You are not logged in.
Tom Kalbfus wrote:What was the Roman Empire then?
A bunch of thugs who murdered, and robbed. These are the guys who nailed people to a wooden pole, left them hanging by their arms with their arms out-stretched until they didn't have enough strength to breathe. That's called crucifixion. Death took days. For entertainment, they built an arena as big as any modern arena, but made of stone. But they didn't play games, they watched slaves murder each other. In the end, they fed Christians to lions. One time, a particularly cruel Caesar had Christians dipped in tar and set on fire as lights for the arena. These are the guys you want to emulate?
Yet those same Romans would be horrified by the things the Soviets(Russians) and Nazis did. Romans crucified people, but you have to remember. quite possibly a number of those on the cross were murderers, Jesus Christ was the most famous example of one of those they crucified, but I'm pretty sure quite a few actually deserved the sentence. But where does crucifixion stand on the spectrum of death camps, and forcible mass starvation of millions of people? There is a limit to how many people who could be executed for entertainment purposes, I do think that sentence would be appropriate for many of the 9/11 Al Qaeda terrorists.
You also have to compare the Romans with the alternatives that existed in the Ancient World. Some Barbarians were equally barbaric, I'm talking about the power of the Roman Empire, The Romans were more tolerant than many Empires which came later. As for the Christian thing, depends which era of the Roman Empire your talking about, the Roman Catholic Church came from somewhere you know. Many of the Christian Apostles spend a lot of time in the Roman Empire, it was much safer than other places, as Romans kept the peace and order, Christians could travel around the Empire and spread their message without worrying about bandits. They made accommodations for many different belief systems. Remember why the Romans crucified Christ, it wasn't because he desecrated Neptune's Temple, the local religious leaders of Judea insisted on it because Jesus was a threat to their power more than to the Romans, since only the Romans were allowed to impose the death penalty, the Pharisees pressured the Romans to crucify him, the Romans wanting peace and the taxes to keep flowing smoothly, complied. I believe if there was no Roman Empire but an independent Kingdom of Judea, Jesus would probably have been executed anyway by the local rulers.
Lots of liberals like to compare the United States to the Roman Empire, and then they want to rush to the end
Empire builders are rushing to the end themselves. During it's golden age, Rome was ruled by an elected senate. Administration was run by two Consuls, it didn't have a Caesar. Unfortunately at one point, a military coup changed that to an empire ruled by a dictator with the title Caesar.
Sounds like Putin to me Russia was a Republic for a short while, and Vladimir Putin wanted to be its Caesar, he manipulated the system to make it so. Both Putin and Julius Caesar were politicians.
America appears determined to rush to the end. Actually, much of the structure of the American government was modeled on ancient Rome. But America's golden age is already passed.
There you are trying to be Gibbon once again. You don't know which way History is going until after it has happened, people were saying the same thing during the 1970s when Jimmy Carter was President. What Obama has done can be reversed, we got out of the Great Depression and the Civil War, what you are expressing is your wishes, you want this to be the end of the American Republic, many others are as "concerned" as you are, but unlike you instead of consigning the United States to the dustbin of history, we want to do something about it, that is the Tea Party, its fairly obvious that what Obama is doing isn't good for the country, but we're a democracy, and democracies can correct themselves. One major difference is that Caesar was a lot more popular with the military than Obama is.
It fall into dictatorship has already begun. Since World War 2, America has slowly become ever more fascist. Under George W. Bush, that fall became rapid.
Oh come on, you sound like Democratic talking points, if you want to get involved in US politics, why don't you come down here and become US Citizen. I'm not quite so energized about Canadian Politics, I don't know all the Canadian Prime Ministers so I can't tell you who I think was the worst one and which one has contributed the most to Canadian Decline. The fact is if Canada had 316 million people and the same standard of living it has now, Canada would be a superpower. So what your saying about how America shouldn't be a superpower is the same thing as wishing some great calamity would fall upon us that either reduces our income or population. The United States is a bit unusual in that it combines a relatively high population in the hundreds of millions with a high standard of living. Other countries with a high first world standard of living has a small population, like Canada for instance, other countries which have a high population have a low standard of living, like India or China for example. So if you want us to live like India with our rib cages showing and open sewers in the streets, that is not a nice thing to say to your neighbor to the south.
Voters hoped Obama would undo the damage,
I wasn't expecting a leader who didn't love his country to do something to fix it, I don't know where that expectation came from, perhaps the Media wanted its first black President so badly it would do anything to present favorable coverage of him, I remember news about his Preacher Jerimiah Wright ranting and raving about what a terrible country the USA is and that Obama attended his church for 20 years, but themaistream media only touted his blackness and how historic his presidency was for the color of his skin. The Democrats made a poor choice in their candidate for President and the liberal press wanted to cover it up, and they dragged Obama into the White House.
but he hasn't. Ancient Rome was founded in 753 BC, according to Roman history. It didn't become a republic until 510 BC, then degenerated into an empire in 27 BC. America flirted with making George Washington a king, but became a republic in the time of the founding fathers. I'm hope you could give the timeline better than I; you're American, I'm Canadian. From the Declaration of Independence, through the various Congresses, how long before the current Constitution? Some people claim America ceased to be a Republic with the assassination of JFK. Conspiracy theorists claim powers behind the scenes control everything.
That is a very superficial reading of history, Lee Harvey Oswald didn't overthrow the Republic, he only killed its President, the Republic was never dependent on one man, that is a sign of a dictatorship.
But regardless whether you believe that, Ronald Regan did invade Grenada as the Senate specifically forbade him from doing so. The Constitution explicitly states Congress has authority to declare war, the President does not. That action was ground for impeachment. But they chose not to. The entire war was over before Congress could do anything, so they though doing anything would be moot. But this does demonstrate Presidents exerting authority of a Caesar, not a Consul.
Probably because they couldn't get enough votes, and that Grenada was a small country of little account anyway, the invasion didn't affect the lives of most US citizens unlike many of the things Obama is doing now! I think Obama will be impeached if the Republicans take the Senate.
Rome overextended itself with ever more ambitions land-grabs.
That is Rome, not the United States, most of the land the United States grabbed was empty territory, we didn't conquer a lot of people with the land we took, and we delined the opportunity to absorb the rest of Mexico with the Mexican-American war, we didn't want to add too much of their population to ours, we just wanted the largely empty northwest quadrant. Romans didn't care, conquered people didn't vote they were just more people to pay taxes, so they didn't mind.
They wanted a buffer between their territory and other nations. But as soon as they did capture territory, they considered that their territory, so wanted a buffer between that and the other nations. So they grabbed more land. Etc. It continued until they had overstretched themselves so far that they couldn't afford their own military. Their economy faltered because of the cost of their massive and spread-out military. Until finally one opponent had too much, the Romans had attached them and taken their land, so they fought back. One opponent was able to punch through their thinly spread defences, and sack Rome. Once they did so, all Rome's other opponents came at them as well. This was inevitable because Rome attacked everyone. And because their military was spread so thin. And because their military drained so much of their economy.
Our military is a much smaller percentage of our economy than it was during World War II or the 1950s, the United States was doing quite well in the 1950s so I don't know how you can imagine the spending now could be ruining our economy when the spending then did not, and in fact World War II spending brought us out of the Great Depression! Hoover wasn't spending a lot on the Military to get us in the Depression
Today America is waging war with the entire planet.
Seriously man, the United States has the ability to blow up every major city on the planet, are their mushroom clouds going up in your neighborhood?
Military bases spread across the globe. Interfering in every conflict. Demanding every resource be shipped to America. The latest: Syria has a conflict between the current military dictator and its citizens. Obama tried to draw a "red line", interfering in that conflict. And today, Iraq is having internal troubles. America is talking about sending military into Iraq yet again. Last announcement said 200 American troops were still in Iraq, ostensibly to "protect the embassy". So America hasn't pulled out from the last conflict, and they want to go in again? What did I just say about Rome expanding its territory too far and spreading its military too thin?
Tom Kalbfus wrote:You'd have to make the United States into a Third World country in order to do that!
The US would have to be a Third World country for the world to be free. The US has to be Third World for Freedom and Liberty. That's an interesting statement, Tom. Think about that for a while.
So you are basically saying you don't want me to do well, because I am an American citizen ad you want my children to starve and beg in the street and you want a lot of other Americans to do the same. Do you know my daughter was going on a trip to Toronto to help the poor people there?
Tom Kalbfus wrote:What would the United States do with a naval port in the black sea.
The point was to take away Russia's only naval port that doesn't freeze up in winter. So they wouldn't have an effective naval port. That's Russia's accusation, and I'm inclined to believe this one.
Why should we care? The Black Sea is still land locked, and the Russians need the permission of the Turks to move their ships through the Bosphorus into the Mediteranean The Russians could start burning more coal and contributing to the greenhouse effect so they could melt the ice caps, maybe then they'll have more warm water ports.
Russia tried to join NATO when the rest of the Warsaw Pact did. They were refused. So the Cold War didn't end, it didn't become one world with nothing but commerce. That's what everyone wants. But certain individuals wanted to continue to treat Russia has an opponent, so Russia was excluded. They had to build a sphere of influence. Just for their own self-defence.
I have to ask, when did Germany join NATO? Germany wasn't allowed to join NATO immediately either, and the reason Russia wasn't admitted is because NATO exists because of Russia, we had to wait to see what kind of country is has become, unfortunately it is not much different, less ideological, but the overall power structure and imperial ambitions are much the same. NATO basically is a collection of countries that don't want to be conquered by Russia, that is NATOs main purpose, and in fact many liberals were questioning whether NATO should be dissolved since the Soviet Union no longer exists, however the recent events in the Ukraine basically emphasize that the USSR was never more than a façade of the Russian Empire trying to grab more territory anyway. Kruschev awarded land to Ukraine because it didn't matter anyway, it was part of their country and that means part of Russia, even you say that. Russia wanted the Crimea back even though technically it was part of the Ukraine since Kruschev gave it to them, by taking it back, the Russians have undermined the legitimacy of what the Soviet Union did, therefore the USSR was not a real country, it was only a mask for Russia.
Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2014-06-14 08:40:26)
Offline
The Roman empire was likely the result of peoples who entered from Central Asia, which was the center of the Indo-European zone at that time. So success in Republics might be influenced by that process. They in fact were neither Western or Eastern. When the process became less influenced by Asia, it then degenerated.
The Romans like the Greeks before them became less and less a fraction of the population and instead became landlords, and imported labor from various places, for the part that we descend from they got them from Northern Europe. The Romans and those they allowed into their club became useless, only collecting "Rents". They abandoned their Gods and became their own highest power (They should have had AA). Their women stopped having children, and the men became more interested in boys. It is a form of self worship, where an older man has a psychic need to have a young boy in his life, to project himself into.
Anyway it was the same for the Greeks before them. The Spartans were still very good at fighting, but in the end they did not have enough Spartans to fight off the opposing armies.
When Europeans came to the Eastern locations of this country, they encountered a culture not that unlike some in East Asia. Further, a distance of time an space made it possible to diverge from the European cultures. Some of those cultures had flirted with representative government, and of those, the British who were also encountering contact from East Asia were more that way. With the exception of Iceland perhaps the more advanced in it. The Arctic ocean is by population more related to East Asia than to the Romans.
So yes when our government was set up, there were camps which wanted to be a Roman Empire, but there was equally an influence from the local culture. And so it remains. But now because the latest arrivals tried to make us too Roman, the situation is responding by the reemergence of East Asia.
There is the Roman "West" and the Atlantic West. I am an Atlantic Westerner, but I value what the heritage of Rome has to offer.
As for the Russians, see it from their view. They abut some of the old civilizations that are degenerate, and they abut some of the Atlantic cultures which are relatively new. Our leadership came there with their out of balance time sensitive success story from here and tried to impose it on them. The cloths did not fit them well, and they would rather wear something more comfortable that will suit the climate that they live in.
Having said that I would not hesitate to say that their are major trust issues. If they become too full of themselves they will in turn try to make us wear cloths that do not suit our situation.
And I might hope that they will not squander their energy on useless retaliations, or silly adventures that will gain them nothing in the end.
As for America, actually we are just were we want to be. Soon we will have reasonable means to counter the excessive resort to archaic Roman methods that have overly been imposed on us.
Done.
Offline
Romans kept the peace and order, Christians could travel around the Empire and spread their message without worrying about bandits. They made accommodations for many different belief systems.
They tried to stamp out Christianity like a bug. Christians had to worship in hidden underground rooms. Usually holding service in crypts, with dead bodies. They didn't "accommodate" Christians, rather Christianity was viewed as a cult.
you are expressing is your wishes, you want this to be the end of the American Republic, many others are as "concerned" as you are, but unlike you instead of consigning the United States to the dustbin of history, we want to do something about it, that is the Tea Party
The Tea Party has some good things. It is grass-roots, built from members rather than top-down from some leader/dictator. It has policies built by members. All that's good. But mixed with that are all sorts of ridiculous right-wing crap.
I'm trying to have impact on my own country: Canada. I'm also trying to give advice to my neighbours to the south: America. Actually, I did live and work in the US for a while. I worked in Colonial Heights, Virginia, and had an apartment just 20 minute drive away in Chester, both are suburbs of Richmond, Virginia. That was 6 months in 1997. And I lived in Miami, Florida, for 10 months from June 1999 through end of March 2000. But the work visa that let me live there was deliberately set to expire when my work contract did. So the department of Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS) ensured that I went back to Canada. I wasn't allowed to stay. The culture sure felt different, the US is not Canada. Some times I would like to move to the US, the south is warm, Winnipeg is damn cold in winter. And if I was a landed immigrant, then I could apply for NASA small business contracts. But I would require an employer to do that. To enter the US on my own, to move a business to the US, I would require US$10 million. If I had that much money, I would stay wherever I had earned it. And although I loved the weather in Miami, certain individuals did not make me feel welcome. I would have to find somewhere I fit in.
Oh come on, you sound like Democratic talking points
You realize I'm a card-carrying member of the Liberal Party of Canada. I'm a past president of the federal electoral district where I live. And I got the nomination as candidate for the 2008 federal election. But the Liberal Party disallowed my nomination, and replaced me a week and a half into the election campaign period.
In 2007, the Canada Revenue Agency had garnisheed my wages. My employer required me to resign within an hour of getting that garnishee notice. He didn't fire me, that would have gotten him in trouble with the courts. They did this despite the fact CRA had already provided a formal written assessment confirming how much money they owed me as a tax refund. It took years to get that resolved. Turned out they counted all the income of my previous tax return twice, claiming I earned twice the income. And in January of 2008, the credit card division of the bank closed all my bank accounts, and tried to repossess my house. Despite the fact I don't have a mortgage. The bank branch manager was on my side, and explicitly ordered the bank lawyer to cease and desist. But he refused. That took a couple years to resolve. The lawyer played games to ensure I couldn't appear in court to defend myself. The so called "settlement" was I paid 100% of every last penny I owed the bank, according to statements I got from the bank. I didn't pay any of their legal expenses, they didn't pay mine, and most importantly I didn't pay any of the additional money the lawyer tried to defraud out of me. The bank branch manager also explicitly forbade him from trying to charge me that money, but again the lawyer ignored her. I knew the Party would disallow my nomination over all this, but I asked the party for help years before the election. The party refused to lift a finger. I'm rather pissed-off that the Party refused to do anything, then disallowed my nomination. The individual who replaced me got the worst election result of any Liberal candidate for my electoral district ever. I checked all they way back to Confederation. That means when Canada became a country: July 1, 1867. For the 2011 election, someone manipulated the nomination process so a beautiful woman could get the nomination, prevented me or anyone else from even running. She doesn't live in our electoral district (the Canadian term is "riding"), and never worked any election campaign. No one even saw her before. I was still electoral district president, but some powerful people in the party overruled me. She was nominated 2 full years before the 2011 election, so had plenty of time to build a political base. She did even worse than the candidate who replaced me. She set a new all time low. Hopefully the Party claims it has learned, that it won't hand-pick candidates, instead let electoral district associations chose their own candidates. But the manipulation continues. Politics inside the Party is extremely messy.
I have noticed that members of the Republican Party do not understand what it means to be "liberal". They use the word "liberal" as a curse word. The last time the Liberal Party of Canada was government of Canada, what they did was reduce the number of individuals hired in the federal civil service (yes, reduced government), reduce spending, eliminated the deficit, established a surplus they used to reduce the debt, and reduced taxes. They abolished federal individual surtax, reduced federal personal income tax, reduced federal corporate income tax, abolished federal corporate capital tax, and stated their intent to abolish federal corporate surtax, but as of the election of 2006 they were in the process of abolishing capital tax. They weren't in power long enough to abolish corporate surtax. Not what you expect from a "Liberal" party, is it?
The fact is if Canada had 316 million people and the same standard of living it has now, Canada would be a superpower.
Canada believes in respecting other countries. We don't throw our weight around. Although we do help where we can. We certainly don't send covert ops units or drones to assassinate (murder) individuals.
That is a very superficial reading of history, Lee Harvey Oswald didn't overthrow the Republic, he only killed its President, the Republic was never dependent on one man, that is a sign of a dictatorship.
Many people believe the conspiracy that the CIA was behind the assassination. Some claim it was the mob. Remember the mob had funded JFK's election campaign, so when his brother Bobby went after then, they thought their own man was backstabbing them. But the CIA is prohibited from action inside the US, so the CIA at the time hired the mob to assassinate individuals they didn't like inside the US. So did the CIA and the mob work together?
I think Obama will be impeached if the Republicans take the Senate.
No need. Next presidential election is 2016. Just wait.
most of the land the United States grabbed was empty territory
So why does the United States care what happened in Iraq on Friday? If Iraq is not seen as a conquered vassal state, then why does the US care?
we delined the opportunity to absorb the rest of Mexico with the Mexican-American war
The United States had greatly weakened its own military with the failed attempt to conquer and annex Canada in 1812. By the way, I'm told that American history teaches you the US won that war. You didn't. The US tried to annex Canada, and failed. At that time Canada was still a colony of Britain, and it wasn't too long after the War of Independence, so Britain was willing to go another round. Canadian militia defended Canadian territory while British troops counter-attacked deep within the US. The result was the US failed to conquer a single square inch of Canadian territory. And Canadian troops conquered what was then the small town of Detroit. As part of the ceasefire, Britain ordered Canada to give Detroit back.
Our military is a much smaller percentage of our economy than it was during World War II or the 1950s
The last year the US had a balanced budget was year 2000. Total military spending that year was $288 billion. According to the website of the Congressional Budget Office. It's drastically bloated now.
RobertDyck wrote:Today America is waging war with the entire planet.
Seriously man, the United States has the ability to blow up every major city on the planet, are their mushroom clouds going up in your neighborhood?
No, if they did then you would see mushroom clouds over US cities. America has the largest, most powerful military of any single nation on the planet. But even the US might is small compared to everyone else combined.
And again, my city is a Russian target. According to the Canadian lieutenant I spoke with in 1977. And since we're on the way to North Dakota, I believe it. I don't want a mushroom cloud rising from my home.
So you are basically saying you don't want me to do well, because I am an American citizen ad you want my children to starve and beg in the street and you want a lot of other Americans to do the same.
No, you are the one who claimed that worldwide Freedom and Liberty could not exist until America becomes a Third World nation. I don't want America to do poorly, but there's no excuse for killing people in other countries.
Why should we care? The Black Sea is still land locked, and the Russians need the permission of the Turks to move their ships through the Bosphorus into the Mediteranean
Try telling the Russian navy that they can't leave port without permission of the Turks. Good luck with that.
NATO basically is a collection of countries that don't want to be conquered by Russia, that is NATOs main purpose, and in fact many liberals were questioning whether NATO should be dissolved since the Soviet Union no longer exists
I was one of them.
recent events in the Ukraine basically emphasize that the USSR was never more than a façade of the Russian Empire trying to grab more territory anyway. Kruschev awarded land to Ukraine because it didn't matter anyway, it was part of their country and that means part of Russia, even you say that. Russia wanted the Crimea back even though technically it was part of the Ukraine since Kruschev gave it to them, by taking it back, the Russians have undermined the legitimacy of what the Soviet Union did, therefore the USSR was not a real country, it was only a mask for Russia.
All that's true, but I wouldn't conclude "the USSR was not a real country". It was the Russian empire. I was a young child during the "Flower Power" movement. I was too young them, but still believe in peace. We need Russia to become part of the world economy. But to do that, stop trying to take things from them. They've been cut-off, treated as a threat, while all their former allies and parts of their own economy are taken by NATO.
I would like to treat Russia as a friend. I would be willing to buy Russia goods. Of course I would evaluate each product on it's merit and price, but I would look at Russian goods the same as goods from anywhere else. And I have profiles on a few dating websites. One is set up for Westerners to date women from former Soviet countries. That one is set up so women can send me messages, but I can't respond until I pay. I've received hundreds of messages from lovely women from Ukraine. I used to get a few from other Soviet countries, but I noticed since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, all are now from women in Ukraine. And pictures look like they're taken by a professional photographer. Are they trying to find a way to get out? A lovely women in her 20s? Willing to have a child, start a family? Woo hoo!
Offline
this conversation is getting weird, even for me.
Offline
Well, I would not expose such personal details to those I do not trust willingly at all, but I did encounter a White Russian female at a place to eat. Boy was she a cutie. And then she waved to me as I left. Can't forget something like that. But in the end I consider that their is a limit to my foolishness. But yes what a seemingly wonderful person. Does that bother you? Don't let it bother you.
Done.
Offline
Tom Kalbfus wrote:Romans kept the peace and order, Christians could travel around the Empire and spread their message without worrying about bandits. They made accommodations for many different belief systems.
They tried to stamp out Christianity like a bug. Christians had to worship in hidden underground rooms. Usually holding service in crypts, with dead bodies. They didn't "accommodate" Christians, rather Christianity was viewed as a cult.
Look at it from their point of view, Romans routinely adopt the gods of those cultures they conquer, they built temples to them, and all they asked was those cultures respect their gods in turn, it was a matter of courtesy and good manners. Then came the Jews and the Christians shouting that their Roman gods didn't exist, imagine how offended the Romans were. Romans were actually open to many new gods and they added them to their pantheon when they expanded their Empire, Romans had difficulty dealing with Monotheism, which denied that the Roman gods exist, so are you really that surprised that Christians and Jews weren't popular? The Romans were th one society in the ancient world that most closely resembled the United States, with cosmopolitian societies, not the intolerant creeds of Islam or Communism that came later. Romans didn't tell theisubjects how to think, they only required that they pay taxes and give proper respect to their Emperor and their Roman Gods, they did after all conquer them, and that in the Roman mind meant that the Roman gods must have been stronger.
Tom Kalbfus wrote:you are expressing is your wishes, you want this to be the end of the American Republic, many others are as "concerned" as you are, but unlike you instead of consigning the United States to the dustbin of history, we want to do something about it, that is the Tea Party
The Tea Party has some good things. It is grass-roots, built from members rather than top-down from some leader/dictator. It has policies built by members. All that's good. But mixed with that are all sorts of ridiculous right-wing crap.
Such as?
I'm trying to have impact on my own country: Canada. I'm also trying to give advice to my neighbours to the south: America. Actually, I did live and work in the US for a while. I worked in Colonial Heights, Virginia, and had an apartment just 20 minute drive away in Chester, both are suburbs of Richmond, Virginia. That was 6 months in 1997. And I lived in Miami, Florida, for 10 months from June 1999 through end of March 2000. But the work visa that let me live there was deliberately set to expire when my work contract did. So the department of Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS) ensured that I went back to Canada. I wasn't allowed to stay. The culture sure felt different, the US is not Canada. Some times I would like to move to the US, the south is warm, Winnipeg is damn cold in winter. And if I was a landed immigrant, then I could apply for NASA small business contracts. But I would require an employer to do that. To enter the US on my own, to move a business to the US, I would require US$10 million. If I had that much money, I would stay wherever I had earned it. And although I loved the weather in Miami, certain individuals did not make me feel welcome. I would have to find somewhere I fit in.
Tom Kalbfus wrote:Oh come on, you sound like Democratic talking points
You realize I'm a card-carrying member of the Liberal Party of Canada.
Which isn't an American Party, its members don't run against Republicans. I don't get too involved in Canadian Politics either, if they do something stupid, well its their country to do something stupid with, it doesn't affect me, so I don't get involved, if they say a lot of anti-American things, then I get offended, because what did we do to you? You let us run our country the way we like, and we'll let you run yours.
I'm a past president of the federal electoral district where I live. And I got the nomination as candidate for the 2008 federal election. But the Liberal Party disallowed my nomination, and replaced me a week and a half into the election campaign period.
In 2007, the Canada Revenue Agency had garnisheed my wages. My employer required me to resign within an hour of getting that garnishee notice. He didn't fire me, that would have gotten him in trouble with the courts. They did this despite the fact CRA had already provided a formal written assessment confirming how much money they owed me as a tax refund. It took years to get that resolved. Turned out they counted all the income of my previous tax return twice, claiming I earned twice the income. And in January of 2008, the credit card division of the bank closed all my bank accounts, and tried to repossess my house. Despite the fact I don't have a mortgage. The bank branch manager was on my side, and explicitly ordered the bank lawyer to cease and desist. But he refused. That took a couple years to resolve. The lawyer played games to ensure I couldn't appear in court to defend myself. The so called "settlement" was I paid 100% of every last penny I owed the bank, according to statements I got from the bank. I didn't pay any of their legal expenses, they didn't pay mine, and most importantly I didn't pay any of the additional money the lawyer tried to defraud out of me. The bank branch manager also explicitly forbade him from trying to charge me that money, but again the lawyer ignored her. I knew the Party would disallow my nomination over all this, but I asked the party for help years before the election. The party refused to lift a finger. I'm rather pissed-off that the Party refused to do anything, then disallowed my nomination. The individual who replaced me got the worst election result of any Liberal candidate for my electoral district ever. I checked all they way back to Confederation. That means when Canada became a country: July 1, 1867. For the 2011 election, someone manipulated the nomination process so a beautiful woman could get the nomination, prevented me or anyone else from even running. She doesn't live in our electoral district (the Canadian term is "riding"), and never worked any election campaign. No one even saw her before. I was still electoral district president, but some powerful people in the party overruled me. She was nominated 2 full years before the 2011 election, so had plenty of time to build a political base. She did even worse than the candidate who replaced me. She set a new all time low. Hopefully the Party claims it has learned, that it won't hand-pick candidates, instead let electoral district associations chose their own candidates. But the manipulation continues. Politics inside the Party is extremely messy.
I have noticed that members of the Republican Party do not understand what it means to be "liberal". They use the word "liberal" as a curse word. The last time the Liberal Party of Canada was government of Canada, what they did was reduce the number of individuals hired in the federal civil service (yes, reduced government), reduce spending, eliminated the deficit, established a surplus they used to reduce the debt, and reduced taxes. They abolished federal individual surtax, reduced federal personal income tax, reduced federal corporate income tax, abolished federal corporate capital tax, and stated their intent to abolish federal corporate surtax, but as of the election of 2006 they were in the process of abolishing capital tax. They weren't in power long enough to abolish corporate surtax. Not what you expect from a "Liberal" party, is it?
Its what happens when people who call themselves liberals try to increase taxes and expand he size of government, while also sympathizing with America's enemies, they basically redefined the meaning of the word Liberal in this country.
Tom Kalbfus wrote:The fact is if Canada had 316 million people and the same standard of living it has now, Canada would be a superpower.
Canada believes in respecting other countries. We don't throw our weight around. Although we do help where we can. We certainly don't send covert ops units or drones to assassinate (murder) individuals.
I think our military is appropriate for a country of 316 million people with a per capita income of $50,000 each, it doesn't seem reasonable to expect that we should limit our expenditures to what Canada can afford, when we can afford much more. You know as an analogy, the more gold in Fort Knox the more security the place needs. Our GDP and our resources is our gold, and if we don't invest an amount proportional to our wealth, we are actually encouraging an attack.
Tom Kalbfus wrote:That is a very superficial reading of history, Lee Harvey Oswald didn't overthrow the Republic, he only killed its President, the Republic was never dependent on one man, that is a sign of a dictatorship.
Many people believe the conspiracy that the CIA was behind the assassination. Some claim it was the mob. Remember the mob had funded JFK's election campaign, so when his brother Bobby went after then, they thought their own man was backstabbing them. But the CIA is prohibited from action inside the US, so the CIA at the time hired the mob to assassinate individuals they didn't like inside the US. So did the CIA and the mob work together?
So JFK one day got up, feeling depressed and called the CIA chief and said, "I'll be in Dallas this morning, I want you to send someone to kill me!" Lee Harvey Oswald was a communist, he hated America and he hated its President, like many liberals do today, the only difference is, he picked up a gun and decided to do something about it.
Tom Kalbfus wrote:I think Obama will be impeached if the Republicans take the Senate.
No need. Next presidential election is 2016. Just wait.
The Democrats didn't want to wait til 1976 when Watergate happened, and Obama has multiple "Watergates" all happening at once, if only one "Watergate" is justification to impeach Nixon, how can we do any less for Obama? Anyway I woul like him to stop wrecking the economy and out foreign policy, and if we don't have to have him for another two years, then why should we?
Tom Kalbfus wrote:most of the land the United States grabbed was empty territory
So why does the United States care what happened in Iraq on Friday? If Iraq is not seen as a conquered vassal state, then why does the US care?
Because American lives and limbs have been lost trying to train these damn idiots who deserted! They were trained for 13 years, Most Americans don't need 13 years of basic training to learn how to be soldiers, but I guess Iraqis are drooling idiots, though the trainers were convinced they trained them and they learned, but apparently they did not! If Iraqis are such cowards, then we should remove any Iraqi-Americans from the US Military, because apparently they can't be trained and are not reliable a bunch of "Bowe Bergdahls", we don't need anymore people like that in our military, the soldiers that want to fight for their country deserve better.
Tom Kalbfus wrote:we delined the opportunity to absorb the rest of Mexico with the Mexican-American war
The United States had greatly weakened its own military with the failed attempt to conquer and annex Canada in 1812.
That was a long long time ago under the President James Madison, James Madison was one of those Demnocrats that didn't trust Federal Power and didn't want a standing Army, therefore those troops were State Militias that were put together for the purpose of invading Canada, therefore amatures, and they went up against a professional British Army, and usually the professionals win, the American Revolution not withstanding. The French helped close the deal in the American Revolution, the wanted to use the American Revolution as a weapon against the British and helped the United States of America to come into being, and the French have regretted it ever since, they perhaps thought that America would just fall apart, and we disappointed them! So in a way, France created this Superpower that we are!
By the way, I'm told that American history teaches you the US won that war. You didn't. The US tried to annex Canada, and failed. At that time Canada was still a colony of Britain, and it wasn't too long after the War of Independence, so Britain was willing to go another round. Canadian militia defended Canadian territory while British troops counter-attacked deep within the US. The result was the US failed to conquer a single square inch of Canadian territory. And Canadian troops conquered what was then the small town of Detroit. As part of the ceasefire, Britain ordered Canada to give Detroit back.
Andrew Jackson, defeated the British in the battle of New Orleans however, that British defeat helped put Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill, and it made him President as the first President that called himself a Democrat, he was a populist who was suspicious of federal power, I wonder what he would have thought of a President of his same party that looks like one of his slaves?
Tom Kalbfus wrote:Our military is a much smaller percentage of our economy than it was during World War II or the 1950s
The last year the US had a balanced budget was year 2000. Total military spending that year was $288 billion. According to the website of the Congressional Budget Office. It's drastically bloated now.
And how much has American spent this year on the military after adjusting for inflation? Was it more or less than the year 2000. Look it up!
Tom Kalbfus wrote:
RobertDyck wrote:Today America is waging war with the entire planet.
Seriously man, the United States has the ability to blow up every major city on the planet, are their mushroom clouds going up in your neighborhood?
No, if they did then you would see mushroom clouds over US cities. America has the largest, most powerful military of any single nation on the planet. But even the US might is small compared to everyone else combined.
It is big enough to nuke everybody if that is what it wanted, so if America was at war with the rest of the World literally, that is what it would mean.
And again, my city is a Russian target. According to the Canadian lieutenant I spoke with in 1977. And since we're on the way to North Dakota, I believe it. I don't want a mushroom cloud rising from my home.
Do you think your city still is a Russian Target? Remember those two Russian bombers that were found 50 miles out from the California coast? What were they training for? Were they doing trail runs to kill millions of American citizens that never did them any harm? Why would they do that? Do you suppose if any of those bomber pilots were to find themselves at home on Moscow for instance and they saw an American tourist waiting for a subway train, would the Russian bomber give that tourist a shove so he falls down on the tracks just before the train arrives, so it doesn't have time to stop and horrible mangles the poor American tourist, imagine the scene, a bunch of Russians scream at the horrible sight, the police arrest the bomber pilot and when asked why he did it, he gives a maniacal smile and says that he was trained to kill Americans, and he just couldn't resist the opportunity in this case.
Tom Kalbfus wrote:So you are basically saying you don't want me to do well, because I am an American citizen ad you want my children to starve and beg in the street and you want a lot of other Americans to do the same.
No, you are the one who claimed that worldwide Freedom and Liberty could not exist until America becomes a Third World nation. I don't want America to do poorly, but there's no excuse for killing people in other countries.
Tom Kalbfus wrote:Why should we care? The Black Sea is still land locked, and the Russians need the permission of the Turks to move their ships through the Bosphorus into the Mediteranean
Try telling the Russian navy that they can't leave port without permission of the Turks. Good luck with that.
Well how else could they get out of the Black Sea, there is no other way other than going through Turkish territorial waters, the Black Sea is in many ways similar to America's Great Lakes, that are nestled in between the US and Canada. If the United States had a naval base on one of those Great Lakes, what could Russia do about it? What are the chances of Russia denying is the ability to build a naval base on the Great Lakes so crusers and destroyers can cruise on Lake Superior? Would it be useful for us to have the USS Ronald Reagan out on the Great Lakes? What is the strategic value of the Great LAkes, can we attack anyone other than Canada from them? the Black Sea is similar to the Great Lakes in that respect, also US ships can't get out of the Great Lakes without going through Canada, not unless they are small enough to do down the Erie Canal.
Tom Kalbfus wrote:NATO basically is a collection of countries that don't want to be conquered by Russia, that is NATOs main purpose, and in fact many liberals were questioning whether NATO should be dissolved since the Soviet Union no longer exists
I was one of them.
And what do you think now? Are you glad we didn't get rid of NATO? NATO has a new purpose, Vladimir Putin has seen to that, I think in time he will come to regret it.
Tom Kalbfus wrote:recent events in the Ukraine basically emphasize that the USSR was never more than a façade of the Russian Empire trying to grab more territory anyway. Kruschev awarded land to Ukraine because it didn't matter anyway, it was part of their country and that means part of Russia, even you say that. Russia wanted the Crimea back even though technically it was part of the Ukraine since Kruschev gave it to them, by taking it back, the Russians have undermined the legitimacy of what the Soviet Union did, therefore the USSR was not a real country, it was only a mask for Russia.
All that's true, but I wouldn't conclude "the USSR was not a real country". It was the Russian empire.
Well the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" was not what it was, it was not a Union, its members did not voluntarily join, in the same respect that the Warsaw Pact was not an alliance, its members didn't voluntarily join either, NATO on the other had is an alliance, all of its members voluntarily joined and any member can voluntarily pull out, like France did, any time it wants, and what keeps NATO around is Russia, it is true that if Russia was really peaceful, such as Post World War II Germany for instance, there would be no reason for NATO and it would eventually dissolve, but it would have taken time to come to that conclusion, and Putin did not give it enough time, so the leaders of NATO really ought to thank Putin for giving the organization a new purpose. I also hear that Putin sent George H. W. Bush a birthday greeting card, Putin has been helping the Republican Party as of late by making Obama look weak, I wonder if that was his intent?
I was a young child during the "Flower Power" movement. I was too young them, but still believe in peace. We need Russia to become part of the world economy. But to do that, stop trying to take things from them. They've been cut-off, treated as a threat, while all their former allies and parts of their own economy are taken by NATO.
Well the Russians are a threat, it is up to the Russians not o be a threat, just like it was up to the Germans not to be a threat. The Germans haven't been a threat since World War II, the Russians unfortunately are like the German before World War II, they haven't learned the lessons Germany has learned, I'm sure Putin has studied World War II, he didn't like being compared to Hitler for instance, do you think he realizes that he's doing stuff that is similar to what Hitler did in the later 1930s. Do you think he can look up what happened to Czechoslovakia in 1938?
I would like to treat Russia as a friend. I would be willing to buy Russia goods. Of course I would evaluate each product on it's merit and price, but I would look at Russian goods the same as goods from anywhere else. And I have profiles on a few dating websites. One is set up for Westerners to date women from former Soviet countries. That one is set up so women can send me messages, but I can't respond until I pay. I've received hundreds of messages from lovely women from Ukraine. I used to get a few from other Soviet countries, but I noticed since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, all are now from women in Ukraine. And pictures look like they're taken by a professional photographer. Are they trying to find a way to get out? A lovely women in her 20s? Willing to have a child, start a family? Woo hoo!
Yes, I met a lovely woman from the Ukraine too, but I was already married to a Polish woman, actually she was second or third generation Ukrainian, I noticed her unusual name and asked her about that. I don't want a tidal wave of Ukrainian boat people, I also don't want Ukrainians being sent to labor camps in Siberia, I think they have their own country and they deserve to keep it, and no one should force them to be neutral or join any alliances or anything like that, an I don't expect Ukrainians to love Russia for what the did in Crimea either, would you?
Offline
Well, I would not expose such personal details to those I do not trust willingly at all, but I did encounter a White Russian female at a place to eat. Boy was she a cutie. And then she waved to me as I left. Can't forget something like that. But in the end I consider that their is a limit to my foolishness. But yes what a seemingly wonderful person. Does that bother you? Don't let it bother you.
There are a lot of pretty Russian women, some of them are professional models and tennis players, I never disputed that. When I was a kid, I had some neighbors that came from Russia once, they were Jewish, the father was a Rabbi. I guess Russian Jews are a special category, much like German Jews. The Soviet Union wasn't kind to Jews.
Offline
The Roman empire was likely the result of peoples who entered from Central Asia, which was the center of the Indo-European zone at that time. So success in Republics might be influenced by that process. They in fact were neither Western or Eastern. When the process became less influenced by Asia, it then degenerated.
The Romans like the Greeks before them became less and less a fraction of the population and instead became landlords, and imported labor from various places, for the part that we descend from they got them from Northern Europe. The Romans and those they allowed into their club became useless, only collecting "Rents". They abandoned their Gods and became their own highest power (They should have had AA). Their women stopped having children, and the men became more interested in boys. It is a form of self worship, where an older man has a psychic need to have a young boy in his life, to project himself into.
Anyway it was the same for the Greeks before them. The Spartans were still very good at fighting, but in the end they did not have enough Spartans to fight off the opposing armies.
When Europeans came to the Eastern locations of this country, they encountered a culture not that unlike some in East Asia. Further, a distance of time an space made it possible to diverge from the European cultures. Some of those cultures had flirted with representative government, and of those, the British who were also encountering contact from East Asia were more that way. With the exception of Iceland perhaps the more advanced in it. The Arctic ocean is by population more related to East Asia than to the Romans.
So yes when our government was set up, there were camps which wanted to be a Roman Empire, but there was equally an influence from the local culture. And so it remains. But now because the latest arrivals tried to make us too Roman, the situation is responding by the reemergence of East Asia.
There is the Roman "West" and the Atlantic West. I am an Atlantic Westerner, but I value what the heritage of Rome has to offer.
As for the Russians, see it from their view. They abut some of the old civilizations that are degenerate, and they abut some of the Atlantic cultures which are relatively new. Our leadership came there with their out of balance time sensitive success story from here and tried to impose it on them. The cloths did not fit them well, and they would rather wear something more comfortable that will suit the climate that they live in.
Having said that I would not hesitate to say that their are major trust issues. If they become too full of themselves they will in turn try to make us wear cloths that do not suit our situation.
And I might hope that they will not squander their energy on useless retaliations, or silly adventures that will gain them nothing in the end.
As for America, actually we are just were we want to be. Soon we will have reasonable means to counter the excessive resort to archaic Roman methods that have overly been imposed on us.
It was the Roman Republic we took our example from, not its Empire. Russia on the other hand is descended from the late Roman Empire, the Eastern Empire also known as Byzantium, that is where they got their Christianity from. From the very beginning Russia has always tried to be an Empire and had little interest in being a Republic. The Roman Republic could have had a "George Washington" instead of a Julius Caesar, the old Republic just needed a little fixing, but Julius Caesar and Augustus weren't interested in fixing the Republic, they just wanted their Empire, and most Europeans who ever though of Rome thought of it in terms of its Empire rather than its Republic.
Offline
RobertDyck wrote:The Tea Party has some good things. But mixed with that are all sorts of ridiculous right-wing crap.
Such as?
Ending all forms of social assistance. Remember, you could be the next person to lose his job. I was a professional computer programmer. Then tried for politics. Someone pulled some nasty crap. I've been unemployed for a long time. I need help getting out of it, getting back on my feet. This could happen to you; or anyone. Social assistance isn't about life-long entitlement. It's about good Christian values: helping someone in need. Helping them get back on their feet so they can support themselves.
Its what happens when people who call themselves liberals try to increase taxes and expand he size of government, while also sympathizing with America's enemies, they basically redefined the meaning of the word Liberal in this country.
I just explained that Liberals believe in fiscal responsibility. That means reducing the size of government, reducing debt, and reducing taxes. At least the Liberal Party that I belong to.
Because American lives and limbs have been lost trying to train these damn idiots who deserted!
So you claim ownership over Iraq? You claim Iraq is a territory of the US because some American soldiers died? Uh huh. You realize that Russia will treat that as justification for their bad behaviour.
As for lives lost, many Americans said that would happen before they went in. After a number of lives lost, certain individuals argued they can't quit now. So the number of lives lost more than doubled. And again, and again. How many more lives will be lost? Business has a term for this: throwing good money after bad. But in this case it's American soldier lives. That makes it worse.
RobertDyck wrote:The last year the US had a balanced budget was year 2000. Total military spending that year was $288 billion. According to the website of the Congressional Budget Office. It's drastically bloated now.
And how much has American spent this year on the military after adjusting for inflation? Was it more or less than the year 2000. Look it up!
According to the US inflation calculator that works out to $396.50 billion today. What I'm saying is the US needs to restrict the total of all US military and national security spending to that figure. And to emphasize what I'm talking about: in year 2008 it was $700 billion, in 2009 it was $799 billion, and in 2010 (the first budget approved by Obama) it was $901 billion. For 2014 it's $647 billion. Well, that's a little better, but it's still not $396.5B.
(I have quoted these figures before.)
Do you think your city still is a Russian Target? Remember those two Russian bombers that were found 50 miles out from the California coast?
Actually, I don't remember. But I'm not surprised. Russia sends bombs to the Canadian arctic border quite often. Canadian CF-18 fighters escort them away.
Is Winnipeg still a target? Don't know. We have an air force base here, and used to have fighters specifically to intercept Russian Bear bombers. We don't have fighters any more, just cargo planes. The number of CF-18 squadrons was reduced. Now only based out of Cold Lake Alberta, and Bagotville Quebec. Bombing Winnipeg would cut off western Canada from eastern, and cut the central Canada rail link to the US, but that's all. There are rail links to the US at Vancouver and near Buffalo New York. Most importantly, we no longer have assets to intercept Bear bombers. Still, I don't want to risk it. Why poke the Russian Bear?
Offline
this conversation is getting weird, even for me.
Ok, let's keep it simple: War bad, peace good.
The only way peace can be achieved is if you respect your opponent. And don't take away his assents.
Offline
Sigh Tom Kalbfus. Again you are throwing around cliches that you obviously aren't up to scratch on.
The Jews had no more problems than anyone else in the USSR. Compared to how they had it in Imperial Russia, things got considerably better. If you look at famous Russians of the 20th century, probably half of them are actually Jews. They were equals in the USSR, in imperial Russia they had been outsiders and often persecuted. You probably don't recognise these famous names as Jewish, but if you care to look into it, that's what you'll find.
In the early days of the USSR, there was a Jewish soviet republic set up, out East, and Jews could move there if they wanted; Yiddish was the official language etc. Jews almost unanimously took advantage of free education and eventually they came to totally dominate academics to the point that it was getting a bit unbalanced. As of the 1960s or so, Jews were admitted per quota to certain universities. Nothing discriminatory against them in particular, everybody had their "nationality" in their passport and there was around 150 of which Jewish was one. That was just so others would have a chance to get in too, in numbers to represent the different nationalities in the country. Jews already dominated some of the most attractive professions. This was considered discrimination by some Jews, although those who were really good, obviously got in regardless. Or they could simply go to a less prestigious university.
Other than that they were a group who fared really well in the USSR and were not mistreated like some other groups were, by Stalin, Plenty of the top brass in the Communist party were Jews, and later during perestroika, Jews were the first to start businesses. Most of the modern day oligarchs in Russia, are Jewish. The Jews who left for Israel in the late 80s and 90s were not persecuted in the least - they just thought the grass was greener, and the USSR was in a bad shape. Being Jewish was their ticket out. That's all there was to it.
Last edited by martienne (2014-06-14 21:44:21)
Offline
Tom Kalbfus wrote:
RobertDyck wrote:The Tea Party has some good things. But mixed with that are all sorts of ridiculous right-wing crap.
Such as?
Ending all forms of social assistance. Remember, you could be the next person to lose his job. I was a professional computer programmer. Then tried for politics. Someone pulled some nasty crap. I've been unemployed for a long time. I need help getting out of it, getting back on my feet. This could happen to you; or anyone. Social assistance isn't about life-long entitlement. It's about good Christian values: helping someone in need. Helping them get back on their feet so they can support themselves.
Tom Kalbfus wrote:Its what happens when people who call themselves liberals try to increase taxes and expand he size of government, while also sympathizing with America's enemies, they basically redefined the meaning of the word Liberal in this country.
I just explained that Liberals believe in fiscal responsibility. That means reducing the size of government, reducing debt, and reducing taxes. At least the Liberal Party that I belong to.
Tom Kalbfus wrote:Because American lives and limbs have been lost trying to train these damn idiots who deserted!
So you claim ownership over Iraq? You claim Iraq is a territory of the US because some American soldiers died? Uh huh. You realize that Russia will treat that as justification for their bad behaviour.
We taught them to be loyal to their democratically elected government as all soldiers should be, and some smaller band of terrorists tell them to drop their weapons and they do, so I guess that lesson didn't take. So if there are any Iraqi-American Sunnis in the US Army, should they be kicked out, cause their comrades don't want them dropping their weapons every time a terrorist asks them too?
So poor ole Hassan, the second generation Iraqi-American gets drummed out of the military with the official explanation that Iraqis make lousy soldiers and do not obey the chain of command as proven by the Iraq war. So any Muslim in the US Army, especially Sunni Muslims will be viewed by other soldiers with suspicion, perhaps other soldiers won't want to serve with them because of that.
As for lives lost, many Americans said that would happen before they went in. After a number of lives lost, certain individuals argued they can't quit now. So the number of lives lost more than doubled. And again, and again. How many more lives will be lost? Business has a term for this: throwing good money after bad. But in this case it's American soldier lives. That makes it worse.
Maybe the Iraqi government would have been better off hiring Christian Mercenaries from Africa and granting them Iraqi citizenship when they serve, I'll bet they would be less likely t drop their weapons when a Muslim terrorist tells them too. Sometimes hiring the natives to fill the ranks of the Army is a bad idea, too many terrorist sympathizers. I also saw this coming, I didn't trust that Muslim Army, as Muslims do strange things when small bands of Islamic terrorists are around, A Christian army however would have been immune to their appeal, they would work for a paycheck, and if they are better armed and outnumber the terrorists, they would be happy to shoot them! The important thing about this war is that we learn how to handle Arab Muslims in the future. Number one, they always identify with their religion more that with their country, most Arabs have a weak sense of Nationalism and aren't very patriotic, at least in Iraq they are. Perhaps Iraq doesn't deserve to exist as its filled with unpatriotic people that don't even like their country, so they can become stateless refugees instead, and of course the Kurds will get their Kurdistan. And if the terrorists make any more terrorist attacks against us, they will get to know what its like to live in a warzone!
Tom Kalbfus wrote:RobertDyck wrote:The last year the US had a balanced budget was year 2000. Total military spending that year was $288 billion. According to the website of the Congressional Budget Office. It's drastically bloated now.
And how much has American spent this year on the military after adjusting for inflation? Was it more or less than the year 2000. Look it up!
According to the US inflation calculator that works out to $396.50 billion today. What I'm saying is the US needs to restrict the total of all US military and national security spending to that figure. And to emphasize what I'm talking about: in year 2008 it was $700 billion, in 2009 it was $799 billion, and in 2010 (the first budget approved by Obama) it was $901 billion. For 2014 it's $647 billion. Well, that's a little better, but it's still not $396.5B.
(I have quoted these figures before.)
Why then are we bringing the number of troops down to pre World War II levels I we are spending more, why are we reducing the number of Navy ships? are you sure the $647 billion is more money, it doesn't seem to buy as much? If we have fewer ships and are paying more for them, one has to wonder if that inflation adjustment is accurate, just saying. Also I don't mind paying more for the military if it prevents a war, and by war I mean a big war like World War II, not a piddling little war like Afghanistan. I'm willing to lose 3000 lives to save 250,000 in some future World War II like engagement. How many people did Canada lose in World War II?
[
Tom Kalbfus wrote:Do you think your city still is a Russian Target? Remember those two Russian bombers that were found 50 miles out from the California coast?
Actually, I don't remember. But I'm not surprised. Russia sends bombs to the Canadian arctic border quite often. Canadian CF-18 fighters escort them away.
I wonder what you did to make the Russians mad, do any other European countries send their bombers over to the Canadian Arctic, or is it just the Russians? For instance do German bombers often pay you a visit and need to be turned around by F18s? I always ask the question, why don't the Russians act like Germans? You never see the Germans doing the stuff the Russians are doing now, and we always have to convince the Germans to spend more on defense, the Russians seem to have no problem with spending more on defense. One way the Russians tend to stand out from other Europeans is they are the ones that are always rudely pointing weapons at you! So what happens when American astronauts meet up with their Russian counterparts, do the Russians point guns at the Americans as a form of greeting? Maybe its cultural thing that Russians always like to point weapons at people, just wondering. I wonder what would have happened if we allowed those Russian bombers to fly over Los Angles, we could talk to them over the radio saying, "Go ahead punk, make my day! There are a bunch of liberals in that city anyway, why do you want to kill them?"
Is Winnipeg still a target? Don't know. We have an air force base here, and used to have fighters specifically to intercept Russian Bear bombers. We don't have fighters any more, just cargo planes. The number of CF-18 squadrons was reduced. Now only based out of Cold Lake Alberta, and Bagotville Quebec. Bombing Winnipeg would cut off western Canada from eastern, and cut the central Canada rail link to the US, but that's all. There are rail links to the US at Vancouver and near Buffalo New York. Most importantly, we no longer have assets to intercept Bear bombers. Still, I don't want to risk it. Why poke the Russian Bear?
Actually if Russian Bear bombers are in Canadian Air/Space, they are poking you, they have no business being over there, and the reason they are over their is because the are practicing to kill millions of Canadian Citizens.
Do you know of any other European country that routinely practices to kill millions of Americans or Canadians? I'm beginning to think Russians really don't like California very much, they keep sending bombers over there.
Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2014-06-14 22:43:36)
Offline
Sigh Tom Kalbfus. Again you are throwing around cliches that you obviously aren't up to scratch on.
The Jews had no more problems than anyone else in the USSR. Compared to how they had it in Imperial Russia, things got considerably better. If you look at famous Russians of the 20th century, probably half of them are actually Jews. They were equals in the USSR, in imperial Russia they had been outsiders and often persecuted. You probably don't recognise these famous names as Jewish, but if you care to look into it, that's what you'll find.
What happened to poor Trotsky, he was Jewish I heard and Stalin ordered him killed. Also where did those Arab terrorists get all that Russian weapondry from? The Russians that sold it to them or gave it to them must have known it would have been used to kill Jews!
In the early days of the USSR, there was a Jewish soviet republic set up, out East, and Jews could move there if they wanted; Yiddish was the official language etc. Jews almost unanimously took advantage of free education and eventually they came to totally dominate academics to the point that it was getting a bit unbalanced. As of the 1960s or so, Jews were admitted per quota to certain universities. Nothing discriminatory against them in particular, everybody had their "nationality" in their passport and there was around 150 of which Jewish was one. That was just so others would have a chance to get in too, in numbers to represent the different nationalities in the country. Jews already dominated some of the most attractive professions. This was considered discrimination by some Jews, although those who were really good, obviously got in regardless. Or they could simply go to a less prestigious university.
How do you explain all the Russian Jews in Israel then, there do seem to be a disproportionate number of them as compared to those from other European countries such as France for instance.
Other than that they were a group who fared really well in the USSR and were not mistreated like some other groups were, by Stalin, Plenty of the top brass in the Communist party were Jews, and later during perestroika, Jews were the first to start businesses. Most of the modern day oligarchs in Russia, are Jewish. The Jews who left for Israel in the late 80s and 90s were not persecuted in the least - they just thought the grass was greener, and the USSR was in a bad shape. Being Jewish was their ticket out. That's all there was to it.
And what do you think of France's Role in helping the United States of America to come into existence? I suspect their motive was simply to hurt the British, not to create another Superpower, what do you think about that?
Offline
People are broken. They let their parts hang out, little bits and pieces. It's like a prism into the soul, letting you see all these itty bitty facets, a jumble billion million colors. I watch. You watch. Vampires all. But sometimes I get lost in the watching. I get caught up. I get angry. I get connected. And for one moment, before I realize it, I am sharing something. I feel dirty. You should too.
Tom, all that is holy, what the f*ck is your damage? Are you so far gone from the human race that you believe that your thoughts even begin to meet the criteria for "sane"? I am sad that you are literate. Sad that our economy allows you, one, to make enough money to access the internet, and two, provides you the leisure to access the internet. We are all poorer for our experience with you. Your views are just f*cking pathetic. Your command of the English language and history, a f*cking joke.
All of you, reading this, what the hell is wrong with you? Those of you engaging, why the f*ck to you debase yourself? What kind of sick prevision persists in your heart that makes you want to reach across the ether to try and connect with the likes of Tom? I get my malfunction- are you doing this for sport? Is this some kind of misguided penance for some wrong in your life?
I ask because you all seem so earnest. As if purposeful dialogue might result. It won't.
Robert, your life story is sad, and your personal description of Canadian politics plays like a bad conspiracy. I prefer to hear your thoughts on space exploration; you have always had some excellent views.
martienne, your analysis is usually good, but you've missed the mark with Russian jews. Large migrations of a particular group is not usually indicative of a positive environment in the home country. Your nationalism is showing.
Josh, resist the urge. I'm pretty much the only one here *trying* to stick to the topic of mars. or space. or the god-damn f*cking stars. Not sure what the f*ck everyone else's problem is.
Cheers,
Offline
Um, Energia would make a lovely rocket to go to Mars. Yes, Mars. Mars.
I joined the Mars Society in 1999. That's just one year after the founding. I bought "The Case for Mars" in spring of 1998. I read about the "Case for Mars" conventions, which were every 3rd year. The next was August of that same year. But I didn't have money to go. That turned into the founding convention of the Mars Society. If I went, I could have called myself a founding member. As it is, I joined one year later.
But that same book said that if a commercial corporation were to send a human mission to Mars, for example if the US government offered prize money to do so, then the company wouldn't build an American rocket. They would use the big Russian rocket: Energia. The book quoted a Stanford University study to estimate cost of that rocket: they estimated $300 million. The book said that would be a lot less expensive. When I joined the Mars Society, many members quoted that, said we should do that. After hearing this for years, I didn't hear anyone say they actually asked the Russians. So I asked if anyone had talked to them. I didn't get an answer, so I did. I talked to the American subsidiary of the Russian Rocket Space Corporation Energia. The individual I spoke with said NASA had contacted them "a few years ago", and they did a study to determine cost to restore infrastructure. They spent thousands of dollars on the study, but never got paid. And were upset at that. But the result of that study was between $60 million and $100 million US dollars to restore infrastructure. Plus per-launch cost. He also provided a fax number for their corporate head office, in a Korolev, a suburb of Moscow. I sent that fax. A couple months later I got an answer by email. The answer was in Russian, it took weeks to translate. The response was from the head of the International Division of RSC Energia. "RSC" stands for "Rocket Space Corporation", in Russian that is "NPO". The response did confirm the Energia rocket is available to anyone willing to pay for restoration of infrastructure, plus per-launch cost, but he didn't confirm any price. Then I discovered a NASA website that listed the cost for Energia at $120 million US dollars per launch, in 1994 dollars, including the Energia Upper Stage. Ah hah! That tells me when "a few years ago" was. These prices are exact, and to use a cliché, "directly from the horse's mouth". However, they were in 1994. Today it would cost more. But those prices are substantially less than the Stanford University estimate.
Robert Zubrin's book said Mars Direct would require 2 Ares rockets per mission, or 3 Energia. That's because the Ares that he and his partner designed was intended to lift the same mass as a Saturn V, but built of Space Shuttle parts. But Energia could lift 88 metric tonnes to 200km orbit without the upper stage. Today SLS is basically Ares. Ares was designed to have 4-segment SRBs and 5 Space Shuttle Main Engines. SLS has 5-segment SRBs, and 4 SSMEs. 4 and 5 vs 5 and 4; basically the same. SLS costs billions.
I really want to go to Mars. Energia is affordable. But the strap-on boosters for Energia are manufactured in East Ukraine. This isn't possible as long as the conflict between Ukraine and Russia continues.
Last edited by RobertDyck (2014-06-15 10:30:03)
Offline
Aren't your forgetting abut the Falcon Heavy?
Offline
Aren't your forgetting abut the Falcon Heavy?
Not big enough. You can't throw an ERV directly from surface of Earth to surface of Mars in one launch. At minimum, it would require on-orbit assembly, requiring 2 Falcon Heavy launches to replace each Energia.
Offline
Tom Kalbfus wrote:Aren't your forgetting abut the Falcon Heavy?
Not big enough. You can't throw an ERV directly from surface of Earth to surface of Mars in one launch. At minimum, it would require on-orbit assembly, requiring 2 Falcon Heavy launches to replace each Energia.
How about the Falcon XX Heavy which can launch 140 tons to low Earth orbit, more than the mass of the space shuttle?
Offline
Falcon X Heavy, or Falcon XX, would do the job. But they haven't been built, and no serious plans to do so. Elon Musk said he would build them if a paying customer wants them. No paying customer. The only American launch vehicle in development that's large enough is SLS. That is currently under development, but Boeing doesn't appear serious. They just want to scam the government for money. There's a good chance it'll be cancelled before completion.
Offline
Russians don't have Energias anymore that we have Saturn Vs. So you asking we help the Russians rebuild the Energia, we got the plans for the Saturn V, the SLS I basically an uprated Saturn V. Also neither the Energy nor Saturn or the SLS have lower stages that can land back on the pad. Energia is a throwaway rocket just like the Old Saturn, and I don't think Russian workers are that cheap, if they were, we'd be buying Russian cars. If you wanted to exploit cheap workers, I'd just give the plans of the Saturn V to the Chinese or perhaps the Indians. I'm sure either of those could build a Saturn class rocket.
Offline
You want another conspiracy theory? I talked on the phone to someone from Global Dynamics about satellite thrusters. He also claimed Energia was gone, could to be revived. I told him that it could. That I'm the one who talked to the Russians. And Russia maintained the Buran space shuttle orbiter in launch ready stated until ownership was handed over to Kazakhstan n January 1, 2000. They had Energia rocket stages in the vehicle assembly building, known as building #112 at the Baikonur Cosmodrome. The Russian military was worried the American Shuttle could capture Russian satellites, or an entire module of Mir. To counter that, the Russian shuttle Buran could be launched on 3 days notice. That's faster launch the American Shuttle. The guy from global Dynamics claimed the Russian Shuttle couldn't handle atmospheric entry well, it would have a problem with hot gasses infiltrating under heat shield tiles. I pointed out the website astronautix.com has documents obtained from Russia under their freedom of information act, while Boris Yeltsin was president. That website is owned and operated by a guy from Austria, and has documents on every rocket from every country. Russian documents on Buran said they ensured orientation of heat shield tiles so the Russian shuttle had less infiltration of hot gasses. The Russian shuttle could lift 30.0 metric tonnes to LEO, while the American shuttle could only lift 28.8 metric tonnes. Not much of a difference, but enough for a Russian politician to brag about. They did this with 4 engines instead of 3, which is a fairly cheap way of improving performance. And the Russians got 455 second specific impulse in vacuum, which was NASA's original requirements when they contracted Rockwell to develop the SSME. Rockwell only got the SSME to achieve 453 seconds. Again, not much of a difference, but the Russians could claim they achieved the requirement while Rockwell didn't. However, the Russians failed to get their main engine to be reusable. So they moved main engines to the under side of the external tank. That allowed Energia to be launched without an orbiter, and they did launch it that way once: the Polyus satellite. Again, I got information about that satellite from website astronautix.com. The guy at General Dynamics was familiar with Polyus. But moving the main engines allowed moving the OMS package in to where main engines were, eliminating the OMS bulge, making the orbiter a little more streamlined. The Buran had a better lift to drag ratio than the American Shuttle, so able to return slightly more weight to Earth. It's always hard to develop something new, easy to make a small improvement. So don't be surprised that the Russian shuttle was just a tiny bit improved.
And again, I'm the one who spoke with the director of the international division of RSC Energia. He confirmed that Energia is available to anyone willing to pay for restoration of certain elements of infrastructure, plus per-launch cost. He didn't confirm the price, but I found out they gave a price to NASA in 1994. I already quote that price, but during this conversation I told the guy from General Dynamics. The price was from 1994 so expect the price to be a little higher now (at the time of the phone conversation), but it can be revived. I also pointed out the rail lines from the vehicle assembly building to launch pad may look abandoned to American eyes, but they built it with concrete ties. They don't rot. There's weed growing between ties, but that can be fixed by a kid with a weed-whacker. Russian military airports often look abandoned to American eyes, even as they're still in operation. Russians build things robust.
The conspiracy theory is what happened next. That conversation was late year 2001. On April 25, 2002, about half a year later, the roof collapsed on the building #112. Was that an action by an American? Did my phone conversation spur a covert action? Hmmm.
If news articles are to be believed, it was just an accident. Russia sent commandoes to secure the site. They were worried it was terrorists. News articles said it wasn't terrorists, it was just incompetence. Workmen from Kazakhstan were re-doing the roof. They had a problem with theft from Baikonur, so stored 10 metric tonnes of roofing material on the flat roof. There was a rain storm overnight, while it was up there. The roof collapsed. I checked Russian news websites, using web translators to read the news in Russian. I don't read Russian, but can use translation websites. News intended for domestic consumption, not intended for an international audience, stated several days after the commandoes went in, they found bodies of the workmen in the rubble. Not right away, but days after the commandoes arrived. I don't believe the workmen were in the building or on the roof at the time it collapsed. Commandoes killed them, then placed the bodies in the rubble.
But here's a second and more dire conspiracy theory. Was it just an accident, or did my telephone conversation spur a convert action?
If any Russians are reading this: I do want to use Energia to go to Mars. I talked to General Dynamics about a thruster they made. A thruster I wanted for a Mars Society robotic mission to Mars. Robert Zubrin didn't approve that mission, but that was the purpose for the call. And I don't remember the name of the guy I spoke with, but the company was General Dynamics.
Offline
If World War II went the other way, would you want to do Mars missions with the Nazis? Or would your prefer not to work with them, even if they did have an excellent rocket?
Offline
Don't start again Tom.
Offline
I don't think there is a substantial moral difference between Nazis and Communists. The only difference is the Communists have better P.R. Communists want to eliminate a certain class of people rather than a "Race" as the Nazis do, so any rich people just have to make themselves poor to get the Communists to leave them alone! Of course if they make themselves poor, society becomes poorer and some people will starve.
Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2014-06-17 03:42:39)
Offline
Your, um, analogy would be more accurate if you were talking about the Nazis winning the war, then the Third Reich falling sometime in the 80s, and then refusing to do missions with Germany.
Or, perhaps, using Nazi rockets in your own space program. But the US would never stoop that low.
Use what is abundant and build to last
Online