Close

Page 1 of 4 1 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 109
  1. #1
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    52
    Rep Power
    4250

    Default Does Putin have a soul?

    visit-red-300x50PNG
    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
    6835

    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
    4250

    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
    6835

    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
    4250

    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
    5515

    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
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    52
    Rep Power
    4250

    Default

    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.





    Economic support of Britain included sending ships there and since the

    Nazis tried to sink them, of course, the ships had to be guarded and it meant a direct war against German.






    If I recall the US only got involved in the European theater due

    to the military/political link between Japan and Germany.




    Well, I don’t think that Germany was that much involved in war in Asia

    to consider it. America had to decide whether it supported England (and it meant a direct war against Germany) or

    not. Yes, I am sure that many citizens of the US would prefer not to be involved, but the politicians knew that

    there was no choice.





    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...).


    Always, there is a politician who can be

    thanked for a war. In Europe, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Serbia, Iraq…




    As for ‘friendship’ and getting roped now everything is simpler. An attack at any

    member of NATO means an attack at all others according to the treaty.

  8. #8
    Phero Guru Rbt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Midwest US
    Posts
    1,579
    Rep Power
    5515

    Default

    Economic support of Britain

    included sending ships there and since the Nazis tried to sink them, of course, the ships had to be guarded and it

    meant a direct war against German.
    Actually no. You can defend your ships (or anything else) but not be

    in a "direct" war. You would be if you were actively attacking *them*. Switzerland (which remained neutral) had

    it's army guarding it's borders as a defense, but was not in a "direct war" with Germany or the Axis powers.



    At first I think most of the convoys of ships (including American ships) were guarded primarily by the British

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

  9. #9
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    52
    Rep Power
    4250

    Default

    Actually no. You can defend your ships (or anything else) but not be in a

    "direct" war.





    Yes, sure. But I don’t think it was the case in the WWII. As well

    as in any wartime either. Say, Iran (or any other countries) would send convoys with weapons to anti-American troops

    in Iraq. I doubt very much that it would be possible for them just ‘defend’ their ships without real

    fighting against the American Navy.

    If you support my enemy you are my

    enemy too.





    You would be if you were actively attacking *them*.





    Without no doubt, I think, it will be so in most cases.







    Switzerland (which

    remained neutral) had it's army guarding it's borders as a defense, but was not in a "direct war" with Germany or

    the Axis powers.




    There was not any reason for Hitler to attack Switzerland. Money and

    gold are useless in a world war (your enemies woun’t sell you anything and your allies are figting too so are

    not able to sell food and weapons), so he knew that he could do it after the victory. If Switzerland helped somebody

    in the anti-Hitler coalition it would be crushed in a moment.




    At first I think most of the convoys of ships (including

    American ships) were guarded primarily by the British Navy.


    I think it was so in the first perion of the war. Then logic of war

    demanded for more and more wide interference.

  10. #10
    Moderator idesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Middle Kingdom
    Posts
    2,398
    Rep Power
    4701

    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.

  11. #11
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    52
    Rep Power
    4250

    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.


  12. #12
    Phero Guru Rbt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Midwest US
    Posts
    1,579
    Rep Power
    5515

    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
    .

  13. #13
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    52
    Rep Power
    4250

    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

  14. #14
    Moderator idesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Middle Kingdom
    Posts
    2,398
    Rep Power
    4701

    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.

  15. #15
    Phero Pro
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    815
    Rep Power
    6594

    Default

    Greg, fantastic appraisal of

    Hillary Clinton. She shares the same philosophy of Chavez in Venezuela and Ortega in Nicaragua. The USA and the rest

    of the world are about to enter very dangerous and hard times.

    Many people who have studied her, consider her

    an avowed Leninist.

  16. #16
    Phero Guru Rbt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Midwest US
    Posts
    1,579
    Rep Power
    5515

    Default

    But, of course, as it seems with any

    political election in this country in my memory of late, it always seems to come down to a choice of the lesser of

    the evils...

    It's been ages since I voted FOR someone rather than AGAINST the worst of the choices.






    <sigh>



    And I have yet to see any really clear cut differences between the two

    major political parties. Same crap, different names. No real choice. Just cover your own ass and hope to make it

    through the next series of created crises and "pending disasters."
    The opposite of love isn't hate.
    It's apathy
    .

  17. #17
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    52
    Rep Power
    4250

    Default




    Agree with Rbt on the name Alex, but some women have that

    nickname, diminutive for Alexandra or Alexis.

    It seems that

    it is equal to the situation with the male name Alex in Russia. Here it is a half-jocular nickname for Alexander or

    Alexey.


    I've always appreciated the Russian custom of making

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


    There was an Englishman in

    the Soviet Union who taught English. And his new Russian name became Richard Richardovich Dixon.



    Alex, I've made

    some assumptions, please correct me when I'm wrong.




    I mostly agree with you, Idesign, but I think that many in the West

    underestimate what happened in 90s in Russia.

    Yes, the US is a very

    liberal country. However, I know one thing about the US for sure. A friend of my father is a pensioner and he hadn’t

    worked a day in the US. But he has an apartment, medical care which in the SU had top communist bosses only and the

    like. During our capitalist reforms the old folks became just dirt under feet. As well as invalids and anybody who

    was not able to build capitalism with the nails and teeth.

    Also whole

    cites began to be controlled by gangsters. Posts of mayors or governors were just bought by them. So Putin in some

    sense just returned the country to more or less normal conditions. And since the citizens didn’t want to do anything

    everything was done by the Kremlin.

    And I wouldn’t say that Putin is

    trying to control me.


    There

    was a soviet joke. A guy comes to the office in a rumpled shirt and answers the boss to his question. I got up in

    the morning and switched on the TV set. It was a translation of the 24th meeting of the Communist party of the

    Soviet Union. Then I switched on radio. It was a translation of the 24th meeting of the Communist party of the

    Soviet Union. I didn’t even try to switch on an electric iron.




    There is nothing like this now. I read and write in the Net everything I

    want. Nobody blocks sites, moreover the government tries to computerize all the country. For $3-4 a month I can get

    70 channels including the CNN and Euronews through the telephone connection. Euronews are even broadcasted by an

    open standard channel with a translation in Russian. Nobody says me what I should watch – the CNN or Russian

    channels. The only thing Putin wants in return is that I wouldn’t interfere in his affairs too


    He is building capitalism and doesn’t want me hamper him. And it is OK

    by the majority of people since all his opponents proved that they cannot suggest anything better. On the contrary,

    everybody knows that they would just make things worse.

  18. #18
    Moderator idesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Middle Kingdom
    Posts
    2,398
    Rep Power
    4701

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex157 View Post


    There was an Englishman in the Soviet Union who taught

    English. And his new Russian name became Richard Richardovich Dixon.



    Dangerously close to an American politician. Using

    nicknames he would be "Tricky Dick Dickovich Nixon".



    Quote Originally Posted by Alex157 View Post
    I mostly agree with you, Idesign, but I think that many in the

    West underestimate what happened in 90s in Russia.

    Yes, the US is a very

    liberal country. However, I know one thing about the US for sure. A friend of my father is a pensioner and he

    hadn’t worked a day in the US. But he has an apartment, medical care which in the SU had top communist bosses

    only and the like. During our capitalist reforms the old folks became just dirt under feet. As well as invalids and

    anybody who was not able to build capitalism with the nails and teeth.


    Also whole cites began to be controlled by gangsters. Posts of mayors or

    governors were just bought by them. So Putin in some sense just returned the country to more or less normal

    conditions. And since the citizens didn’t want to do anything everything was done by the Kremlin.


    And I wouldn’t say that Putin is trying to control me.



    Understood. The parallels with the US are limited I know.

    Putin has a very different set of circumstances. Since there is no democratic tradition in Russia he must play his

    role as benevolent dictator. Interesting that you said "back to normal", it is reminiscent of Czarist Russia no?



    The oligarchy/mafia scheme was inevitable, as they were the only ones in place to fill the power/economic void

    left by a dead Soviet system. On the other hand, the Soviets had a cabal of powerful people who ran everything

    (aparatchiks), and many of them are the same characters operating in a different system. At least the

    Communist/totalitarian control is gone, along with the Glorious Meeting of the 24th Komsomol/Comintern/Commitetye

    Sovietskiye.

    The ones caught in the middle are the ones who had their life and spirit sucked out of them by the

    Soviet system, one might even say soul. All incentive was drained from a huge segment of population which is

    capable of turning Russia into a greater nation than it already is. Who knows how many generations it will take

    before the mentality of the "collective" leaves the minds of your people.



    Quote Originally Posted by Alex157 View Post
    There was a soviet joke. A guy comes to the office in a rumpled

    shirt and answers the boss to his question. I got up in the morning and switched on the TV set. It was a translation

    of the 24th meeting of the Communist party of the Soviet Union. Then I switched on radio. It was a translation of

    the 24th meeting of the Communist party of the Soviet Union. I didn’t even try to switch on an electric iron.



    Very funny! It reminds me of myself when I turn on the TV and

    hear most of the mainstream media gibberish which passes as "news". Fortunately for both of us, we have many

    alternatives to the old

    monopoly.


    Quote Originally Posted by Alex157 View Post
    Nobody says me what I should watch – the CNN or Russian channels. The only thing Putin wants in return

    is that I wouldn’t interfere in his affairs too

    He is building

    capitalism and doesn’t want me hamper him. And it is OK by the majority of people since all his opponents

    proved that they cannot suggest anything better. On the contrary, everybody knows that they would just make things

    worse.
    By these comments I know that you are Russian! Welcome moi droog, we must drink

    together some day. Your pragmatic optimism is a trait which many can learn from.

    I'm genuinely curious Alex,

    how long and how far do you think Putin can rule this way? Where do you think the nature of politics is going? Do

    you think Russia needs a "Czar" like Putin or someone equally strong?

    Good discussion, thank you.
    Greg
    Last edited by idesign; 01-21-2008 at 10:26 PM.

  19. #19
    Moderator idesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Middle Kingdom
    Posts
    2,398
    Rep Power
    4701

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tounge View Post
    She shares

    the same philosophy of Chavez in Venezuela and Ortega in Nicaragua. The USA and the rest of the world are about to

    enter very dangerous and hard times.

    Many people who have studied her, consider her an avowed

    Leninist.

    I can see that Tongue. Its not such a far stretch from "Workers of the World Unite" to

    "It Takes a Village to Raise a Child". At least Lenin told you up front what he was planning. Hillary's most

    dangerous evil is her calculated deception.

    And lets not forget Obama, he may be worse in that he's charismatic

    and says nothing at all of any substance. Regurgitation with a nice smile.

    Without being alarmist, I cautiously

    agree with the remark about dangerous and hard times. There is a fundamental shift in political, economic and

    social dynamics both within and between nations that I don't think many recognize, much less comprehend. The US

    could be poised for disaster if it doesn't get its house in order.

    All the while our US leaders are engaging in

    the most trivial and pointless debates, esp on the Dem side. The GOP is only slightly better. As Rbt said, the

    choices are not that great.
    Last edited by idesign; 01-21-2008 at 09:52 PM.

  20. #20
    Phero Pro
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    815
    Rep Power
    6594

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by idesign View Post
    Hillary's

    most dangerous evil is her calculated deception. (Yes. To the Marxist, the LIE is a sacred tool to advance their

    cause. Hillary is a dialectic in the Marxist tradition.)

    And lets not forget Obama, he may be worse in that

    he's charismatic and says nothing at all of any substance. Regurgitation with a nice smile.
    (Agreed. He is an

    empty suit who brings nothing whatsoever to the table.)

    All the while our US leaders are engaging in the most

    trivial and pointless debates, esp on the Dem side. The GOP is only slightly better. As Rbt said, the choices are

    not that great.
    ( Agreed, the GOP although head and shoulders above the Democrats, are clueless as to he

    direction the USA needs to go for it to continue to be a viable player on the world stage in the next quarter

    century.)

  21. #21
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    52
    Rep Power
    4250

    Default

    Dangerously close to an American politician. Using nicknames he would be "Tricky

    Dick Dickovich Nixon".




    I was said that his answer was ‘I am not a crook’




    Understood. The

    parallels with the US are limited I know. Putin has a very different set of circumstances. Since there is no

    democratic tradition in Russia he must play his role as benevolent dictator.


    Yes, I think that

    it is his point.



    Interesting that you said "back to normal", it is reminiscent of Czarist Russia no?

    No, I think that the fact that autocracy lasted so long in

    Russia was the main cause of all troubles.

    When I said ‘back to normal’

    I meant that now the police controls cities not bandits, old folks get some pensions and the like.




    The

    oligarchy/mafia scheme was inevitable, as they were the only ones in place to fill the power/economic void left by a

    dead Soviet system. On the other hand, the Soviets had a cabal of powerful people who ran everything (aparatchiks),

    and many of them are the same characters operating in a different system. At least the Communist/totalitarian

    control is gone, along with the Glorious Meeting of the 24th Komsomol/Comintern/Commitetye Sovietskiye.

    The problem is, I believe, that the reforms of 90s hadn’t

    touched the bases of the Soviet system. Actually, Soviet economic of the Brezhnev’s era was a mix between a Marxist

    control on factories and the black market. The reformers just legalized the black market but it didn’t change the

    core things.


    The ones caught in the middle are the ones who

    had their life and spirit sucked out of them by the Soviet system, one might even say soul. All incentive was

    drained from a huge segment of population which is capable of turning Russia into a greater nation than it already

    is. Who knows how many generations it will take before the mentality of the "collective" leaves the minds of your

    people.


    Yes, Russia

    lost several millions of her best citizens and I am not sure that we will be able to rise again.


    And indeed it’ll take a long long time till our distorted mentality will

    change.


    By these

    comments I know that you are Russian! Welcome moi droog




    Òû

    çíàåøü

    ðóññêèé?






    we must drink together some day. Your pragmatic optimism is a

    trait which many can learn from.




    I am ready to drink (I prefer Scottish whisky ), and we are optimists

    indeed, but our optimism is not pragmatic . It is based on two main Russian conceptual words ‘avos’ and ‘nebos’.

    Say, you drive to a river and see that the bridge may collapse any moment. If you a Russian you would say ‘nebos, it

    won’t collapse’ and ‘avos I will be able to cross it’. With these words you should drive over the bridge without any

    thoughts



    I'm

    genuinely curious Alex, how long and how far do you think Putin can rule this way?





    Greg, I am sure that Putin well understands that such a system which is

    based on one person is unstable. Definitely there is a plan of building of a two party-system in Russia. There is

    already a party which is planned for this role. However, will it be a real political system or just an imitation as

    it often happens here we’ll see soon





    Where do you think

    the nature of politics is going? Do you think Russia needs a "Czar" like Putin or someone equally strong?


    I think that

    nobody who can rule his/her life doesn’t need any czars. But definitely this dream of a good and kind czar is in

    Russian mentality. The problem is that czars are never good and kind

  22. #22
    Moderator idesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Middle Kingdom
    Posts
    2,398
    Rep Power
    4701

    Default

    Ok, Putin and the Kremlin

    understand the need for a two-party system, will they say 'nebos and 'avos?

    One thing that concerns me is the

    way Putin handled himself during the Ukranian election a few years ago. Also his most recent "sabre rattling"

    exercises. He's a strong-man in Ivan IV's clothing, but I think perhaps he knows he can't get away with it.

    I

    hope it is as you say, and there will be a true choice. The only remaining question is does Russia have a leader

    who will come from the people to lead a new party? Say, a Peter in Gorbachov clothing? Maybe Peter is not the best

    choice for that example, but you understand.

    к вашему

    здоровью

  23. #23
    Moderator idesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Middle Kingdom
    Posts
    2,398
    Rep Power
    4701

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tounge View Post
    ( Agreed,

    the GOP although head and shoulders above the Democrats, are clueless as to he direction the USA needs to go for it

    to continue to be a viable player on the world stage in the next quarter century.)
    Unfortunately, part of

    the "head and shoulders" party of the first part just quit the race. Fred Thompson was the only *true* conservative

    of the bunch.

    While any of the others are a better choice than either of the Dems, it now comes down to

    compromise.

  24. #24
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    52
    Rep Power
    4250

    Default

    Ok, Putin and the Kremlin understand the need for a two-party system, will they

    say 'nebos and 'avos?




    Well, Putin is not quite

    Russian. That is, he is an ethnic Russian, of course, but he has been a spy in Germany for 10 years and adopted a

    lot from German mentality, I think.

    There is our famous movie hero a

    shtandartenfurer SS Shtirliz (who was in reality our Russian agent, of course) and Putin is something like this




    One thing that concerns me is the way Putin handled

    himself during the Ukranian election a few years ago.





    Well, nobody’s perfect




    Also his most recent "sabre rattling" exercises. He's a strong-man in Ivan

    IV's clothing, but I think perhaps he knows he can't get away with it.
    I hope it is as you say, and there will be a true choice.

    The only remaining question is does Russia have a leader who will come from the people to lead a new party?


    No, it is out of consideration . It should be a guy

    from the Kremlin who would coordinate all his actions with it. If there is a second strong leader it will be a civil

    war.



    Say, a Peter in Gorbachov clothing? Maybe Peter is

    not the best choice for that example, but you understand.






    Yes, the Russian population had lessened by third under Peter No, I think that a

    plan is that it should be a second party controlled by the Kremlin and when people get used to a notion that after

    electing a new leader heavens won’t come down to Russia with angels who will work for us it will be possible

    to make the system more realistic.




    [quote] к вашему здоровью

    [/
    quote]



    I have heard that Russians in movies say ‘na zdorovie’? Is it true? We never say it in

    reality


    Поднимем

    наши стаканы за две

    великие нации –

    русских и

    американцев

  25. #25
    Moderator idesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Middle Kingdom
    Posts
    2,398
    Rep Power
    4701

    Default

    Поднимем наши

    стаканы за две

    великие нации –

    русских и

    американцев

    "Let us raise our glasses to two

    great nations - Russia and America".

    очень

    хорошо, I owe you a bottle of Scotch Whiskey.

    Yes, I have heard "na zdorovie"

    in the movies (Local Hero), but in my post I simply translated "to your health" in a translator. My Russian is 25

    years old and has not aged as well as a good whiskey.

    I appreciate your insight Alexander. What is your

    patromymic?

    I will think about your reply and will certainly ask more questions.

  26. #26
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    52
    Rep Power
    4250

    Default


    î÷åíü

    õîðîøî, I owe you a bottle of

    Scotch Whiskey.






    OK, and I owe you a bottle of vodka Do you remember as they changed

    their watches in ‘Red Hot’?





    Yes, I have heard "na zdorovie" in the movies (Local Hero),

    but in my post I simply translated "to your health" in a translator. My Russian is 25 years old and has not aged as

    well as a good whiskey.




    Well, a bit more accurate would be ‘za tvoje/vashe zdorovje’ but your

    Russian is still quite OK






    I appreciate your

    insight Alexander. What is your patromymic?


    No, I am

    Alexey - as it was a real name of Gorky, not as Pushkin’s




    I am Alexey Lvovich, how is your one?

  27. #27
    Moderator idesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Middle Kingdom
    Posts
    2,398
    Rep Power
    4701

    Default

    Understood, but I never saw "Red

    Hot", is it good? Who are the primary actors?

    Ok good Alexey, Gorky and Pushkin are two very interesting and

    different men. I think you are more like Pushkin in ideals if not name.

    We do not use patromymics, so I could be

    either Yosef Grigorovich, or Odelovich using my father's name.

    To be honest, I prefer whiskey too, so we should

    have a wonderful time drinking.

    We in America look eagerly toward political and social change in Russia, and

    we also understand that it is Russia who will determine her future. I'm glad that we are now "friends", and of

    course we wish to remain friends. Sometimes it is difficult among friends to achieve a balance as we know.

    A

    question: what do you think is the most desired social change among most of the population? I assume it would be

    economic. If so, do you look mostly for economic freedom? Do you think Russia mostly desires for a Western ideal

    of economic success?

    More interestingly, do you care so much about the political system if the economic benefits

    are good on the street? Assuming that the successor to Putin will follow his policies, do you think those policies

    are oriented more to achieving a place in some new world order or a new Russian independence or dominance?

    A lot

    of questions, sorry, but I look forward to your answer.

    Greg

  28. #28
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    52
    Rep Power
    4250

    Default

    Understood, but I never saw "Red Hot", is it good? Who are the primary

    actors?




    Well, it was popular in Russia (as well as all movies

    with the governator, though). Another leading role was played by Belushi.


    There were some funny lines there. For example, the

    Soviet policeman suggested to his American colleague (played by Belushi) to shoot all drug dealers and the like. He

    said that it would be a good idea, but politicians won’t allow this. ‘Shoot them first’ was an answer.






    Ok good Alexey, Gorky and Pushkin are two very

    interesting and different men. I think you are more like Pushkin in ideals if not name.






    I heard that the main reason why Pushkin wrote verses was

    that he always had huge card debts and tried to get some money to pay









    We do not use

    patromymics







    It is not of any importance . As long as a person knows

    the name of his father he/she has patronymics . If not, the patronymics will be thought up





    so I could be either Yosef Grigorovich, or

    Odelovich using my father's name.




    Why Yosef? Greg is quite OK And it cannot be two ones

    . What is the name of your father?








    [quote] To be honest, I prefer whiskey too, so we

    should have a wonderful time drinking.

    [/

    quote]





    OK, I prefer Johnny Walker. I think that it a lady’s

    drink but I don’t like hard drinks.





    We in America look eagerly toward political and

    social change in Russia, and we also understand that it is Russia who will determine her future. I'm glad that we

    are now "friends", and of course we wish to remain friends. Sometimes it is difficult among friends to achieve a

    balance as we know.




    Yeah, it is the last thing I would want – to have the US

    as enemy again.





    A question: what do you think is the most

    desired social change among most of the population? I assume it would be economic. If so, do you look mostly for

    economic freedom?







    Actually, I am not sure. I think that economy is only a

    part of politics. Again, you never are able to create good economy without political stability.


    Why everybody is glad to keep money in Switzerland? It is

    a safe place, in the center of Europe and NATO defends my beloved money (no matter that Switzerland itself is not a

    member of it).

    The problem is that everybody knows that

    any second the government may rob people. Nobody will be surprised if tomorrow it will be announced that all rubles

    should be changed in proportion 1:10 after showing papers where they come from. In Moscow there are exchange booths

    at each corner and we keep our money in dollars and euros. Nobody trusts rubles, nobody trusts the government. So

    rich people just make money here and have some infrastructure for the recreation – brothels and small gyms. They try

    to send serious money abroad.

    It is very difficult to

    develop economy under such political and social circumstances.





    Do you think Russia mostly desires for a Western

    ideal of economic success?




    Politically we are total morons, so it doesn’t matter

    what we desire . I think that we desperately need for colleges of high economical and political education. When

    there are several thousands educated Russian guys – it will be possible to discuss what they want.


    However, I think yes, many prefer the Western way of

    economics now.





    More interestingly, do you care so much about

    the political system if the economic benefits are good on the street?







    Sure, sure. Without a firm political system everything

    may collapse in a second. It happened in 1998 already.










    Assuming that the successor to Putin will follow

    his policies, do you think those policies are oriented more to achieving a place in some new world order or a new

    Russian independence or dominance?

    I think

    that Medvedev is a quite pro-Western politician and he’s going to continue to try to find a place under the

    capitalists sun for Russia.





    Greg, who do you think is going to be the next president of the US?

  29. #29
    Phero Guru Rbt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Midwest US
    Posts
    1,579
    Rep Power
    5515

    Default

    I'm thinking there is a bit of a

    translation thing here... the movie I recall I think was called "Red Heat" not "Red Hot"...
    The opposite of love isn't hate.
    It's apathy
    .

  30. #30
    Moderator idesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Middle Kingdom
    Posts
    2,398
    Rep Power
    4701

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex157 View Post
    Well, it was popular in Russia (as well as all movies

    with the governator, though). Another leading role was played by Belushi.


    There were some funny lines there. For example, the

    Soviet policeman suggested to his American colleague (played by Belushi) to shoot all drug dealers and the like. He

    said that it would be a good idea, but politicians won’t allow this. ‘Shoot them first’ was an

    answer.


    You might also add the

    lawyers...

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex157 View Post
    I heard that the

    main reason why Pushkin wrote verses was that he always had huge card debts and tried to get some money to pay



    Ok Alex, we will not drink and play cards in

    the same evening, unless you are like Pushkin. But if I win, you could pay your debt with a poem that would win

    the heart of a lovely Russian woman.




    Quote Originally Posted by Alex157 View Post
    Why Yosef? Greg is quite OK And it cannot be two

    ones . What is the name of your father?


    My

    name is Joseph Gregory. My father is Odell.



    Quote Originally Posted by Alex157 View Post
    OK, I prefer Johnny Walker. I think that it a

    lady’s drink but I don’t like hard drinks.



    Johnny Walker is a good drink, but I prefer

    single malt scotch, there are many. I will bring you a bottle of Glenmorangie. Scotch is definitely not a lady's

    drink, but some women will drink it. I will tell you a story when we are drinking Scotch

    together.
    [/quote]


    Quote Originally Posted by Alex157 View Post
    Yeah, it is

    the last thing I would want – to have the US as enemy again.



    Actually, I am not sure. I think that economy is only a

    part of politics. Again, you never are able to create good economy without political stability.


    Why everybody is glad to keep money in Switzerland? It is

    a safe place, in the center of Europe and NATO defends my beloved money (no matter that Switzerland itself is not a

    member of it).

    The problem is that everybody knows that

    any second the government may rob people. Nobody will be surprised if tomorrow it will be announced that all rubles

    should be changed in proportion 1:10 after showing papers where they come from. In Moscow there are exchange booths

    at each corner and we keep our money in dollars and euros. Nobody trusts rubles, nobody trusts the government.



    I understand, it is the same worry that the

    West has with Putin. He is seen as a figure who is not known, and not predictable. Also, the history of Russia

    will always be "an enigma wrapped in a mystery". As with all countries, history and culture are a weight which

    moves slowly and with much effort.



    Quote Originally Posted by Alex157 View Post
    So rich people just make money here

    and have some infrastructure for the recreation – brothels and small gyms.



    So, you are saying that the prostitutes are in

    good physical shape? Maybe I will visit you soon.



    Quote Originally Posted by Alex157 View Post
    They try to send serious money

    abroad.

    It is very difficult to develop economy under

    such political and social circumstances.


    Yes,

    capitalism suffers when capital leaves the country. Its too bad. Political stability is the first requirement, you

    know this. That is the main question with the Putin dynasty. They must create an environment of national stability

    and growth.

    You are right, politics will lead economics, and in Russia there has never been an environment

    conducive to capitalism.




    Quote Originally Posted by Alex157 View Post
    Politically we are total

    morons, so it doesn’t matter what we desire .



    Again, spoken like nobody but a Russian can

    speak. You are a wonderful people waiting to be born into the world. What can you do? I suppose you can wait for

    time to deliver changes which may or may not happen. You've never had politics in your homes, and now you see the

    world but have no choices.

    [/quote]


    Quote Originally Posted by Alex157 View Post
    I think that we

    desperately need for colleges of high economical and political education. When there are several thousands educated

    Russian guys – it will be possible to discuss what they want.


    However, I think yes, many prefer the Western way of

    economics now.


    Yes, an educated

    political/economic infrastructure is much needed. The USA is the "university of the world" in many ways, and I

    hope Russians will be able to take advantage.





    Quote Originally Posted by Alex157 View Post
    I think

    that Medvedev is a quite pro-Western politician and he’s going to continue to try to find a place under the

    capitalists sun for Russia.


    I hope he is not

    cut from the same cloth as Putin.


    Quote Originally Posted by Alex157 View Post
    Greg, who do you think is going to be the next president of the US?
    Good question

    Alexey. A super-model I think...

Page 1 of 4 1 ... LastLast

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
  •