't even said a word about Sachs. Using his name was to poke at certain member. Good try though

Just can't help yourself not responding hey!

 

[Blu82]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1629900822896078851

 

[ToxicBunny]

his experience and qualifications can be objectively tested

its also quite amazing that someone who is described as a neo-liberal is pro-russian

and someone who favours market economies over centrally planned ones is "pro-russian"

is that one of the objective criterion for establishing whether someone is pro-russian, that they must be neo-liberal and in favour of market economies?

How is an economist most qualified to pass any sort of judgement on the situation in Ukraine? That part I don't get

 

[Dave]

is there an objective criteria for being pro russia, and if so, can you post the reference

or is this just some subjective pejorative thrown around

It was in the quote in my reply, he's drank the RuSS KoolAid.

The pejorative should be used against any muppet that somehow thinks an economist is an expert on war just because they like the way he leans politically.

 

[saturnz]

How is an economist most qualified to pass any sort of judgement on the situation in Ukraine? That part I don't get

well if you don't get it, you don't get it

 

[ToxicBunny]

well if you don't get it, you don't get it

Ahhh standard saturnz deflection bollocks, didn't take long.