Putin's Speech?!

[Harambe]

I don't give two ****s about how much you hate the U.S. I don't represent the country or its actions. Similarly, I don't give a rat's *** about your opinion on what it is acceptable for me to think about. As a private citizen of the world, I do not like Putin or his policies. I also have a lot of problems with the behavior of the U.S., as I expressed in a million other threads, but this thread is about Putin.

You still can't find that middle ground, can you? It's all black or white.. there is no room for a little optimism or pessimism.

You're like those tedious twits who will jump on you for complaining about being sick because "there are children starving in African". If you're only interested in criticizing the U.S., that's fine. But expecting others to either share your interests or shut up is patently absurd. In fact, I won't be engaging with you any further unless it's about something other than how we shouldn't talk about anything except how bad the U.S. is.

Actually, let me rephrase that in words you can understand; mind your own business and don't criticize the U.S. See? I can be an idiot too.

As a voting, tax paying, contributing member of society, it is my business to say stop wasting resources on others instead of ourselves. IT IS my business, before ANYONE ELSES, to criticize the US.

Now, you haven't listened to a God damned thing I've said, you've just opted to think I'm either the guy that hates America, or the guy that wants to save Africa, or the guy that will always be at the opposite end of the spectrum from you. To which I will remind you that no, I'm not. I do not solicit others to contribute to the starving in China, Africa, the Phillipines, Papua New Guinea, or anywhere else, and I'm not being adversarial for the sake of being adversarial. I pick and choose my battles, and I'm encouraging you to do the same thing.

You have also not answered the real question here; why bother picking on and defacing Russia for saying "Hey guys... we're gonna rock this on our own for a bit, Capiche?" when you've got plenty other targets out there that would be much easier targets, and have a larger window for helping? Hell, for that matter, why bother complaining about Russia anyway, other than to display your own disgust with them?

 

[Harambe]

Yes, it should

I don't agree with it, but at least you're up front with that agenda you're hiding.

 

[LogGrad98]

Should the world REALLY allow the US, who barely scratches the top 20 nations on this index, to decide who is and isn't great with Human rights?

I agree with this ideologically. But practically the tough thing about this question to me is the reverse, considering the fact that we are the richest and arguably most powerful nation on the planet, and (unarguably) the nation with the single largest ability to affect these issues worldwide (Sweden, for example, may rank higher, but their ability to do anything about it is virtually nothing compared to the resources the US can bring to bear).

So the question is, can the world afford to deny the US the right (or ability or privilege, what have you) to decide who they will support in terms of human rights? Do you really want the US shut out of these types of discussions completely, considering no other nation (or even group of nations realistically) has the ability to really do anything about it the way the US does?

I think with both questions there are stumbling blocks and pitfalls, but still questions worth asking.

 

[dodo]

I don't agree with it, but at least you're up front with that agenda you're hiding.

If I am hiding it, I cannot be upfront and vice versa. And "agenda"? I have an opinion just like you do. As a leader of the free world US has not only the right, but also the obligation to promote democracy and human rights. So what if it is not #1 on some random NGO ranking? This is not the Olympics. And BTW this ranking is laughable. I am sure they have some respectable metrics but placing UAE #12 ?!

https://www.hrw.org/middle-eastn-africa/united-arab-emirates

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has continued to crack down on freedom of expression and association. The authorities arbitrarily detained scores of individuals they suspected of links to domestic and international Islamist groups. Court convicted dissidents after unfair trials. The UAE made no reforms to a system that facilitates the forced labor of migrant workers. Plans to ameliorate conditions for female domestic workers fell short of the standards outlined in the convention on domestic workers that the International Labor Organization (ILO) adopted in 2012.

And I don't even want to start on Putin and the new Russian Empire he has started to create. All I see is flashbacks of the authoritarian socialism of the Soviet times. Market based - economy is being replaced with Putin controlled key industries steered by oligarchs selected by him and his cronies. In the last several years he has taken almost total control of the media which now spews government approved propaganda. There is talk about putting an internet firewall like China to allow him better control. And while he is lambasting US for being aggressors, he is destabilizing the whole region while eating chunks of other countries' territories. And I haven't even mentioned "the gays" and their treatement nor the political opposition

This argument is so black and white that I am not sure if it is even worth arguing...

 

[Siro]

You still can't find that middle ground, can you? It's all black or white.. there is no room for a little optimism or pessimism.



As a voting, tax paying, contributing member of society, it is my business to say stop wasting resources on others instead of ourselves. IT IS my business, before ANYONE ELSES, to criticize the US.

Now, you haven't listened to a God damned thing I've said, you've just opted to think I'm either the guy that hates America, or the guy that wants to save Africa, or the guy that will always be at the opposite end of the spectrum from you. To which I will remind you that no, I'm not. I do not solicit others to contribute to the starving in China, Africa, the Phillipines, Papua New Guinea, or anywhere else, and I'm not being adversarial for the sake of being adversarial. I pick and choose my battles, and I'm encouraging you to do the same thing.

You have also not answered the real question here; why bother picking on and defacing Russia for saying "Hey guys... we're gonna rock this on our own for a bit, Capiche?" when you've got plenty other targets out there that would be much easier targets, and have a larger window for helping? Hell, for that matter, why bother complaining about Russia anyway, other than to display your own disgust with them?

Because someone started a thread about Putin and asked us what we thought? Are you for real? As for the reasons, I already explained them, and so have others in this thread. What argument do you advance other than "but shouldn't we only worry about the things I want to worry about?".

Either way, thanks for the enlightening discussion.

 

[VINYLONE]

I agree with this ideologically. But practically the tough thing about this question to me is the reverse, considering the fact that we are the richest and arguably most powerful nation on the planet, and (unarguably) the nation with the single largest ability to affect these issues worldwide (Sweden, for example, may rank higher, but their ability to do anything about it is virtually nothing compared to the resources the US can bring to bear).

So the question is, can the world afford to deny the US the right (or ability or privilege, what have you) to decide who they will support in terms of human rights? Do you really want the US shut out of these types of discussions completely, considering no other nation (or even group of nations realistically) has the ability to really do anything about it the way the US does?

I think with both questions there are stumbling blocks and pitfalls, but still questions worth asking.

I think for many this type of question comes down to a global or macro philosophy and how they feel they want to approach the world. For others, it goes from micro to macro meaning a personal outlook which can be re-purposed for a larger scenario. I think the question that begs to be asked is whether the world has the right to deny the US? And if so, does this right encompass self-determination for the countries of this world?

I have no doubt we do a great amount of good in the world but I think much of that good is drapery on economic intentions.

As a leader of the free world US has not only the right, but also the obligation to promote democracy and human rights.

What are your feelings on manifest destiny?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny

 

[Gameface]

I support the idea of manifest destiny, but not of the U.S. by the U.S. for the U.S., I support the idea that freedom and liberty will not only spread throughout our continent, but will be the standard by which humanity lives.

I say that with a sincere heart, but in my mind I have grave doubts. Not in the human spirit, but in the flawed notions we have of freedom and liberty. I used to be a pretty outspoken advocate of a libertarian ideal. Not sure if anyone has noticed, but I backed way off because I'm not really sure what that means.

I have always advocated that beyond physical force, lying, cheating, stealing and coercion should be against the law, and very little else. But I failed to really understand what coercion could mean. That was my own addition to the list, and it mattered to me, but I figured it was a small issue. I don't feel that way anymore and I am at a point where I think coercion breaks libertarianism.

Sad, imho.

 

[addictionary]

There has been a few reasons for me to believe after a little research that the original site that pumps all that sensation about politics is a scam site. So I will keep not believing in the third one until the bombs drop and aliens until they make public appearance on Larry King, Oprah, Conan and that long faced dude that I cannot remember the name of for some unknown reason.

 

[babe]

There has been a few reasons for me to believe after a little research that the original site that pumps all that sensation about politics is a scam site. So I will keep not believing in the third one until the bombs drop and aliens until they make public appearance on Larry King, Oprah, Conan and that long faced dude that I cannot remember the name of for some unknown reason.

This is another futile and stupid response to the overwhelming tide of human stupidity. . . . . .

I have no idea what positive hopes you or anyone believes in, that most humans simply invoke the name of "God" in favor of. . . . . but please I beg you, for the love of all we can hope for. . . . please do not make you list of rational or believable hopes begin with Larry King or Oprah. . . . or any other TV-class public stooge for our fascist statists.

 

[addictionary]

This is another futile and stupid response to the overwhelming tide of human stupidity. . . . . .

I have no idea what positive hopes you or anyone believes in, that most humans simply invoke the name of "God" in favor of. . . . . but please I beg you, for the love of all we can hope for. . . . please do not make you list of rational or believable hopes begin with Larry King or Oprah. . . . or any other TV-class public stooge for our fascist statists.

Americans are so interesting.

So does your chemical formula for comprehension goes like the higher the intellectuallity level the lower the sarcasmometer stick shows; and secondly, comprehend and judge every post separately regardless of who posts it?

* * *


Babe, I love you. I was just kidding. I don't care for Oprah or Jay Leno (hey!). I don't even care for my country's TV. Why should I care for American TV?

Maybe since I'm foreign, my sense of humor doesn't always relate to your comprehension and my words just doesn't make sense. Sorry if it is that way.

 

[babe]

I support the idea of manifest destiny, but not of the U.S. by the U.S. for the U.S., I support the idea that freedom and liberty will not only spread throughout our continent, but will be the standard by which humanity lives.

I say that with a sincere heart, but in my mind I have grave doubts. Not in the human spirit, but in the flawed notions we have of freedom and liberty. I used to be a pretty outspoken advocate of a libertarian ideal. Not sure if anyone has noticed, but I backed way off because I'm not really sure what that means.

I have always advocated that beyond physical force, lying, cheating, stealing and coercion should be against the law, and very little else. But I failed to really understand what coercion could mean. That was my own addition to the list, and it mattered to me, but I figured it was a small issue. I don't feel that way anymore and I am at a point where I think coercion breaks libertarianism.

Sad, imho.

aversion to "coercion" is a pretty common reaction among humans who hope to overthrow "the way things are" in any society.

The problem is, we live, individually, such a short time only a few more philosophical individuals can form any sort of effective plan towards ending even a few particularly chaffing exemplary forms of coercion impinging upon us locally, let alone globally.

On the higher stages of political action, we have been co-opted and displaced by a perfect storm of "interests" that have been organized for centuries and dedicated to creating conditions favorable for particular commercial interests. . . . cartels. . . .corporates. . . . . banks. . . . . for which our personal choices are the main problem that needs "management". Such "institutions" or elite personal interests have learned to excite our passions for freedom or liberty or opportunity or choice or even fame, fortune, and pleasure to their own advantage. . . . and they have learned to dominate our "community" influence as well. . . .controlling our rhetoric on the macro scale. . . . relegating misfits like me to the sidelines of any issue. . .

However, even if it is impossible for the masses of mankind to sufficiently understand their situation, it is also impossible for a global elite or a global power structure of institutions to understand theirs, and with their eventual and certain self-destruction, ordinary folks like you will sometimes be able to roll outta bed and actually go do something you want to do.

 

[babe]

Americans are so interesting.

So does your chemical formula for comprehension goes like the higher the intellectuallity level the lower the sarcasmometer stick shows; and secondly, comprehend and judge every post separately regardless of who posts it?

* * *


Babe, I love you. I was just kidding. I don't care for Oprah or Jay Leno (hey!). I don't even care for my country's TV. Why should I care for American TV?

Maybe since I'm foreign, my sense of humor doesn't always relate to your comprehension and my words just doesn't make sense. Sorry if it is that way.

and I thought you lived in LA. . . . .

 

[addictionary]

and I thought you lived in LA. . . . .

) couldn't be able to succeed to make believe if I actually tried.

 

[babe]

Putin was on my "most infamous offender" list in regards to corrupt politicians inimical to human liberty. I considered him a puppet for western banking/commercial interests, if only a tyrant who could successfully suppress competition over a large portion of the world, and a tool for keeping oil production under control globally, and for keeping the Eurasian commerce captive for shipping powers.

However, I think Putin has "jumped the shark".

He has bitten the global "hand" that feeds him.

I don't know how to make the case succinctly or concisely, but he's rejected marxist ideology long ago, and now has rejected the "higher reason" of our CFR stage handlers. Psychopathy/sociopathy is a disease that poisons even the best-laid plans for global governance. Fundamentally, that class of humans who most wants to rule us will always be our sociopaths, and there will always be wars, no matter how tight the UN controls everything from rhetoric to arms, because sociopaths are actually insane.

That's why nobody should support globalist dreams of peace, and why everybody needs a semi-authomatic weapon comparable to military models.

That's also why you should listen to what Putin is saying and put it in the context of his point of view. If Putin was not willing to act as he has, Ukraine would today be part of the Eurpean Union, and the western banking interests would be systematically draining the Ukraine of its assets in a futile attempt to prop up our economic order. Putin is doing several things which I believe he understands as essential to long-term economic and social order, and I rank his line of action as reasoned and measured response to reality, in sharp contrast to our leadership.

Russia has also put itself on a sound financial and economic footing, and will not be as seriously affected by the economic crisis we face. People like the LaRouchies say the our economic crisis will likely result in irrational actions like our forging ahead with some global sort of "war". People like Joel Skousen believe Russia is still complicit with western banking directives and just a "left hand" puppet in bringing us to globalist wars of annihilation, with the plan being to reduce human population to some "sustainable" level, like oh maybe 100 million peasants/serfs/slaves globally.

The fact is, there is a Chinese community of elitists as well as a Russian community of intellectuals/elites/, and a rising class of the same kind in India, and in all three of these nations there is a rebellion afoot against US/British leadership. Our dollar is being supplanted as the world reserve currency in commerce. It is a rational plan for their survival, and for their future "commerce".

In case nobody ever noticed, when Ukraine became a "sovereign" state, the actual leadership did not change. The same folks who had been in leadership under the CCCP gave themselves new titles painted on the same doors of their government institutions. Ukraine's recent flirtation with western banking elites, under a popular but fascist rhetoric, might by some be viewed as a step towards actual autonomy, as a break with the residual CCCP power structure, but I don't believe it. It was a raw, brazen and desperate effort to strip Ukraine by western interests. The stooge who was elected with western support to facilitate this is an embarrassment to Ukraine.

 

[ema]

Americans are so interesting.

So does your chemical formula for comprehension goes like the higher the intellectuallity level the lower the sarcasmometer stick shows; and secondly, comprehend and judge every post separately regardless of who posts it?

* * *


Babe, I love you. I was just kidding. I don't care for Oprah or Jay Leno (hey!). I don't even care for my country's TV. Why should I care for American TV?

Maybe since I'm foreign, my sense of humor doesn't always relate to your comprehension and my words just doesn't make sense. Sorry if it is that way.

Lol.

E. J. because of his mean disguise, franklin because of his intellectual complex trolling, addictionary because of his eccentric humor and babe because of his tl;dr posts, are the hardest posters to understand in the forum, imo.

 

[VINYLONE]

I support the idea of manifest destiny, but not of the U.S. by the U.S. for the U.S., I support the idea that freedom and liberty will not only spread throughout our continent, but will be the standard by which humanity lives.

I say that with a sincere heart, but in my mind I have grave doubts. Not in the human spirit, but in the flawed notions we have of freedom and liberty. I used to be a pretty outspoken advocate of a libertarian ideal. Not sure if anyone has noticed, but I backed way off because I'm not really sure what that means.

I have always advocated that beyond physical force, lying, cheating, stealing and coercion should be against the law, and very little else. But I failed to really understand what coercion could mean. That was my own addition to the list, and it mattered to me, but I figured it was a small issue. I don't feel that way anymore and I am at a point where I think coercion breaks libertarianism.

Sad, imho.

I support that idea as well. Unfortunately, an issue arises when these concepts are "forced" onto a populace at the end of a barrel of a rifle. While I believe in the tenets of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence as universal truths, I believe they need to be reached organically.

I never dabbled in libertarianism but I've been influenced by folks who consider themselves ones. Anyway, you seem rather introspective and a student of life which is admirable. When you speak of "coercion" in relation to libertarianism have you listened to or read any of Stefan Molyneux's stuff? Read anything about the non-agression principle?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsvFYBZr7QE

However, even if it is impossible for the masses of mankind to sufficiently understand their situation, it is also impossible for a global elite or a global power structure of institutions to understand theirs, and with their eventual and certain self-destruction, ordinary folks like you will sometimes be able to roll outta bed and actually go do something you want to do.

Sicne we all have to live with ourselves, do you think it's maybe better to think less about some sort of societal change and adopt a more Kantian bent on life like the categorical imperative?

 

[Harambe]

Because someone started a thread about Putin and asked us what we thought? Are you for real? As for the reasons, I already explained them, and so have others in this thread. What argument do you advance other than "but shouldn't we only worry about the things I want to worry about?".

Either way, thanks for the enlightening discussion.

I totally forgot about this thread until today... I guess we should continue... or not.

The thread started with "Hey guys, did you miss this? What do you think"?

Instead of actually saying what you think about his statement, you went off on him and the country as a whole, and seemingly didn't even give a second thought to the what he's saying. He coulda been saying "Me and my country will be working on a cure for cancer. Leave us alone until we're done" and you woulda heard "IM A DICTATOR! **** YOU GUYS", and then ranted some more about how much you love stepping into other peoples issues.

 

[Harambe]

If I am hiding it, I cannot be upfront and vice versa. And "agenda"? I have an opinion just like you do. As a leader of the free world US has not only the right, but also the obligation to promote democracy and human rights. So what if it is not #1 on some random NGO ranking? This is not the Olympics. And BTW this ranking is laughable. I am sure they have some respectable metrics but placing UAE #12 ?!

I think you have missed my statement entirely. Everyone has an agenda, and it doesn't always mean negative, and so don't take it negatively. You disagree with me, you said you disagree with me, you didn't outright slander my name and family over it. Good for you, and good for this board.

Where rankings are concerned, there is a balance of who has the power, and who should be wielding it. Doesn't it make more sense that a leader instigate, discuss and evaluate with other countries the best bang for their buck when spending resources to correct issues, and then share in the burden of correcting the measures?

https://www.hrw.org/middle-eastn-africa/united-arab-emirates


And I don't even want to start on Putin and the new Russian Empire he has started to create. All I see is flashbacks of the authoritarian socialism of the Soviet times. Market based - economy is being replaced with Putin controlled key industries steered by oligarchs selected by him and his cronies. In the last several years he has taken almost total control of the media which now spews government approved propaganda. There is talk about putting an internet firewall like China to allow him better control. And while he is lambasting US for being aggressors, he is destabilizing the whole region while eating chunks of other countries' territories. And I haven't even mentioned "the gays" and their treatement nor the political opposition

This argument is so black and white that I am not sure if it is even worth arguing...

This is where we will agree to disagree. Given his written stance, and actions thusfar(including but not limited to government bullying of private organizations, "restrictive laws", censoring critics, and imprisoning political activists), he's still not anywhere near as bad as the old Soviet Russia was. We in the US have had the government bully private organizations through the IRS(Tea Party most recently, but previous to that many Dem parties). We have plenty of restrictive laws(voter ID cards that the supreme court allowed to be enforced, restrictive abortion laws, etc). And you can't tell me that censoring Rush Limbaugh, and imprisoning some of the far extremist party members(left and right) wouldn't be an overall positive for the US. So between what we have done, and what could have some significant value in our environment, what really is there that's so bad we need to permanently put him on a **** list? Isn't he keeping Edward Snowden, a hero of citizens rights, in Russia right now?

Freedom's a big word, and means many different things to many different people. Under his "rule", since about '99 or so, the Russian GDP has more than doubled. In fact, during the '08 world financial crisis, Russia only dropped 200 billion dollars, and has regained that and more.

Sure he doesn't like gays(which I disagree with). Sure he's a little stiff when it comes to the youth(which I disagree with). Sure, he's a control freak(which really needs to stop, but it won't). But really.. is he all that different from different members of our government? It really feels like to me in this regard, you(and Siro too) are so shell shocked from the past, you won't look enough at the present to evaluate the future effectively.