Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bruce Springsteen tells Australian fans he is ashamed to be American

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
    He also boycotted North Carolina because of its potty policy.

    This is what he didn't boycott

    I always thought he was a puissant, now he's definitely proved it. He doesn't need to come home.
    We are not now that strength which in old days
    Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
    Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
    To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
      How do you figure that ?

      "Western Civilisation" was built on state debt,

      even so most existing nation states don't even come close to the debt level that is considered "normal" for an individual or a commercial company.
      It is true that public debt played a significant role in the success of Rome. The same debt however helped to destroy it when it became disconnected from real increases in productivity.

      Some estimates put derivatives at a hundred times the total real wealth of Western Nations. This process is analogous to the reduction in silver content in Roman coinage used to feed the growing demand for bread and circus.
      We hunt the hunters

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
        The very meaning of the word "Bolshevik" is "majority"
        Originally posted by Gooner View Post
        Bolsheviks were a majority only of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party.
        Ahem. While "Bolshevik" does indeed mean "the majority faction", they were in fact only a minority of the Russian Social Democratic Party (RSDP). Lenin's group absconded with the title "Bolsheviks" after they engineered the departure of the actual majority faction led by Martov from the meeting hall during the 1903 RSDP congress. And the Bolsheviks remained a minority right up to and including the Bolshevik revolution. Hence, Bolshevik rule did not imply "majority rule" - just the opposite. It meant minority rule. Majority rule in 1917 would have meant rule by the Socialist Revolutionary Party - essentially the party of the peasants.
        Last edited by Skoblin; 08 Feb 17, 07:38.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by sebfrench76 View Post
          If nationalism and patriotism are the same for you , you should open an history book.
          "patriotism is the love for his country.
          Nationalism, it's the hate for the others"
          Romain Gary
          (french writer and navigator /bombardier on a FFF's B26 during ww2 , not really a leftist sissie ,if you know what I mean ?)
          Romain Gary, respect to him as an FFL bombardier notwithstanding, is woefully incorrect as to the difference between "patriotism" and "nationalism". The difference between these two terms has to do with the object of veneration. With "patriotism" it is the "patria" - the homeland, the country or even the empire (as far as the Romans were concerned). With "nationalism" it is the nation - the ethnic group. Obviously, when dealing with a nation-state these two terms can become conflated. Still, there is no fundamental connection with "hatred of others" in either term. One can be a nationalist yet not be hostile to other nations. One can be a patriot yet not be hostile to other countries. Hostility arises when either patriotism or nationalism becomes chauvinistic - the belief that one's country, nation or nation-state is superior to others, has certain fundamental rights over and above those of others, and even possesses some sort of mission or destiny which must be fulfilled - regardless of its impact upon outsiders.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
            How do you figure that ?

            "Western Civilisation" was built on state debt,

            even so most existing nation states don't even come close to the debt level that is considered "normal" for an individual or a commercial company.
            If anything if you mean the western economies, they were built on business. debt as well. Bankers lent merchants money in the 16th century to finance their businesses or have you never read Merchant of Venice?
            "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Surrey View Post
              If anything if you mean the western economies, they were built on business debt as well.
              And not just business debt. If consumer debt was outlawed, the entire economic system would likely crash.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Skoblin View Post
                Romain Gary, respect to him as an FFL bombardier notwithstanding, is woefully incorrect as to the difference between "patriotism" and "nationalism". The difference between these two terms has to do with the object of veneration. With "patriotism" it is the "patria" - the homeland, the country or even the empire (as far as the Romans were concerned). With "nationalism" it is the nation - the ethnic group. Obviously, when dealing with a nation-state these two terms can become conflated. Still, there is no fundamental connection with "hatred of others" in either term. One can be a nationalist yet not be hostile to other nations. One can be a patriot yet not be hostile to other countries.

                Well ,let's agree to disagree.
                That rug really tied the room together

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Surrey View Post
                  If anything if you mean the western economies, they were built on business. debt as well. Bankers lent merchants money in the 16th century to finance their businesses or have you never read Merchant of Venice?
                  Government debt is usually measured as a percentage of GNP.

                  If the same measure was applied to an individual it would mean you cannot borrow more than what you earn in one year.

                  No one would ever achieve anything if they did that.
                  Major Atticus Finch - ACW Rainbow Game.

                  Bolgios - Mercenary Game.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    And we, in turn, are ashamed to have to admit that Springsteen, who has made millions while an American, is actually really one of us. However, he does NOT represent us in any way.
                    Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                      And we, in turn, are ashamed to have to admit that Springsteen, who has made millions while an American, is actually really one of us. However, he does NOT represent us in any way.
                      I don't think anybody thinks his views are representative of anybody other than himself, but surely he's entitled to express them.
                      "I dogmatise and am contradicted, and in this conflict of opinions and sentiments I find delight".
                      Samuel Johnson.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        It's OK Brucie, We're ashamed of you too....
                        "A foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse." Ulysses S. Grant

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          I suddenly feel much better about having downloaded his music off of YouTube.
                          Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Did real wealth just disappear when the housing bubble burst or did it never exist in the first place? Eventually ponzi schemes catch up with reality and most people are left holding the bag. In the recent great recession private debt was translated into public debt and the creators of the fraudulent wealth escaped to do it all over again.

                            Some people think that returning to the gold standard would prevent the government from engaging in hidden taxation by monetary devaluation. Gold however has the same arbitrary value as fiat currency. A gold standard shuts down the printing presses but gold does no more represent real wealth than any other abstract representation. The story of king Midas should remind us that real wealth is in the exchange of labor and it's products.

                            Fiat currency is simply a supply of IOUs. If there are more IOUs than people willing to provide goods and services in exchange for them they become worthless. For example when Germany tried to pay off it's debts by printing money after WWII.

                            The amount of IOUs needs to correlate to available goods and services and internationally be balanced so that one nation cannot pay it's debts by artificially inflating it's currency or artificially create trade imbalances by devaluation.

                            In the current environment the West is exporting it's pollution and slave labor to China. China is creating real goods and services in exchange for IOUs that are demonstrably similar to the process that Germany tried to pay off it's war debts. The difference is that derivatives are in many cases no longer under the control of any central bank or regulatory authority.

                            Then we have the issue of the petrodollar. To make a long story short the petrodollar is a system that creates artificial demand for U.S. currency. It is a way for European nations that went off the gold standard to repay their debts. This is obviously and oversimplification but it explains a lot of cognitive dissonance people have when looking at international politics. The great sin that Saddam and Gaddafi made was to move to using their own currency to sidestep the disadvantages of petrodollars.

                            The question isn't if debt should be eliminated but how it is manipulated for political purposes and if those purposes create instability.
                            We hunt the hunters

                            Comment

                            Latest Topics

                            Collapse

                            Working...
                            X