Woof999

I moved up to the north-east a few months ago. Since then, driving has become good fun again, for the first time since maybe the 90s. OK, so I have to dodge the odd cow, and perhaps some four legged animals too, but there are few to no speed cameras, almost zero police, roads in better condition than back in the west and little to no traffic on the roads outside of rush hour. Even then it's still pretty light. I'm tempted to buy a driver's car again rather than wallow around in a Fortuner.

... and if they are not breaking any laws then I would say that is wrong. and failed.

That's genius. A solution that keeps everyone happy and ensures that Putin will never decide to invade and land grab again. Sign me up. "All those deaths for nothing". So the wife beater was right. It WAS the wife's fault that her husband had to keep hitting her. If only she'd do what she was told he would stop.

I'm surprised you didn't show this one:

Nobody that covers themselves or others with "orange" can be trusted in my humble opinion.

In that case I'd put weight as a key factor. I bought a Dell Precision M4800 for around $7k some time ago and, while it's a fantastic piece of kit, it eats up much of any carry on allowance even without its power brick. Sat on my lap for too long and the heat and weight start to become tiresome too. Using it in bed to watch movies... even worse. Hitting your 4GB VRAM target should be pretty easy. Personally I'd give the guys at invadeit.co.th a call and see what they say. Always given me good advice. Last laptop I bought in a mall (Acer Spin something) turned out to be a piece of crap and now only plays YouTube videos via ChomeOS Flex on karaoke nights.

Something that you may have already considered but... If mobility is not the primary reason for you wanting a laptop, I'd personally spend most of my money on a desktop and then buy a cheap laptop if needed when I'm on the move. A laptop by its very nature brings LOTS of compromises on performance (heat being only one of them).

The thing is, you don't get to set the rules on what counts as "help". Belarus allowed Russia to stage its invasion forces attacking Kiev from Belarus territory, more than halving the distance needed to reach the capital. It also allows Russian missiles to be staged from their territory. Not that they have much of a choice eh. Poor reasoning my arse.

What is? Russia's use of Belarus? It's as much of our business as the help that Ukraine is receiving, which you brought up. What does US immigration policy and the clusterfcuk that it is creating have to do with any of this? Are you trying to equate that to the power of the US military? Take nuclear weapons off the table and Putin's military is nothing. But we can't take nuclear weapons off the table and Putin rattles that sabre because he has to. Russia has the combined population of France and Germany combined (less in fact). It should be a powerhouse of a nation by its natural resources alone, but it's not. The population is both declining and aging, neither being an precursor to future strength. Agreed, yes they do, because of the actions of one man. ...and the Russian military youth suffer terribly, for the same exact reason.

Where did I say that they had no help? Neither did I comment on Russia's use of Belarus via Lukashenko, in power via another "democratic" election that you can be proud of.

That comment has zero balance. Spend just a few minutes reading the comments sections of articles on rt.com and you'll see the reverse in operation to a level that's hard to believe. There is a big difference though. The US and the like don't arrest their population for peaceful demonstrations against a war (sorry, a special miliraty operation) that they don't agree with. Are these the actions of a nation you seem to want to admire?

There is a big difference between joining a defensive alliance and then covertly installing nukes within 100 miles of a major US city. Even today, the US doesn't have land based nukes (to my knowledge) anywhere near that close to Russia (or at least parts of Russia that anyone gives a damn about). That's all almost by the by as nuclear armed submarines are what nations really need to worry about. If the US really wanted to provoke the short man then probably yes. Again, with Finland now in NATO he did not stop this happening anyway, so if that was his goal, he's already lost. Of course I don't think he plans everything himself, but I also believe that his planners only toe the line to his objectives. I don't believe he listens to anyone that doesn't share his game plan. Planning what he does and listening to advice that is counter to his objectives are two different things. Stupid is not a word I have used (as far as I can remember) to describe him. Megalomaniac, sure. I've written before that any country who's consitutional laws have been amended to allow a single man to stay in power for extended periods does not bode well for world harmony. Putin is one of a few. Robert Mugabe, Xi Jingping, Hun Sen, The North Korean clan... can you really admire any of their ilk from a humanitarian perspective?

Nukes physically being positioned a few miles off your coast is still a step or ten away from a country joining a defensive alliance. Putin's invasion of Ukraine also cemented Finland's (and Sweden's) joining of NATO, adding 1,300 additional kilometers of direct border with a NATO member. Finland's closest border is roughly the same distance from Moscow as Ukraine's (with the latter being closer), but much, much closer to St Petersburg. Did the master planner Putin not see this coming? If ensuring that any nukes pointed at Russia remaining at longer ranges was Putin's goal then he has achieved the exact opposite.

A negotiation that involves giving up swathes of your territory to an invader that still occupies it is already a position of weakness. If a bully is holding you by your throat while telling you to "negotiate", are you in an equal position to talk or are you likely just expecting to capitulate to the bully's demands, which would likely never stop? Ukraine joining NATO is only a threat to Putin, NOT a threat to Russia (although in Putin's mind they are one in the same thing, he IS Russia). A NATO aligned Ukraine would mean the other NATO members would be obliged to support Ukraine if (when) Russia attacked and THAT is the reason Putin could not let it happen. It had nothing to do with a threat to the Russia that already was.

Why would I be? I'm neither Ukrainian nor Russian. What I am though is in total admration of the fight that the Ukrainians are putting up. I also think that they are very much aware that, if they rolled over and surrendered, just as you suggest, Putin would expand his land grab even futher. Yes they are in an awful position with awful choices. Giving in to Putin would likely be the worst of the choices. Things do surprise me though. For example, you say you have a friend 😉

Because he's older than 5.

Thank goodness there were people with far more spine alive in WWII or I'd be speaking German.

I have requested a special emoji for when he appears.

Sex tourist or not, I really don't care but, from what you've written so far you seem to be equating owning a Raptor, a $900 suit and a $6000 bed to mean you're cultured and not a sex tourist. If you're as fast to tell the Thai ladies about your valued possessions and your financial position, you've got significanty less chance of finding a long term partner and much more chance of being taken for a ride. Good luck anyway.

When I heard that 70 fighting cocks had been killed I feared for the AN readership.

In all seriousness, I think the likely pubishment for Trump will be a 5 year banning order on makeup and combovers.

You had a point?

If you're going to use a far right GOP slur you could have at least got the acronym right.

If he was as smart as he thinks he is, it would be Romney or Cheney, but that will never, ever happen.

Who is they, what have they employed him as and he gets 10% of what?