In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On March 05 2014 11:31 KwarK wrote: People seem to forget the Russian perspective here. They've seen Eastern Germany reunify with the West to reform the most dangerous military threat there has ever been to Russia, a unified Germany. They've seen NATO in the Balkans. Poland, much of the Balkans and the Baltic states have joined the EU and will forever be beyond their reach, both militarily and economically. The US has troops and a friendly government installed in Afghanistan where thirty years ago Soviet soldiers were. And now even their Black Sea fleet and the Ukraine, the heartland of the Rus, are falling outside the Russian sphere. People talk about American weakness when from the Russian perspective there has been nothing but bad news as their influence is pushed back further and further. Putin has drawn the line at the Crimea and while it's obviously a violation of national sovereignty and international law it's not the worst result ever for the US.
Right, and if they stopped being assholes, they could be a part of the West. The Russians, and only the Russians, are responsible for their adversarial relationship with the West.
Brings up an interesting question I never really gave much thought to. Why doesn't Russia just kinda join the club? Do they lose a lot by doing so? What freedoms would they lose?
Because its not in the interest of the people who are sitting on top of it. Serious reforms mean that serious people would be in charge, not a combination of thieves and adventurists. Again -- a good example of how difficult it is to reform a country and a people is Germany. Massive, massive assholes to everyone in the late 19th and early to mid 20th century. Now paragons of democracy and efficiency.
Your point of view on Germany is pretty funny.
Russia is a complicated place, and it always had complicated relationships with western europe. Back before the 1917 revolution, it was depicted as the retarded brother of europe. Most european never actually cared about Russia, and the only country who actually had some kind of ties with them was France (who financed their economy with loans). The 1917 revolution blew all that in piece, but the instauration of a "communist" system was not accepted by its neighbour, who all attacked russia endlessly until 1930-1935.
Russian's culture is really different from western europe, they live fiercely to say the least. The geographic of the country makes a lot of things different from a political point of view. I'm not sure they ever thought themselves as part of europe.
They think of themselves as Europe. Just look at the reports in the current Ukrainian crisis where Russian officials keep repeating "We are a normal European country"
On March 05 2014 11:31 KwarK wrote: People seem to forget the Russian perspective here. They've seen Eastern Germany reunify with the West to reform the most dangerous military threat there has ever been to Russia, a unified Germany. They've seen NATO in the Balkans. Poland, much of the Balkans and the Baltic states have joined the EU and will forever be beyond their reach, both militarily and economically. The US has troops and a friendly government installed in Afghanistan where thirty years ago Soviet soldiers were. And now even their Black Sea fleet and the Ukraine, the heartland of the Rus, are falling outside the Russian sphere. People talk about American weakness when from the Russian perspective there has been nothing but bad news as their influence is pushed back further and further. Putin has drawn the line at the Crimea and while it's obviously a violation of national sovereignty and international law it's not the worst result ever for the US.
Right, and if they stopped being assholes, they could be a part of the West. The Russians, and only the Russians, are responsible for their adversarial relationship with the West.
Brings up an interesting question I never really gave much thought to. Why doesn't Russia just kinda join the club? Do they lose a lot by doing so? What freedoms would they lose?
Because its not in the interest of the people who are sitting on top of it. Serious reforms mean that serious people would be in charge, not a combination of thieves and adventurists. Again -- a good example of how difficult it is to reform a country and a people is Germany. Massive, massive assholes to everyone in the late 19th and early to mid 20th century. Now paragons of democracy and efficiency.
Your point of view on Germany is pretty funny.
Russia is a complicated place, and it always had complicated relationships with western europe. Back before the 1917 revolution, it was depicted as the retarded brother of europe. Most european never actually cared about Russia, and the only country who actually had some kind of ties with them was France (who financed their economy with loans). The 1917 revolution blew all that in piece, but the instauration of a "communist" system was not accepted by its neighbour, who all attacked russia endlessly until 1930-1935.
Russian's culture is really different from western europe, they live fiercely to say the least. The geographic of the country makes a lot of things different from a political point of view. I'm not sure they ever thought themselves as part of europe.
They think of themselves as Europe. Just look at the reports in the current Ukrainian crisis where Russian officials keep repeating "We are a normal European country"
I would love if it was the case. Russian culture is amazing, its history always had a special effect on me. But, if you look at it objectively, at which point did western europe accepted russia ? I stopped at 1930, but what about the 25 million russian who died in WW2 ? How about the fact that most of Europe grouped with the US in NATO ? It's really biaised to me to consider them "massive assholes to everyone" if you put aside the entire history of the relationships between europe and russia.
And do you really think France and Germany wants Russia closer to the EU ? It would only lessen their influence on europe.
On March 05 2014 04:17 Danglars wrote: It's more about how much you want to explain away Obama's record on the bubble burst or maybe opposition from the Republicans. Record low home ownership rate across three administrations, 50% increase of Americans on food stamps. On jobs, lowest labor force participation since Jimmy Carter ... working age Americans that just don't have a job. Also, in 2013, 87% of those new jobs created since he took office were part time. Declines in median household income (~4k) and 53% of all American workers making less than $30k a year. It's not a pretty picture, and everybody I talk to peddle the line, "We didn't know it was going to be that bad, Obama did everything he could've."
And if I read jellojello right, it was more about the "drama and lies." If you like your health plan, you can keep it, right? Considering his current job approval numbers, maybe its his supporters that are getting the record wrong. Its all nice and fun supporting social justice and all until the ACA taxes you (redistributes your income, if you prefer) to subsidize others.
Where is your baseline for judging Obama? Is it 2007? Is it 2008? Is it 2009? I think the fair place to judge Obama starts when his stimulus was passed. Since then, the numbers are all up.
Liberals in this thread don't even let me use FY 2009 as an Obama year. It wasn't even 50 pages ago when it was claimed that was mostly Bush even though stimulus got passed that year. The numbers I cited in response to you are since Obama assumed office. Workforce participation rate, vast majority of new jobs part time, drops in median household income, distribution of incomes, and all the rest. Even the poverty rate is up if you want to go that route. For unemployment, if so many hadn't dropped out and stopped looking for jobs, you would be looking at circa 11% unemployment. Teenage unemployment is also up over the term. It is not a universally bright picture. The only silver lining for America is some stalling of big social programs since Republicans have the house, Obama's approval numbers are so low, and there's still anger at ACA (Back in December, they dropped below Bush's). If Democrats can't push as many big spending packages in the coming months, Obama's economy numbers could improve. We'd already be way lower at this moment had Obama not unconstitutionally rewritten his ACA, delaying the employer mandate and others.
If you think the difference between the anemic economy we have now and strong job growth is a little spending on entitlements you are sorely mistaken. It took more than 36 months for the job losses to stop after the early 2000s recession. Jobless recoveries are a firmly set fixture of recessions since the late 20th century. Technological obsolescence, increasing productivity, and outsourcing (a feature of neoliberal globalization) are serious disruptions that aren't going anywhere. Energy prices are on a sawtooth rise that, barring some kind of technological miracle, are only going to continue going up. More importantly, any financial crisis in the near to medium term is going to send energy prices through the roof (check the price of a bbl of oil over the last decade), as energy prices are very sensitive to economic distress. This is partly because of the increasing need for infrastructure to extract energy reserves and a diminishing energy return on investment in shale oil, tar sands, and gas. There are global, systemic problems with the economy that cannot be fixed by a few policy changes from an American president.
During the last financial crisis a barrel of oil fell to $35 in late 2008. Financial crises do not lead to increased commodity prices. Long run future projections of unrestrained growth (early 2008's $140 a barrel) lead to soaring commodity prices. Commodities are a read on the market's guess on future demand.
True, in the short term prices fall. But when prices bottom out companies stop investing. Short-term price floors kill nascent industries and reduce new infrastructure to increase capacity. You would likely see increased use of coal and other dirty energy sources, and reduced concern for efficiency. The overall decline in oil production that we've seen from current oil producing fields picks up, and you risk a serious spike in overall energy prices later on down the road, putting a serious barrier in front of any traditional economic recovery.
Sure, you could have a spike down the road... or you could have low prices persist. There's no crystal ball on how that would play out.
If low prices persist it's because demand is in the toilet and the economy isn't picking up. If so, then the financial crisis has already dropped the coup de grâce, and energy prices won't matter much in this context.
Commodity prices tend to run in long cycles that last more than one economic cycle. Many investments today will last years and so a short term dearth of investment doesn't mean a shortage later (it can but it's not a given). For example, the 90's had strong growth and low oil prices.
And 20 years ago we had a lot more oil that was available cheaply. What you said completely ignores the specifics of the fossil fuels industry (i.e. that far more rigs are needed to draw out increasingly scarce oil, far more rigs are needed to open up shale gas, investment in fracking, etc.)
This is a classic jonny retort where you pull out a business school platitude that apparently discredits what I've said but in reality has no applicability, and is relevant only in the most trivial of senses.
It's true that non-conventional oil is more expensive, and that contributes to keeping prices sticky to the upside. But that isn't the only force in the marketplace. Do you really think you can make a prediction on oil prices just from the rig count? Look at your own graph - when prices fell so did the rig count. But it rebounded quickly with prices. That's no suggestive of a situation where you're risking a huge price spike because of an investment dearth.
More testimony from the House Oversight Committee on the IRS corruption scandal.
The libs here might even like Cumming's (D-Maryland) objections/outburst, so give it a listen. We'll see if Lerner continues all the way to arrest for contempt and a trial on that matter. I don't know if her activism in the matter was just poor choices, or if the administration also had a hand in it (suppressing voter turnout efforts ahead of the 2012 election). I doubt there's a paper trail even if her orders had come from ranking officials within the White House. Her testimony throughout this case gives me the impression that the Director of IRS Exempt Organizations abused her authority.
when officials need to explain there actions pleading silence or "forgetting" should be punishable... It makes inquiries so useless. No one ever remembers anything suddenly.
On March 05 2014 04:17 Danglars wrote: It's more about how much you want to explain away Obama's record on the bubble burst or maybe opposition from the Republicans. Record low home ownership rate across three administrations, 50% increase of Americans on food stamps. On jobs, lowest labor force participation since Jimmy Carter ... working age Americans that just don't have a job. Also, in 2013, 87% of those new jobs created since he took office were part time. Declines in median household income (~4k) and 53% of all American workers making less than $30k a year. It's not a pretty picture, and everybody I talk to peddle the line, "We didn't know it was going to be that bad, Obama did everything he could've."
And if I read jellojello right, it was more about the "drama and lies." If you like your health plan, you can keep it, right? Considering his current job approval numbers, maybe its his supporters that are getting the record wrong. Its all nice and fun supporting social justice and all until the ACA taxes you (redistributes your income, if you prefer) to subsidize others.
Where is your baseline for judging Obama? Is it 2007? Is it 2008? Is it 2009? I think the fair place to judge Obama starts when his stimulus was passed. Since then, the numbers are all up.
Liberals in this thread don't even let me use FY 2009 as an Obama year. It wasn't even 50 pages ago when it was claimed that was mostly Bush even though stimulus got passed that year. The numbers I cited in response to you are since Obama assumed office. Workforce participation rate, vast majority of new jobs part time, drops in median household income, distribution of incomes, and all the rest. Even the poverty rate is up if you want to go that route. For unemployment, if so many hadn't dropped out and stopped looking for jobs, you would be looking at circa 11% unemployment. Teenage unemployment is also up over the term. It is not a universally bright picture. The only silver lining for America is some stalling of big social programs since Republicans have the house, Obama's approval numbers are so low, and there's still anger at ACA (Back in December, they dropped below Bush's). If Democrats can't push as many big spending packages in the coming months, Obama's economy numbers could improve. We'd already be way lower at this moment had Obama not unconstitutionally rewritten his ACA, delaying the employer mandate and others.
If you think the difference between the anemic economy we have now and strong job growth is a little spending on entitlements you are sorely mistaken. It took more than 36 months for the job losses to stop after the early 2000s recession. Jobless recoveries are a firmly set fixture of recessions since the late 20th century. Technological obsolescence, increasing productivity, and outsourcing (a feature of neoliberal globalization) are serious disruptions that aren't going anywhere. Energy prices are on a sawtooth rise that, barring some kind of technological miracle, are only going to continue going up. More importantly, any financial crisis in the near to medium term is going to send energy prices through the roof (check the price of a bbl of oil over the last decade), as energy prices are very sensitive to economic distress. This is partly because of the increasing need for infrastructure to extract energy reserves and a diminishing energy return on investment in shale oil, tar sands, and gas. There are global, systemic problems with the economy that cannot be fixed by a few policy changes from an American president.
That's what I was saying. Previously in the thread, and I will refrain from doing it again so soon, the attention was placed on how extremely unprecedented the scope of the bubble and thus how explainable the anemic recovery was (in contrast to previous recoveries). I hope CnC realizes that it isn't rainbows and sunshine across the sky of the Obama presidency, as I pointed out. He should know how others on his side approach the opposing viewpoints.
On March 05 2014 04:17 Danglars wrote: It's more about how much you want to explain away Obama's record on the bubble burst or maybe opposition from the Republicans. Record low home ownership rate across three administrations, 50% increase of Americans on food stamps. On jobs, lowest labor force participation since Jimmy Carter ... working age Americans that just don't have a job. Also, in 2013, 87% of those new jobs created since he took office were part time. Declines in median household income (~4k) and 53% of all American workers making less than $30k a year. It's not a pretty picture, and everybody I talk to peddle the line, "We didn't know it was going to be that bad, Obama did everything he could've."
And if I read jellojello right, it was more about the "drama and lies." If you like your health plan, you can keep it, right? Considering his current job approval numbers, maybe its his supporters that are getting the record wrong. Its all nice and fun supporting social justice and all until the ACA taxes you (redistributes your income, if you prefer) to subsidize others.
Where is your baseline for judging Obama? Is it 2007? Is it 2008? Is it 2009? I think the fair place to judge Obama starts when his stimulus was passed. Since then, the numbers are all up.
Liberals in this thread don't even let me use FY 2009 as an Obama year. It wasn't even 50 pages ago when it was claimed that was mostly Bush even though stimulus got passed that year. The numbers I cited in response to you are since Obama assumed office. Workforce participation rate, vast majority of new jobs part time, drops in median household income, distribution of incomes, and all the rest. Even the poverty rate is up if you want to go that route. For unemployment, if so many hadn't dropped out and stopped looking for jobs, you would be looking at circa 11% unemployment. Teenage unemployment is also up over the term. It is not a universally bright picture. The only silver lining for America is some stalling of big social programs since Republicans have the house, Obama's approval numbers are so low, and there's still anger at ACA (Back in December, they dropped below Bush's). If Democrats can't push as many big spending packages in the coming months, Obama's economy numbers could improve. We'd already be way lower at this moment had Obama not unconstitutionally rewritten his ACA, delaying the employer mandate and others.
If you think the difference between the anemic economy we have now and strong job growth is a little spending on entitlements you are sorely mistaken. It took more than 36 months for the job losses to stop after the early 2000s recession. Jobless recoveries are a firmly set fixture of recessions since the late 20th century. Technological obsolescence, increasing productivity, and outsourcing (a feature of neoliberal globalization) are serious disruptions that aren't going anywhere. Energy prices are on a sawtooth rise that, barring some kind of technological miracle, are only going to continue going up. More importantly, any financial crisis in the near to medium term is going to send energy prices through the roof (check the price of a bbl of oil over the last decade), as energy prices are very sensitive to economic distress. This is partly because of the increasing need for infrastructure to extract energy reserves and a diminishing energy return on investment in shale oil, tar sands, and gas. There are global, systemic problems with the economy that cannot be fixed by a few policy changes from an American president.
That's what I was saying. Previously in the thread, and I will refrain from doing it again so soon, the attention was placed on how extremely unprecedented the scope of the bubble and thus how explainable the anemic recovery was (in contrast to previous recoveries). I hope CnC realizes that it isn't rainbows and sunshine across the sky of the Obama presidency, as I pointed out. He should know how others on his side approach the opposing viewpoints.
I think we all agree with you, Obama's policies are way too conservative.
On March 05 2014 04:31 CannonsNCarriers wrote: [quote]
Where is your baseline for judging Obama? Is it 2007? Is it 2008? Is it 2009? I think the fair place to judge Obama starts when his stimulus was passed. Since then, the numbers are all up.
Liberals in this thread don't even let me use FY 2009 as an Obama year. It wasn't even 50 pages ago when it was claimed that was mostly Bush even though stimulus got passed that year. The numbers I cited in response to you are since Obama assumed office. Workforce participation rate, vast majority of new jobs part time, drops in median household income, distribution of incomes, and all the rest. Even the poverty rate is up if you want to go that route. For unemployment, if so many hadn't dropped out and stopped looking for jobs, you would be looking at circa 11% unemployment. Teenage unemployment is also up over the term. It is not a universally bright picture. The only silver lining for America is some stalling of big social programs since Republicans have the house, Obama's approval numbers are so low, and there's still anger at ACA (Back in December, they dropped below Bush's). If Democrats can't push as many big spending packages in the coming months, Obama's economy numbers could improve. We'd already be way lower at this moment had Obama not unconstitutionally rewritten his ACA, delaying the employer mandate and others.
If you think the difference between the anemic economy we have now and strong job growth is a little spending on entitlements you are sorely mistaken. It took more than 36 months for the job losses to stop after the early 2000s recession. Jobless recoveries are a firmly set fixture of recessions since the late 20th century. Technological obsolescence, increasing productivity, and outsourcing (a feature of neoliberal globalization) are serious disruptions that aren't going anywhere. Energy prices are on a sawtooth rise that, barring some kind of technological miracle, are only going to continue going up. More importantly, any financial crisis in the near to medium term is going to send energy prices through the roof (check the price of a bbl of oil over the last decade), as energy prices are very sensitive to economic distress. This is partly because of the increasing need for infrastructure to extract energy reserves and a diminishing energy return on investment in shale oil, tar sands, and gas. There are global, systemic problems with the economy that cannot be fixed by a few policy changes from an American president.
During the last financial crisis a barrel of oil fell to $35 in late 2008. Financial crises do not lead to increased commodity prices. Long run future projections of unrestrained growth (early 2008's $140 a barrel) lead to soaring commodity prices. Commodities are a read on the market's guess on future demand.
True, in the short term prices fall. But when prices bottom out companies stop investing. Short-term price floors kill nascent industries and reduce new infrastructure to increase capacity. You would likely see increased use of coal and other dirty energy sources, and reduced concern for efficiency. The overall decline in oil production that we've seen from current oil producing fields picks up, and you risk a serious spike in overall energy prices later on down the road, putting a serious barrier in front of any traditional economic recovery.
Sure, you could have a spike down the road... or you could have low prices persist. There's no crystal ball on how that would play out.
If low prices persist it's because demand is in the toilet and the economy isn't picking up. If so, then the financial crisis has already dropped the coup de grâce, and energy prices won't matter much in this context.
Commodity prices tend to run in long cycles that last more than one economic cycle. Many investments today will last years and so a short term dearth of investment doesn't mean a shortage later (it can but it's not a given). For example, the 90's had strong growth and low oil prices.
And 20 years ago we had a lot more oil that was available cheaply. What you said completely ignores the specifics of the fossil fuels industry (i.e. that far more rigs are needed to draw out increasingly scarce oil, far more rigs are needed to open up shale gas, investment in fracking, etc.)
This is a classic jonny retort where you pull out a business school platitude that apparently discredits what I've said but in reality has no applicability, and is relevant only in the most trivial of senses.
It's true that non-conventional oil is more expensive, and that contributes to keeping prices sticky to the upside. But that isn't the only force in the marketplace. Do you really think you can make a prediction on oil prices just from the rig count? Look at your own graph - when prices fell so did the rig count. But it rebounded quickly with prices. That's no suggestive of a situation where you're risking a huge price spike because of an investment dearth.
No, it was a single piece of evidence. I listed more than one reason in the post, and there are more reasons I haven't listed.
On March 05 2014 11:13 Danglars wrote: [quote]Liberals in this thread don't even let me use FY 2009 as an Obama year. It wasn't even 50 pages ago when it was claimed that was mostly Bush even though stimulus got passed that year. The numbers I cited in response to you are since Obama assumed office. Workforce participation rate, vast majority of new jobs part time, drops in median household income, distribution of incomes, and all the rest. Even the poverty rate is up if you want to go that route. For unemployment, if so many hadn't dropped out and stopped looking for jobs, you would be looking at circa 11% unemployment. Teenage unemployment is also up over the term. It is not a universally bright picture. The only silver lining for America is some stalling of big social programs since Republicans have the house, Obama's approval numbers are so low, and there's still anger at ACA (Back in December, they dropped below Bush's). If Democrats can't push as many big spending packages in the coming months, Obama's economy numbers could improve. We'd already be way lower at this moment had Obama not unconstitutionally rewritten his ACA, delaying the employer mandate and others.
If you think the difference between the anemic economy we have now and strong job growth is a little spending on entitlements you are sorely mistaken. It took more than 36 months for the job losses to stop after the early 2000s recession. Jobless recoveries are a firmly set fixture of recessions since the late 20th century. Technological obsolescence, increasing productivity, and outsourcing (a feature of neoliberal globalization) are serious disruptions that aren't going anywhere. Energy prices are on a sawtooth rise that, barring some kind of technological miracle, are only going to continue going up. More importantly, any financial crisis in the near to medium term is going to send energy prices through the roof (check the price of a bbl of oil over the last decade), as energy prices are very sensitive to economic distress. This is partly because of the increasing need for infrastructure to extract energy reserves and a diminishing energy return on investment in shale oil, tar sands, and gas. There are global, systemic problems with the economy that cannot be fixed by a few policy changes from an American president.
During the last financial crisis a barrel of oil fell to $35 in late 2008. Financial crises do not lead to increased commodity prices. Long run future projections of unrestrained growth (early 2008's $140 a barrel) lead to soaring commodity prices. Commodities are a read on the market's guess on future demand.
True, in the short term prices fall. But when prices bottom out companies stop investing. Short-term price floors kill nascent industries and reduce new infrastructure to increase capacity. You would likely see increased use of coal and other dirty energy sources, and reduced concern for efficiency. The overall decline in oil production that we've seen from current oil producing fields picks up, and you risk a serious spike in overall energy prices later on down the road, putting a serious barrier in front of any traditional economic recovery.
Sure, you could have a spike down the road... or you could have low prices persist. There's no crystal ball on how that would play out.
If low prices persist it's because demand is in the toilet and the economy isn't picking up. If so, then the financial crisis has already dropped the coup de grâce, and energy prices won't matter much in this context.
Commodity prices tend to run in long cycles that last more than one economic cycle. Many investments today will last years and so a short term dearth of investment doesn't mean a shortage later (it can but it's not a given). For example, the 90's had strong growth and low oil prices.
And 20 years ago we had a lot more oil that was available cheaply. What you said completely ignores the specifics of the fossil fuels industry (i.e. that far more rigs are needed to draw out increasingly scarce oil, far more rigs are needed to open up shale gas, investment in fracking, etc.)
This is a classic jonny retort where you pull out a business school platitude that apparently discredits what I've said but in reality has no applicability, and is relevant only in the most trivial of senses.
It's true that non-conventional oil is more expensive, and that contributes to keeping prices sticky to the upside. But that isn't the only force in the marketplace. Do you really think you can make a prediction on oil prices just from the rig count? Look at your own graph - when prices fell so did the rig count. But it rebounded quickly with prices. That's no suggestive of a situation where you're risking a huge price spike because of an investment dearth.
No, it was a single piece of evidence. I listed more than one reason in the post, and there are more reasons I haven't listed.
On March 06 2014 01:38 Livelovedie wrote: It's interesting that you placed all the blame on Germany during the 19th century and for World War I.
this is a very large can of worms.
attempting to find a single cause for the first world war is folly. a number of factors from the school of the offensive to cascading alliances and more contributed. the second world war was potentially made inevitable by the terms by which the first was ended.
that being said, the failure of the great powers to contain hitler at his weakest (pre-1939) by pursing the policy of appeasement was utter folly. it also allowed hitler to go beyond the anschluss and into liebensraum because he really did think he could get away with it without a huge war, based on the weak response to his previous adventures.
On March 06 2014 01:38 Livelovedie wrote: It's interesting that you placed all the blame on Germany during the 19th century and for World War I.
that being said, the failure of the great powers to contain hitler at his weakest (pre-1939) by pursing the policy of appeasement was utter folly. it also allowed hitler to go beyond the anschluss and into liebensraum because he really did think he could get away with it without a huge war, based on the weak response to his previous adventures.
You can go back even further to the Treaty of Versailles, which crippled Germany and created an environment where the Nazis could come to power, and gave a pretext for Germany's pre-war 1930's aggression.
On March 06 2014 01:38 Livelovedie wrote: It's interesting that you placed all the blame on Germany during the 19th century and for World War I.
that being said, the failure of the great powers to contain hitler at his weakest (pre-1939) by pursing the policy of appeasement was utter folly. it also allowed hitler to go beyond the anschluss and into liebensraum because he really did think he could get away with it without a huge war, based on the weak response to his previous adventures.
You can go back even further to the Treaty of Versailles, which crippled Germany and created an environment where the Nazis could come to power, and gave a pretext for Germany's pre-war 1930's aggression.
On March 06 2014 11:18 itsjustatank wrote: attempting to find a single cause for the first world war is folly. a number of factors from the school of the offensive to cascading alliances and more contributed. the second world war was potentially made inevitable by the terms by which the first was ended.
On March 05 2014 11:31 KwarK wrote: People seem to forget the Russian perspective here. They've seen Eastern Germany reunify with the West to reform the most dangerous military threat there has ever been to Russia, a unified Germany. They've seen NATO in the Balkans. Poland, much of the Balkans and the Baltic states have joined the EU and will forever be beyond their reach, both militarily and economically. The US has troops and a friendly government installed in Afghanistan where thirty years ago Soviet soldiers were. And now even their Black Sea fleet and the Ukraine, the heartland of the Rus, are falling outside the Russian sphere. People talk about American weakness when from the Russian perspective there has been nothing but bad news as their influence is pushed back further and further. Putin has drawn the line at the Crimea and while it's obviously a violation of national sovereignty and international law it's not the worst result ever for the US.
Right, and if they stopped being assholes, they could be a part of the West. The Russians, and only the Russians, are responsible for their adversarial relationship with the West.
Brings up an interesting question I never really gave much thought to. Why doesn't Russia just kinda join the club? Do they lose a lot by doing so? What freedoms would they lose?
Because its not in the interest of the people who are sitting on top of it. Serious reforms mean that serious people would be in charge, not a combination of thieves and adventurists. Again -- a good example of how difficult it is to reform a country and a people is Germany. Massive, massive assholes to everyone in the late 19th and early to mid 20th century. Now paragons of democracy and efficiency.
Your point of view on Germany is pretty funny.
Russia is a complicated place, and it always had complicated relationships with western europe. Back before the 1917 revolution, it was depicted as the retarded brother of europe. Most european never actually cared about Russia, and the only country who actually had some kind of ties with them was France (who financed their economy with loans). The 1917 revolution blew all that in piece, but the instauration of a "communist" system was not accepted by its neighbour, who all attacked russia endlessly until 1930-1935.
Russian's culture is really different from western europe, they live fiercely to say the least. The geographic of the country makes a lot of things different from a political point of view. I'm not sure they ever thought themselves as part of europe.
They think of themselves as Europe. Just look at the reports in the current Ukrainian crisis where Russian officials keep repeating "We are a normal European country"
I would love if it was the case. Russian culture is amazing, its history always had a special effect on me. But, if you look at it objectively, at which point did western europe accepted russia ? I stopped at 1930, but what about the 25 million russian who died in WW2 ? How about the fact that most of Europe grouped with the US in NATO ? It's really biaised to me to consider them "massive assholes to everyone" if you put aside the entire history of the relationships between europe and russia.
And do you really think France and Germany wants Russia closer to the EU ? It would only lessen their influence on europe.
It's because there was no longer a balance in Europe. It used to be you had all these similar countries like Britain, France, German kingdoms/Germany, Italy, Austro-Hungary, Russia. And then all of a sudden WW2 ends and the US and USSR dominate the continent and no one the continent could compare to either of these nations. That's why relationships are not as 'fair' as in the old days.
On March 05 2014 11:31 KwarK wrote: People seem to forget the Russian perspective here. They've seen Eastern Germany reunify with the West to reform the most dangerous military threat there has ever been to Russia, a unified Germany. They've seen NATO in the Balkans. Poland, much of the Balkans and the Baltic states have joined the EU and will forever be beyond their reach, both militarily and economically. The US has troops and a friendly government installed in Afghanistan where thirty years ago Soviet soldiers were. And now even their Black Sea fleet and the Ukraine, the heartland of the Rus, are falling outside the Russian sphere. People talk about American weakness when from the Russian perspective there has been nothing but bad news as their influence is pushed back further and further. Putin has drawn the line at the Crimea and while it's obviously a violation of national sovereignty and international law it's not the worst result ever for the US.
Right, and if they stopped being assholes, they could be a part of the West. The Russians, and only the Russians, are responsible for their adversarial relationship with the West.
Brings up an interesting question I never really gave much thought to. Why doesn't Russia just kinda join the club? Do they lose a lot by doing so? What freedoms would they lose?
Because its not in the interest of the people who are sitting on top of it. Serious reforms mean that serious people would be in charge, not a combination of thieves and adventurists. Again -- a good example of how difficult it is to reform a country and a people is Germany. Massive, massive assholes to everyone in the late 19th and early to mid 20th century. Now paragons of democracy and efficiency.
Your point of view on Germany is pretty funny.
Russia is a complicated place, and it always had complicated relationships with western europe. Back before the 1917 revolution, it was depicted as the retarded brother of europe. Most european never actually cared about Russia, and the only country who actually had some kind of ties with them was France (who financed their economy with loans). The 1917 revolution blew all that in piece, but the instauration of a "communist" system was not accepted by its neighbour, who all attacked russia endlessly until 1930-1935.
Russian's culture is really different from western europe, they live fiercely to say the least. The geographic of the country makes a lot of things different from a political point of view. I'm not sure they ever thought themselves as part of europe.
They think of themselves as Europe. Just look at the reports in the current Ukrainian crisis where Russian officials keep repeating "We are a normal European country"
I would love if it was the case. Russian culture is amazing, its history always had a special effect on me. But, if you look at it objectively, at which point did western europe accepted russia ? I stopped at 1930, but what about the 25 million russian who died in WW2 ? How about the fact that most of Europe grouped with the US in NATO ? It's really biaised to me to consider them "massive assholes to everyone" if you put aside the entire history of the relationships between europe and russia.
And do you really think France and Germany wants Russia closer to the EU ? It would only lessen their influence on europe.
It's because there was no longer a balance in Europe. It used to be you had all these similar countries like Britain, France, German kingdoms/Germany, Italy, Austro-Hungary, Russia. And then all of a sudden WW2 ends and the US and USSR dominate the continent and no one the continent could compare to either of these nations. That's why relationships are not as 'fair' as in the old days.
No even before, in the long XIXth, russia was not regarded as an equal. Russia is culturally both really close and far from western europe.
The libs here might even like Cumming's (D-Maryland) objections/outburst, so give it a listen. We'll see if Lerner continues all the way to arrest for contempt and a trial on that matter. I don't know if her activism in the matter was just poor choices, or if the administration also had a hand in it (suppressing voter turnout efforts ahead of the 2012 election). I doubt there's a paper trail even if her orders had come from ranking officials within the White House. Her testimony throughout this case gives me the impression that the Director of IRS Exempt Organizations abused her authority.
I cant tell if Issa is incompetent, misinformed or just more interested in putting on a show then doing his job but he basically just wasted a bunch of time by calling a witness who was going to take the 5th just so he could talk a whole bunch at her. Ignoring the unprofessionalism that took place at the end by Issa it just seems like he is just trying to find something to point at and go "that is the scandal" and if he cant just keep calling it one until it becomes one.
EPT
![[image loading]](https://lh3.ggpht.com/-YrVzgIkuGtA/T9yL1g9mTyI/AAAAAAAAS88/yT-vcegAQPc/s1600/rig2.jpg)
