USA - end of an era

clairefontaine

Amerika wrote: »

I guess sometimes it's best to take liberal revisionist history with a grain of salt... or better yet a shot of Jack Daniel’s.

The opening to Lech Walesa’s ‘A Tribute to Ronald Reagan’ : "When talking about Ronald Reagan, I have to be personal. We in Poland took him so personally. Why? Because we owe him our liberty."

The wall never fell. It just moved to the west.

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

I guess sometimes it's best to take liberal revisionist history with a grain of salt... or better yet a shot of Jack Daniel’s.

Its more a european view really. If you were there an watching the news at the time. Most Americans couldnt identify europe on a map, and fewer still know what the "cold war" was. So it gets attributed to whatever US president was in office at the time. Thats all.

Reagan was mostly senile for his second term anyway.

joseph brand

hfallada wrote: »

Chinese makes ****ty household products one else wants to make. Their air and water is heavily polluted from it. When the first iPhone was made in china it was 100% made by hand. With wages rising by 7/8 % a year, the newer iPhones are increasingly made by automation. Plus other cheap economies like Malaysia and Vietnam are getting investment that once was going to china.

Ireland has received more investment in the last 20 years from the us , than their investment in brazil, china, Russia and India. Yes the us infastructure is ageing. But you never hear of chinas issue as they are covered up

China's economy is heavily reliant on construction. They're building towns, but nobody lives in them (well very few).
They've even built their own little Paris. What's the fascination with China/ Japan and Paris. (Paris syndrome).

BBC documentary on China's ghost cities here.

If China has any questions about property bubbles, they can just ask us.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Hmmm... you can spot a Carter apologist a mile away.

That's so untrue it's hilarious

I remember Reagan and voted for him... twice.

Good for you.

It wasn't some Grimm tale that he was most instrumental in winning the cold war, .

No he didn't. The USSR collapsed under the weight of it's own bloated, corrupt bureaucracy. He may have given it a push but the writing was on the wall for the USSR from the mid 70s.

ended an era of big government,.

That's debatable. He did however begin gutting the financial regulation put in place afterthe great depression at the behest of his Friedmanite overloads on Wall Street.

refurbished and strengthened a military decimated by Carter, and filled the nation with a sense of purpose.

A sense of purpose? Are you serious? Did that sense of purpose include funding guerilla groups and despots in Central and South America to overthrow democratic and unfriendly governments. This is Reagans real legacy, death and destruction.

Under him the inflation rate decreased to less than 4.4% and family income rose 12%. And in a 2007 Gallup poll, Reagan was rated by voters as the second greatest president of all time, behind Abraham Lincoln and ahead of John F. Kennedy.

Anyone who voted for Reagan as the greatest president needs to read a history book. A ridiculous poll.

nagilum2

Brian? wrote: »

That's so untrue it's hilarious

Anyone who voted for Reagan anyone other than George Washington as the greatest president needs to read a history book. A ridiculous poll.

Fixed it for you.

In all seriousness though, if you asked folks who is the greatest <<insert profession>> you would almost certainly get an overrepresentation of recent or present figures. I'm not surprised that a lot of people named Reagan the greatest President, though I certainly don't agree.

sin_city

Jefferson, Lincoln, JFK and Jackson were all far greater than Reagan.

Especially Jefferson and Jackson.

Hard to know really what exactly Reagan did or did not do. A lot of his praise is due to the press which was bought a long time ago.

Karl Stein

Reagan the Keynesian.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jank

Brian? wrote: »

Wow. America did not change the feudal system in the rest of the world. The industrial revolution changed it.

Then why did one of the biggest migrations in human history happen during and after the industrial revolution, that is up to 50 million europeans from the Old world migrate to the new world in the 80 year period of 1840 to 1920? Not to say that democracy really only came to Europe after two world wars and 70 million dead on the battlegrounds such as Somme, Verdun, Warsaw, Stalingrad, Kursk and Berlin.

I agree with Claire, America changed everything. All one has to do is look at the world around you. Hollywood, fitness clubs, McDonalds, Apple, Tailored suits coveted by Chinese businessmen.

jank

Amerika wrote: »

The opening to Lech Walesa’s ‘A Tribute to Ronald Reagan’ : "When talking about Ronald Reagan, I have to be personal. We in Poland took him so personally. Why? Because we owe him our liberty."

It is funny that people ignore the sentiment of those who actually lived under communism and think that their own view is superior to a 1980's coal-miner from Poland who had to live under such a regime.

Reagan (and Thatcher like him) are hated by the Irish and European left because they won the economic argument hands down. They brought the left closer to the centre. If we didn't have them we would not have had Bill Clinton or Tony Blair (hero's of the left) as obvious examples.

One has to remember that back in the 70's and 80's being a member of the Communist party or parties with Marxist fundamentals wasn't unusual and state owned enterprise was the norm. Charlie Bird was a member as were many in RTE. Some Labour TD had connections as well. A lot of these guys are now in leadership positions in media, education and politics and they have long memories. The current president of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso was a Maoist FFS! Says it all.

MonaPizza

InTheTrees wrote: »

Who is "they"?

You seem to have it in for all of them together.

:cool:

Well who are we talking about here?

I don't have it "in" for anybody.

Americans, by and large, want to turn certain parts of the world into a "glass parking-lot" and these are the winners who couldn't find their rectums with both hands, let alone the place they want to "bomb back to the Stone Age".

If these clowns had a smidgen of fear, i.e. that someone might headbutt them, they would be under the bed screaming for more guns or some sh1t.

American politicians order people to be blown to death.
American soldiers do it, thinking they are God's Army.
American civvies back in Long Island or Butte, Montana think that what has just happened has saved them from tyranny.

And that's it. So why wouldn't I be a tad annoyed at Chuck and Beth in Boise who think this is just fine and dandy?

MonaPizza

jank wrote: »

It is funny that people ignore the sentiment of those who actually lived under communism and think that their own view is superior to a 1980's coal-miner from Poland who had to live under such a regime.

Reagan (and Thatcher like him) are hated by the Irish and European left because they won the economic argument hands down. They brought the left closer to the centre. If we didn't have them we would not have had Bill Clinton or Tony Blair (hero's of the left) as obvious examples.

One has to remember that back in the 70's and 80's being a member of the Communist party or parties with Marxist fundamentals wasn't unusual and state owned enterprise was the norm. Charlie Bird was a member as were many in RTE. Some Labour TD had connections as well. A lot of these guys are now in leadership positions in media, education and politics and they have long memories. The current president of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso was a Maoist FFS! Says it all.

Have you ever even met somebody who has lived behind the "Iron Curtain" ?
Have you ever even asked them how their daily lives were? I have multiple friends who lived as teenagers in the DDR and they are now living in Dusseldorf, Munich, Plzen and one or two still back in Lepizig. Have you a clue how their lives were?
Of course not. According to my friends their lives were just fine. No different to the post-war east end of London of 1960 belfast for that matter.
If you think they were all bug-eyed toddlers praying not to be sent to a gulag then continue to watch your farcical propaganda movies and documentaries on some corporate owned outlet.

My friends in the DDR used to go drinking with bored-off-their-tits border guards, go across the border through fences that would make a Kerryman laugh, get even more trashed...fall asleep in ditches and wander back.

Your brickwall, snipers-at-the-ready, crap is a farce.

But just to copperfasten that.....why, if so many people, East Germans in particular were so adamant to escape the horrors of the regime under which they were living, then why did 10's of 1000's of them cross into West Berlin each day to go to work and then go back home in the evening? And WHY were 30,000 exit visas approved each year AFTER the Berlin Wall went up?

I've been to "Communist Dictatorships" like what you bang on about. I was in the USSR in 1988. I was in Poland and Hungary in 1989. I was in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in 2003. I was in so-called Islamic thugocracies such as Morocco, Iran, Jordan and Lebanon between 2005 and 2009.

You have absolutely no idea about how people live and you certainly have no idea about much if you think you can preach to the world about how unhappy and crushed a little boy in the countryside of Latvia who is gleefully catching a fish or playing football with his mate OR how delighted a little girl in Tangiers is to recieve her first birthday party dress.

But if you think that their lives would be so much better if they had McDonald's, Coca-Cola and Levi's then send in your brave defenders of America to "help them".

jank

MonaPizza wrote: »

Have you ever even met somebody who has lived behind the "Iron Curtain" ?
Have you ever even asked them how their daily lives were? I have multiple friends who lived as teenagers in the DDR and they are now living in Dusseldorf, Munich, Plzen and one or two still back in Lepizig. Have you a clue how their lives were? ".

The answer to the first question is that yes I have met people from the Iron Curtain and I know that they prefer the situation now rather than the 1980's or before. Interestingly those the majority of those people you mention are now living in the former West Germany.

MonaPizza wrote: »

Of course not. According to my friends their lives were just fine. No different to the post-war east end of London of 1960 belfast for that matter.
If you think they were all bug-eyed toddlers praying not to be sent to a gulag then continue to watch your farcical propaganda movies and documentaries on some corporate owned outlet. ".

So you ask a question and then proceed to answer for me assuming the answer? Speaking of Gulags, some 10 million are estimated to have died there many for their political beliefs.

MonaPizza wrote: »

Your brickwall, snipers-at-the-ready, crap is a farce. ".

The 235 people who died as a result of the Berlin wall may disagree with you.
http://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/geschichte-unterschiedliche-ergebnisse-wieviele-opfer-gab-es-an-der-mauer/1576784.html

Almost 1,000 people died attempting to flee East Germany illegally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_attempts_and_victims_of_the_inner_German_border#Deaths_on_the_border

Lets not even mention that those lovely Soviets crushed any attempts for more personal freedom during the 1956 Hungarian Revolution (death toll 3,400+) and the Prague Spring of 1968 (death toll 100+)

MonaPizza wrote: »

But just to copperfasten that.....why, if so many people, East Germans in particular were so adamant to escape the horrors of the regime under which they were living, then why did 10's of 1000's of them cross into West Berlin each day to go to work and then go back home in the evening? And WHY were 30,000 exit visas approved each year AFTER the Berlin Wall went up? ".

Indeed why did the Berlin wall exist in the first place and 3,365,000 people emigrate from East to West Germany, the vast majority before the Berlin Wall? Maybe they liked the beer?

On these exit visas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_the_inner_German_border#Emigrating_from_East_Germany

However, the Accords also included a provision on freedom of movement that was to lead to the regime's authority being increasingly undermined. As East German citizens learned about this provision – which was not publicised by the GDR's state-controlled media – an increasing number sought to use it to emigrate. They applied for exit visas, citing Helsinki in their applications. The numbers were relatively small at first, averaging around 7,200 first-time applications and the granting of 4,600 exit visas annually during the late 1970s. By the late 1980s numbers had snowballed to over 100,000 applications with around 15,000–25,000 exit visas being granted annually.[30][31] Legal emigration posed a dilemma for the regime; although it provided a safety valve of sorts and allowed East Germany to portray itself as adhering to the Helsinki norms, it ran the risk of the East German population coming to demand a general right to emigrate.[30] A Central Committee report prepared in 1988 warned that even Party members were not sufficiently motivated to oppose emigration:

Sounds like quite the place where even the right to move to another country is not given automaticly. I wonder how many people wanted to move to East Germany during this time?

MonaPizza wrote: »

I've been to "Communist Dictatorships" like what you bang on about. I was in the USSR in 1988. I was in Poland and Hungary in 1989. I was in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in 2003. I was in so-called Islamic thugocracies such as Morocco, Iran, Jordan and Lebanon between 2005 and 2009.

Maybe you should have asked some of the locals what they thought of the solidarity movement in Poland and what they thought of the Soviet response to the uprising of 1956. You want to bring Cambodia into this? Where a communist regime killed 1/3 of the population in an attempt to rebuild the society into some grand utopian agrarian society? I have been there and see those killing fields and those pictures of dead mothers, fathers and children staring at you in S-21. Nothing as of yet has confirmed the dangers of communism and total government control over the individual than that experience.

MonaPizza wrote: »

You have absolutely no idea about how people live and you certainly have no idea about much if you think you can preach to the world about how unhappy and crushed a little boy in the countryside of Latvia who is gleefully catching a fish or playing football with his mate OR how delighted a little girl in Tangiers is to recieve her first birthday party dress.

But if you think that their lives would be so much better if they had McDonald's, Coca-Cola and Levi's then send in your brave defenders of America to "help them".

I think their lives would be better if they have the same freedoms we in the west take for granted. You know, things like one person one vote, free speech, free press. Things that 1,000 people died for in Tiananmen square. Unless you dont believe in those things.

Before you respond with the usual "American Imperialism" whataboutary, if you want to check my post history I have been fiercely critical of American foreign policy espcially regards covert operations using proxies like the CIA and the debacle of Iraq. I wish the American government would rather stay at home than have expensive bases all around the world but I take it you think the US is the great Satan and that all regiemes are around the world are better than those 'infidels' from Yankee land.

Jonny7

MonaPizza wrote: »

Have you ever even met somebody who has lived behind the "Iron Curtain" ?
Have you ever even asked them how their daily lives were? I have multiple friends who lived as teenagers in the DDR and they are now living in Dusseldorf, Munich, Plzen and one or two still back in Lepizig. Have you a clue how their lives were?
Of course not. According to my friends their lives were just fine. No different to the post-war east end of London of 1960 belfast for that matter.
If you think they were all bug-eyed toddlers praying not to be sent to a gulag then continue to watch your farcical propaganda movies and documentaries on some corporate owned outlet.

My friends in the DDR used to go drinking with bored-off-their-tits border guards, go across the border through fences that would make a Kerryman laugh, get even more trashed...fall asleep in ditches and wander back.

Your brickwall, snipers-at-the-ready, crap is a farce.

But just to copperfasten that.....why, if so many people, East Germans in particular were so adamant to escape the horrors of the regime under which they were living, then why did 10's of 1000's of them cross into West Berlin each day to go to work and then go back home in the evening? And WHY were 30,000 exit visas approved each year AFTER the Berlin Wall went up?

I've been to "Communist Dictatorships" like what you bang on about. I was in the USSR in 1988. I was in Poland and Hungary in 1989. I was in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in 2003. I was in so-called Islamic thugocracies such as Morocco, Iran, Jordan and Lebanon between 2005 and 2009.

You have absolutely no idea about how people live and you certainly have no idea about much if you think you can preach to the world about how unhappy and crushed a little boy in the countryside of Latvia who is gleefully catching a fish or playing football with his mate OR how delighted a little girl in Tangiers is to recieve her first birthday party dress.

But if you think that their lives would be so much better if they had McDonald's, Coca-Cola and Levi's then send in your brave defenders of America to "help them".

A pile of absolute nonsense.

The wall was built to stop the flow of millions of people from East to West

Can't get more obvious than that

edit: just read Jank's post above

InTheTrees

MonaPizza wrote: »

I don't have it "in" for anybody.

Americans, by and large, want to... <blah blah blah blah>

Uh huh.

Really?

:cool:

clairefontaine

MonaPizza wrote: »

Have you ever even met somebody who has lived behind the "Iron Curtain" ?
Have you ever even asked them how their daily lives were? I have multiple friends who lived as teenagers in the DDR and they are now living in Dusseldorf, Munich, Plzen and one or two still back in Lepizig. Have you a clue how their lives were?
Of course not. According to my friends their lives were just fine. No different to the post-war east end of London of 1960 belfast for that matter.
If you think they were all bug-eyed toddlers praying not to be sent to a gulag then continue to watch your farcical propaganda movies and documentaries on some corporate owned outlet.

My friends in the DDR used to go drinking with bored-off-their-tits border guards, go across the border through fences that would make a Kerryman laugh, get even more trashed...fall asleep in ditches and wander back.

Your brickwall, snipers-at-the-ready, crap is a farce.

But just to copperfasten that.....why, if so many people, East Germans in particular were so adamant to escape the horrors of the regime under which they were living, then why did 10's of 1000's of them cross into West Berlin each day to go to work and then go back home in the evening? And WHY were 30,000 exit visas approved each year AFTER the Berlin Wall went up?

I've been to "Communist Dictatorships" like what you bang on about. I was in the USSR in 1988. I was in Poland and Hungary in 1989. I was in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in 2003. I was in so-called Islamic thugocracies such as Morocco, Iran, Jordan and Lebanon between 2005 and 2009.

You have absolutely no idea about how people live and you certainly have no idea about much if you think you can preach to the world about how unhappy and crushed a little boy in the countryside of Latvia who is gleefully catching a fish or playing football with his mate OR how delighted a little girl in Tangiers is to recieve her first birthday party dress.

But if you think that their lives would be so much better if they had McDonald's, Coca-Cola and Levi's then send in your brave defenders of America to "help them".

Yes I have. My ballet teacher defected from Leningrad. She told us all about what went on in those Russian state forced ballet schools.

My best friend growing up was the child of Cuban immigrants who owned a newsagent in Cuba. Castro took everything off them despite being lower middle class. Her parents came over with nothing, but a wedding photo her mother hid in the bun of her hair. Castro took EVERYTHING else.

Esel

InTheTrees wrote: »

Uh huh.

Really?

:cool:

I like how you contributed this deeply thought-out post. *Really.

Also, why delete and insert 'blah blah' into a post you are quoting, when it is necessary to the point** you are making.

* Not really. Duh.

** Your point is?

InTheTrees

Esel wrote: »

I like how you contributed this deeply thought-out post. *Really.

Also, why delete and insert 'blah blah' into a post you are quoting, when it is necessary to the point** you are making.

* Not really. Duh.

** Your point is?

What??



Possibly you missed the brief back and forth we had together which he was supposedly responding to and steadfastly avoiding answering the question I had asked.

Hence my sarcastic disrespectful and downright rude response.

InTheTrees

Esel wrote: »

** Your point is?

He proposed that anyone would be insane to go to the USA for work so I was asking where in his opinion would be a better place for a high tech worker like myself.

SamHarris

sin_city wrote: »

The US economy is in bits. Russia has pushed America back on Syria despite its efforts to invade Syria. Is this the start of the end?

If the US was intent on invading Syria, ie as you are implying that the administration felt it would forestall "the end" it's incredibly unlikely Russia or anyone else could have done a whole lot to push them back.

Far more likely that the chemical weapons were becoming enough of an issue, either because they honestly believed that they would be used with abandon, or (more likely) feared them leaking out to other groups, that airstrikes seemed the most viable manner of dealing with them. The UN's inspectors destroying them became a more paletable alternative.

It's very hard to see how any development in Syria would end with the US collapsing a-la the Soviets.

sin_city wrote: »

Incredible propaganda going on at the moment. The USSR started showing cracks when the invaded Afghanistan and throughout the 80s but did not end til 1991.

Does anyone else think that America is starting to collapse or does anyone else feel that America is still strong?

Could you give us an example of this propaganda? People these days do know what actual propaganda is, right? It's not the government releasing a statement, or news outlets running stories you find disagreeable. Just so we're clear.

Still strong? 25% of the world economy around 35% of world research. Militarily it's arguably more dominant than at any time in it's history. Politically it's hard to measure, but is still undoubtedly the worlds only superpower in this sphere still. Culturally it really is very hard to overstate it's dominance, again hard to measure but for many "globalization" is just "Americanization". People in Ireland and the UK seem far less aware of this than even people from, for example, Turkey -where I recently visited and found people very aware of how much of their media and other cultural commodities came from the US.

I don't know how else you would measure "power". Seems like a lot of people on this thread would like to measure it by how "clever" they think Americans are based on vague impressions they get, or want to get. But by any measurable criteria all that can be said is there is more balancing taking place between the US and other areas of the world. Though the gains made by, for example, China is far more eating into the EU's share of world power than the US.

I would also like to point out it's very doubtful it's just coincidence that it's the dominant world country that people seek to dismiss as "stupid". No one feels the need to say the same about Indonesians. It very much seems like the kind of impossible-to-disprove accusation people level at groups they feel threatened by, or inferior in some way to. It really doesn't say much about us if we are struggling to outdo, even relatively, a stupid polity.

sin_city wrote: »

What could happen? A large scale war? Civil uprising? Or just a collapse with the rise of a new power?

Am I babbling? If you think so, please convince me how.

All these things seem far more likely in the EU than the States any time soon. But then I get the impression that some of the more excitable posters on this thread are claiming to see evidence of things they WANT to happen, rather than things any empirical evidence would indicate is going to happen any time soon.

A few years ago there was much more noise about the rise of China, and how soon it owuld overtake the US economically. Thats slowed down now, partly because it is still decades away, partly because people started realizing it is a very uneven change. It's edge in science and technology has not been eroded, and Chinas very poor demographics will come into play much sooner than people at first expected. Along with the US having by far the best demographics of any advanced nation.

No, it almost certainly won't collapse any time soon, though it may slowly return to being a "normal" albeit powerful country in a mutli-polar world.

sin_city

Hey SamHarris......you're right. The TV channels are doing good honest work. I was stupid to ever doubt them. Even though the coverage from the western media did seem slightly biased to me, lets be honest...why would they lie?


Maybe they wouldn't but sometimes I have an inkling feeling we just maybe are not being shown 100% of the truth

http://www.infowars.com/bbc-caught-staging-syria-chemical-weapons-propaganda/

I could go on. Maybe you're right. Maybe that's honest reporting.

It's unlikely that Russia could have pushed back the US on Syria?????
Maybe to you but that is just exactly what happened.

Forbes just named Putin as the most powerful world leader ahead of Obama yesterday which was interesting. I mean maybe you will change your mind based on mainstream media stuff?


Alright, about the pending implosion in the US. I'll take your belief if you can convince me how the dollar won't collapse in the next few years.

SamHarris

sin_city wrote: »

Hey SamHarris......you're right. The TV channels are doing good honest work. I was stupid to ever doubt them. Even though the coverage from the western media did seem slightly biased to me, lets be honest...why would they lie?


Maybe they wouldn't but sometimes I have
an inkling feeling we just maybe are not being shown 100% of the truth

Uh... I don't know why you bothered with all that.

But just FYI a news source isn't automatically the gold standard purely on the basis it's not mainstream, or because it supports your position.

sin_city wrote: »

I could go on. Maybe you're right. Maybe that's honest reporting.

Very possible.

sin_city wrote: »

It's unlikely that Russia could have pushed back the US on Syria?????
Maybe to you but that is just exactly what happened.

Forbes just named Putin as the most powerful world leader ahead of Obama yesterday which was interesting. I mean maybe your mind

That's not what I said. If you want to believe the US is/was on the verge of collapse, could have averted it by attacking Syria, but was then scared off by Russia go ahead. Just don't be surprised if it's hardly convincing to others. Again, it seems far more like something you hope happened/did happen rather than something there is over bearing evidence for.

And I don't think you understand what Forbes was saying either.

If you think the Forbes list corresponded directly to the relative power of each nation then your just kind of proving my point of reading a source, be it "mainstream" or elsewhere and taking away what you want to take away, and dismissing what does not support your position. I might as well explain it anyway, though I doubt it will make a difference, nor do I see why it's relevant.

The Forbes list is the relative powers of the INDIVIDUALS in question. The US is 8 times the size economically of Russia, with many times the relative military and political clout. However a leader of the US can control directly less of the power of his state, for any number of reasons, than a much more authoritarian leader of a lesser power. Hence Putin can control more of a lesser amount and be considered more PERSONALLY powerful than Obama.

For example Bill Gates is not more powerful than France or the UK either.

If you want to see the relative "power" of a state it's GDP, demographics, military strength, technological and scientific capacity, in conjunction with other "soft power" factors will give you a far better idea than where the leader of said country landed on the Forbes list.

sin_city wrote: »

Alright, about the pending implosion in the US. I'll take your belief if you can convince me how the dollar won't collapse in the next few years.

Debate 101 - a point must be proved before it is disproved.

So for example, the dollar. What do you think indicates it's about to "collapse"? The reason it almost certainly won't is about the best reason there can be for anything not happening - pretty much everyone with power/money would lose a great deal if it did and hence have a very strong interest in it not happening. It is not even "unstable" yet, much less is there another currency near a position to replace it. So no. Any objective look at it would say it's pretty far from that.

clairefontaine

I would agree that Putin is more powerful. That has already been proven time and time again. Obama can't lead.

That's not the same thing however as saying Russia is more powerful than the US.

Jonny7

sin_city wrote: »

Hey SamHarris......you're right. The TV channels are doing good honest work. I was stupid to ever doubt them. Even though the coverage from the western media did seem slightly biased to me, lets be honest...why would they lie?

http://www.infowars.com/bbc-caught-staging-syria-chemical-weapons-propaganda/

I could go on.

Infowars.com is a conspiracy theory website, it's not news

Russia Today is an English speaking propaganda site specifically set up and controlled by the Kremlin

clairefontaine

Jonny7 wrote: »

Infowars.com is a conspiracy theory website, it's not news

Russia Today is an English speaking propaganda site specifically set up and controlled by the Kremlin

Sometimes RT has things our news does not report though, sometimes you enemy can teach you alot about yourself.

Jonny7

clairefontaine wrote: »

Sometimes RT has things our news does not report though, sometimes you enemy can teach you alot about yourself.

Sure, in the same way I watch Fox News for an accurate picture of politics in the US

sin_city

SamHarris wrote: »

So for example, the dollar. What do you think indicates it's about to "collapse"? The reason it almost certainly won't is about the best reason there can be for anything not happening - pretty much everyone with power/money would lose a great deal if it did and hence have a very strong interest in it not happening. It is not even "unstable" yet, much less is there another currency near a position to replace it. So no. Any objective look at it would say it's pretty far from that.

You are sufferring from the normalcy bias like many others.

I assume we can agree that history repeats itself and that monetary policy is a subset of the history of any state or empire.

Look, if you read a little history you can see that all fiat currencies eventually collapse.

The dollar has been completely fiat since 1971.

Massive money printing has taken place since 2008 and the $85 billion plus a month will not stop.

It can't. They are doing it to keep interest rates down and if they rise do you think the US gov can service the debt which is currenctly $17 trillion?

So, the question is when will the rest of the world reject worthless dollars....?

I think in the next few years.

@Jonny7 " Infowars.com is a conspiracy theory website"

Just words mate. Did you look at the video? Many of the people that predicted the 2008 crash have gone on that site. Do you agree with this?

Why don't you watch all the news, Infowars, BBC, RT, Fox....and then make your mind up instead of dismissing a site as a conspiracy site beforehand.

What exactly was it about the video that the site posted that you found to be weird?

Once people understand the normalcy bias and research some economic history there is a possibilty that their minds can be released from the lemming sickness

Jonny7

sin_city wrote: »

@Jonny7 " Infowars.com is a conspiracy theory website"

Just words mate. Did you look at the video? Many of the people that predicted the 2008 crash have gone on that site. Do you agree with this?

I've been to the site for 3 years, it's a garbage conspiracy theory site. He predicted chaos at Y2K, nothing happened, but he got a big audience in the process, since he's been playing the same bull**** to a paranoid audience and making massive bucks, he just takes news and spins it into a CT every time.

It's one level below this..



And no he didn't "predict" the financial crisis.. he predicts endless crises, all the time, so when something does actually happen, he takes credit

Here's the flip side of it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwURLwd8pEA

Russia Today, Press TV, CCTV English, etc - these are state TV channels, their content is directed by the relevant government.


If you are highly critical of the US/West and want to inform yourself and add some confirmation bias - at least do it from good sources such as the Guardian, Washington Post, Der Spiegl and so on.

SamHarris

sin_city wrote: »

You are sufferring from the normalcy bias like many others.

I assume we can agree that history repeats itself and that monetary policy is a subset of the history of any state or empire.

Look, if you read a little history you can see that all fiat currencies eventually collapse.

The dollar has been completely fiat since 1971.

Massive money printing has taken place since 2008 and the $85 billion plus a month will not stop.

It can't. They are doing it to keep interest rates down and if they rise do you think the US gov can service the debt which is currenctly $17 trillion?

So, the question is when will the rest of the world reject worthless dollars....?

I think in the next few years.

Yes it could be normalcy bias or it could be that there is no evidence for this apocalyptic scenario.

Yes yes, I'm sure if I "read a little history" of a particular sort it would tell me pretty much anything. Funny thing is, if you did the same you would find there are pretty much people who believe the same thing as you pretty much everywhere all the time. They are almost always wrong.

Worthless, how so? It actually has a very particular worth, one that is easily measurable. Your assertion that you find it worthless is, well, worthless. I could believe property is worthless but that is irrelevant if billions of others disagree. Very basic market stuff. And in the case of the dollar, its worth is stable and as universally accepted as such things can be. About the only people who claim it's worthlessness, the Iranian government jump to mind, are those that have an extreme emotional investment in it being so - the same can be said of those with far left politics who assert the same. Unfortunately for them, by any measure of "worth" they are just plain wrong.

And no, printing more of it does not automatically cause a massive collapse in value.

No, history does not repeat itself. There are many forces that exist throughout it, it can be cyclical in many respects but it rarely if ever "repeats" except in that similar sets of events can occur. All currencies collapse eventually. That does not mean it is sure to happen any time soon.

US debt is high, sure, but that by no means it's currency is on the verge of collapse. The many governments have worse debt - and worse again - have less ability to pay for it - France for example has slightly less debt as a % of GDP but also already has far higher taxes and government spending as a % of its economy. The reason economists and those who buy debt see the US as more capable of paying it's debt back than others is because no one who knows anything about its economic position believes it does not have the money to do so, remarkably easily in some ways, it is far more a political issue of not wanting to, say, raise taxes or introduce a VAT.

You are showing a fundamental misunderstanding of monetary policy, and indeed even the idea of "worth". No currency has been tied to anything people perceived to be of real value, like gold, for decades. Because it is irrelevant. It's a means of exchange, the value comes from the market, supply and demand. The "rest of the world" (whoever that is) may "choose" to see the dollar as worthless, they could do the same with polyester. The point is it's not going to happen except in the most fevered dreams of conspiracy theorists and far leftists desperately convincing themselves the rest of the world will suddenly see the world from their point of view.

sin_city wrote: »

@Jonny7 " Infowars.com is a conspiracy theory website"

Just words mate. Did you look at the video? Many of the people that predicted the 2008 crash have gone on that site. Do you agree with this?

Why don't you watch all the news, Infowars, BBC, RT, Fox....and then make your mind up instead of dismissing a site as a conspiracy site beforehand.

What exactly was it about the video that the site posted that you found to be weird?

Once people understand the normalcy bias and research some economic history there is a possibilty that their minds can be released from the lemming sickness

Infowars predicts an awful lot of things. You know what they say about broken clocks?

People who regularly prescribe to it and RT's ideas remind me an awful lot of millennialists. Repeatedly predicting any number of disasters and/or conspiracies, missing it and choosing another. The vast majority of people dismiss it, but instead of this being an indication of how unconvincing the pieces are it's somehow evidence of the opposite and affirmation of how "special" those who believe it are. Instead of the occam's razor approach, it is an example of mass bias among others instead of localized bias in ones own group.

This thread is obviously overflow from the CT forum. I learned pretty early there is no point in engaging with people who subscribe to regular CT's. Their world and mine have little to no overlap. There is no congruence or common ground. The same evidence that is convincing to them means little to most. There is really nothing either can say to convince the other - they are playing a completely different sport to those that discuss "mainstream" history and politics. Worse, they get so frustrated with their inability to be convincing in the slightest it quickly becomes about others "normalcy bias" and not "reading history" or being "lemmings" and "sheep" rather than most people having a completely different standard of evidence, method of logic and frankly set of understanding beliefs than themselves. Or, god forbid, them just believing what they want to. I'm out.

SamHarris

Jonny7 wrote: »

Russia Today, Press TV, CCTV English, etc - these are state TV channels, their content is directed by the relevant government.

It always strikes me as incredible, and even very irritating, that the first people to dismiss "mainstream media" (whatever the hell that is) or "corporate media" (because it obviously has an agenda to push a certain view point, often some amorphous equivalent of a shadow government) are not the first to dismiss unapologist STATE media, as though the Iranian or Russian government would not be even more interested in portraying, or outright creating, their own reality.

It's obvious why - the dismissal of other outlets is about protecting the persons original biases, not about seeking to cut out "corporate" noise - but it's still striking that there can be such obvious failures in critical thinking.

SamHarris

clairefontaine wrote: »

Sometimes RT has things our news does not report though, sometimes you enemy can teach you alot about yourself.

I agree that even the most blatantly political outlets can have good stories, or draw attention to stories that might not get much exposure elsewhere, but that it is the mouthpiece of a government, a pretty autocratic one at that, should always be kept i mind by anyone who wants to have a balanced view of the particular story.

sin_city

If anyone looked at the article on infowars you would see that the BBC did in fact fake a report.

That's the fact. All the blabber about the site, well I don't care about that. I checked a report and to be it seems real.

I've seen a BBC report on Building 7 so I have gone from a position a few years ago where I thought they could not be wrong to now where I listen to everything I can but also question everything.

If this report appeared on RT or NBC would it somehow have been more credible?

That’s for you to decide.


You really don’t understand how much money has been printed and will be printed.

The US exports its inflation so it has not been felt at home yet but once the dollars start coming home they will be hit hard.

I’ve looked at the figures in relation to:

• How inflation is measured now compared to the past
• How the US calculates its unemployment rate in comparison to other countries
• The amount of money printed since 2008
• Unusual stuff in the gold market (dumping of 5,000 contracts in one minute), India placing extra tariffs on gold imports and China not exporting its gold.
• Previous recoveries in the past in comparison to this “recovery”


and listened to people that have been predicting stuff years in advance in comparison to the people saying everything is fine (who never saw anything wrong before).

You can continue on your way of thinking. I’m not just stating my opinion here I have taken a few small steps to prepare. If I am wrong, no big deal. If you’re wrong, well I don’t know.


I'm out too

Jonny7

sin_city wrote: »

If anyone looked at the article on infowars you would see that the BBC did in fact fake a report.

No, it was edited.

Response from the BBC when emailed :

Oct 17 at 1:09 PM

Dear Mr XXXX

Reference CAS-2350472-xxxxx

Thanks for contacting us regarding BBC News.

We understand that you were unhappy that the comments made by Dr. Rola Hallam were edited.

Please be assured we raised your concerns with the relevant editorial staff at BBC News, and with the team who filmed the piece in question.

Firstly, we believe it is important to clarify the text of what Dr. Rola Hallam said at the time:

“I need a pause because it is just absolute chaos and carnage here... Umm, we have had a massive influx of what look like serious burns, it seems like it must be some sort of chemical weapon, I’m not really sure, maybe napalm, something similar to that.”

It is common in broadcasting to edit spoken contributions to ensure maximum clarity, especially where there might be pauses or digression. This is also a practice in print, although in all cases, accuracy and meaning should be retained, as it was on this occasion. In both the News report and the Panorama a month later, it was made clear that this was an attack using an incendiary device, rather than a chemical weapon.

In this instance, in the news report from August 29th, the audio of Dr Rola was edited for exactly these reasons. This is what was used:

“I need a pause because it is just absolute chaos and carnage here... Umm, we have had a massive influx of what look like serious burns, it seems like it must be some sort of [EDIT] I’m not really sure, maybe napalm, something similar to that.”

The phrase “chemical weapon” was taken out of the news piece because by the time it was broadcast it was known that this was an incendiary bomb that had been used in the attack. Ian Pannell mentions this on two occasions in his script prior to the clip of Dr. Rola. To have included her speculation that this could have been a "chemical weapon" ran a considerable risk of being incredibly misleading and confusing to the audience, not least because the incident happened within days of an alleged chemical attack in Damascus.

The other issues the team had to consider were the physical structure of the news piece (starting in the school, explaining what happened and then moving on to the hospital where we see the aftermath – i.e. moving from cause to effect) and the time constraints in a news piece that necessitate a more direct approach.

Normally with editing of this kind, a cutaway shot - such as a "noddy" of the interviewer - might be used, but as she was wearing a mask this was not considered necessary. No extra words were inserted, nor was the meaning changed. Dr Rola states clearly that she is not sure what has happened and that is fairly reflected in all instances.

In Panorama on September 30th, the team chose to use a short section of Dr Rola's footage unedited, with her saying:

“I need a pause because it is just absolute chaos and carnage here... Umm, we have had a massive influx of what look like serious burns, it seems like it must be some sort of chemical weapon.”

On this occasion the team ended her clip in vision at this point. Her remark is then followed up, explained and elaborated upon effectively in Ian Pannell’s commentary; that the initial fear at the hospital was of a chemical attack (coming days after the Damascus incident), that it later became clear that a napalm-type substance had been used. As the structure of the Panorama piece was different and the time to explain events and the context more generous, it allowed the team to present this argument and then fully expand upon it.

In both cases, it is clear that at the time of the incident, Dr Rola was expressing her uncertainty about what had caused the injuries. Her charity, Hand in Hand for Syria, also confirm that both reports were authentic, fair, and absolutely accurate.

We appreciate that you were unhappy with the editing of this comment and so, with this in mind, we’d like to assure you that your complaint has been registered on our daily audience log. This is an internal document of audience feedback which is made available to all BBC staff, including the News teams and senior management.

The audience logs are seen as important documents within the BBC and may be used to shape future output.

Kind Regards

Catherine Rooney

BBC Complaints

As for this:

I've seen a BBC report on Building 7 so I have gone from a position a few years ago where I thought they could not be wrong to now where I listen to everything I can but also question everything.

Do you..
a) think the BBC misreported the tower falling (there were dozens of errors in reporting on that day, as there are with any major breaking story)

b) the "powers that be" informed a media organisation in another country of their highly treasonous inside job right down to the exact "predicted" calculations of a building falling

Critical thinking.

You really don’t understand how much money has been printed and will be printed.

I would think that I do, I work in a bank. Anyway, when these entities who have millions and billions at stake get jittery - then you can worry.

sin_city

Jonny7 wrote: »

No, it was edited.

I would think that I do, I work in a bank. Anyway, when these entities who have millions and billions at stake get jittery - then you can worry.

You keep mentioning that you work in a bank.



From what I can see not many have got it wrong more in the past 10 years than bankers.

Maybe you work as a bank teller If this is the case, then I guess you've got less of the inside track.


As for the BBC response....what a load of rubbish.

Then again maybe you've got a point.....you do work in a bank as you said.

alastair

sin_city wrote: »

As for the BBC response....what a load of rubbish.

Or a completely plausible response to a nonsensical accusation. I know where my vote goes.

sin_city

alastair wrote: »

Or a completely plausible response to a nonsensical accusation. I know where my vote goes.

Look, it's pretty obvious that there is bias on both sides of the Syria thing.

From the Russians and from the West.

To me, the only difference here is that the West, specifically the BBC got caught.

Thank Goodness there were no bombings on Syria.

Thank Goodness people are more skeptical of what they are shown than you.

Jonny7

sin_city wrote: »

As for the BBC response....what a load of rubbish.

Here is the report where the doctor says it's possibly a chemical weapon attack..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-24288698

If it's being faked then why is the report titled "Syria: Agony of victims of 'napalm-like' school bombing"

It goes on

"We did not know for sure what the device contained but it caused appalling burns consistent with an incendiary device, containing a substance like napalm or thermite."

"Eyewitnesses described the same thing - a fighter-jet circling overhead, apparently looking for targets. A large crowd had gathered at the school where the incendiary bomb was dropped."

There is no attempt made by the BBC to pass it off as a chemical attack, despite the fact that this is what the doctor actually said in the original interview. They edited her words for a previous report to actually reflect the truth of the incident. In this later report they have obviously made an error by including the original unedited version. The above mentioned article which clearly calls it an incendiary-style attack.

However for conspiracy style websites, any edit, or contradiction, or error in reporting is often presented as evidence that the "mainstream" media is being used as a tool by the government as part of a conspiracy towards a certain agenda.

Infowars is a classic example. This is not to say there have been isolated incidents in the past where a journalist or reporter has used a false or photoshopped photo in a particular story (e.g. one report on the Lebanon conflict) or fake photos have been passed to a paper (e.g. false photos of UK troops abusing Iraq's - and the editor still lost his job)

However to twist and distort this information in order to sell water purifiers and survival supplies to doomsday preppers, conspiracy theorists and gullible types is pretty damn dishonest.

If you disagree, please show me where the BBC is presenting an incendiary attack as a chemical weapon attack.. (I am genuinely curious because I was watching the news on the day itself, and I don't remember it being dubbed a chemical attack, but a firebomb or incendiary attack)

Edited - to correct spelling and words (phew almost gave the game away there)

sin_city

Look Johnny, I've seen how the BBC gives people like Nigel Farage and George Galloway a hard time when interviewing. In my opinion there is some bias and they are there to protect the image of those in power both seen and unseen.

I can just avoid using infowars but will still be able to bring up reputable sites (in your opinion) with the same stories.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9293620/BBC-News-uses-Iraq-photo-to-illustrate-Syrian-massacre.html

The BBC is facing criticism after it accidentally used a picture taken in Iraq in 2003 to illustrate the senseless massacre of children in Syria.... come on mate. Are you still believing this? I mean the Telegraph is pretty reputable.

I've already posted the staged fake protests. I'm just waiting for the next mistake. You can keep putting your head in the sand.

You really should know....I mean, you work in a bank

clairefontaine

BBC is also state owned.

NBC is owned by GE, a defense contractor.

Jonny7

sin_city wrote: »

I can just avoid using infowars but will still be able to bring up reputable sites (in your opinion) with the same stories.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9293620/BBC-News-uses-Iraq-photo-to-illustrate-Syrian-massacre.html

"The BBC is facing criticism after it accidentally used a picture taken in Iraq in 2003 to illustrate the senseless massacre of children in Syria."

I was watching the weather one day and instead of showing a stock shot of some autumnal weather they showed some troops marching in black and white ..

Error.. or are they trying to subliminally prepare us for invasion?

The conspiracy theories forum is thatta way --->

However if you insist on filling this thread with CT's, then at least use proper evidence, not embellishment and insinuations based on beliefs

clairefontaine

Jonny7 wrote: »

"The BBC is facing criticism after it accidentally used a picture taken in Iraq in 2003 to illustrate the senseless massacre of children in Syria."

I was watching the weather one day and instead of showing a stock shot of some autumnal weather they showed some troops marching in black and white ..

Error.. or are they trying to subliminally prepare us for invasion?

The conspiracy theories forum is thatta way --->

However if you insist on filling this thread with CT's, then at least use proper evidence, not embellishment and insinuations based on beliefs

I don't think it's fair to exclude CTs from the conversations in politics.

MonaPizza

sin_city wrote: »

The US economy is in bits. Russia has pushed America back on Syria despite its efforts to invade Syria. Is this the start of the end?

Incredible propaganda going on at the moment. The USSR started showing cracks when the invaded Afghanistan and throughout the 80s but did not end til 1991.

Does anyone else think that America is starting to collapse or does anyone else feel that America is still strong?

What could happen? A large scale war? Civil uprising? Or just a collapse with the rise of a new power?

Am I babbling? If you think so, please convince me how.

The US is finished, and to be honest nobody really gives a sh!t. I watched on the news tonight that even Japanese teenagers..longtime fans of burgers, milkshakes...ala "Happy Days" and that appalling useless piece of American engineering (the Harley and the Caddy) are no longer in awe of the sh!t that comes out of America.

Why would anyone want to have anything to do with the US apart from the super-rich who have fleeced the placed for years? Cisco Corporation moved from the dump 10 years ago.
The only idiots in America who think the place is "great" are the same kind of fools who say "we should bomb everyone!" ... meanwhile the ones who would do the "bombing" are laughing and moving businesses elsewhere.

America. The place is now a joke. And there's no coming back.