Interesting perspective scrat. You've gone up in my estimation as you are clearly not the inarticulate igonorant malcontent you seemed to be in other threads. One up on me, despite the proximity I have never been to Russia.
posted by scrat
The Russians are being subjected to a very high level of provocation. Russia is now encircled by American power. There are U.S. forces in Central Asia and the Caucasus. With the Baltic states now members of NATO, alliance aircraft are deployed on Russia's frontier. The Poles and others are anxious for Ukraine to join NATO and the EU.
.
The Russian government has been amazingly calm about all this, but it might one of these days lose that calm. Russia today is not the Soviet Union, but it could still find ways to be very unpleasant to those who chose to make an enemy of it.
Interesting, some commentators in the UK have raised concern that Russia may revert to the extreme nationalism of the past in the face of a perceived threat from the west.
posted by jives
So help me out here, what really is the difference between "Russians" and "Russia"?
Interesting question. What is the difference between "Americans" and "America"?
My perception is americans seem to identify very closely with their administration. Any criticism of US policy is taken as being anti american per se. On the other hand I can sit down with a Frenchman or a German and have a good old slanging match that isn't taken as being anti French or anti German per se. Governments are something we elect for a short time to run the place but not to trust.
Russia!!
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Russia!!
Scrat wrote: I definitely agree. The only part I would take exception with is the progression of the capitalist side to an extreme. For every person that has 1000 times what they need to live it means that 10000 must have less. This leads to the destruction of whole societies.
sorry, that's a false construct. unless you believe that there is a fixed amount of wealth available, and that it can only be taken from or added to. furthermore, besides being a false construct, it ignores that capital creates capital in its use. let's say that rich guy - a thousand times what he needs to 'live' (that being a very shaky instrument as well - i know of few people besides genuine ascetics who desire to have in life only air, water, and a small amount of food) - so that rich guy, let's say he decides he's going to spend some of that excess wealth. he's going to build a home theater. figures he'll spend $200,000 on it. pocket change to this guy.
so, where does that $200,000 go? to a whole bunch of construction workers, finishing workers, he buys theater seats, those were made in a factory, and being expensive, it added a nice 'payday' to that company, the employees got better benefits, then there the audio system installers, they use high end speakers, those of course had to be built by someone - and bought from someone, and of course the raw materials came from somewhere, and of course the guy will buy bunches of DVD's, which makes the local DVD store guy happy, and on and on and on. the only time 'huge wealth' doesn't help other people is when it sits in the bank. and of course, there's no question a lot does - where it earns interest, and the more interest that money earns, the lower the interest charged on loans (by and large, it's definitely not a 1:1 formula).
that rich fat can winds up spreading wealth around. and of course, he likely earned his wealth running a company - employing people. say what you will about disparities in pay - take away the incentive to excel, by requiring that everyone be paid the same, and you have a dead society.
We just saw it happen in Kyrgyzstan, the ultra rich were almost murdered by the common people who were not allowed the opportunites they needed to survive. If you have 1% of the population living in palaces and 99% living in hovels you will not have a peaceful society.
and of course, then there's the flip side, on the US government's 'socialist' side - our taxes. the rich pay the lion's share of all the taxes our government collects. without the rich, instead of you and me working until may 1 to pay the tax bill, we'd be working until about december 15. seriously.
On the other hand if the people become too comfortable with the social systems they will become virtual slaves to that system. I think that that has already happened here in America, both extremes of it and as the middleclass shrinks (opportunities become scarce) we will slide more towards the abyss.
maybe. maybe not. economic extremes go in cycles. it's not a one way street with a dead end.
sorry, that's a false construct. unless you believe that there is a fixed amount of wealth available, and that it can only be taken from or added to. furthermore, besides being a false construct, it ignores that capital creates capital in its use. let's say that rich guy - a thousand times what he needs to 'live' (that being a very shaky instrument as well - i know of few people besides genuine ascetics who desire to have in life only air, water, and a small amount of food) - so that rich guy, let's say he decides he's going to spend some of that excess wealth. he's going to build a home theater. figures he'll spend $200,000 on it. pocket change to this guy.
so, where does that $200,000 go? to a whole bunch of construction workers, finishing workers, he buys theater seats, those were made in a factory, and being expensive, it added a nice 'payday' to that company, the employees got better benefits, then there the audio system installers, they use high end speakers, those of course had to be built by someone - and bought from someone, and of course the raw materials came from somewhere, and of course the guy will buy bunches of DVD's, which makes the local DVD store guy happy, and on and on and on. the only time 'huge wealth' doesn't help other people is when it sits in the bank. and of course, there's no question a lot does - where it earns interest, and the more interest that money earns, the lower the interest charged on loans (by and large, it's definitely not a 1:1 formula).
that rich fat can winds up spreading wealth around. and of course, he likely earned his wealth running a company - employing people. say what you will about disparities in pay - take away the incentive to excel, by requiring that everyone be paid the same, and you have a dead society.
We just saw it happen in Kyrgyzstan, the ultra rich were almost murdered by the common people who were not allowed the opportunites they needed to survive. If you have 1% of the population living in palaces and 99% living in hovels you will not have a peaceful society.
and of course, then there's the flip side, on the US government's 'socialist' side - our taxes. the rich pay the lion's share of all the taxes our government collects. without the rich, instead of you and me working until may 1 to pay the tax bill, we'd be working until about december 15. seriously.
On the other hand if the people become too comfortable with the social systems they will become virtual slaves to that system. I think that that has already happened here in America, both extremes of it and as the middleclass shrinks (opportunities become scarce) we will slide more towards the abyss.
maybe. maybe not. economic extremes go in cycles. it's not a one way street with a dead end.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Russia!!
uh, nice stuff, who wrote it? or are we to believe you wrote it, or should i say are you 'whom' was the person who wrote?
Scrat wrote: Here is some food for thought on Russia and world politics. There are billions of bytes of info out there though. Just what freedom and whom's were you speaking about Anastrophe?
A semiauthoritarian present is Russia’s best hope for a liberal future.
In the West, hostility toward Russian President Vladimir Putin stems from two beliefs: that Russia should move quickly toward Western-style democracy and that there is a strong, popular, liberal opposition ready to lead such a transformation. The first is mistaken, the second, pure fantasy. It will take at least a generation for Russia to build the foundation for a modern market economy and democracy. It’s an uncomfortable reality, but, for the foreseeable future, only a semiauthoritarian government such as Putin’s can keep Russia moving in the right direction. If Putin weren’t there, we’d soon miss him.
Consider, for a moment, if Putin were to fail. There is no Thomas Jefferson waiting in the wings. Instead, he would almost certainly be replaced by a figure and a movement that are just as authoritarian but more nationalist, more anti-Western, more populist, and less committed to market reform. A Putin meltdown is not out of the question. He began his term with the disastrous decision to reoccupy Chechnya. He may now be moving toward a second blunder, if there is any truth to rumors in Moscow about a future abolition of Russia’s autonomous ethnic republics. Still, the West should wish him well.
Why do so many in the West have such a naive faith in Russia’s prospects for rapid reform? The persistent belief that Russia will wake up to free-market democracy is rooted in the success of the former Communist states of Central and Eastern Europe. But the analogy is a faulty one. Compared to Russia, those countries are small and ethnically homogeneous. Russia is a vast fragment of a former empire, and it continues to embrace large, traditional, and impoverished Muslim populations in the North Caucasus. The European successor governments could fall back on pre-Communist statehood and economics. In Russia, Stalinism lasted far longer and was imposed on a far less developed population.
The burgeoning nationalism and desire to escape Russian domination in Central and Eastern Europe impelled these states in the direction of NATO and the European Union, enabling their governments to push through deeply unpopular economic and political reforms. In the Soviet Unionâ€â€with the exception of the formerly independent Baltic statesâ€â€the historical, economic, and cultural background was very different. Placed in the context of most former Soviet republics, Russia looks better than average in terms of both development and democracy.
It is not just the burden of history that makes hope for a rapid transformation in Russia illusory. The country’s dreadful economic decline, social and moral chaos, and rampant corruption in the 1990s shattered the image of economic reform and democracy for the bulk of the population. By 1996, long before the accession of Putin, the combined vote of the liberal parties was already below 12 percent. Russia’s first taste of democracy was bitter, and fairly or unfairly, those who championed it have been held responsible for policies that created misery for tens of millions while grotesquely enriching a favored few.
So Russia now has no modern mass democratic parties, and without them, any democracy is likely to be a sham. The inchoate frustration of many ordinary Russians flows either to the worn-out former Communists, or to menacing new groups on the populist right. Like their equivalents elsewhere in the world, these far-right parties do not offer serious alternatives to economic reform and could well act as fronts for oligarchic interests. The combination of economic populism and disgruntled nationalism has little to offer, but it could still be potent.
In this environment, no Russian government can mobilize broad support for further economic reform. The bulk of the population would be outraged if asked to make additional sacrifices. The strong popular opposition to the recent radical overhaul of Russia’s system of social subsidies was evidence enough of the limited tolerance for reform. Putin’s popularity ratings suffered a steep dropâ€â€as much as 20 percentage points in some pollsâ€â€as a result of his support for the reform. The move depended on Putin’s willingness and ability to defy public opinion. He will need to be stronger still if he is to take on Russia’s oligarchs, whose rise is probably the worst byproduct of Russia’s early introduction to democracy. These magnates have a strong grip on the mass media, judiciary, and large parts of parliament. It’s wishful thinking to believe that a fully democratic and law-abiding government would be able to take the oligarchs down a peg.
When observers seek parallels for Russia’s condition, they should look not to Europe but to Latin America and parts of Southeast Asia. There, the appearance of democracy has often masked domination by elites who have plundered the state, obstructed economic reform, and murdered journalists and activists who dared to expose their behavior. This pattern has, in turn, produced periods of populist backlash, which have damaged prospects for economic growth and democratic consolidation still further.
Criticism of Putin, often justified, should be leavened with a recognition that on a number of vital issues, he is still pushing economic reform in the face of the entrenched opposition of powerful elites and public opinion. Putin may be an uncomfortable partner, but the West is unlikely to get a better one. In a generation, things may look more hopeful. If they do, it will be due in large part to Vladimir Putin.
Scrat wrote: Here is some food for thought on Russia and world politics. There are billions of bytes of info out there though. Just what freedom and whom's were you speaking about Anastrophe?
A semiauthoritarian present is Russia’s best hope for a liberal future.
In the West, hostility toward Russian President Vladimir Putin stems from two beliefs: that Russia should move quickly toward Western-style democracy and that there is a strong, popular, liberal opposition ready to lead such a transformation. The first is mistaken, the second, pure fantasy. It will take at least a generation for Russia to build the foundation for a modern market economy and democracy. It’s an uncomfortable reality, but, for the foreseeable future, only a semiauthoritarian government such as Putin’s can keep Russia moving in the right direction. If Putin weren’t there, we’d soon miss him.
Consider, for a moment, if Putin were to fail. There is no Thomas Jefferson waiting in the wings. Instead, he would almost certainly be replaced by a figure and a movement that are just as authoritarian but more nationalist, more anti-Western, more populist, and less committed to market reform. A Putin meltdown is not out of the question. He began his term with the disastrous decision to reoccupy Chechnya. He may now be moving toward a second blunder, if there is any truth to rumors in Moscow about a future abolition of Russia’s autonomous ethnic republics. Still, the West should wish him well.
Why do so many in the West have such a naive faith in Russia’s prospects for rapid reform? The persistent belief that Russia will wake up to free-market democracy is rooted in the success of the former Communist states of Central and Eastern Europe. But the analogy is a faulty one. Compared to Russia, those countries are small and ethnically homogeneous. Russia is a vast fragment of a former empire, and it continues to embrace large, traditional, and impoverished Muslim populations in the North Caucasus. The European successor governments could fall back on pre-Communist statehood and economics. In Russia, Stalinism lasted far longer and was imposed on a far less developed population.
The burgeoning nationalism and desire to escape Russian domination in Central and Eastern Europe impelled these states in the direction of NATO and the European Union, enabling their governments to push through deeply unpopular economic and political reforms. In the Soviet Unionâ€â€with the exception of the formerly independent Baltic statesâ€â€the historical, economic, and cultural background was very different. Placed in the context of most former Soviet republics, Russia looks better than average in terms of both development and democracy.
It is not just the burden of history that makes hope for a rapid transformation in Russia illusory. The country’s dreadful economic decline, social and moral chaos, and rampant corruption in the 1990s shattered the image of economic reform and democracy for the bulk of the population. By 1996, long before the accession of Putin, the combined vote of the liberal parties was already below 12 percent. Russia’s first taste of democracy was bitter, and fairly or unfairly, those who championed it have been held responsible for policies that created misery for tens of millions while grotesquely enriching a favored few.
So Russia now has no modern mass democratic parties, and without them, any democracy is likely to be a sham. The inchoate frustration of many ordinary Russians flows either to the worn-out former Communists, or to menacing new groups on the populist right. Like their equivalents elsewhere in the world, these far-right parties do not offer serious alternatives to economic reform and could well act as fronts for oligarchic interests. The combination of economic populism and disgruntled nationalism has little to offer, but it could still be potent.
In this environment, no Russian government can mobilize broad support for further economic reform. The bulk of the population would be outraged if asked to make additional sacrifices. The strong popular opposition to the recent radical overhaul of Russia’s system of social subsidies was evidence enough of the limited tolerance for reform. Putin’s popularity ratings suffered a steep dropâ€â€as much as 20 percentage points in some pollsâ€â€as a result of his support for the reform. The move depended on Putin’s willingness and ability to defy public opinion. He will need to be stronger still if he is to take on Russia’s oligarchs, whose rise is probably the worst byproduct of Russia’s early introduction to democracy. These magnates have a strong grip on the mass media, judiciary, and large parts of parliament. It’s wishful thinking to believe that a fully democratic and law-abiding government would be able to take the oligarchs down a peg.
When observers seek parallels for Russia’s condition, they should look not to Europe but to Latin America and parts of Southeast Asia. There, the appearance of democracy has often masked domination by elites who have plundered the state, obstructed economic reform, and murdered journalists and activists who dared to expose their behavior. This pattern has, in turn, produced periods of populist backlash, which have damaged prospects for economic growth and democratic consolidation still further.
Criticism of Putin, often justified, should be leavened with a recognition that on a number of vital issues, he is still pushing economic reform in the face of the entrenched opposition of powerful elites and public opinion. Putin may be an uncomfortable partner, but the West is unlikely to get a better one. In a generation, things may look more hopeful. If they do, it will be due in large part to Vladimir Putin.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Russia!!
more of the same.
quoting other people but not supplying attribution is, at best impolite, at worst plagiarism.
Scrat wrote: PARIS U.S. and European Union policies toward Russia are more dangerous than they may seem. What has been happening on Russia's borders could reasonably be interpreted by the government of President Vladimir Putin as a Western campaign to detach and alienate the neighboring states that Moscow describes as its "Near Abroad."
.
In an important respect, Putin's government has invited this interference on its frontier. It has combined complacence with complaisance in corrupt leadership in Belarus, Ukraine and the former Soviet republics in Central Asia.
.
When the Soviet Union was dissolved by Boris Yeltsin in 1991, time should have been up for the whole system. Yeltsin told the leaders of the former Soviet states to take as much freedom as they could manage. In fact, most took as much power, and as much of their states' wealth and resources, as they could.
.
They did roughly what was being done in Russia itself, to Western approval. "Democracy" was being installed there, but it was the form of democracy described by the oligarch Boris Berezovsky when he said "democracy everywhere is the rule of big money."
.
A system of swindling, robbery, asset-stripping and appropriation of public resources was created then that Putin is now trying to reverse. Thus his arrest of the politically ambitious oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, which continues to be described in the West as an attack on market freedom.
.
It no doubt was that, but is also intended by Putin to make the state prevail over the oligarchs' version of capitalism, and to resist the international criminal forces that have infiltrated the existing system and are capable, if unchecked, of destroying civil power in modern Russia.
.
Putin is saying: Do you want Russia run by patriots who will defend political authority and restore Russia's international standing, or are you content with decline and corruption? There is a popular reaction against oligarchy and in favor of what Putin presents as patriotic reform.
.
There almost certainly is going to be another popular reaction against foreign interventions in Russia's Near Abroad.
.
Recent events in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan, and pressures on Belarus - whose despotic president, Alexander Lukashenko, is loyal to Putin, but which is described by President George W. Bush as "an outpost of tyranny" - are creating anxiety and anger in Russia. Moscow sees a big campaign under way to turn Russia's neighbors into allies of the United States and the West.
.
The congressionally financed democracyadvocacy groups of the two major U.S. parties, plus Freedom House in New York, the German Marshall Fund, the admirable Open Society network financed by George Soros, and other nongovernmental organizations have all been active in training volunteers from these states to overturn the corrupt governments in power (as was done in Serbia in the 1990s).
.
Some talk darkly about CIA plans, but there is little that has been hidden in this. Official U.S. support was there when needed: the opposition press in Kyrgyzstan was printed in an American-financed printing plant (and when electricity failed, the U.S. Embassy supplied generators).
.
The changes of government produced by these actions are described in the United States as triumphs of democracy. You can ask whether this really is so, or merely a shuffling of old elites and clans, but that's not the question that bothers Moscow.
.
I should be the last person to criticize since, in the 1950s, I worked for the Free Europe organization, which pioneered broadcasts and other forms of political warfare directed against the Communist regimes of Central and Eastern Europe. Our efforts certainly contributed to their eventual collapse.
.
There is a fundamental difference, however, between what is going on now and our activities and broadcasts during the cold war.
.
The Soviet Union was a powerful and hostile foreign despotism, dominating Eastern and Central Europe against the will of their populations. Russia today, however, is a "strategic partner" of the West. Putin may control national television, but press and public discussion in Russia are free. The public unquestionably supports him, yet there is vigorous political debate and controversy. Elections take place.
.
Moscow cooperates with the West at virtually every level of international relations. It supplies the West with oil, cooperates in Bush's war on terror, and has made no trouble over U.S. bases in Central Asia.
.
So why do we want to make an enemy of Putin?
.
The Russians are being subjected to a very high level of provocation. Russia is now encircled by American power. There are U.S. forces in Central Asia and the Caucasus. With the Baltic states now members of NATO, alliance aircraft are deployed on Russia's frontier. The Poles and others are anxious for Ukraine to join NATO and the EU.
.
The Russian government has been amazingly calm about all this, but it might one of these days lose that calm. Russia today is not the Soviet Union, but it could still find ways to be very unpleasant to those who chose to make an enemy of it.
.
.
.
quoting other people but not supplying attribution is, at best impolite, at worst plagiarism.
Scrat wrote: PARIS U.S. and European Union policies toward Russia are more dangerous than they may seem. What has been happening on Russia's borders could reasonably be interpreted by the government of President Vladimir Putin as a Western campaign to detach and alienate the neighboring states that Moscow describes as its "Near Abroad."
.
In an important respect, Putin's government has invited this interference on its frontier. It has combined complacence with complaisance in corrupt leadership in Belarus, Ukraine and the former Soviet republics in Central Asia.
.
When the Soviet Union was dissolved by Boris Yeltsin in 1991, time should have been up for the whole system. Yeltsin told the leaders of the former Soviet states to take as much freedom as they could manage. In fact, most took as much power, and as much of their states' wealth and resources, as they could.
.
They did roughly what was being done in Russia itself, to Western approval. "Democracy" was being installed there, but it was the form of democracy described by the oligarch Boris Berezovsky when he said "democracy everywhere is the rule of big money."
.
A system of swindling, robbery, asset-stripping and appropriation of public resources was created then that Putin is now trying to reverse. Thus his arrest of the politically ambitious oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, which continues to be described in the West as an attack on market freedom.
.
It no doubt was that, but is also intended by Putin to make the state prevail over the oligarchs' version of capitalism, and to resist the international criminal forces that have infiltrated the existing system and are capable, if unchecked, of destroying civil power in modern Russia.
.
Putin is saying: Do you want Russia run by patriots who will defend political authority and restore Russia's international standing, or are you content with decline and corruption? There is a popular reaction against oligarchy and in favor of what Putin presents as patriotic reform.
.
There almost certainly is going to be another popular reaction against foreign interventions in Russia's Near Abroad.
.
Recent events in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan, and pressures on Belarus - whose despotic president, Alexander Lukashenko, is loyal to Putin, but which is described by President George W. Bush as "an outpost of tyranny" - are creating anxiety and anger in Russia. Moscow sees a big campaign under way to turn Russia's neighbors into allies of the United States and the West.
.
The congressionally financed democracyadvocacy groups of the two major U.S. parties, plus Freedom House in New York, the German Marshall Fund, the admirable Open Society network financed by George Soros, and other nongovernmental organizations have all been active in training volunteers from these states to overturn the corrupt governments in power (as was done in Serbia in the 1990s).
.
Some talk darkly about CIA plans, but there is little that has been hidden in this. Official U.S. support was there when needed: the opposition press in Kyrgyzstan was printed in an American-financed printing plant (and when electricity failed, the U.S. Embassy supplied generators).
.
The changes of government produced by these actions are described in the United States as triumphs of democracy. You can ask whether this really is so, or merely a shuffling of old elites and clans, but that's not the question that bothers Moscow.
.
I should be the last person to criticize since, in the 1950s, I worked for the Free Europe organization, which pioneered broadcasts and other forms of political warfare directed against the Communist regimes of Central and Eastern Europe. Our efforts certainly contributed to their eventual collapse.
.
There is a fundamental difference, however, between what is going on now and our activities and broadcasts during the cold war.
.
The Soviet Union was a powerful and hostile foreign despotism, dominating Eastern and Central Europe against the will of their populations. Russia today, however, is a "strategic partner" of the West. Putin may control national television, but press and public discussion in Russia are free. The public unquestionably supports him, yet there is vigorous political debate and controversy. Elections take place.
.
Moscow cooperates with the West at virtually every level of international relations. It supplies the West with oil, cooperates in Bush's war on terror, and has made no trouble over U.S. bases in Central Asia.
.
So why do we want to make an enemy of Putin?
.
The Russians are being subjected to a very high level of provocation. Russia is now encircled by American power. There are U.S. forces in Central Asia and the Caucasus. With the Baltic states now members of NATO, alliance aircraft are deployed on Russia's frontier. The Poles and others are anxious for Ukraine to join NATO and the EU.
.
The Russian government has been amazingly calm about all this, but it might one of these days lose that calm. Russia today is not the Soviet Union, but it could still find ways to be very unpleasant to those who chose to make an enemy of it.
.
.
.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Russia!!
Scrat wrote: Half of the time I am just slinging crap. Anastrophe and Jives live in very small worlds and can't bare[sic] the fact that there are Americans that dare to think differently than they do. They have probably followed the arse in front of them for so long their eyes can't even shift focus.
you have a really rich fantasy life. there's nothing 'daring' in claiming you're sticking around the US only because you aren't finished looting it.
Your spot on.
on what? or did you mean 'you're'? further evidence you didn't write a syllable of what's in those long posts.
I really don't know what to think about the fact that those pathetic idiots in Russia managed to make America spend roughly 5 trillion on weapons systems in the coldwar and supply wingnuts such a Jives with a path to a kind of insane glory on the leading edge of the shockwave of fear and paranoia about nuclear holocaust.
yow. definitely a fascinating world of illusion. or perhaps delusion. i get the two mixed up, darnit.
Doublethink is an amazing thing, Anastrophe is up to his eyeballs in debt
i am? i don't recall saying exactly how much in debt i am, but i don't think i said 'up to my eyeballs'.
let me guess - you're of the school of thought that you'd rather rent, than own a home, so you won't be a 'slave' to debt.
aa ha ha ha ha ha!!
i was of that ilk myself for way too long. even though i lost my job six months after buying my first house, i am unbelievable glad i bought it. let's see....$342K purchase price in 2002.....current market value just shy of $600K....yeah, that debt's a real killer. and i'll laugh all the way to the bank when i cash out.
and actually thinks he's free. Freedom does not come in "degrees of ", you're free or you're not, freedom has never existed and never will.
dude, you're tripping now. make up your mind, you're making ZERO sense.
"you're free or you're not" - if so, freedom exists, a priori.
"freedom has never existed and never will" - you've just triply contradicted yourself. seriously, make up your mind. are we free, not free, or does freedom not exist?
Cavemen were slaves to the enviornment, Donald Trump is a slave to his money.
uh, okay. so you don't believe in freedom, apparently, as a basic concept. okay. so humans are incapable of making choices, we are all slaves. being slaves implies that there is something we are enslaved to, and that which we are enslaved to must of necessity have a quality of freedom, otherwise it would be purely circular, we're enslaved to the enslaved who are enslaved to slavery. or some other such babble, which is about what this line of discussion amounts to.
I do find it quite interesting that there are elements in our government to this day that seem to want Russia as an enemy. Why? most likely money. Those trillions went into a number of peoples pockets ultimately and there were benefits in the civilian sector also.
yes, quite a few people like to make, and spend money. but they're slaves, apparently, and nobody is free, so who cares? you won't be free in russia, or china, or france, or egypt, or new zealand - or anywhere, since freedom doesn't exist.
you have a really rich fantasy life. there's nothing 'daring' in claiming you're sticking around the US only because you aren't finished looting it.
Your spot on.
on what? or did you mean 'you're'? further evidence you didn't write a syllable of what's in those long posts.
I really don't know what to think about the fact that those pathetic idiots in Russia managed to make America spend roughly 5 trillion on weapons systems in the coldwar and supply wingnuts such a Jives with a path to a kind of insane glory on the leading edge of the shockwave of fear and paranoia about nuclear holocaust.
yow. definitely a fascinating world of illusion. or perhaps delusion. i get the two mixed up, darnit.
Doublethink is an amazing thing, Anastrophe is up to his eyeballs in debt
i am? i don't recall saying exactly how much in debt i am, but i don't think i said 'up to my eyeballs'.
let me guess - you're of the school of thought that you'd rather rent, than own a home, so you won't be a 'slave' to debt.
aa ha ha ha ha ha!!
i was of that ilk myself for way too long. even though i lost my job six months after buying my first house, i am unbelievable glad i bought it. let's see....$342K purchase price in 2002.....current market value just shy of $600K....yeah, that debt's a real killer. and i'll laugh all the way to the bank when i cash out.
and actually thinks he's free. Freedom does not come in "degrees of ", you're free or you're not, freedom has never existed and never will.
dude, you're tripping now. make up your mind, you're making ZERO sense.
"you're free or you're not" - if so, freedom exists, a priori.
"freedom has never existed and never will" - you've just triply contradicted yourself. seriously, make up your mind. are we free, not free, or does freedom not exist?
Cavemen were slaves to the enviornment, Donald Trump is a slave to his money.
uh, okay. so you don't believe in freedom, apparently, as a basic concept. okay. so humans are incapable of making choices, we are all slaves. being slaves implies that there is something we are enslaved to, and that which we are enslaved to must of necessity have a quality of freedom, otherwise it would be purely circular, we're enslaved to the enslaved who are enslaved to slavery. or some other such babble, which is about what this line of discussion amounts to.
I do find it quite interesting that there are elements in our government to this day that seem to want Russia as an enemy. Why? most likely money. Those trillions went into a number of peoples pockets ultimately and there were benefits in the civilian sector also.
yes, quite a few people like to make, and spend money. but they're slaves, apparently, and nobody is free, so who cares? you won't be free in russia, or china, or france, or egypt, or new zealand - or anywhere, since freedom doesn't exist.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Russia!!
Scrat wrote: On second thought I won't bother, I may not have put up the links but was sure that I did. I didn't write it and frankly who did is irrelevant. The articles make a lot of good points.
If you don't like it, shut to hell up. You don't have to read it. charmed, i'm sure.
The cost of healthcare shot that theory right out of the air. that's the only benefit workers get? there are NO other benefits that people get? wow. amazing. i could have sworn when i was working i had a 401K plan, deferred medical spending account, free coffee (hey, ever gram of caffiene helps), free parking, free T1 at home, made a great salary, blah blah blah.
but, of course, with your dogma, you "have probably followed the arse in front of [you] for so long [your] eyes can't even shift focus."
If the rich paid their taxes I would only be working to pay them until Feb 2nd. You know the tax burden is passed on to the consumer as well as I do.more circular logic, and made up info.
fact: the top 5% of earners pay 53% of all the tax revenue taken in by the federal government. so, sorry chief, your made up statistic is, well, a lie.
if the rich were passing their tax burden on to 'the consumer' (whatever that is - aren't the rich consumers too?), then the top 5% of wage earners would only pay, well, make something up - whatever it is, it wouldn't be more than half of all the taxes the government takes in.
the top 25% of wage earners pay 82.9% of all tax revenues the feds take in.
you should thank the rich.
If you don't like it, shut to hell up. You don't have to read it. charmed, i'm sure.
The cost of healthcare shot that theory right out of the air. that's the only benefit workers get? there are NO other benefits that people get? wow. amazing. i could have sworn when i was working i had a 401K plan, deferred medical spending account, free coffee (hey, ever gram of caffiene helps), free parking, free T1 at home, made a great salary, blah blah blah.
but, of course, with your dogma, you "have probably followed the arse in front of [you] for so long [your] eyes can't even shift focus."
If the rich paid their taxes I would only be working to pay them until Feb 2nd. You know the tax burden is passed on to the consumer as well as I do.more circular logic, and made up info.
fact: the top 5% of earners pay 53% of all the tax revenue taken in by the federal government. so, sorry chief, your made up statistic is, well, a lie.
if the rich were passing their tax burden on to 'the consumer' (whatever that is - aren't the rich consumers too?), then the top 5% of wage earners would only pay, well, make something up - whatever it is, it wouldn't be more than half of all the taxes the government takes in.
the top 25% of wage earners pay 82.9% of all tax revenues the feds take in.
you should thank the rich.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Russia!!
Scrat wrote: Screw you. Where's your backup? Your links? Keep your statistical scatology to yourself. There are a thousand different theories out there and a thousand different ways to look at it.
now you're making me laugh. there's no 'theory' in it. that's the hard, cold, concrete facts. just because you don't *like* the facts doesn't invalidate them.
source? straight from the IRS. but of course, they're just pawns. or something.
now you're making me laugh. there's no 'theory' in it. that's the hard, cold, concrete facts. just because you don't *like* the facts doesn't invalidate them.
source? straight from the IRS. but of course, they're just pawns. or something.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Russia!!
Scrat wrote:
Suffice to say all of us are at least subject too, and enslaved by, our stomachs.
not much point in further discussion. we're 'enslaved' by space and time too. yeesh.
we're talking about human Will. of course we have to eat. that's a priori. we're talking about things we have a choice about. and we do have choice. that's what freedom is.
Suffice to say all of us are at least subject too, and enslaved by, our stomachs.
not much point in further discussion. we're 'enslaved' by space and time too. yeesh.
we're talking about human Will. of course we have to eat. that's a priori. we're talking about things we have a choice about. and we do have choice. that's what freedom is.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Russia!!
Scrat wrote: Half of the time I am just slinging crap. Anastrophe and Jives live in very small worlds and can't bare the fact that there are Americans that dare to think differently than they do.
Oh, I can "bear" it, it's still saddening to see such a delusioned and sad American such as yourself. Cheer up! You could have been born Ugandan.
They have probably followed the arse in front of them for so long their eyes can't even shift focus.
That arse you refer to is my Father's, W.R. Ives. Inventor of the I/T cut (Ives/Theta) that made possible the use of crystals for clocks on computers. The very computer you are typing on is an example of his work. He was a veteran of WWII, where he was a triple ace in P-47's, flying for the 8th FTS. He fought at the Battle of Brenner Pass, flew over North Africa and Italy , and shot down three enemy planes at D-Day.
After the war, he returned to worked for the National Bureau of Standards, and became an Engineering troubleshooter for the government, helping such businesses as IBM and Honeywell start up. He worked closely with my step-father, Don Hammond,the head of Hewlett-Packard labs for the last half-century.
After his stint in business, he went back to college and became an educator. he helped found San Juan College, setting up their computer, automotive, electroinc engineering, and math programs.
Brilliant men and dedicated Americans. I'd follow those arses anywhere, because they are going places. You, on the other hand, are sitting on yours and stagnating.
I really don't know what to think about the fact that those pathetic idiots in Russia managed to make America spend roughly 5 trillion on weapons systems in the coldwar and supply wingnuts such a Jives with a path to a kind of insane glory on the leading edge of the shockwave of fear and paranoia about nuclear holocaust.
Russia collapsed under the weight of the arms race. And since no nuclear war has ever happened....America won. Russia is a shattered shell of it's former glory, unemployed soldiers beg for food in Red Square, and organized crime runs the country. Looks like the Cold War was a good strategy!
And by the way...that's the second time you've flamed me with a derogatory label..."wingnut"...That's enough of that, pinko. :wah:
freedom has never existed and never will
Wrong. You are free to leave this country, that's not true everywhere. You are free to question our government, and even post insulting and derogatory statements about it publically. That could get you killed in other countries. I call that free.
I find them to be an amazingly resilient people and what they have endured/overcome over the centuries.
Yes, they have to endure their own vicous governments, and they have to overcome their own governments every so often, but that would be their own fault, wouldn't it? Or are you going to support Stalinism now?
Ans there's a good point....no US president has ever committed genocide on his own people before. That alone makes us better than Russia!
Oh, I can "bear" it, it's still saddening to see such a delusioned and sad American such as yourself. Cheer up! You could have been born Ugandan.
They have probably followed the arse in front of them for so long their eyes can't even shift focus.
That arse you refer to is my Father's, W.R. Ives. Inventor of the I/T cut (Ives/Theta) that made possible the use of crystals for clocks on computers. The very computer you are typing on is an example of his work. He was a veteran of WWII, where he was a triple ace in P-47's, flying for the 8th FTS. He fought at the Battle of Brenner Pass, flew over North Africa and Italy , and shot down three enemy planes at D-Day.
After the war, he returned to worked for the National Bureau of Standards, and became an Engineering troubleshooter for the government, helping such businesses as IBM and Honeywell start up. He worked closely with my step-father, Don Hammond,the head of Hewlett-Packard labs for the last half-century.
After his stint in business, he went back to college and became an educator. he helped found San Juan College, setting up their computer, automotive, electroinc engineering, and math programs.
Brilliant men and dedicated Americans. I'd follow those arses anywhere, because they are going places. You, on the other hand, are sitting on yours and stagnating.
I really don't know what to think about the fact that those pathetic idiots in Russia managed to make America spend roughly 5 trillion on weapons systems in the coldwar and supply wingnuts such a Jives with a path to a kind of insane glory on the leading edge of the shockwave of fear and paranoia about nuclear holocaust.
Russia collapsed under the weight of the arms race. And since no nuclear war has ever happened....America won. Russia is a shattered shell of it's former glory, unemployed soldiers beg for food in Red Square, and organized crime runs the country. Looks like the Cold War was a good strategy!
And by the way...that's the second time you've flamed me with a derogatory label..."wingnut"...That's enough of that, pinko. :wah:
freedom has never existed and never will
Wrong. You are free to leave this country, that's not true everywhere. You are free to question our government, and even post insulting and derogatory statements about it publically. That could get you killed in other countries. I call that free.
I find them to be an amazingly resilient people and what they have endured/overcome over the centuries.
Yes, they have to endure their own vicous governments, and they have to overcome their own governments every so often, but that would be their own fault, wouldn't it? Or are you going to support Stalinism now?
Ans there's a good point....no US president has ever committed genocide on his own people before. That alone makes us better than Russia!
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Russia!!
Scrat wrote: We do have freedom of choice BUT it is limited by opportunities available, means and artificial constraints such as regulations and laws. uh, well, duh. that's the definition of freedom. i am not free to sprout wings and fly to the moon. that's a given. i am free to choose the direction my life goes in, within the constraints of newtonian and einsteinian physics.
i'm unclear why you're unclear on this.
Make no mistake, Americans are in a 3 way struggle for freedom with corporate interests/big business and big government both of which have greater control here than the old Soviet Union ever did over it's people. i disagree. but that's about as far as we'll get with this line of thought. for one thing, i have trouble with the concept of a "3 way struggle" and "both of which". :yh_silly
As for the IRS, you have got to be kidding me.
uh, no, why would i be kidding you? those are their own statistics. i realize you hate those particular facts, because they pretty much demolish about a third of your argument. but they are facts, and they are the reality.
disliking a fact doesn't make it less of a fact.
If you think they collect the majority from the rich your going to have to explain the drug dealers in Hummers to convince me of that.i have no idea what that's supposed to mean. in what way does the existence of drug dealers in hummers alter the statistics regarding tax revenue collection from the wealthy? a drug dealer driving a hummer amounts to lunch money for a typical high earner. but again - i still don't get the connection to tax revenues.
i'm unclear why you're unclear on this.
Make no mistake, Americans are in a 3 way struggle for freedom with corporate interests/big business and big government both of which have greater control here than the old Soviet Union ever did over it's people. i disagree. but that's about as far as we'll get with this line of thought. for one thing, i have trouble with the concept of a "3 way struggle" and "both of which". :yh_silly
As for the IRS, you have got to be kidding me.
uh, no, why would i be kidding you? those are their own statistics. i realize you hate those particular facts, because they pretty much demolish about a third of your argument. but they are facts, and they are the reality. disliking a fact doesn't make it less of a fact.
If you think they collect the majority from the rich your going to have to explain the drug dealers in Hummers to convince me of that.i have no idea what that's supposed to mean. in what way does the existence of drug dealers in hummers alter the statistics regarding tax revenue collection from the wealthy? a drug dealer driving a hummer amounts to lunch money for a typical high earner. but again - i still don't get the connection to tax revenues.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Russia!!
Scrat wrote: First off "at" is incorrect. Try "and shot down three enemy planes ON D-day", kills 2 birds with one stone.
'at D-Day' is a legitimate construct. nothing incorrect about it at all.
'at D-Day' is a legitimate construct. nothing incorrect about it at all.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Russia!!
Scrat wrote: Sounds real pretty written that way. Doesn't it?
sorry if my facility with the language makes you uneasy.
Many people were "at" D-Day on the date of June 6th. It just sounds like a better "construct" when you say "and shot down 3 planes on D-Day"
sorry if your lack of facility with the language makes you uncomfortable with constructs that aren't the lowest common denominator.
D-Day was an event, not an object. We don't celebrate Independance day "at" the 4th of July. We celebrate it "at" the bar ''on'' the 4th of July.
meaningless: "I stand on the backyard deck". so, by your thinking, i should say "I stand at the backyard deck". of course, the latter is also a valid construct, and depending upon the context, could be entirely appropriate:
"I stand at the backyard deck, taking in the wonderful view"
Tbl Pahn-ee-mah-yesh? :-5
nani o korimasu ka. so desu ne. watashi no shimbun o kaimasu. hai.
i mean really, what's your point? just say what you want to say. i can't speak for anyone else, but i'm no more impressed by your facility with dropping russian bon mots than i'd expect you to be impressed with the japanese i learned back in my junior year in high school. it doesn't add anything to the discussion.
sorry if my facility with the language makes you uneasy.
Many people were "at" D-Day on the date of June 6th. It just sounds like a better "construct" when you say "and shot down 3 planes on D-Day"
sorry if your lack of facility with the language makes you uncomfortable with constructs that aren't the lowest common denominator.
D-Day was an event, not an object. We don't celebrate Independance day "at" the 4th of July. We celebrate it "at" the bar ''on'' the 4th of July.
meaningless: "I stand on the backyard deck". so, by your thinking, i should say "I stand at the backyard deck". of course, the latter is also a valid construct, and depending upon the context, could be entirely appropriate:
"I stand at the backyard deck, taking in the wonderful view"
Tbl Pahn-ee-mah-yesh? :-5
nani o korimasu ka. so desu ne. watashi no shimbun o kaimasu. hai.
i mean really, what's your point? just say what you want to say. i can't speak for anyone else, but i'm no more impressed by your facility with dropping russian bon mots than i'd expect you to be impressed with the japanese i learned back in my junior year in high school. it doesn't add anything to the discussion.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Russia!!
What's this, grammarians in the dawn light exchanging verbal bullets? There's something ironic about two people from a nation that can't spell properly (I don't mean the word properly cos I'm sure you can spell that, I mean you can't spell) arguing about grammatical constructs. But then reputedly americans don't understand irony and take such comments seriously.
Hey jives
http://www.public-library.co.uk/authors ... dcaine.htm
Spitfires, Thunderbolts, And Warm Beer ~~ ISBN: 1574888447
This is the story of American WW2 pilot LeRoy Gover, woven together from his letters and diaries. Gover lacked the qualifications to guarantee him a place in the U.S. Army Air Corps Wings, so instead he flew spitfires for the R.A.F.
Interesting read if you can find it-at least from my point of view seeing how a contemporary american saw britain at start of the war. Didn't like the thunderbolt always wanted to fly the Rolls Royce powered mustang. Maybe they knew each other, such books bring history alive.
http://www.greenhillbooks.com/booksheet ... tfire.html
Canadian this time.
posted by scrat
We do have freedom of choice BUT it is limited by opportunities available, means and artificial constraints such as regulations and laws.
Make no mistake, Americans are in a 3 way struggle for freedom with corporate interests/big business and big government both of which have greater control here than the old Soviet Union ever did over it's people.
Interesting comment. In a society with such a gulf between rich and poor you would expect demands for change. Is it the possibilty of being able to "make it" that keeps america going in the face of what would be a class distinction in past times. You seem to have abolished class but replaced it with money-although that doesn't seem the right way to put it either.
Hey jives
http://www.public-library.co.uk/authors ... dcaine.htm
Spitfires, Thunderbolts, And Warm Beer ~~ ISBN: 1574888447
This is the story of American WW2 pilot LeRoy Gover, woven together from his letters and diaries. Gover lacked the qualifications to guarantee him a place in the U.S. Army Air Corps Wings, so instead he flew spitfires for the R.A.F.
Interesting read if you can find it-at least from my point of view seeing how a contemporary american saw britain at start of the war. Didn't like the thunderbolt always wanted to fly the Rolls Royce powered mustang.
Maybe they knew each other, such books bring history alive.http://www.greenhillbooks.com/booksheet ... tfire.html
Canadian this time.
posted by scrat
We do have freedom of choice BUT it is limited by opportunities available, means and artificial constraints such as regulations and laws.
Make no mistake, Americans are in a 3 way struggle for freedom with corporate interests/big business and big government both of which have greater control here than the old Soviet Union ever did over it's people.
Interesting comment. In a society with such a gulf between rich and poor you would expect demands for change. Is it the possibilty of being able to "make it" that keeps america going in the face of what would be a class distinction in past times. You seem to have abolished class but replaced it with money-although that doesn't seem the right way to put it either.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Russia!!
gmc wrote: Interesting comment. In a society with such a gulf between rich and poor you would expect demands for change. Is it the possibilty of being able to "make it" that keeps america going in the face of what would be a class distinction in past times. You seem to have abolished class but replaced it with money-although that doesn't seem the right way to put it either.
are we to believe there is no gulf between the rich and poor in the UK, or that there's less of a gulf in the UK than in the US? sorry, but that's utterly preposterous.
are we to believe there is no gulf between the rich and poor in the UK, or that there's less of a gulf in the UK than in the US? sorry, but that's utterly preposterous.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Russia!!
Here's a link to my stepfather's name: Director of Agilent:
http://www.labs.agilent.com/news/2002fe ... ysics.html
Here's another one detailing his generousity:
http://newsinfo.colostate.edu/index.asp ... 1299621145
here's a link I found that proves my father was a pilot, it's dated 1945:
http://www.accident-report.com/Crew_Names/NAME45I.html
here's another one:
http://www.aviationarchaeology.com/src/namesI.htm
My point is this Scrat, you accuse me of "blindly following the arse in front of me", I tell you that those who came before me were great Americans. You dodge the point and try desperately to convince yourself I'm lying. Why? Because if they really were great your whole idea that America is a bad place could be wrong?
Why not face the truth? My point is that America is great because it's people are great. What's your point?
http://www.labs.agilent.com/news/2002fe ... ysics.html
Here's another one detailing his generousity:
http://newsinfo.colostate.edu/index.asp ... 1299621145
here's a link I found that proves my father was a pilot, it's dated 1945:
http://www.accident-report.com/Crew_Names/NAME45I.html
here's another one:
http://www.aviationarchaeology.com/src/namesI.htm
My point is this Scrat, you accuse me of "blindly following the arse in front of me", I tell you that those who came before me were great Americans. You dodge the point and try desperately to convince yourself I'm lying. Why? Because if they really were great your whole idea that America is a bad place could be wrong?
Why not face the truth? My point is that America is great because it's people are great. What's your point?
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
Russia!!
posted by anastrophe
are we to believe there is no gulf between the rich and poor in the UK, or that there's less of a gulf in the UK than in the US? sorry, but that's utterly preposterous.
No of course not and that wasn't what I was asking. The gulf here is actually widening under labour which is not what you would expect froma labour government.
Most people in this country tend to be social democratic in outlook.
Take the NHS for example, it's free at the point of use irrespective of income. It's not actually free as it is paid for through taxes, generally speaking most regard it as fair that those who earn more pay more in taxes the main thing is it is free and paid for through taxation, it is not the kind of ting that should be in private hands for profit and the majority of the voters are extremely hostile to any suggestion it should be privatised because it is a service that we are entitled to expect from our government they answer to us and the provision of healthcare should not be at the mercy of profit making companies. There are problems but the basic principle is generally accepted.
It's a massive issue here and can win or lose elections, generally speaking the tories aren't trusted on the issue and now Labour have a problem on their hands and seem to be losing their core support. In essence it is regarded as grossly unjust that someone can jump the queue for treatment simply because they are richer
Same with education it's free and compulsory, go privately if you want but you still pay taxes to fund the state system. Tertiary education used to be free to poorer students it was viewed as being vital for the good of the country and again something the governemnt should provide.
You read stories and see US dramas where people are refused medical treatment because their insurance has run out or some of the posts in this forum have been along similar lines with people worried about losing their jobs and the concomitant medical benefits.
I look at things like that and wonder why do americans put up with that?
We have had massive social change here of a kind that america seems not to have had and any suggestion along these lines (free provision of healthcare etc ) seems to get shouted down as communistic-end of debate.
Our histories are very different, we had a distinct ruling elite that have gradually lost power rather than violently. (therein lies thousands of words of debate) The US never really had that in the same way although you had massive social upheaval as well.
Arguably your ruling elite is big business and big government that seem to have a lot of americans convinced that questioning the way things are in unamerican and unpatriotic.
That's why I found scrats comment interesting.
Bear in mind I am not american, I quite have a different viewpoint both literally and metaphorically.
posted by scrat
Let ME know, when YOU know, just what in the hell your talking about.
posted by jives
Why not face the truth? My point is that America is great because it's people are great. What's your point?
America is great so is Russia so's everybody else, shoot the politicians and the priests and we wopuild probably all get along fine.
are we to believe there is no gulf between the rich and poor in the UK, or that there's less of a gulf in the UK than in the US? sorry, but that's utterly preposterous.
No of course not and that wasn't what I was asking. The gulf here is actually widening under labour which is not what you would expect froma labour government.
Most people in this country tend to be social democratic in outlook.
Take the NHS for example, it's free at the point of use irrespective of income. It's not actually free as it is paid for through taxes, generally speaking most regard it as fair that those who earn more pay more in taxes the main thing is it is free and paid for through taxation, it is not the kind of ting that should be in private hands for profit and the majority of the voters are extremely hostile to any suggestion it should be privatised because it is a service that we are entitled to expect from our government they answer to us and the provision of healthcare should not be at the mercy of profit making companies. There are problems but the basic principle is generally accepted.
It's a massive issue here and can win or lose elections, generally speaking the tories aren't trusted on the issue and now Labour have a problem on their hands and seem to be losing their core support. In essence it is regarded as grossly unjust that someone can jump the queue for treatment simply because they are richer
Same with education it's free and compulsory, go privately if you want but you still pay taxes to fund the state system. Tertiary education used to be free to poorer students it was viewed as being vital for the good of the country and again something the governemnt should provide.
You read stories and see US dramas where people are refused medical treatment because their insurance has run out or some of the posts in this forum have been along similar lines with people worried about losing their jobs and the concomitant medical benefits.
I look at things like that and wonder why do americans put up with that?
We have had massive social change here of a kind that america seems not to have had and any suggestion along these lines (free provision of healthcare etc ) seems to get shouted down as communistic-end of debate.
Our histories are very different, we had a distinct ruling elite that have gradually lost power rather than violently. (therein lies thousands of words of debate) The US never really had that in the same way although you had massive social upheaval as well.
Arguably your ruling elite is big business and big government that seem to have a lot of americans convinced that questioning the way things are in unamerican and unpatriotic.
That's why I found scrats comment interesting.
Bear in mind I am not american, I quite have a different viewpoint both literally and metaphorically.
posted by scrat
Let ME know, when YOU know, just what in the hell your talking about.
posted by jives
Why not face the truth? My point is that America is great because it's people are great. What's your point?
America is great so is Russia so's everybody else, shoot the politicians and the priests and we wopuild probably all get along fine.
Russia!!
Scrat wrote: That's a pretty vague statement. America is great because it's people are great.
Actually, that's a very specific statement. People are what make a country great. Isn't that the exact argument you are using for Russia? Why can't I use it for America?
It's said that "Alexander the Great" was great. Here in the west. Ask the Persian people and you will get a different answer.
You can't compare unselfish heros to a conquerer. They don't mix.
Wouldn't you say greatness is a matter of opinion?
Sure, and it's my opinion that men who defend their country valiantly and give thousands of dollars to help schools are great. What's your opinion of greatness?
Do the Native Americans think that Andrew Jackson was great?
The ancient ones, no. The modern ones, yes. Just ask Skittles!
George Armstrong Custer? He was a great idiot.
And yet he saved the North at the First Battle of Bull Run all by himself.
Allowing the North to win and end slavery in North America. A pretty great deed, wouldn't you say? ( I'm an expert on the Civil War.)
Abraham Lincoln? The bought president who has the blood of almost the entire Pontiac nation on his hands? What about the civil war? It could have been avoided, who needs the south anyway?
Avoided? Can true men of honor turn their back on slavery? I think not. You are being obtuse.
Who was worse. Abe Lincoln?
Watch what you say about my second cousin, he was a great, great man.
I still haven't come to a conclusion on Stalin yet
OH>MY>GOD!!!! You just invalidated everything you've ever said and every point you ever tried to make by supporting the greatest MASS MURDERER OF ALL TIME!! Are you feeling OK, S crap?
Russia did not collapse under the weight of the arms race. one just walked away and went home.
Then had an economic disaster, had a revolution, and turned Democratic. Game, Set, and Match to America. They are now us. Resistance is futile, they were assimilated.
Walmart is trying to get in. McDonalds is expanding.
It's only a matter of time until we add their country as another star on our flag.
The average Russian has 5 times the buying power of you average American.
Which is good, since the average cool american stuff like Levis cost five times as much over there.
Well dressed, well fed, cynical, bored, young conscripts with bad attitudes seem to inhabit every city in Russia. They can be seen huddled in small groups in the metro gossiping and smoking cigarettes when they should be looking for terrorists trying to get onto the subway or they can be seen in the front of courthouses etc trying to keep themselves awake.
OK, I agree with you for once! You're right, their army is incompetent and lackadaisical.
I'm still confused...You want to travel to a country that is rapidly becoming a clone of the U.S., but without our stellar armed forces? Huh? :wah:
Actually, that's a very specific statement. People are what make a country great. Isn't that the exact argument you are using for Russia? Why can't I use it for America?
It's said that "Alexander the Great" was great. Here in the west. Ask the Persian people and you will get a different answer.
You can't compare unselfish heros to a conquerer. They don't mix.
Wouldn't you say greatness is a matter of opinion?
Sure, and it's my opinion that men who defend their country valiantly and give thousands of dollars to help schools are great. What's your opinion of greatness?
Do the Native Americans think that Andrew Jackson was great?
The ancient ones, no. The modern ones, yes. Just ask Skittles!
George Armstrong Custer? He was a great idiot.
And yet he saved the North at the First Battle of Bull Run all by himself.
Allowing the North to win and end slavery in North America. A pretty great deed, wouldn't you say? ( I'm an expert on the Civil War.)
Abraham Lincoln? The bought president who has the blood of almost the entire Pontiac nation on his hands? What about the civil war? It could have been avoided, who needs the south anyway?
Avoided? Can true men of honor turn their back on slavery? I think not. You are being obtuse.
Who was worse. Abe Lincoln?
Watch what you say about my second cousin, he was a great, great man.
I still haven't come to a conclusion on Stalin yet
OH>MY>GOD!!!! You just invalidated everything you've ever said and every point you ever tried to make by supporting the greatest MASS MURDERER OF ALL TIME!! Are you feeling OK, S crap?
Russia did not collapse under the weight of the arms race. one just walked away and went home.
Then had an economic disaster, had a revolution, and turned Democratic. Game, Set, and Match to America. They are now us. Resistance is futile, they were assimilated.
Walmart is trying to get in. McDonalds is expanding.
It's only a matter of time until we add their country as another star on our flag.
The average Russian has 5 times the buying power of you average American.
Which is good, since the average cool american stuff like Levis cost five times as much over there.
Well dressed, well fed, cynical, bored, young conscripts with bad attitudes seem to inhabit every city in Russia. They can be seen huddled in small groups in the metro gossiping and smoking cigarettes when they should be looking for terrorists trying to get onto the subway or they can be seen in the front of courthouses etc trying to keep themselves awake.
OK, I agree with you for once! You're right, their army is incompetent and lackadaisical.
I'm still confused...You want to travel to a country that is rapidly becoming a clone of the U.S., but without our stellar armed forces? Huh? :wah:
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Russia!!
Scrat wrote: Russia did not collapse under the weight of the arms race. "The threat" Russia saw from the west was removed. It was removed by a third party, the Europeans.
How?
They got sick and tired of being a potential battleground. Ronnie Rayguns act of stationing Pershing nuclear missiles there really put the heat on but it was in the '70s that they realized what was happening on both sides of the curtain.
No Pole, Czech, Romanian, German, Dutchman, Frenchman or Italian wanted to die in a conflict that was not theirs. Russia knew that if a war broke out they could not depend on their auxiliaries and they knew that it was the same for the US. No western european was going to fight for America.
And like 2 highschool kids posturing, huffing and puffing in the alley behind the school the smarter one just walked away and went home.
that is one of the most remarkable bits of historical revisionism i think i've ever read.
you sir, i'm afraid to say, are utterly deluded.
How?
They got sick and tired of being a potential battleground. Ronnie Rayguns act of stationing Pershing nuclear missiles there really put the heat on but it was in the '70s that they realized what was happening on both sides of the curtain.
No Pole, Czech, Romanian, German, Dutchman, Frenchman or Italian wanted to die in a conflict that was not theirs. Russia knew that if a war broke out they could not depend on their auxiliaries and they knew that it was the same for the US. No western european was going to fight for America.
And like 2 highschool kids posturing, huffing and puffing in the alley behind the school the smarter one just walked away and went home.
that is one of the most remarkable bits of historical revisionism i think i've ever read.
you sir, i'm afraid to say, are utterly deluded.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Russia!!
Posted by scrat
The only reason we are there now is because of the money we fork over to the Europeans and believe me it is not cheap.
Why the hell are we there to begin with?
"The Threat"?
Just remember, your paying for it.
Oh come on I don't believe you are unaware of the historical reasons for it. What is slightly worrying is Russian response to aggressive american foreign policy, not to mention China as well.
The only reason we are there now is because of the money we fork over to the Europeans and believe me it is not cheap.
Why the hell are we there to begin with?
"The Threat"?
Just remember, your paying for it.
Oh come on I don't believe you are unaware of the historical reasons for it. What is slightly worrying is Russian response to aggressive american foreign policy, not to mention China as well.
Russia!!
http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch11.htm
http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/r ... lintro.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/
posted by scrat
I'm well aware of both sides of the curtains versions of events, as for the version of history you are referring to please enlighten me.
tell me which versions you know and we can discuss it
http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/r ... lintro.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/
posted by scrat
I'm well aware of both sides of the curtains versions of events, as for the version of history you are referring to please enlighten me.
tell me which versions you know and we can discuss it
Russia!!
Questions............
Does anyone know the crime rate in Russia vs America?
Does anyone know the crime rate in Russia vs America?
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
Russia!!
Scrat wrote: It really depends on where you go. I read recently that in Moscow they are averaging 1 murder a day, not bad for a city of 8 million. I can and have walked the streets of Moscow all night and be reasonably safe.
I know in Byelgorod (300,000) if you commit a crime you all but disappear and they will fine you for cussing or spitting on the street. I Russia the victims of crimes have the rights, not the criminals.
I don't think Russia keeps good stats on the crime rates. I do know from personal experience that I feel safer on the street there than SOME places here. I have never been harassed, mugged or in any way threatened in all of my wandering there.
White collar crime and Mafia crime in Moscow are not as bad as in the 90's but it does not affect the common people.
Terrorism is a concern and they are paranoid about it. I certainly found out that you better know what building your setting down in front of and who the FSB is. Or else.I've read crimes against dark complected Russians and foreign students are way up. The skinhead movement is rampant as capitalism has brought poverty and an end to the sturdy social welfare net they had. A recent attack in Moscow was upon an Angolan student who was beaten into a coma by skins that blame Russia's slide into 3rd Worldom on other races and Chechen, Ossetian, southern people's. There have been hundreds of cases like this just in the last 12 months.
I know in Byelgorod (300,000) if you commit a crime you all but disappear and they will fine you for cussing or spitting on the street. I Russia the victims of crimes have the rights, not the criminals.
I don't think Russia keeps good stats on the crime rates. I do know from personal experience that I feel safer on the street there than SOME places here. I have never been harassed, mugged or in any way threatened in all of my wandering there.
White collar crime and Mafia crime in Moscow are not as bad as in the 90's but it does not affect the common people.
Terrorism is a concern and they are paranoid about it. I certainly found out that you better know what building your setting down in front of and who the FSB is. Or else.I've read crimes against dark complected Russians and foreign students are way up. The skinhead movement is rampant as capitalism has brought poverty and an end to the sturdy social welfare net they had. A recent attack in Moscow was upon an Angolan student who was beaten into a coma by skins that blame Russia's slide into 3rd Worldom on other races and Chechen, Ossetian, southern people's. There have been hundreds of cases like this just in the last 12 months.
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group that believes you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas millionaires, or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." [font=Arial Narrow][/font]
President Dwight D. Eisenhower Nov. 08, 1954
President Dwight D. Eisenhower Nov. 08, 1954
Russia!!
Scrat wrote: There have been some. 1 in Voronezh, 1 in St Pete that was thought to be a hate crime but later turned out to be some punks that were drunk and 2 incidents in Moscow since 2003.
After the plane bombings and Beslan this winter the skinheads were acting up but the police took care of it. I think it does goes on there but once again the Russians are very poor record keepers and don't forget to toss into the mess the exaggerations of the western media.
I have seen many people of Asian origin in Russia, I personally met horse traders from Mongolia with laptop computers. They sell ponies that they raise.
I saw several black people in Byelgorod at the university and in Moscow all kinds of people.
The Russians are not as bad off as you read, capitalism has taken its toll in ways but things are improving rapidly and the people have access to decent healthcare and adequate housing and the rest of the basics but what is hurting is the infrastructure. That is what they are working on now and I think it will be 2 decades to catch up to the rest of the world. 20 years from now you will be able to get from Moscow to Vladivostok on a train in 48 hours instead of 3 weeks.I'm pleased to hear racism may not be as bad in Russia as what I read recently. (I wish I knew how to do searches and post links.) The same article stated foreign student enrollment in Russian universities has plummeted, that students there are warned not to venture anywhere alone, that white Russian students have organized patrols to curb the violence and that 22 violent attacks on foreign students were reported in Moscow alone in February. I do hope you are correct though Scrat and that there is no Pamyatist surge in Russia's youth.
After the plane bombings and Beslan this winter the skinheads were acting up but the police took care of it. I think it does goes on there but once again the Russians are very poor record keepers and don't forget to toss into the mess the exaggerations of the western media.
I have seen many people of Asian origin in Russia, I personally met horse traders from Mongolia with laptop computers. They sell ponies that they raise.
I saw several black people in Byelgorod at the university and in Moscow all kinds of people.
The Russians are not as bad off as you read, capitalism has taken its toll in ways but things are improving rapidly and the people have access to decent healthcare and adequate housing and the rest of the basics but what is hurting is the infrastructure. That is what they are working on now and I think it will be 2 decades to catch up to the rest of the world. 20 years from now you will be able to get from Moscow to Vladivostok on a train in 48 hours instead of 3 weeks.I'm pleased to hear racism may not be as bad in Russia as what I read recently. (I wish I knew how to do searches and post links.) The same article stated foreign student enrollment in Russian universities has plummeted, that students there are warned not to venture anywhere alone, that white Russian students have organized patrols to curb the violence and that 22 violent attacks on foreign students were reported in Moscow alone in February. I do hope you are correct though Scrat and that there is no Pamyatist surge in Russia's youth.
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group that believes you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas millionaires, or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." [font=Arial Narrow][/font]
President Dwight D. Eisenhower Nov. 08, 1954
President Dwight D. Eisenhower Nov. 08, 1954
Russia!!
Seems to me that EX Communist countries have a hard time keeping crime down.
Why do you think that is?
Just wondering why if ya'll think it is so great, when in fact the country you loath to live in is pretty crime in-fested?
Russia has more than 4 times the murder rate of the US. If one takes another look at the Interpol data, you will note that the murder rates (offenses per capita) for Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, and Poland are higher than or very close to that of the USA, despite the fact that these countries are almost totally white. These are all ex-communist countries.
Why do you think that is?
Just wondering why if ya'll think it is so great, when in fact the country you loath to live in is pretty crime in-fested?
Russia has more than 4 times the murder rate of the US. If one takes another look at the Interpol data, you will note that the murder rates (offenses per capita) for Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, and Poland are higher than or very close to that of the USA, despite the fact that these countries are almost totally white. These are all ex-communist countries.
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
-
nvalleyvee
- Posts: 5191
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:57 am
Russia!!
So tell me - - - Why did this country die as a nation? As a people who were united - who loved their country!!!
The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement..........Karl R. Popper
Russia!!
BTS wrote: despite the fact that these countries are almost totally white.
I like how you infer that skin color is a factor in murder rates.
I like how you infer that skin color is a factor in murder rates.
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
Russia!!
Jives wrote: I like how you infer that skin color is a factor in murder rates. Didn't you know? BTS is a redneck. And rednecks are not only uneducated and unclean but they're also racists.
Didn't you know? BTS is a redneck. And rednecks are not only uneducated and unclean but they're also racists."Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group that believes you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas millionaires, or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." [font=Arial Narrow][/font]
President Dwight D. Eisenhower Nov. 08, 1954
President Dwight D. Eisenhower Nov. 08, 1954
Russia!!
BTS wrote: Seems to me that EX Communist countries have a hard time keeping crime down.
Why do you think that is?
Just wondering why if ya'll think it is so great, when in fact the country you loath to live in is pretty crime in-fested?
Russia has more than 4 times the murder rate of the US. If one takes another look at the Interpol data, you will note that the murder rates (offenses per capita) for Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, and Poland are higher than or very close to that of the USA, despite the fact that these countries are almost totally white. These are all ex-communist countries.Communists know how to control crime. When the capitalists move in crime and drug use skyrockets. Explain BTK!!
Why do you think that is?
Just wondering why if ya'll think it is so great, when in fact the country you loath to live in is pretty crime in-fested?
Russia has more than 4 times the murder rate of the US. If one takes another look at the Interpol data, you will note that the murder rates (offenses per capita) for Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, and Poland are higher than or very close to that of the USA, despite the fact that these countries are almost totally white. These are all ex-communist countries.Communists know how to control crime. When the capitalists move in crime and drug use skyrockets. Explain BTK!!
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group that believes you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas millionaires, or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." [font=Arial Narrow][/font]
President Dwight D. Eisenhower Nov. 08, 1954
President Dwight D. Eisenhower Nov. 08, 1954
-
capt_buzzard
- Posts: 5557
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm
Russia!!
David813 wrote: VERY cool!! I loved the link!! I've never been to Russia but as a communist it has been close to my heart since I joined the Marxist movement in the late 80's. The USSR was a superpower, modern Russia is a 3rd world country. The bastions of the tiny rich population in Leningrad (as the Russians still refer to it) and Moscow hide the fact that even after decades of Stalinist rule, deviated significantly from communism, that the Russian CP is the 2nd largest political party in the country. Huge swaths of Russia have kept their Marxist-Leninist monuments and retain communists in local government. The treatment of it's soldiers is horrendous. You may know a more current number Scrat but up to 500 young Russian men conscripted into the military die of brutal conditions and hazing, abuse and disease PER YEAR. The worst thing to happen to this great country was surrendering the Revolution to salivating capitalist pigs overseas. Now the church there has been unleashed to divide the people even more. Skinheads murder foreign students regularly and that hate comes from Poverty and frustration with a failed dictatorship. Same thing is happening in eastern Germany where the godless commies were routed and now the eastern provinces have sunken into the worst economic conditions since WW2. Skinheads are abound. "Freeeedom" as our chimp prez pretends to cherish is not working in Russia or any of the former Soviet states. I predict civil war will turn Russia into a bloodbath very soon. The sickle & hammer represented a proud and powerful people with many luxuries and advantages they no longer have. "Sink or Swim" kills, and the people of Russia must rise up once again and reignite their Glorious Revolution.BACK THE USSR boys:D
-
capt_buzzard
- Posts: 5557
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm
Russia!!
BTS wrote: Seems to me that EX Communist countries have a hard time keeping crime down.
Why do you think that is?
Just wondering why if ya'll think it is so great, when in fact the country you loath to live in is pretty crime in-fested?
Russia has more than 4 times the murder rate of the US. If one takes another look at the Interpol data, you will note that the murder rates (offenses per capita) for Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, and Poland are higher than or very close to that of the USA, despite the fact that these countries are almost totally white. These are all ex-communist countries.Oh wait until the Far Right get into power within the EU.
Why do you think that is?
Just wondering why if ya'll think it is so great, when in fact the country you loath to live in is pretty crime in-fested?
Russia has more than 4 times the murder rate of the US. If one takes another look at the Interpol data, you will note that the murder rates (offenses per capita) for Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, and Poland are higher than or very close to that of the USA, despite the fact that these countries are almost totally white. These are all ex-communist countries.Oh wait until the Far Right get into power within the EU.