BF2S Forums The Power in the Oval Office

just underlining feos' point about convenience, that's all

some people prefer to focus on positives...

FEOS wrote:

oug wrote:

Vax wrote:

I fear for the future. 

The mind numbing stupidity and lack of historical knowledge is astounding; reading this post makes me truly sad.


 
You ARE kidding right? Pls say you are j/k

So what is so numbingly stupid about this post?

Could be the fact that the poster completely overlooked some and oversimplified others of the accomplishments of each of those officeholders. Not to mention completely mischaracterizing the current election choices.

How's that for explaining the numbing stupidity of that post?

This.

I mean srsly, just one example  "Reagan - An actor, and not a very good one either ... he turned out to be an okay president but the world laughed good"

The world laughed good ? That is some deep analysis there. Wow.

Last edited by Vax (2008-09-24 13:53:40)

Varegg wrote:

I didn't narrow it down to just Europe did I, but Russia and France comes to mind ... France is the one European country that prides itself to have as little as possible to do with the US ...

Already covered France...we've been "cooperating" with them since Sarkozy was elected. And it was France that wasn't playing nice with the US, mind you...we just didn't like it.

Then let's not narrow it down to Europe (even though the discussion was centering around European views of the US). What countries worldwide do we not "cooperate" with? Off the top of my head, I'd say: Iran (neither does the EU, and for the same reason), Russia (neither does the EU, and for the same reason), and Syria (although the relationship is warming).

Who else?

Blind, uninformed, BF2S euro double-standards at play yet again.

oug wrote:

First off: Seeing as though your arguments did not refute any of what Varegg said, I think you'll agree that "numbingly stupid" was a numbingly stupid knee-jerk reaction by a moron who felt offended by the post but had nothing to say about it.

Seeing as how the response was not necessarily a refutation but an example of how Varegg did not include the entire truth (as I posted), then your comment, while interesting and cute, is irrelevant.

oug wrote:

and I just can't keep from saying that there are a lot of things that contributed to the fall of Communism in Russia, the least of which was Reagan's plan.

Certainly, a lot of things contributed...but what was the proximate cause?

FEOS wrote:

oug wrote:

First off: Seeing as though your arguments did not refute any of what Varegg said, I think you'll agree that "numbingly stupid" was a numbingly stupid knee-jerk reaction by a moron who felt offended by the post but had nothing to say about it.

Seeing as how the response was not necessarily a refutation but an example of how Varegg did not include the entire truth (as I posted), then your comment, while interesting and cute, is irrelevant.

Well no post that I have ever seen has ever managed to include the entire truth, and that goes for yours as well. It's his opinion, and what he said was not "numbingly stupid". It was part of the truth as you yourself just implied. So all I said to begin with was that instead of trash talking, one could reply decently. Anyway, I'm done defending Varegg. He has a keyboard of his own.

FEOS wrote:

oug wrote:

and I just can't keep from saying that there are a lot of things that contributed to the fall of Communism in Russia, the least of which was Reagan's plan.

Certainly, a lot of things contributed...but what was the proximate cause?

Imho and from the little I've read, the fall of Communism was primarily caused by internal problems and not so much by the friction with the capitalist adversaries. Of course we could write a book about this right here but I recon I'll trust Mr. Hobsbawm's take for the time being!

oug wrote:

FEOS wrote:

oug wrote:

First off: Seeing as though your arguments did not refute any of what Varegg said, I think you'll agree that "numbingly stupid" was a numbingly stupid knee-jerk reaction by a moron who felt offended by the post but had nothing to say about it.

Seeing as how the response was not necessarily a refutation but an example of how Varegg did not include the entire truth (as I posted), then your comment, while interesting and cute, is irrelevant.

Well no post that I have ever seen has ever managed to include the entire truth, and that goes for yours as well. It's his opinion, and what he said was not "numbingly stupid". It was part of the truth as you yourself just implied. So all I said to begin with was that instead of trash talking, one could reply decently. Anyway, I'm done defending Varegg. He has a keyboard of his own.

Just ftr, what I said was NOT ATTACKING Varegg..it was attacking the set of Examples he gave that were supposed to be representing certain 'opinion points' he claimed were held by many Europeans.
Which were extremely superficial, lacking in any awareness of history, and, downright silly.




You on the other hand apparently HOLD those opinions as "true"

Pug wrote:

oug wrote:

Imho and from the little I've read, the fall of Communism was primarily caused by internal problems and not so much by the friction with the capitalist adversaries. Of course we could write a book about this right here but I recon I'll trust Mr. Hobsbawm's take for the time being!

Oh Bullshit

Spoiler (highlight to read):

It's because Reagan pumped a shitload into the defense industry which helped the economy a bit, and Russian attempted to follow suit, when the US economy was opening up globally and Russia's was limited. And it was a big part, but not the greatest one.

But...let's keep this between us.  I didn't tell you that.

Oh, and whilst we are having this private discussion, the Cold War was accelerated by Eisenhauer.  Someone earlier mentioned what a great president he was...He did some great things for the US domestically - the interstates for instance - but he's only regret he shared on his death bed: he regretted how things were handled with the Soviets.

And why was the Russian economy limited? Like I said, a lot had to do with internal reasons - the nature of the Communist International, and many more. Let's not get into this, really!

Vax wrote:

Just ftr, what I said was NOT ATTACKING Varegg..it was attacking the set of Examples he gave that were supposed to be representing certain 'opinion points' he claimed were held by many Europeans.
Which were extremely superficial, lacking in any awareness of history, and, downright silly.




You on the other hand apparently HOLD those opinions as "true"

Oh spare me the rolled eye bullshit. I know what you attacked, and how you chose to do it was wrong imho. That's all. As for my views, some I roughly agree with, some others I don't. We can talk about that in some other topic or something.

But you know what bugs me? You guys are free to spout all kinds of unhistorical shit about other countries that are less represented in this forum and you get away with the American perspective from wikis all the time. Yet when it comes to your affairs, you get all hyped up about the slightest opinion that might fall outside the beaten track - or what you're used to.

Anyway fuck this thread. Personal vendettas don't interest me one bit. Never should've posted in the first place.

Last edited by oug (2008-09-24 23:47:42)

Varegg wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Varegg wrote:

The OP was never about the truth FEOS, that's where you blatantly misunderstand the whole concept of the thread ...

You're right. Expecting at least an attempt at the truth in this forum is just plain silly.

Come off your high horse mr know it all ... I started the thread in case you have forgotten, I think I know a whole lot better than you what my own thread is about, feel free to check it again but I can tell you that it is about the impression we as Euros get depending on who has occupied the oval office and in what manor ...

I asked a couple of questions about just that and many stated it didn't matter who was the president seeing as he is just a figure head ... I think I showed pretty good later that the signal effect is so great that it indeed matter who sits behind the table ...

I never claimed to know it all and I'm not on some high horse. All I did was point out the lack of completeness of your points. I didn't say you did it purposefully, did I? The "truth" bit came from someone other than you...it was not an implication that you were lying, it was addressing the "whole truth" vice "partial truth" vis a vis the comment "the truth hurts" from someone else.

The bottomline is, if what you posted was the Euro view of those presidents and what they accomplished or didn't, it was woefully incomplete...implying an underinformed opinion on the part of you and/or your fellow Euros in that regard. I attempted to point that out. Nothing more...nothing less.

It would be like me saying that all Jacques Chirac did as president of France was foment anti-American sentiment in France and the rest of Europe. I know that he did much more than that, but that is what he is predominantly known for over here.

The discussion wasn't really about the OP at that point...it was about the European view of several US presidents' accomplishments. The OP was addressed long ago regarding the extent of the power of the chief executive. It has since devolved into other--somewhat related--discussions.