America - The Official Thread
- Thread starter ///M-Spec
- 38,717 comments
- 1,599,178 views
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,156
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
So were the majority of the ones the US interned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans
Given the point was that without the American's Europe would have been overrun in '46, yet the US contribution (while large and certainly will always be appreciated) was not the sole deciding factor. Its just as arguable to say that had Russia or the UK fallen the same result would have been the seen.
Then please explain exactly what you mean by "NATO was simply the convenient overcoat they've worn since WWII and it's a joke without the Americans."
Stop and think exactly how that can come across and how it would feel if it were the other way around!
Last edited:
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
True but at the same time, not related to my point.
Pretty self explanatory. IMO NATO was the guise that allowed the Americans to establish dozens of military basis throughout Europe. Also IMO, without American participation, NATO would be much weaker and much less effective. Also IMO, the need for remote bases spread throughout the world is a relic from the past and totally unnecessary today. A dozen or two strategically placed in various parts of the world is all that is necessary IMO, if that. 800 is dramatic overkill by any measure I can think of. Bring the troops home, save some money or spend it on tech, whatever the case may be.
I assume from your lack of a quote that you can't provide one for the words you attributed to me.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
That's unlikely. The Russians were stretched thin trying to maintain the eastern front. It was only because of the Axis powers' disastrous attempt to invade Greece that they were forced to delay the invasion of Russia by six months and ended up going in in the dead of winter. That six months bought the Russians enough time to redeploy and the change in seasons gave them an advantage (Bonaparte's invasion of Russia having failed because his armies all but froze). Without the Americans, the Russians probably would have made it into Germany, but encountered the German forces that were sent to Normandy and the war would have dragged out.
You're also ignoring the way the influence of communism spread because the best-organised and most successful resistance groups were communists. Why do you think the United States implemented the Marshall Plan?
Danoff
Premium
- 33,658
- Mile High City
Liberals using solid economics to attack Trump's hatred for trade deficits. I like it:
http://www.npr.org/2017/05/30/53074...the-trade-deficit-with-germany-he-shouldnt-be
It's what I've been posting here all along. Trade deficits are normal and good. You ship out worthless pieces of paper in exchange for tangible goods. Maybe those pieces of paper come back, but they come back at the future value and in exchange for goods produced here. If they never come back, it's just deflationary (which is good). Nobody should be concerned that we're buying things from other countries faster than they're buying from us. It's part of having a high standard of living. As the article explains, it's also part of having a strong currency (also good).
http://www.npr.org/2017/05/30/53074...the-trade-deficit-with-germany-he-shouldnt-be
It's what I've been posting here all along. Trade deficits are normal and good. You ship out worthless pieces of paper in exchange for tangible goods. Maybe those pieces of paper come back, but they come back at the future value and in exchange for goods produced here. If they never come back, it's just deflationary (which is good). Nobody should be concerned that we're buying things from other countries faster than they're buying from us. It's part of having a high standard of living. As the article explains, it's also part of having a strong currency (also good).
- 716
What? Are you talking about the second world war? If so did you not read up upon your history? That is exactly what happened...
- 4,569
- Moscow
- Rage_Racer_VOLK
- RageRacer48
Well... Thinking of "General Frost" as of the decisive factor of failures of invasions of Russia is rather simplistic and is often just an excuse given by the commanders of the defeated. During the battle of Moscow in 1941, the most critical episodes were in November, when the temperature wasn't extremely low. It is true that the Germans suffered of cold weather later, but that was because they didn't have proper winter uniforms, because they planned to finish the campaign before the winter. When it got really cold, the clothes weren't delivered in time because of logistical problems. It was their own miscalculation. The next winters weren't a surprise for the Germans and they were well prepared, so they had failures due to different causes (for example, the Operation Uranus launched by the Red Army in November 1942 that got the German 6th Army surrounded in Stalingrad by winter - but frost isn't the worst trouble of being surronded).
Regarding Napoleon's campaign, his army was exhausted before the frosts - the decisive battles occured during relatively warm weather. When the real winter started, the French troops were in retreat and didn't exist as an army already, so the frosts just contributed to the further collapse of Bonaparte's forces. But not caused it.
Just not to the western borders of Germany, and not annexed in the true meaning (people on the West confuse the Soviet Union and the Soviet Bloc (aka Eastern Bloc or Communist Bloc) pretty often as I see).
Last edited:
- 716
I am Polish and do not confuse anything at all if you include me in your quote about people of the west.
The fact is, Soviet did indeed advance against Germany and did so fairly well, who did free the concentration camps... And later when Both eastern Germany(DDR) and Poland was gifted to Soviet by the Allied forces hell did continue for those living there, even if the war was long over. Call it Soviet Union or Soviet Block it does not matter.
Such a shame that all those fighting for freedom did get the birdy by those they fought with/for.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Soviet Union was the country, Soviet Bloc was the series of countries under the influence of the Soviet Union that retained they own governance. Yes it was probably hell for anyone living there during the cold war but the distinction was raised because I said the Russians would have annexed all of Eastern Europe towards the end of WWII. Annexed, in this case, would have meant the Russians taking over those countries and making them part of the Soviet Union which is not what happened.
CodeRedR51
Premium
- 55,264
- United States
Am I the only one that read those in my mind using a voice from the middle ages? 
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
No.Am I the only one that read those in my mind using a voice from the middle ages?
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Incredibly the tweet hasn't yet been deleted. We have another annual landmark that could be even better than Ed Balls day.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
Kathy Griffin admits that she went too far:
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...er-decapitated-trump-head-photo-shoot/8575304
Of more concern to me is the reaction from Team Trump. This was obviously a joke, albeit one in incredibly poor taste. It's clearly not funny, but rather than being inspired by malice, it was probably one of those occasional PR disasters where everyone got carried away and nobody stopped to think about it.
Just as Trump brands any negative press as "fake news", he's immediately moved to portray Griffin as the voice of the political left.
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...er-decapitated-trump-head-photo-shoot/8575304
Of more concern to me is the reaction from Team Trump. This was obviously a joke, albeit one in incredibly poor taste. It's clearly not funny, but rather than being inspired by malice, it was probably one of those occasional PR disasters where everyone got carried away and nobody stopped to think about it.
Just as Trump brands any negative press as "fake news", he's immediately moved to portray Griffin as the voice of the political left.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
The fact that covfefe remains in the wild raises an interesting question: does only Trump have access to his twaddle account or are his (surely aware) media team too terrified to delete the tweet without his say-so?
EDIT: Trump's "Arms" (not the biological comedy ones) aren't actually his, although US law has allowed him to trademark them. Unfortunately the family whose line he claims realise they probably can't afford to sue him.
EDIT: Trump's "Arms" (not the biological comedy ones) aren't actually his, although US law has allowed him to trademark them. Unfortunately the family whose line he claims realise they probably can't afford to sue him.
Last edited:
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
A joke? The severed, bloody head of the President is a joke? On what planet is the severed bloody head of the leader of the most powerful country on the planet funny? How could anyone who would think that is funny and be stupid enough to actually go through with it, be anything but on the opposite end of the spectrum from the President? I can't imagine the outrage if some D-list comedian, desperately trying to revitalize their career, did the same "joke" with Obama's severed head. I don't imagine you would be so glib with your response either.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
I believe she stated that her intentions were jocular, i.e., to mock the president, using his own offensive (threatening?) verbal campaign imagery against him. It could be this is legitimate free speech, fully justified in its own thinking that the intent or motivation was to "do good". I wouldn't mind it being tested in the court of law.
The same imagery couldn't be appropriate for Obama, because he never uttered similarly offensive words. So there could be no similar intent to do good. True or false?
- 86,183
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Humour is a very personal thing. There's no such thing as objectively funny or not funny (Amy Schumer comes close) and anything can be funny if there's someone to find it funny.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
I don't question the free speech nature of it, I question the taste and judgment of anyone involved in this project. If one wanted to do something similar for Obama it would have been easy enough to play off a drone strike if one was so inclined. It's messed up. Glad she lost her gig with Squatty Potty and I hope she loses the New Year's Eve gig as well but I doubt it. She's not a conservative.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,658
- Mile High City
Now on to something that actually matters...
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/05/30/supreme-court-lexmark-sales-exhausted-patent-rights/id=83824/
Impression Products v. Lexmark International (US Supreme Court Case)
The supreme court held that patent rights are exhausted by foreign sales. This means that when a company sells something in India (where there is no serious patent protection), those products can subsequently be imported into the US where there is patent protection without having to pay the patent owner. The ruling used copyright (which has pretty much universal identical protection in all countries) as the basis for this conclusion. If you buy a book in India, you can bring that book home with you without worrying about copyright infringement.
Why does this matter? Companies sell products at reduced prices in places like India to obtain some profit and grow the market, but they rely on countries like the US to pay for the actual development. In a sense, the US is subsidizing India's products by offering companies the compensation they need to make the creation of the product worthwhile. Nowhere is this more evident than medical technology. Companies will not develop these products if they have to sell them everywhere at India's prices. What they'll do is raise the price on India (because it can be imported into the US without compensation) or shut down sales in India and effectively deprive the people of India of access to the product (in some cases, medical technology).
It's weird that a US supreme court case would threaten the standard of living in other nations, but that is what has happened. This effect is not specific to US companies either. An Irish company (aren't they all these days), may still rely on US sales to fuel R&D costs. If they're concerned that their US market will dry up due to importing from sales in India, they'll still clamp down on their Indian sales by either limiting numbers or raising prices.
There is precedent for this sort of thing. Software companies have already been through this with copyright laws that effectively ban sales of products like Windows in places like India at reduced prices because those products can subsequently be imported into the US at reduced rates due to copyright exhaustion (basically under the doctrine cited in this case). Software companies transitioned from selling products to licensing everything (think UELAs) in part to deal with this problem. We may see rapid conversion from selling physical products into licensing agreements as a result of this case. You're not buying that pair of sneakers or that Kidney dialysis machine, you're licensing it, and part of the licensing agreement is that you won't import it into the US - or even that you have to return it to the manufacturer after a set period of time and buy it again.
This ruling will create some changes in the way companies sell products, at least in the poorer nations of the world.
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/05/30/supreme-court-lexmark-sales-exhausted-patent-rights/id=83824/
Impression Products v. Lexmark International (US Supreme Court Case)
The supreme court held that patent rights are exhausted by foreign sales. This means that when a company sells something in India (where there is no serious patent protection), those products can subsequently be imported into the US where there is patent protection without having to pay the patent owner. The ruling used copyright (which has pretty much universal identical protection in all countries) as the basis for this conclusion. If you buy a book in India, you can bring that book home with you without worrying about copyright infringement.
Why does this matter? Companies sell products at reduced prices in places like India to obtain some profit and grow the market, but they rely on countries like the US to pay for the actual development. In a sense, the US is subsidizing India's products by offering companies the compensation they need to make the creation of the product worthwhile. Nowhere is this more evident than medical technology. Companies will not develop these products if they have to sell them everywhere at India's prices. What they'll do is raise the price on India (because it can be imported into the US without compensation) or shut down sales in India and effectively deprive the people of India of access to the product (in some cases, medical technology).
It's weird that a US supreme court case would threaten the standard of living in other nations, but that is what has happened. This effect is not specific to US companies either. An Irish company (aren't they all these days), may still rely on US sales to fuel R&D costs. If they're concerned that their US market will dry up due to importing from sales in India, they'll still clamp down on their Indian sales by either limiting numbers or raising prices.
There is precedent for this sort of thing. Software companies have already been through this with copyright laws that effectively ban sales of products like Windows in places like India at reduced prices because those products can subsequently be imported into the US at reduced rates due to copyright exhaustion (basically under the doctrine cited in this case). Software companies transitioned from selling products to licensing everything (think UELAs) in part to deal with this problem. We may see rapid conversion from selling physical products into licensing agreements as a result of this case. You're not buying that pair of sneakers or that Kidney dialysis machine, you're licensing it, and part of the licensing agreement is that you won't import it into the US - or even that you have to return it to the manufacturer after a set period of time and buy it again.
This ruling will create some changes in the way companies sell products, at least in the poorer nations of the world.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
So it's subjective then?
A subjective one like ours.
Something similar used to happen to a black President: people would lynch and burn effigies of him in the Southern states. We should expect vigorous discourse in a democracy.
- 5,588
- Dahlonega, GA
- ryzno
I don't recall any celebrities doing that.
Feel free to prove me wrong...
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Of course it's subjective, didn't say any different. Guessing that you're still having a good guffaw over it as well.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Guess all you like
I don't see the relevance? Do celebrities inherit a different set of responsibilities in free speech or something?
- 5,588
- Dahlonega, GA
- ryzno
Kinda. Now don't get me wrong I don't like what some people did to Obama.
But the celebrities on SNL and the like were not as tasteless as her over Obama. And it should be concerning that someone with as much national influence as her is promoting the death of our President.
I find Famines comparison useless.
Last edited:
- 23,819
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
- 5,588
- Dahlonega, GA
- ryzno
This one... Show me a bloody severed head that Johnny brought up.
I actually found a number of their skits funny. Hers was tasteless compared to SNL and the others...
Now can anyone show me proof of a celebrity/public figure promoting Obamas decapitation/lynching/death? Or are y'all going to ignore my whole post as usual?
I don't know. Desicarting someones name and promoting death are two different things...
Hillary was the one that brought that up and ran with it for a minute, trying to win...
Last edited by a moderator:
