The Economy

[kandrathe]

It was an ill conceived bit of Republican deception, which Democrats willingly embraced to further mangle into the twisted behemoth it is today.

Was Biden involved? Yes. He did introduce related Bills. To what extent? I don't think he was the lightning rod for this, but it is hard to tell with the internet so cluttered with campaign rhetoric. He didn;t serve any committee assignments in the Health and Human Services area, which is where most of the bills originate on the topic. He did vote with his clique.

[Jester]

Was Biden involved? Yes. He did introduce related Bills. To what extent? I don't think he was the lightning rod for this, but it is hard to tell with the internet so cluttered with campaign rhetoric. He didn;t serve any committee assignments in the Health and Human Services area, which is where most of the bills originate on the topic. He did vote with his clique.

So, in other words, Biden was just this guy, you know?

Everyone votes with their clique. This is self-organizing. If you didn't vote with your clique, you'd be in a different clique. If you didn't vote with any clique, your ideology would be random.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

So, in other words, Biden was just this guy, you know?

No. I stated also that "he introduced related bills".

Rather than bicker... How about we accept that Medicare Part D was a Republican *and* Democrat thing, rather than try to "blame Bush". Republicans should blame Bush, and all the other Republicans who went along with it, but Democrats can look to the people in their own party who gleefully skipped down the deficit road hand in hand with their Republican allies.

[Zenda]

No, but let me choose Amsterdam to be the first nuked city rather than Seattle, or Seoul.

Getting bloodthirsty? Nukes for the Netherlands... Coastal bombardment for Somalia... And those nations aren't even on your enemy list :blink:

Btw, your country already made that choice for you, by placing cruise missiles in my back yard during the Cold War, making us a primairy target. Sadly enough, back then people here got so used to the idea that they welcomed it as a quick death should some idiot press a red button somewhere.

[eppie]

They were just fine, until they were invaded and kicked off their land. It just happens they weren't in an alliance, um, like say NATO.

The Tibetans were not just fine. Apart from Chinese brutality, the Tibetans are living in the past and are unwilling to change their lifestyle. Again, it is their right to be this way, and I am on their side concerning the conflict with China, but using this example as an argument against peaceful solving of conflicts is just wrong.

I think it probably more an argument that being a closed society of religious people is a recipe for disaster.
(but that is of course something you could expect me to say:) )

[Ashock]

Getting bloodthirsty? Nukes for the Netherlands... Coastal bombardment for Somalia... And those nations aren't even on your enemy list :blink:

Btw, your country already made that choice for you, by placing cruise missiles in my back yard during the Cold War, making us a primairy target. Sadly enough, back then people here got so used to the idea that they welcomed it as a quick death should some idiot press a red button somewhere.

Having them in your backyard and also having US troops in Europe along with them, is the only reason you are not speaking semi-broken Russian right now, comrade. Perhaps that would have been preferable to you?

[--Pete]

Hi,

Having them in your backyard and also having US troops in Europe along with them, is the only reason you are not speaking semi-broken Russian right now, comrade. Perhaps that would have been preferable to you?

Take it one step further back, and the choice would have been between Russian and German -- and I'm betting on Russian. But the Europeans are our friends, they're always there when they need us.;)

--Pete

[kandrathe]

No. Tibet is an example that shows when you face a threat like the Soviet Union, or China, you have only a few options; 1) surrender, 2) fight and be annihilated, 3) become as ferocious to make the fight not worth it, or 4) make friends with someone who is ferocious to again make the fight not worth it.

Most of Europe has chosen option 4.

North Korea is trying option 3, although their problem is that they don't have enough food or fuel for their population, and they don't have naught to trade except old Soviet weapon's technology and their attempts to reinvent the nuclear bomb. Of course, only the pariah nations, criminals and terrorists are interested in their products. The rest of the world is pretty concerned about what they are selling.

I want peace too. But, I'm realistic enough to know that unless we remove the huge disparities between nations, there will never be peace. The more you have to lose, the more peaceful you desire your neighbors to become.

[Ashock]

But the Europeans are our friends, they're always there when they need us.;)

--Pete

Indeed.... sort of like my 1st wife (not the one you've met B) )

[Zenda]

Having them in your backyard and also having US troops in Europe along with them, is the only reason you are not speaking semi-broken Russian right now, comrade. Perhaps that would have been preferable to you?

Aren't you glad now? Finally an opportunity to add something to this thread ;)

Btw, what do you have against Russian? I prefer speaking Dutch, but if it had to be a foreign language, why would Russian be worse as English? :mellow:

[Jester]

Take it one step further back, and the choice would have been between Russian and German -- and I'm betting on Russian. But the Europeans are our friends, they're always there when they need us.;)

While I understand the point about Soviet domination, what language do the Poles speak now? The Hungarians? The Czechs? The Soviets didn't force people to speak Russian, at least, not after Stalin. (Actually, I knew a guy who did his Masters' on Soviet language policy. Checked the domestic press, tried to find if the Soviets were pushing a Russsianizing language policy that way. Apparently not.)

-Jester

[Ashock]

Aren't you glad now? Finally an opportunity to add something to this thread ;)

Btw, what do you have against Russian? I prefer speaking Dutch, but if it had to be a foreign language, why would Russian be worse as English? :mellow:

There's nothing wrong with the language. It's the form of government.... past, present or future.

[kandrathe]

What about the intentional destruction of Georgian culture?

[Ashock]

What about the intentional destruction of Georgian culture?

In the former USSR and it's 15 republics, there was only 1 official language. When you consider that it is only Russia and Belorussia that have russian as their native tongue (I believe this is so, taken from memory not sources), the picture becomes clear. I do know that most if not all of the old republics have reverted to their old language.

[kandrathe]

In the former USSR and it's 15 republics, there was only 1 official language. When you consider that it is only Russia and Belarus that have Russian as their native tongue (I believe this is so, taken from memory not sources), the picture becomes clear. I do know that most if not all of the old republics have reverted to their old language.

I think I read that some had tried, but it was too expensive to have everything reprinted.

Another example is the University of Vilnius; it used to teach in Polish.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I think I read that some had tried, but it was too expensive to have everything reprinted.

Another example is the University of Vilnius; it used to teach in Polish.

America-centric thinking. In almost every advanced course at most of the European universities, it is common to teach from texts that are not in the language of the country containing the university. Or at least this was the case until recently. The cost of translation was relatively minor, but the cost of setting and printing a book was too great to be covered by the small number of sales of advanced texts. With the computer driven optical printing techniques and the advances in the (automated) soft cover bindings, those costs have come down, perhaps even to the point that it would pay to print Supersonic Flow and Shock Waves (Courant & Friedrichs) in, say, Finnish.

And, BTW, why are you people feeding the troll?

--Pete

[Jester]

In the former USSR and it's 15 republics, there was only 1 official language. When you consider that it is only Russia and Belorussia that have russian as their native tongue (I believe this is so, taken from memory not sources), the picture becomes clear. I do know that most if not all of the old republics have reverted to their old language.

Russification was real, and sometimes was pushed fairly hard. But it never transformed non-Russian countries into predominantly Russian speaking ones. Belorussian is very close to Russian, but it's not the same language. So, that just leaves Russia.

Russian was used as the state language and the lingua franca for science, but the policy of most republics, at most times, was essentially a loose bilingualism between Russian and the languages of the various Republics. Publishing in other languages for books and newspapers continued throughout, and obviously people kept speaking their native languages in everyday life. Fluency in Russian, even as a second language, was far from universal outside of Russia, although it would have been necessary if you wanted a career in the bureaucracy.

So, we in Europe might know how to speak Russian (I'm sure some of us already do), but I doubt we'd be speaking it now. Plus, there is the possibility (likelihood?) that the USSR would have collapsed by now, even if they'd pushed the tanks all the way to Lisbon.

-Jester

[Jester]

I think I read that some had tried, but it was too expensive to have everything reprinted.

I don't know of a single former Soviet republic where they have not adopted their native language (or one of them) officially. Do you? There might be some that have kept Russian alongside it. (Apparently this is true of Belarus, and the Central Asian republics.)

Another example is the University of Vilnius; it used to teach in Polish.

I'm confused as to what you mean by this. What language should they be teaching in?

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

But they do. The closest the budgets have ever come in the US to being balanced were under Carter and Clinton. The "conservatives", Reagan and Bush, have been the most wastrel administrations around.

Balancing budgets is not easy work. But by and large, it's been work done by "spendthrift" Democrats, and not "conservative" Republicans. Just look at the tables you linked; the correlation is obvious.

-Jester

You misattribute the budget balancing forces under Clinton: GOP House had a significant influence on that. Reagan had a Democratic Congress to spend along with him. Bush Junior, on the other hand, didn't have the check to his power that a Democratic congress might have provided, and, him being a baby boomer, did as one might expect: put it all on Visa.

Our third Baby Boomer president doesn't seem to understand credit cards either.

As I see it, we (the Baby Boom generatio) are Oh For Three in presidents. Too bad, but not all that surprising.

Occhi

[Jester]

You misattribute the budget balancing forces under Clinton: GOP House had a significant influence on that. Reagan had a Democratic Congress to spend along with him. Bush Junior, on the other hand, didn't have the check to his power that a Democratic congress might have provided, and, him being a baby boomer, did as one might expect: put it all on Visa.

Reagan got to spend like crazy because he had a Democratic congress.

Bush got to spend like crazy because he didn't have a Democratic congress.

...?

-Jester