I was happy I found this article this morning. It's always good to start the day with a good laugh! Opinions?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28477607/
Thread
Posts in chronological order
"Russian state-media celebrity" and "hardly a day goes by without another interview or two". Joel Garreau thinks so. I have no idea who is Igor Panarin and have never heard or read interviews with him though I live in Russia, watch TV and read newspapers.
(DAMN THIS OBNOXIOUS ARROW) Hahah. Doofus. And he predicts it will happen so soon, too---It took like six centuries for the Byzantine Empire to fall and the fellow expects the United States to be broken up by June/July of next year? xD
DO YO HOMEWORK, IGOR
DO YO HOMEWORK, IGOR
its only splitting up so the US can have its own version of Eurovision :-]
ps,if it does split up i reckon the UK should reclaim it as its rightful property and auction it off to the highest bidder or Canada
ps,if it does split up i reckon the UK should reclaim it as its rightful property and auction it off to the highest bidder or Canada
[QUOTE]
[b]JoxerTheDeityPirate wrote: [/b]
its only splitting up so the US can have its own version of Eurovision :-]
ps,if it does split up i reckon the UK should reclaim it as its rightful property and auction it off to the highest bidder or Canada
[/QUOTE]
Entirely agree. If it wasn't for the fact that most of the British navy was in the channel defending against the thieving French, then the American colonies would still be British. Deep down, Americans know they owe their independence to the French. Therefore, I would reckon they'll welcome being taken back into Albion's womb. What do you think American chumleys? We have Dr Who, Indian food, Man Utd and Mad Cow Disease: tempted?
ps we also have Scotland but they'll be gone soon enough thankfully, so even more reason to join us.
[b]JoxerTheDeityPirate wrote: [/b]
its only splitting up so the US can have its own version of Eurovision :-]
ps,if it does split up i reckon the UK should reclaim it as its rightful property and auction it off to the highest bidder or Canada
[/QUOTE]
Entirely agree. If it wasn't for the fact that most of the British navy was in the channel defending against the thieving French, then the American colonies would still be British. Deep down, Americans know they owe their independence to the French. Therefore, I would reckon they'll welcome being taken back into Albion's womb. What do you think American chumleys? We have Dr Who, Indian food, Man Utd and Mad Cow Disease: tempted?
ps we also have Scotland but they'll be gone soon enough thankfully, so even more reason to join us.
[QUOTE]
[b]Serry... wrote: [/b]
"Russian state-media celebrity" and "hardly a day goes by without another interview or two". Joel Garreau thinks so. I have no idea who is Igor Panarin and have never heard or read interviews with him though I live in Russia, watch TV and read newspapers.[/QUOTE]
I confirm what Serry said. This is nonsense. Nobody has ever heard of the guy.
But I`ve heard that one famous fortune-teller said that the 43 (?), or the current president would be dark-skinned and that he would be a weak president, wouldn`t cope with the financial crisis. After that the US states would want to govern themselves absolutely independently and would break away from the federal government and create sovereign countries. That`s the forecast or prediction.
[b]Serry... wrote: [/b]
"Russian state-media celebrity" and "hardly a day goes by without another interview or two". Joel Garreau thinks so. I have no idea who is Igor Panarin and have never heard or read interviews with him though I live in Russia, watch TV and read newspapers.[/QUOTE]
I confirm what Serry said. This is nonsense. Nobody has ever heard of the guy.
But I`ve heard that one famous fortune-teller said that the 43 (?), or the current president would be dark-skinned and that he would be a weak president, wouldn`t cope with the financial crisis. After that the US states would want to govern themselves absolutely independently and would break away from the federal government and create sovereign countries. That`s the forecast or prediction.
[QUOTE]
[b]Holly2003 wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]JoxerTheDeityPirate wrote: [/b]
its only splitting up so the US can have its own version of Eurovision :-]
ps,if it does split up i reckon the UK should reclaim it as its rightful property and auction it off to the highest bidder or Canada
[/QUOTE]
Entirely agree. If it wasn't for the fact that most of the British navy was in the channel defending against the thieving French, then the American colonies would still be British. Deep down, Americans know they owe their independence to the French. Therefore, I would reckon they'll welcome being taken back into Albion's womb. What do you think American chumleys? We have Dr Who, Indian food, Man Utd and Mad Cow Disease: tempted?
ps we also have Scotland but they'll be gone soon enough thankfully, so even more reason to join us.
[/QUOTE] ssh,keep it under your hat but the yanks already own Man Utd,perhaps they will go bust and end up below Luton Town in the league? *crosses fingers in hope*
plus also theres that 'skirt wearing Jock' ru[i]nning the country in number 10 as it is so the Scots are in control of the English parliament [which doesnt seem fair to me]
but the fact we have a nice piece of water between us and the 'cheese eating onion breath garlic wearing horse killing surrender monkies' must work in our favour when trying to tempt the colonial cousins to be under our rule once more and think of all the cheap tea we will have to drink... :-]
[b]Holly2003 wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]JoxerTheDeityPirate wrote: [/b]
its only splitting up so the US can have its own version of Eurovision :-]
ps,if it does split up i reckon the UK should reclaim it as its rightful property and auction it off to the highest bidder or Canada
[/QUOTE]
Entirely agree. If it wasn't for the fact that most of the British navy was in the channel defending against the thieving French, then the American colonies would still be British. Deep down, Americans know they owe their independence to the French. Therefore, I would reckon they'll welcome being taken back into Albion's womb. What do you think American chumleys? We have Dr Who, Indian food, Man Utd and Mad Cow Disease: tempted?
ps we also have Scotland but they'll be gone soon enough thankfully, so even more reason to join us.
[/QUOTE] ssh,keep it under your hat but the yanks already own Man Utd,perhaps they will go bust and end up below Luton Town in the league? *crosses fingers in hope*
plus also theres that 'skirt wearing Jock' ru[i]nning the country in number 10 as it is so the Scots are in control of the English parliament [which doesnt seem fair to me]
but the fact we have a nice piece of water between us and the 'cheese eating onion breath garlic wearing horse killing surrender monkies' must work in our favour when trying to tempt the colonial cousins to be under our rule once more and think of all the cheap tea we will have to drink... :-]
[QUOTE]
[b]AspiringPhilosophe wrote: [/b]
I was happy I found this article this morning. It's always good to start the day with a good laugh! Opinions?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28477607/
[/QUOTE]
I never knew CNN.com was a comedy site until I saw the video of the interview with this guy a few days ago.
[b]AspiringPhilosophe wrote: [/b]
I was happy I found this article this morning. It's always good to start the day with a good laugh! Opinions?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28477607/
[/QUOTE]
I never knew CNN.com was a comedy site until I saw the video of the interview with this guy a few days ago.
Whether or not this guy is as famous as he is made out to be...it's hilarious!! And pretty bloody obvious the guy has never been to the US. Ever.
South Carolina and New York bed buddies with Europe? They can't even get along between the two of them! And South Carolina, I'm pretty sure, would rather die than join the European Union. It was South Carolina who seceded first in the Civil War. Not to mention the Viriginias, etc....that's confederate flag waving, tobacco chewing, overall wearing country there.
Louisiana going to Mexico? I'm pretty sure they'd rather go to France, given their strong French heritage.
And Kansas/Iowa/North and South Dakota and the rest of the midwest going to Canada? I'd PAY to see that!!
*Goes off to learn "Oh Canada"*
South Carolina and New York bed buddies with Europe? They can't even get along between the two of them! And South Carolina, I'm pretty sure, would rather die than join the European Union. It was South Carolina who seceded first in the Civil War. Not to mention the Viriginias, etc....that's confederate flag waving, tobacco chewing, overall wearing country there.
Louisiana going to Mexico? I'm pretty sure they'd rather go to France, given their strong French heritage.
And Kansas/Iowa/North and South Dakota and the rest of the midwest going to Canada? I'd PAY to see that!!
*Goes off to learn "Oh Canada"*
"Whether or not this guy is as famous as he is made out to be...it's hilarious!!"
All those "celebrity", "interviews", "KGB-trained" makes the whole article less credible from the beginning. You won't bother yourself to read interview of unknown Russian analyst, but since he's state-media celebrity and KGB-trained, well, that's another case...
All those "celebrity", "interviews", "KGB-trained" makes the whole article less credible from the beginning. You won't bother yourself to read interview of unknown Russian analyst, but since he's state-media celebrity and KGB-trained, well, that's another case...
[QUOTE]
[b]AspiringPhilosophe wrote: [/b]
South Carolina and New York bed buddies with Europe? They can't even get along between the two of them! And South Carolina, I'm pretty sure, would rather die than join the European Union. It was South Carolina who seceded first in the Civil War. Not to mention the Viriginias, etc....that's confederate flag waving, tobacco chewing, overall wearing country there.
[/QUOTE]
Ah, but we have a similarity there, then: New York City wanted to secede, too. And since about half the state's population lives in NYC nowadays, they might actually win the referendum for secession, should they try again. South Carolina and Georgia would probably be all for seceding, but joining the EU? Not unless it stands for Evangelical Union.
[b]AspiringPhilosophe wrote: [/b]
South Carolina and New York bed buddies with Europe? They can't even get along between the two of them! And South Carolina, I'm pretty sure, would rather die than join the European Union. It was South Carolina who seceded first in the Civil War. Not to mention the Viriginias, etc....that's confederate flag waving, tobacco chewing, overall wearing country there.
[/QUOTE]
Ah, but we have a similarity there, then: New York City wanted to secede, too. And since about half the state's population lives in NYC nowadays, they might actually win the referendum for secession, should they try again. South Carolina and Georgia would probably be all for seceding, but joining the EU? Not unless it stands for Evangelical Union.
[QUOTE]
[b]Serry... wrote: [/b]
"Whether or not this guy is as famous as he is made out to be...it's hilarious!!"
All those "celebrity", "interviews", "KGB-trained" makes the whole article less credible from the beginning. You won't bother yourself to read interview of unknown Russian analyst, but since he's state-media celebrity and KGB-trained, well, that's another case...[/QUOTE]
Uh...yeah. It's called sarcasm. Thus why I pointed out the article for a laugh. There was never a moment in time where I took this guy seriously.
However, your implication is a bit troubling. Of course, what I should be asking you is how exactly I could "not bother to read interview of unknown Russian analyst". One cannot study what is unknown to it; only after knowledge of it's existence can it be read or studied. I'm not good enough to read things that I don't know exist by people I don't know exist. Therefore, why would you assume that I could read an interview by someone I don't know exists?
[b]Serry... wrote: [/b]
"Whether or not this guy is as famous as he is made out to be...it's hilarious!!"
All those "celebrity", "interviews", "KGB-trained" makes the whole article less credible from the beginning. You won't bother yourself to read interview of unknown Russian analyst, but since he's state-media celebrity and KGB-trained, well, that's another case...[/QUOTE]
Uh...yeah. It's called sarcasm. Thus why I pointed out the article for a laugh. There was never a moment in time where I took this guy seriously.
However, your implication is a bit troubling. Of course, what I should be asking you is how exactly I could "not bother to read interview of unknown Russian analyst". One cannot study what is unknown to it; only after knowledge of it's existence can it be read or studied. I'm not good enough to read things that I don't know exist by people I don't know exist. Therefore, why would you assume that I could read an interview by someone I don't know exists?
[QUOTE]
[b]AspiringPhilosophe wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Serry... wrote: [/b]
"Whether or not this guy is as famous as he is made out to be...it's hilarious!!"
All those "celebrity", "interviews", "KGB-trained" makes the whole article less credible from the beginning. You won't bother yourself to read interview of unknown Russian analyst, but since he's state-media celebrity and KGB-trained, well, that's another case...
[/QUOTE]
Uh...yeah. It's called sarcasm. Thus why I pointed out the article for a laugh. There was never a moment in time where I took this guy seriously.
However, your implication is a bit troubling. Of course, what I should be asking you is how exactly I could "not bother to read interview of unknown Russian analyst". One cannot study what is unknown to it; only after knowledge of it's existence can it be read or studied. I'm not good enough to read things that I don't know exist by people I don't know exist. Therefore, why would you assume that I could read an interview by someone I don't know exists?
[/QUOTE] thats Vulcan logic if ever i read it lol
im gonna have to start calling you Spock me thinks :-]
[b]AspiringPhilosophe wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Serry... wrote: [/b]
"Whether or not this guy is as famous as he is made out to be...it's hilarious!!"
All those "celebrity", "interviews", "KGB-trained" makes the whole article less credible from the beginning. You won't bother yourself to read interview of unknown Russian analyst, but since he's state-media celebrity and KGB-trained, well, that's another case...
[/QUOTE]
Uh...yeah. It's called sarcasm. Thus why I pointed out the article for a laugh. There was never a moment in time where I took this guy seriously.
However, your implication is a bit troubling. Of course, what I should be asking you is how exactly I could "not bother to read interview of unknown Russian analyst". One cannot study what is unknown to it; only after knowledge of it's existence can it be read or studied. I'm not good enough to read things that I don't know exist by people I don't know exist. Therefore, why would you assume that I could read an interview by someone I don't know exists?
[/QUOTE] thats Vulcan logic if ever i read it lol
im gonna have to start calling you Spock me thinks :-]
[QUOTE]
[b]JoxerTheDeityPirate wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]AspiringPhilosophe wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Serry... wrote: [/b]
"Whether or not this guy is as famous as he is made out to be...it's hilarious!!"
All those "celebrity", "interviews", "KGB-trained" makes the whole article less credible from the beginning. You won't bother yourself to read interview of unknown Russian analyst, but since he's state-media celebrity and KGB-trained, well, that's another case...
[/QUOTE]
Uh...yeah. It's called sarcasm. Thus why I pointed out the article for a laugh. There was never a moment in time where I took this guy seriously.
However, your implication is a bit troubling. Of course, what I should be asking you is how exactly I could "not bother to read interview of unknown Russian analyst". One cannot study what is unknown to it; only after knowledge of it's existence can it be read or studied. I'm not good enough to read things that I don't know exist by people I don't know exist. Therefore, why would you assume that I could read an interview by someone I don't know exists?
[/QUOTE] thats Vulcan logic if ever i read it lol
im gonna have to start calling you Spock me thinks :-]
[/QUOTE]
It also happens to be a sound logical deduction.
[b]JoxerTheDeityPirate wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]AspiringPhilosophe wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]Serry... wrote: [/b]
"Whether or not this guy is as famous as he is made out to be...it's hilarious!!"
All those "celebrity", "interviews", "KGB-trained" makes the whole article less credible from the beginning. You won't bother yourself to read interview of unknown Russian analyst, but since he's state-media celebrity and KGB-trained, well, that's another case...
[/QUOTE]
Uh...yeah. It's called sarcasm. Thus why I pointed out the article for a laugh. There was never a moment in time where I took this guy seriously.
However, your implication is a bit troubling. Of course, what I should be asking you is how exactly I could "not bother to read interview of unknown Russian analyst". One cannot study what is unknown to it; only after knowledge of it's existence can it be read or studied. I'm not good enough to read things that I don't know exist by people I don't know exist. Therefore, why would you assume that I could read an interview by someone I don't know exists?
[/QUOTE] thats Vulcan logic if ever i read it lol
im gonna have to start calling you Spock me thinks :-]
[/QUOTE]
It also happens to be a sound logical deduction.
"There was never a moment in time where I took this guy seriously."
I'm not talking about this guy, I'm talking about the guy who wrote the article - about that guy. It's more than obvious that using of "state media celebrity" and "KGB-trained" was made to make opinion of Mr Panarin more funny and idiotic ("Ha ha ha, this is what state media of Russia gives to its viewers, ha ha hah, those KGB-trained guys are so dumb"). The cheap propaganda trick. I'm sorry if word "unknown" was incorrect, English is not my native language.
I'm not talking about this guy, I'm talking about the guy who wrote the article - about that guy. It's more than obvious that using of "state media celebrity" and "KGB-trained" was made to make opinion of Mr Panarin more funny and idiotic ("Ha ha ha, this is what state media of Russia gives to its viewers, ha ha hah, those KGB-trained guys are so dumb"). The cheap propaganda trick. I'm sorry if word "unknown" was incorrect, English is not my native language.