Close

Results 1 to 30 of 109

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    52
    Rep Power
    5930

    Default Does Putin have a soul?

    Does Putin have a soul?


    HAMPTON, New Hampshire

    (Reuters) - Sen. Hillary Clinton, campaigning on Sunday ahead of New Hampshire's critical presidential primary,

    declared in response to a voter's question that Russian President Vladimir Putin "doesn't have a soul."




    http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/07/hillary_clinton_campaigning_ponders_putins_soul/



    Why Hillary is so sure that the KGB’s officers have no souls? . What if Hillary is elected

    and it will be found out that Medvedev has not a soul too? It may spoil relations between two countries .


    I do not think that it is right to state such things…

  2. #2
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8516

    Default

    No, it isn't right to say such

    things. In her case we have to wonder if her statement had any meaning other than political hyperbole. After all, do

    democrats and Hillary in particular have religion? Sometimes I wonder.

    At the same time, it isn't right for a

    citizen of one country to become involved in the politics of another.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  3. #3
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    52
    Rep Power
    5930

    Default

    No, it isn't right to say such things. In her case we have to wonder if her

    statement had any meaning other than political hyperbole. After all, do democrats and Hillary in particular have

    religion? Sometimes I wonder.




    Actually, in fact the Soviet morality didn’t deny existing of a soul.

    Marx just stated that the material stuff is primary. So I am sure that both Putin and Hillary have souls




    At the same time,

    it isn't right for a citizen of one country to become involved in the politics of another.


    Well, the problem is that nobody

    obeys this rule and Putin with his guys first

    Say, it is a civil war in a country

    and there are good and bad guys there (well, from my point of view, of course) and I am able to help good guys. I

    think it was a terrible mistake of the Western powers that they didn’t fulfill a full-scale intervention in Russia

    in 1918.

  4. #4
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8516

    Default

    I never said anything about

    Soviet morality, only Clinton's, something I doubt exists. It isn't even morality but spirituality but the

    statement still applies.

    Does the fact that another does not obey a rule make it right for us to disobey the

    rule? Not in my opinion.

    I also disagree on the intervention. We are wrong to interfere with other nations now

    and we would have ben wrong then. That is the very basic precept of the democracy we tout. Each has their right to

    choose their own course so long as that course does not interfere with another person or country's freedom to

    choose.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  5. #5
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    52
    Rep Power
    5930

    Default

    I never said anything about Soviet morality, only Clinton's





    Yes, I commented on her statement







    Does the fact that another does not obey a rule make it right

    for us to disobey the rule? Not in my opinion.




    Sure, sure, but it is difficult to obey rules when nobody doesn’t want

    to do it



    I

    also disagree on the intervention. We are wrong to interfere with other nations now and we would have ben wrong

    then.





    Well, however you had to interfere in 1941 all the same. Was it possible

    then not to interfere? It would be a betrayal of your ally Britain.





    Each has their

    right to choose their own course so long as that course does not interfere with another person or country's freedom

    to choose.





    But the Bolsheviks positively interfered with many other persons in

    Russia and other places as well. If a government violates the rights of citizens is it interference with other

    persons?

  6. #6
    Phero Guru Rbt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Midwest US
    Posts
    1,579
    Rep Power
    7196

    Default

    Well, however you had to

    interfere in 1941 all the same. Was it possible then not to interfere? It would be a betrayal of your ally Britain.


    If you are speaking of WWII, the US only entered the war formally after the attack on the US Navy

    at Pearl Harbor. Not sure why the US didn't get more involved after the invasion of the Phillipines but I'm not

    fully up on that part of history.

    The US at the time had a policy of non-involvement (military) otherwise. There

    was economic support of Britain and other countries before the formal declaration of war. If I recall the US only

    got involved in the European theater due to the military/political link between Japan and Germany.

    Politics is

    strange... Even though the US was "friends" with France for example at that time, we did not get militarily involved

    with the war even after France's colonies in Asia (eg Veitnam) were invaded by the Japanese. During/after WWII we

    got roped into some sort of treaty with France about coming to their aid if they or one of their possessions was

    invaded which is how we got mixed up with the communist "invasion" in Veitnam in the 60's-70's (thanks Mr.

    Truman...).
    The opposite of love isn't hate.
    It's apathy
    .

  7. #7
    Moderator idesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Middle Kingdom
    Posts
    2,400
    Rep Power
    6383

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex157 View Post




    http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/07/hillary_clinton_campaigning_ponders_putins_soul/



    Why Hillary is so sure that the KGB’s officers have no souls? . What if Hillary is

    elected and it will be found out that Medvedev has not a soul too? It may spoil relations between two countries .


    I do not think that it is right to state such things…
    I agree

    Alex.

    What Hillary Clinton says is always calculated to achieve a marketing effect for her candidacy, pure

    self-interst, nothing more or less. She is a loose cannon when it comes to international affairs, having no

    experience, incomplete information, childishly naive understanding and a ruthless instinct to get what she only

    thinks she deserves.

    She recently made a comment about Pakistan's leader concerning Bhutto's assasination

    which was immediately and rightly rebuked by that gov't. Irresponsible at best, and dangerous if anyone took her

    seriously, which no real thinking person could do.

    She's the poster child for nanny state proponents who believe

    "if I only ruled the world...."

    What does that have to do with the Russians? History. More on that if

    anyone's interested.

    BTW, Alex, where are you from? Just curious.

  8. #8
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    52
    Rep Power
    5930

    Default


    What Hillary Clinton says is always calculated to achieve a marketing effect for her candidacy, pure

    self-interst, nothing more or less. She is a loose cannon when it comes to international affairs, having no

    experience, incomplete information, childishly naive understanding and a ruthless instinct to get what she only

    thinks she deserves.

    Yes, many say about her the

    same things… It is strange, her husband is nobody’s fool, I think


    She recently made a comment about Pakistan's leader concerning Bhutto's assasination which was

    immediately and rightly rebuked by that gov't. Irresponsible at best, and dangerous if anyone took her seriously,

    which no real thinking person could do.




    I think that it is very bad for a politician . Indeed, an

    average Joe from the street may say anything he wants, but a politician should be responsible for every word he/she

    says.



    What does that have to do with the Russians?

    History. More on that if anyone's interested.

    Yes,

    sure!


    BTW, Alex, where are you from? Just curious.


    I am a

    Russian, I live in Moscow. By the way, it seems to me that Alex is a female name in the States. I am a male. It is

    always a problem in English . In Russian you have to write just a couple of words and your gender is clear.


  9. #9
    Phero Guru Rbt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Midwest US
    Posts
    1,579
    Rep Power
    7196

    Default

    I'm in midwest US and I am pretty

    sure that "Alex" isusually considered a male name. I can think of a number of Alexes right now, and they are all

    male.

    (Alex Trebek, actor; 2 sports figures at least; but I grant Alex Doonsebury [comic strip character-

    cable TV show] was female...)
    The opposite of love isn't hate.
    It's apathy
    .

  10. #10
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    52
    Rep Power
    5930

    Default

    Great! Usually Alexes whom I met

    were female, so I decided that in the US it is a female name .
    For example, I am watching 'what women want'

    and the name of Gibson's daughter in the movie is Alex.
    Alexander Baldwin, though, sometimes is Alec and

    sometimes Alex...

    Actually, there is nos such an official name in Russian (it is used as a nickname only in

    imitation of the West) so I decided to make it clear

  11. #11
    Moderator idesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Middle Kingdom
    Posts
    2,400
    Rep Power
    6383

    Default

    Agree with Rbt on the name Alex,

    but some women have that nickname, diminutive for Alexandra or Alexis.

    I've always appreciated the Russian

    custom of making the middle name a patronymic. Alexandrovna is both lovely and respectful.

    My remark about

    Hillary and the Russians has mostly to do with socialism than anything else, which has changed in Russia, but you

    can tell us better from your place.

    Hillary has an "oligarchy" mentality, which, in her case, blends socialism

    with a "right" for her clan (liberalism) to rule for the "common good". She uses her own concept of the "collective"

    to push ideals which most of the population would reject if they knew what she was actually representing. Of course

    she is not honest in representing her real motives.

    This is not a direct comparison to the former Soviet state,

    but perhaps more applicable in comparing to Putin.

    A socialist leaning joined with a sensibility which assumes

    there is a "right" to power is perhaps the most dangerous political ideal. I can't help but think there is a

    Czarist mixed with October Red mentality driving Putin.

    In Hillary's case the appeal to the "common good" is

    both seductive and evil, as Bolshevism has proven to be true. In Putin's case there seems to be a shift toward

    Czarist oligarchy, which is what Hillary and her machine would love to achieve with her idealist control over

    personal lives. Idealism is all about control, subject to a shifting and nebulous definition of "what's best" for

    you and me.

    In Russia, it seems there has always been a desire for a strong leader to gather the Russian lands

    and anchor the Rus in a solid mooring. In America, the opposite is true, we have rejected kings and tyrants. Until

    now. There is a tyranny which nobody recognizes until it is in their house and is eating all their food.

    In a

    very loose way Putin and Hillary are traveling the same path, in different spheres.

    Its amazing to me how much of

    our American population is willing to give up their ability and right to prosper freely to a gov't which will

    appropriate the fruit of their labor at the whim of politicians.

    I'm thankful that I live in America, and hope

    for more than our current political climate offers.

    PS Alex, I've made some assumptions, please correct me when

    I'm wrong.
    Last edited by idesign; 01-19-2008 at 10:36 PM.

  12. #12
    Moderator idesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Middle Kingdom
    Posts
    2,400
    Rep Power
    6383

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex157 View Post

    Yes, many say about her the same

    things… It is strange, her husband is nobody’s fool, I think



    It seems that he is everybody's fool, as we

    see now, and, in my opinion, during his presidency.








  13. #13
    Phero Pro
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    815
    Rep Power
    8275

    Default

    The guy cheats at golf too.


  14. #14
    Moderator idesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Middle Kingdom
    Posts
    2,400
    Rep Power
    6383

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tounge View Post
    The guy

    cheats at golf too.

    Be careful tongue, it all depends on the meaning of what the word "is" is.

    It can get you a few "strokes" on the golf course....

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •