Obama's speech to Muslims

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Vance said:
I don't believe that a 'balance between communism and capitalism' makes a lot of sense. That's a lot like saying "well, we need to have our quotas of genocidal cleansings in this part of the world to balance out civilization"...

You're really going to equate moderate politics or policies of any form with the defense of genocide?
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Vance said:
I don't believe that a 'balance between communism and capitalism' makes a lot of sense..
Hey, as far as I recall, it was you who brought up the concept of US-based capitalistic economy being there to help Europe cope with communism.

To which I simply pointed out that by looking at the past decade or so, I must really ask... "what communism?"
 

Vance

New member
Finn said:
Hey, as far as I recall, it was you who brought up the concept of US-based capitalistic economy being there to help Europe cope with communism.

To which I simply pointed out that by looking at the past decade or so, I must really ask... "what communism?"

The problem is that you're conflating "communism" with "Soviet Union". The nationalization of industry, particularly to give that industry to labour unions (UAW) is the very definition of communism. You cannot be an honest man and claim otherwise. The fact that it's being done for no more reason that Obama's desire for 'fair redistrubution of wealth' (read Marx lately?) makes it all the more appalling.

Communism has yet to succeed anywhere in the world, ever. Socialism, for its part, has had as of yet, only marginal success in certain areas under certain conditions, primarily when the capitalist US is footing the bill for most of the infrastructure somehow. It will suck majorly for the US if this shift towards the 'hard left' takes foot here.

It will most assuredly hasten Europe's own self-destruction.
 

WillKill4Food

New member
Finn said:
Obama's economic ideas are slightly right from what is considered to be "centrist" in Europe. If that's "socialism" nowadays, I need to get re-educated since I have no idea what's around here between that and communism.
Which is why I said that Obama's policies are "leading us toward socialism" and not explicitly establishing the US as a socialist nation.

Socialism is defined by Merriam-Webster as "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods."

Now, the US government has a stake in multiple corporations such as GM (need I list others?) due to the bailouts, rewarding failure instead of allowing the businesses to do as they should, and file Chapter 11 bankruptcy, which would allow the corporations to reorganize.

The US is certainly not socialist, and we still have a mixed economy, but the government's actions, which Obama advocates, are clearly leading the US towards socialism.

Finn said:
We're actually waiting for this to boil over. Then we can not just lock it, but send certain characters to a lengthy vacation. Double the fun.
I don't really think that this thread warrants such a statement. The conversation over the past few pages has certainly wondered from the original topic (which would be grounds for closing it), but it has been, as Pale Horse noted on page 5, mostly civil, though spirited. And, though it may not be my place to say so, I don't really see any reason that anyone posting in it should be sent on a "lengthy vacation."
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Vance said:
The problem is that you're conflating "communism" with "Soviet Union". The nationalization of industry, particularly to give that industry to labour unions (UAW) is the very definition of communism. You cannot be an honest man and claim otherwise. The fact that it's being done for no more reason that Obama's desire for 'fair redistrubution of wealth' (read Marx lately?) makes it all the more appalling.

Communism has yet to succeed anywhere in the world, ever. Socialism, for its part, has had as of yet, only marginal success in certain areas under certain conditions, primarily when the capitalist US is footing the bill for most of the infrastructure somehow. It will suck majorly for the US if this shift towards the 'hard left' takes foot here.

It will most assuredly hasten Europe's own self-destruction.
I'm not mixing up anything with anything. This has discussion has been all the time about economy. You seem intent on implying that Obama's actions will ultimately be bad for Europe. However, they are not the only guy in the table willing to pick up the tab anymore. Have you paid any attention at what's been going on in the Kreml and the Forbidden city lately?

Europe will do fine, thankyouweddymuch, as it's not as dependent on the US anymore as you think.

WillKill4Food said:
The US is certainly not socialist, and we still have a mixed economy, but the government's actions, which Obama advocates, are clearly leading the US towards socialism.
And the day when you make the Moon a 51st state is closer than the day you finish that journey, yet you speak about it as if it was right behind the corner.

Note that I'm not actually saying that the bailouts were the only working option at this environment, having them file bankruptcy would have made the trick eventually as well... so if you'd prefer those I'm not going to argue with that. However, the road taken is no reason to behave like the sky is falling, either.

WillKill4Food said:
I don't really think that this thread warrants such a statement. The conversation over the past few pages has certainly wondered from the original topic (which would be grounds for closing it), but it has been, as Pale Horse noted on page 5, mostly civil, though spirited. And, though it may not be my place to say so, I don't really see any reason that anyone posting in it should be sent on a "lengthy vacation."
You might wish to reread what you quoted. It was an argument for letting this discussion continue, not one against it. Getting it closed now, at least by any of those mods who have been actively feeding the discussion would be highly hypocritical.

Besides, the time we start looking for an excuse to ban some people would be the first. Like my dear colleague Pale Horse pointed a few posts back, we don't need any excuses.
 

Vance

New member
Finn said:
I'm not mixing up anything with anything. This has discussion has been all the time about economy. You seem intent on implying that Obama's actions will ultimately be bad for Europe. However, they are not the only guy in the table willing to pick up the tab anymore. Have you paid any attention at what's been going on in the Kreml and the Forbidden city lately?

Europe will do fine, thankyouweddymuch, as it's not as dependent on the US anymore as you think.

So, basically, your stance is that Europe should still be dependant on other countries (rather than build up its infrastructure on its own), but that you should switch your depedency to Russia or China. I just want to be clear that that is actually your stance...
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Vance said:
So, basically, your stance is that Europe should still be dependant on other countries (rather than build up its infrastructure on its own), but that you should switch your depedency to Russia or China. I just want to be clear that that is actually your stance...
Pretty much, yeah. I'd love every country being able to stand on its own feet, but let's be realistic here... some simply don't have resources to do that. So they'll always be dependant of some bigger players in the game, no matter what.

But other than that, yeah, I don't actually care who fuels the economy as long as they're reliable. Besides, last time I checked, Russia is in Europe, so that's technically a step to the desired direction, right?
 

Vance

New member
Finn said:
But other than that, yeah, I don't actually care who fuels the economy as long as they're reliable. Besides, last time I checked, Russia is in Europe, so that's technically a step to the desired direction, right?

Well, if you would rather throw your trust with nations with track records like Russia and China, that's your business. Granted, I think it's remarkably stupid and shows an insane amount of naiveté as well as complete ignorance of even recent history, much less that of the last century.

I always find it interesting that so many, particularly in free Europe, really do look at the former Eastern Bloc and say "Man, I wish we had things like that...", while the Eastern Bloc thank God every day that they no longer do.
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Vance said:
I always find it interesting that so many, particularly in free Europe, really do look at the former Eastern Bloc and say "Man, I wish we had things like that...", while the Eastern Bloc thank God every day that they no longer do.

Are you really sure that that's a common sentiment? Because I've certainly never heard it. (I'm actually asking, not trying to score points.)
 

Vance

New member
Attila the Professor said:
Are you really sure that that's a common sentiment? Because I've certainly never heard it. (I'm actually asking, not trying to score points.)

I've heard it personally from a number of immigrants, as well as news services from Poland, former Yugoslavia, et al. But Communist Totalitarianism is most certainly en vogue with the 'social elites' of Europe and the United States again... but largely because these guys will NEVER think of themselves as the 'peasants' but as the 'party leaders' instead.

The only people who miss Communism are like Putin.. they were political powers within the 'party' 'back in the day'.

I wonder if Finn would be so enthused if he knew that 'sure, I'll get third-world heathcare guaranteed, and can't voice my opinions on anything without getting arrested, but I'll be secure as a hard-labor farmer or factory worker' was really what he was advocating for himself.
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Vance said:
Well, if you would rather throw your trust with nations with track records like Russia and China, that's your business. Granted, I think it's remarkably stupid and shows an insane amount of naiveté as well as complete ignorance of even recent history, much less that of the last century.
Yeah. But if we look a little further back, we'll see something else. As early as in the 19th century both China and Russia used to be quite some cradles of civilization. Since then... not so much. Throw into the mix the fact that Great Britain was the leading world power in the aforementioned century, all it's really telling us that things can and will change.

Of course, looking at history on a little shorter scale, I can understand why some people might find relying on these particular players not such a good idea. And I'd definitely prefer someone with a little better track record as well. However, the only way of turning these fellas into something more reliable is to place some meager trust into their hands. Alienating them sure as hell ain't a good idea.

Besides, I'm definitely not keen on the idea of someone having a monopoly in this "being a world power" business. But don't worry, I can completely understand why some of you might think otherwise.

Vance said:
The only people who miss Communism are like Putin.. they were political powers within the 'party' 'back in the day'.
For your information, Vlad Putin was a low-level KGB operative who started his political career as a city official in St. Petersburg in the early nineties, after the fall of the USSR. Nice analogy, bad example.
 
Last edited:

Vance

New member
Finn said:
Yeah. But if we look a little further back, we'll see something else.

The problem is that the 'further back' policies aren't exactly what's going to effect Europe today, is it? Russia is already interfering in elections and performing 'energy blackmail' on a regular basis. China has that whole 'Tibet' thing going on and is North Korea's major sponsor. I understand that the 'social elite' of Europe once again wants to reject the United States as a power.. like they do every few years until they want us for something again... but maybe the European powers really should check out who they're getting in bed with before catching things penicillin doesn't cure.

However, the only way of turning these fellas into something more reliable is to place some meager trust into their hands. Alienating them sure as hell ain't a good idea.

You don't need to alienate them, but you have to not reward bad behavior, either. What happens when you give a bully your lunch money? He beats you up again...

Besides, I'm definitely not keen on the idea of someone having a monopoly in this "being a world power" business. But don't worry, I can completely understand why some of you might think otherwise.

No, I think the EU should step up, quit with the petty 'anti-Americanism' bull**** that they're doing and focus on building up Europe's interests rather than jockeying for 'biggest twit wannabe government of the year' all the time.

Simply put, most Americans do NOT want to deal with Europe, or the Middle East, or anywhere else... we're frankly sick of all of it, and we get nothing but grief for our efforts. Seriously, if the next guy after Putin turns into something like Lenin or Stalin, I actually don't think the US will bother with aiding Europe anymore. Why should we, really, when it appears that that's exactly what a lot of Europe (at least those on the west of the Eastern Bloc) really wants... either than or Islamic law. Take your pick, 'cause I'm pretty sure that we'll see one or the other within 20 years.

For your information, Vlad Putin was a low-level KGB operative who started his political career as a city official in St. Petersburg in the early nineties, after the fall of the USSR. Nice analogy, bad example.

You forget one key thing... to be a member of the KGB, you HAVE to be a Communist party official. Keep in mind that many of these positions were (or are?) usually appointments or 'jobs', basically, and don't require any political acumen... just fealty.
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Vance said:
The problem is that the 'further back' policies aren't exactly what's going to effect Europe today, is it? Russia is already interfering in elections and performing 'energy blackmail' on a regular basis. China has that whole 'Tibet' thing going on and is North Korea's major sponsor. I understand that the 'social elite' of Europe once again wants to reject the United States as a power.. like they do every few years until they want us for something again... but maybe the European powers really should check out who they're getting in bed with before catching things penicillin doesn't cure.
And the United States is recently known for starting a conflict not approved by the international community and acting like a jackass all over in general.

You see, the point here is that the bit players see faults in the all the big boys. And to be honest, if each and every one of them do have their more-or-less concealed skeletons, why deal with just one of them? Especially since the athmosphere incredibly allows one to deal with them all.

Yeah, one could just pick the lesser evil and go that route (which would perhaps be safe thing to do), but why let the rare moment in time go to waste?

Vance said:
No, I think the EU should step up, quit with the petty 'anti-Americanism' bull**** that they're doing and focus on building up Europe's interests rather than jockeying for 'biggest twit wannabe government of the year' all the time.
Rather fitting description of the EU. Honestly, I don't believe they're capable of more than that. There's just too many cultures in the mix.

Vance said:
Simply put, most Americans do NOT want to deal with Europe, or the Middle East, or anywhere else... we're frankly sick of all of it, and we get nothing but grief for our efforts. Seriously, if the next guy after Putin turns into something like Lenin or Stalin, I actually don't think the US will bother with aiding Europe anymore. Why should we, really, when it appears that that's exactly what a lot of Europe (at least those on the west of the Eastern Bloc) really wants... either than or Islamic law. Take your pick, 'cause I'm pretty sure that we'll see one or the other within 20 years.
I don't think that the majority of Europeans actually care about the US being the leading world power and having superiority over whatever issues. Their only problem is that the holder of that position behaves like a pompous ass. Even with half the amount of pragmatism Obama is gracing us would make things pretty hunky-dory and let each shores of the Atlantic to deal with their own problems.

Vance said:
You forget one key thing... to be a member of the KGB, you HAVE to be a Communist party official. Keep in mind that many of these positions were (or are?) usually appointments or 'jobs', basically, and don't require any political acumen... just fealty.
Putin's career in the KGB was rather stale, and the agency employed dozens of mooks like him with very little chances to advance to the true elite, the red book in their pockets or not. Putin wouldn't be where he is now without the opportunities opened to him by the fall of the Iron Curtain, so I'd still say he has very little reason to miss the 'good old days'. There are those that do, I'm not saying that... but I'm fairly contempt that "Uncle Vlad" isn't one of them.
 

Short Round

New member
"And the United States is recently known for starting a conflict not approved by the international community and acting like a jackass all over in general."

Frankly, we couldn't give a crap if it's "approved by the international community". Why should we? Our country will do whatever it wants to protect it's citizens, and it is the LAST thing on our mind whether Europe or anyone approves of it.

"I don't think that the majority of Europeans actually care about the US being the leading world power and having superiority over whatever issues. Their only problem is that the holder of that position behaves like a pompous ass. Even with half the amount of pragmatism Obama is gracing us would make things pretty hunky-dory and let each shores of the Atlantic to deal with their own problems."

haha, yeah, right. Almost all of the nations that criticize us are jealous. Bush didn't behave like a pompous *******. He did what he had to do to protect our nation and Europeans shouldn't criticize us for that, especially since we have bailed their asses out so many damn times.
 

WillKill4Food

New member
Finn said:
And the day when you make the Moon a 51st state is closer than the day you finish that journey, yet you speak about it as if it was right behind the corner.
... the road taken is no reason to behave like the sky is falling, either.
Touche. Perhaps I was a little prone to exaggeration. But, still, Monkey's insistence that the economic policy of Obama should not matter to him was what I sought to target.

Finn said:
You might wish to reread what you quoted...
Yeah, my misunderstanding.
 

Vance

New member
Finn said:
And the United States is recently known for starting a conflict not approved by the international community and acting like a jackass all over in general.

In political leaders, I would rather see a jackass than a coward. Besides, the 'international community' has absolutely zero moral authority on pretty much anything, when you think about it. While I'm not happy with how Bush handled the war in Iraq, I'm never going to consider the removal of Saddam and his sons, in the name of politcal favor for bribed European officials, an evil act.

Yeah, one could just pick the lesser evil and go that route (which would perhaps be safe thing to do), but why let the rare moment in time go to waste?

Leave the mindless idealism to the college students. In the real world, people die, sometimes by the millions, for such degrees of naivete. Every time I look at history, I see ourselves repeating the 1930s to the letter.. we're up to 1934. There's really only one thing missing to make it to the late 1930s...

Rather fitting description of the EU. Honestly, I don't believe they're capable of more than that. There's just too many cultures in the mix.

Not much of an excuse. Indvidually, Spain, England, France, Germany, and Italy have all been world powers in the recent past. There's no reason that Europe cannot federalize and handle more of its affairs internally.

Putin's career in the KGB was rather stale, and the agency employed dozens of mooks like him with very little chances to advance to the true elite, the red book in their pockets or not.

You don't understand. I don't think Putin wants to be where he was in the 1970s.. I think he wants to be where Kruschev was in the 1970s. He often speaks of the 'glory days' of the Soviet Empire, after all, and I doubt he was talking about Catherine.
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Short Round said:
Frankly, we couldn't give a crap if it's "approved by the international community". Why should we? Our country will do whatever it wants to protect it's citizens, and it is the LAST thing on our mind whether Europe or anyone approves of it.

If we're prudent, we'd damned well better give a crap. Because, as I'm pretty sure you're aware, we don't have the luxury of closing the borders, setting up walls or whatever. We're in a global economy and a global political realm, and so what happens elsewhere in the world affects us in the States, just as it affects people in any other country. And so if spending some time on diplomacy means that people are around to help us when we need it...then you better believe we should spend some time on diplomacy.

Unless you want a draft - and in case you haven't checked, the Pentagon doesn't - we simply don't have the troops to patrol every corner of the globe we have a problem with. And once you're talking about the atomic bomb and rogue non-governmental entities, troops only count for so much anyhow.

Diplomacy is what there is. When it fails, that's when things go to hell.

(And yeah, Neville Chamberlain stands as an example of a poor diplomat, because he didn't know stand up for what he should have stood up for, an innocent country being attacked. Diplomacy only works, after all, when war is a possibility on the table. For Chamberlain, it clearly wasn't, to his detriment.)
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Vance said:
In political leaders, I would rather see a jackass than a coward. Besides, the 'international community' has absolutely zero moral authority on pretty much anything, when you think about it. While I'm not happy with how Bush handled the war in Iraq, I'm never going to consider the removal of Saddam and his sons, in the name of politcal favor for bribed European officials, an evil act.
And I don't mind it either. I was simply saying that there is no right or wrong in choosing between Russia, USA and China. So honestly, is it really that bad with them all? Besides, as it's apparent by looking at this thread, if some Americans can have a similar attitude concerning their own affairs to protect their preferred way of life, why should I care about being associated with something Amnesty would hardly approve?

Vance said:
Not much of an excuse. Indvidually, Spain, England, France, Germany, and Italy have all been world powers in the recent past. There's no reason that Europe cannot federalize and handle more of its affairs internally.
I wasn't presenting excuses, I was agreeing with you. The EU is ineffective as it is, and having them around as a "twit government" is completely useless. Either they should exist as a more effective party, or not exist at all. But alas, apart from few exceptions, our representatives in Brussels are contempt only in seeking us much benefit as possible to their own nationals, and well, that appears to be something the man on the street highly approves. Europe really shouldn't think themselves better than Americans, there are jerks and morons all over.

Vance said:
You don't understand. I don't think Putin wants to be where he was in the 1970s.. I think he wants to be where Kruschev was in the 1970s. He often speaks of the 'glory days' of the Soviet Empire, after all, and I doubt he was talking about Catherine.
Or then you didn't word it correctly the first time around, as I certainly do understand now. And am bound to agree. Russia's social system is far from exemplary. But their economics seem to be wholly capable of feeding of a bunch of other parties as well for quite some time now, and I thought this was a discussion about economics...

*~*~*~*

It's fairly obvious that not everybody in this thread see eye to eye about certain issues, but despite that I'm still glad to see that majority of us are able to maintain certain level of respect towards the opposing party. Strong opinions are met with strong counters, and despite the discussion being heated, credit is apparently also given where it's due.
Short Round said:
haha, yeah, right. Almost all of the nations that criticize us are jealous. Bush didn't behave like a pompous *******. He did what he had to do to protect our nation and Europeans shouldn't criticize us for that, especially since we have bailed their asses out so many damn times.
But then, there's stuff like this... all illusion is stripped away and all that remains is the kindergarten.
 
Last edited:

Vance

New member
Finn said:
And I don't mind it either. I was simply saying that there is no right or wrong in choosing between Russia, USA and China. So honestly, is it really that bad with them all?

The problem with that argument is that you're saying "America is not perfect, therefore it is as bad as the Soviet Union was." It's reductum absurdum. And, again, it's not so much that 'opening doors with China and Russia' really is the problem, it's the active hostility and alienation of the United States that's the problem.

As I said, it's very unlikely that the US will come to Europe's rescue yet again unless our interests are directly threatened. Most of America, even a lot of the most liberal, really do think that Europe deserves what's coming to them.

Besides, as it's apparent by looking at this thread, if some Americans can have a similar attitude concerning their own affairs to protect their preferred way of life, why should I care about being associated with something Amnesty would hardly approve?

If some Europeans still think it's okay to execute the Jews, etc ... Truth is, as a whole, America is pretty much tired of the world at large. Tired of plugging the leaks. Tired of being the 'bad guy'. Tired of seeing praised heaped on the likes of A'jhad, Kim Jong Ill, and Chavez despite their blatant and gross atrocities. Granted, we all know that it's only a small fraction of the world's population that does this, but they just happen to be the power-brokers of Europe.

Or then you didn't word it correctly the first time around, as I certainly do understand now. And am bound to agree. Russia's social system is far from exemplary. But their economics seem to be wholly capable of feeding of a bunch of other parties as well for quite some time now, and I thought this was a discussion about economics...

Purely economically, Russia really doesn't have its **** together just yet. Each time they get ahead, Putin or someone else high up decides to nationalize it and tear it down again, usually for political reasons. Russia may get there, but it's going to be one hell of a climb, and will likely need the 'cold war' generation to retire or.. frankly... die off of old age before things really improve.
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Vance said:
The problem with that argument is that you're saying "America is not perfect, therefore it is as bad as the Soviet Union was." It's reductum absurdum. And, again, it's not so much that 'opening doors with China and Russia' really is the problem, it's the active hostility and alienation of the United States that's the problem.

As I said, it's very unlikely that the US will come to Europe's rescue yet again unless our interests are directly threatened. Most of America, even a lot of the most liberal, really do think that Europe deserves what's coming to them.
I never meant to imply that America is as bad as the Soviet Union was, especially since I never even implied I'd be wishing to deal with the old USSR economically. Only with the crude capitalism of the new Russian Federation, and even with it, begrudginly.

Also, when has the US helped Europe out of neutral goodwill and not because its own interests have also been threatened? Seriously, nobody expects them to be the do-gooders of the world. Maintaining a climate where Europe's interests are also America's intrests is one of the key things they're working on all the time. Unfortunately, the recent actions of the US have made it increasingly difficult, considering their electors are not exactly happy with the stunts our most important ally is pulling. It's sort of a catch-22.

My bottom line is that everyone is a jerk. USA, China, Russia... even the Europeans. Therefore I'm not viewing the intermittent deals between the less developed societies as such a big deal, since measuring jerkiness on the general scale is rather difficult.
 
Top