• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: American Politics

JaysCyYoung said:
Russia can't do anything with their population problem getting more dire each year.

There's no way a country of inferior technology and 60-70 percent less population than the United States can be a credible competitor.
Click to expand...

In the long term, no. But in the short-medium term, flush with oil revenue and a very educated population (a fact often overlooked is just how educated Russia is in comparison to it's European rivals)...they can cause some issues.
 
Honestly, you are the most idiotic poster on this forum. You can't even have a civil discussion without using your gay little nicknames.

No one takes you seriously.
 
MindzEye said:
In the long term, no. But in the short-medium term, flush with oil revenue and a very educated population (a fact often overlooked is just how educated Russia is in comparison to it's European rivals)...they can cause some issues.
Click to expand...

you seem to dismiss this as just some minor inconvenience. they are giving large amounts of material and diplomatic support to some of the west's most dangerous enemies right now- iran, NK, and syria. and today they are even talking about striking american missile defence bases. i'm not really afraid that theyre going to do it, but the fact they are even willing to openly discuss the possibility shows how off track hopeychange has gotten on russia. they don't respect him in the least. why would they? he has shown nothing but weakness and appeasement since he took office. so they have no fears whatsoever covering for NK and iran and syria.
 
another concession to the russians... (from our friends at wikipedia)

"According to Heritage Foundation President Ed Feulner, the language of the New START treaty would "definitely" reduce America's nuclear weapon capacity but "wouldn't necessarily" reduce Russia's, and Russia would maintain a 10–1 advantage in tactical nuclear weapons, which are not counted in the treaty.[57]

Arms control experts critical of the treaty included Robert Joseph, former undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, and Eric Edelman, undersecretary of defense for policy, who have written that the treaty weakens U.S. defenses.[58] Former CIA Director James Woolsey also said that "concessions to Russian demands make it difficult to support Senate approval of the new treaty".[59]"
 
theREALkoreaboy said:
you seem to dismiss this as just some minor inconvenience. they are giving large amounts of material and diplomatic support to some of the west's most dangerous enemies right now- iran, NK, and syria. and today they are even talking about striking american missile defence bases. i'm not really afraid that theyre going to do it, but the fact they are even willing to openly discuss the possibility shows how off track hopeychange has gotten on russia. they don't respect him in the least. why would they? he has shown nothing but weakness and appeasement since he took office. so they have no fears whatsoever covering for NK and iran and syria.
Click to expand...

Again, I find your entire line of discussion entirely disingenuous as Russia was supporting NK & Iran during the Bush years, and was actively talking about pointing nuclear ****ing missiles at NATO countries in 2006.

What you call "weakness and appeasement", some of us would happily consider to be dialing down western aggression.
 
MindzEye said:
Again, I find your entire line of discussion entirely disingenuous as Russia was supporting NK & Iran during the Bush years, and was actively talking about pointing nuclear ****ing missiles at NATO countries in 2006.

What you call "weakness and appeasement", some of us would happily consider to be dialing down western aggression.
Click to expand...

W didnt show overt "aggression" to russia during his term. you said yourself how he "looked into putin's eyes"! now you're saying different?
 
theREALkoreaboy said:
another concession to the russians... (from our friends at wikipedia)

"According to Heritage Foundation President Ed Feulner, the language of the New START treaty would "definitely" reduce America's nuclear weapon capacity but "wouldn't necessarily" reduce Russia's, and Russia would maintain a 10–1 advantage in tactical nuclear weapons, which are not counted in the treaty.[57]

Arms control experts critical of the treaty included Robert Joseph, former undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, and Eric Edelman, undersecretary of defense for policy, who have written that the treaty weakens U.S. defenses.[58] Former CIA Director James Woolsey also said that "concessions to Russian demands make it difficult to support Senate approval of the new treaty".[59]"
Click to expand...

Republican supporters included former President George H. W. Bush[52] and all six former Republican Secretaries of State, who wrote supportive op-eds in the Washington Post[53] and the Wall Street Journal.[54]

Those 6 Republican SecState's who supported New Start? Kissinger, Shultz (your boy Ronnie's secstate)..as well, the Architect of the first Start treaty with Russia, Richard Burt, supported it.


Btw...find the numbers that the Heritage foundation used to come up with that 10-1 figure. I understand them, apparently you don't. I'll let you guess how much horseshit is included in it.
 
theREALkoreaboy said:
W didnt show overt "aggression" to russia during his term. you said yourself how he "looked into putin's eyes"! now you're saying different?
Click to expand...

I didn't attempt to decode Bush's statement, I just assert that it was ridiculous and embarrassing.

There was no need to put missile deterence (especially systems that are still extremely unreliable) on Russia's borders.
 
why not? WTF not? it cemented a new strategic partnership with important new allies in eastern europe. it would have provided a measure of defence against launches from the middle east (although its not like we have to worry about anyone not liking us from there, do we?), and it clearly concerned the russians because they screamed blue murder about it for years. but your boy gave that all away for a "boy, doesnt the world just love us now that i'm president?" photo up with a ridiculous red button.
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

JaysCyYoung said:
I'm not saying that I don't think Ford is a blowhard and I'm not saying that he doesn't possess an absolutely awful ability when it comes to handling the media. I don't know if anyone else could even TRY to screw up with reporters as bad as Ford consistently does. He comes across as aloof, disinterested, and then occasionally downright nasty when they push the right buttons. At the same time though, I really, really don't understand half the vitriol the man gets. If Torontonians want to bemoan about the fact that Ford got elected I think we need to take a lengthy, introspective look at ourselves and wonder why the top three mayoral candidates for one of the great cosmopolitan centres of the world were so piss poor.
Click to expand...

Ford definitely doesn't do himself any favours with the media, that's definitely true. And the media are pretty ruthless in their treatment of Ford, also true. I think both sides contribute to it, Ford by being such a douche to the Star, and then the Star by their coverage (generally unfavourable) of Ford.

And I think the vitriol is a combination of a couple things. First, I think people are just frustrated by the way he governs. And I don't mean his policies, I mean his style. Of course, the people who voted for them shouldn't be surprised IMO, but that's a separate issue.

I think it's really a case of both sides escalating the situation and level of hatred by their reactions to the other. And it just ends up making Toronto look bad. There was a story in the Edmonton Journal about his confrontation with Dale; not exactly the type of press you'd want the city generating across the country.

There needs to be some sort of truce or detente or something because this is ridiculous. But at the same time, if Ford continues to charge after reporters, and threatens to not speak in scrums when the Star is present, I can't see this getting any better.

And I think it's also worth pointing out it's not just the Star that provides that level of negative coverage of Ford. Marcus Gee in the Globe has written some pretty scathing articles about him (also some good ones). The Star just happens to be the worst of them. Blowhard idiots like Royson James mouthing off the way he did in his most recent column don't help things either. After reading his article I was reminded why I never read any of the Star's columnists.
 
classic FI. here comes the peanut gallery piling on with nothing but insults.

how is it "crazy" to argue that this administration's russia policy has been a disaster?
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

if some a$$hat reporter was crawling around outside of thomas mulcair's or justin trudeau's house trying to snap pictures to generate a faux news "gotcha" story, i would be arguing the same thing- it would be completely out of line. the media has no business trying to play paparazzi with political figures.
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

theREALkoreaboy said:
if some a$$hat reporter was crawling around outside of thomas mulcair's or justin trudeau's house trying to snap pictures to generate a faux news "gotcha" story, i would be arguing the same thing- it would be completely out of line. the media has no business trying to play paparazzi with political figures.
Click to expand...

Cause, y'know, taking pictures of a piece of public land a private citizen is trying to buy, when such a transaction hasn't taken place in 20 years, is "playing paparazzi".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top