Posts by James Nguyen13

coastalcanyon60 said:It looks like Draper actually made a similar statement once too, so my mistake entirely.

But man, he was absolutely, fiercely against Slobodan!

but he wasn't against the idea of a Greater Mexico!
Hardly anyone was, if you count the tiny handful of outliers—back then, there was this massive, overwhelming consensus across the country.
The notion that certain territories shouldn't belong to them was treated like a sacred cow; everyone just took it as an absolute given.
The idea was that the breakaway states had performed an "illegal secession" and that Americans of that background had every right to "stay part of the Union"—that was the mantra. Almost nobody dared question it, especially not the hardliners or people like Vuk and his crowd.

Scott Hall39 said:What a load of nonsense. Just look at the interest rates on Greek bonds a few years back compared to where they sit today. Four years ago, the market priced those bonds almost exactly like German ones. You see the same pattern with banks, mortgage-backed securities, and everything else. The landscape shifts. Credit rating agencies aren't some exception to that rule. New data changes the sentiment for both the markets and the agencies themselves. I don't know what you expect from them. Credit assessments are done by people—flawed humans who are right sometimes and wrong others. It’s become incredibly trendy lately to insist that their ratings are always incorrect, but I haven't seen anyone else in the market claiming to have a better grasp on reality.

When it comes to downgrading the credit ratings of several European nations, the market already moved on long ago. Those credit rating agencies were just lagging behind. It’s highly likely they were simply too afraid of the pressure they’d face—which is exactly what’s happening now. You have the French getting worked up, the Italians losing their minds, and the entire Eurozone teetering on the edge of collapse. But according to them, it’s all Standard & Poor's fault.

The "market" clearly valued those Greek bonds incorrectly, and they did it by following the exact forecasts provided by the rating agencies! The grades they handed out to Greece, Ireland, Italy, Enron, Lehman Brothers, and so on... they were wildly, spectacularly wrong.

I honestly expect them to just sit tight and stop guessing, since that's really all they seem to do. They act as a bottleneck for how a market should naturally function. Their "forecasts"—which aren't even forecasts, just high-stakes guessing games—mess with the natural flow of business because they are constantly either overshooting or undershooting the mark.

The real issue is that the market isn't valuing anyone's credit anymore; instead, the agencies are setting the price, and investors follow them blindly as if they possess some kind of prophetic power.
We need to pull back the curtain and show everyone that they are just making educated guesses without much basis. We have to convince investors that these predictions are just as hollow now as they were before this recession, back when they were giving Greece the same rating as Germany, or handing Enron an AA+ right before they went under. Do you realize how massive of a mistake that is? If a company has a top-tier rating today, it could still go bankrupt tomorrow based solely on the "assessment" of these agencies.

Their ratings amount to nothing. They simply don't know how to assess risk. Personally, I'm fed up with these "economic analysts" who only exist to explain to us tomorrow why the thing they predicted yesterday didn't happen today. People keep asking them questions, they stay relevant, and investors listen to them like they're gospel, but in reality, they just obstruct the smooth operation of the market by spouting nonsense.

Scott Hall39 said:What kind of argument is that? Circumstances change in a single year.

My point is that their forecasts from a year ago were mostly just guesswork and wishful thinking—much like they are today—meaning they lack any real substance.

It's something a relevant news outlet finally managed to point out:

The credit rating agency business is a joke. Their projections aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

Drew Booth60 said:I’m with you there—these agencies have failed miserably. They should have been lowering the ratings for the USA and various European Union nations way sooner.☕
The fact that China has a weaker rating than the United Kingdom, France, or the USA... well, anyone with half a brain can see the issue there.☕ ☕

But honestly, what I want to know is why nobody was making this much noise back when the Americans were getting their ratings slashed... everyone stayed quiet then, and they certainly weren't asking these kinds of questions, even though they absolutely should have been.☕

Maybe it's because the downgrade for the USA wasn't massive. It's wild when you think about how some countries can plummet from AA to junk status in just three years.
It really makes you stop and wonder who's actually running the show here.

Drew Booth60 said:Honestly, why should I care?🙄
Why are you even putting these questions on me??
The only thing I don't get is why everyone is suddenly acting so shocked now, especially since most of the countries in the European Union have already had their ratings slashed.😕
Where was everybody before this happened?

In the past, we weren't seeing credit rating agencies flip-flopping so wildly, giving out assessments that are the complete opposite of what they were saying just a year or two ago.

At its core, this is a question of credibility. How can a single credit rating agency decide a country's credit rating is trash when they were calling it nearly top-tier just last year? It's not like all those loans and debts just popped into existence overnight!

Drew Booth60 said:Why didn't you bother asking those same questions when the US rating was downgraded??
And why didn't the European Union make a huge stink about it when the US rating took a hit?
The answer to both of those is pretty simple—hypocrisy.☕

And honestly, why should I care about what happens when the US rating gets lowered? What does that have to do with me?

I’m just trying to pose a practical question here: how can these credit rating agencies still be in business when they were handing out AA+ ratings to Enron just a day before they went belly up?

Drew Booth60 said:Oh, come on, what are you guys whining about now?
When that same credit rating agency slashed the USA's rating, you were all jumping around like little kids who just got handed a giant Hershey's bar! Total hypocrites.🙂
They cut their rating for good reason—though I’m still not entirely sure about the move regarding Austria; was that even fair?🤷

But wait, who actually rates those agencies?

Who looks at their track record or how accurate their forecasts really are? Where are all those "expert" analyses from back in 2006 and 2007?
Who evaluates the credit rating agency itself?

Linda Roberts2 said:They’re basically selling out our national interests. It’s all about making concessions to certain member states, handing over generals, dealing with that humiliation in The Hague, racking up massive debt just to meet European Union standards, and enforcing all these arbitrary rules. If the European Union ever falls apart, all those concessions go down the drain, but we’ll still be stuck with the debt. p.s. I think Greece is already importing goods from Bulgaria that don't even meet European Union regulations, just because they're cheaper.

Let’s not forget the possibility of dropping lawsuits, selling off state-owned companies and natural resources, and the endless cycle of borrowing money, too. Honestly, maybe a better title would be "not if," but "when" the European Union collapses. It definitely isn't going to last forever.

For instance, look at how the UK government was branded as traitors after World War II, even though back then, trying to accommodate the Third Reich seemed perfectly normal to some.

The people who will ultimately answer for this are the ones who voted for the parties in the "pro-Europe coalition." That's 85% of the voters.

Robin Hernandez4 said:If you actually want to learn how this stuff works, head over to the economics subforum where some of the sharper folks can point you toward the real deal. Don't just come in here dumping your total nonsense about some global conspiracy involving Masons or the Illuminati.

The real issue is the massive gap between their level of competence and the sheer amount of power they hold.

The assessments from these agencies right before the last recession were CATASTROPHICALLY wrong. And yet, somehow, everyone still treats their projections as if they're gospel.

In almost any other profession, if you fail this spectacularly at your job, you get fired. But not them. They seem to have a permanent pass.

Kate James11 said:That’s a classic logical fallacy right there—the "no true Scotsman" argument, where someone claims a "real" member of a group would never act that way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

I don't think it's always a logical fallacy, though.
Think of it this way: if a devout Jain were to commit murder, you could honestly argue that a true follower of Jainism wouldn't do such a thing, because the act itself fundamentally contradicts their core identity as a Jain.

We see people who kill in the name of religion while genuinely believing they are doing right, like certain extremists.
But then you have those who committed atrocities during the last great war; for many of them, there was no actual connection to their faith. If they truly held those beliefs to heart, those very principles would have acted as a barrier against such violence.

Kevin Gonzalez79 said:Don't you think the Pakistani government also faces significant issues with the Taliban, rather than this being strictly a matter of USA interests?

The reality is, the Pakistani government essentially helped bring the Taliban into existence.
They’ve had this supposed "problem" with them since 2001, right when the US gave them an ultimatum: help us take them out, or get swept away along with them.
Now that the USA is finally pulling its weight out of the chaos in Afghanistan, Pakistan is free to wrap up its little "conflict" with them whenever they feel like it.

Besides, there was a time when the Taliban were almost at odds with "heretical" Iran, which actually made them somewhat tolerable to the Americans back then. They have more beef with the Shiites than they do with the USA and Jewish people combined. There are reports that they intentionally starved about 2 million Shiites just to suit their own agenda. Honestly, the USA should just point the Taliban and Pakistan toward Iran and let them settle their scores amongst themselves.

While Ukrainians certainly bore a massive portion of the tragedy during the Great Famine within the Soviet Union, trying to claim the entire catastrophe as their own exclusive burden feels a bit distasteful to me.
Millions of people across the entire USSR perished from starvation, and if we’re being honest, the situation in places like Kazakhstan was arguably even more dire than what happened in Ukraine.

It just doesn't feel right to frame this solely as an attack on Ukrainians, especially since so many other ethnic groups endured that same level of horror.

Richard Wilson4 said:I really don't want to believe it, but man, some of these people's reactions are just straight-up shocking... 👎

The entire communist ideology that seems to have poisoned our left wing was basically designed to flip morality on its head. It’s built on the idea that any crime committed in the name of the Party is somehow justified by a "greater good," and if a victim suffered, they either deserved it or it was just an unfortunate mistake.

So, expecting them to actually support prosecuting those old-school communist criminals is just asking for something that isn't going to happen. Seeing modern-day 21st-century leftists defend these kinds of atrocities isn't exactly a shocker, but it really does highlight just how deeply indoctrinated their mindsets have become.

Steven Allen9 said:And what exactly are you polluted by?!

All totalitarianism is just stupid bullshit; the differences are purely cosmetic. Social democracy grew out of communism, so what exactly grew out of fascism and Nazism??! Neo-Nazism and neo-fascism. Nothing new, nothing smart.

Social democracy didn't actually evolve from communism—it was born as a direct rejection of it.
In fact, everywhere you look, communists have worked to extinguish social democracy, viewing it as an even bigger threat than the fascists.

If the Democratic Party claims roots in the old Communist Party, and today they feel this desperate urge to defend that legacy, it doesn't mean we can somehow turn the wheels of history backward. Communism was the negation of social democracy, and vice versa.

I think the fundamental issue people have is that they misinterpret the tension between liberalism and conservatism. They aren't actually opposites of one another at all.

The true counterpoint to conservatism is anti-traditionalism—things like modernism, social reformism, revolutionary movements, or what we often call progressivism.

On the other hand, the real opposite of liberalism is collectivism or authoritarianism, which is essentially just the restriction of individual freedom.

It is entirely possible for someone to be both a staunch liberal and a deep conservative. You could even be a radical revolutionary and still be illiberal.
Our society functions as a liberal one, yet it's largely made up of conservatives.
Take Iran, for example; they have illiberal conservatives.

Then you look at the USSR, where you had illiberal "progressives" and modernists.

Conservatism versus anti-conservatism is defined by your relationship to tradition, established customs, and long-standing practices.
Liberalism versus anti-liberalism is defined solely by your relationship to freedom.

So, a person can simultaneously be a complete liberal (meaning they are totally for personal liberty) while being a conservative.
Conversely, someone can be a total modernist and still suppress freedom, making them illiberal. A perfect example of this is when our local leftists try to ban churches from expressing their views. That is purely illiberal behavior.

Of course, it would be pretty foolish and tactically unsound—not to mention incredibly expensive—if the free world decided to go after every single dictatorship and repressive regime all at once.
It’s much more likely they’ll strike only where it makes sense and where they decide it's actually vital to their interests. Beyond that, trying to unite every rogue state against a single cause is just bad strategy.

Richard Wilson4 said:They gave up the Czech Republic, for example. Even Patton pulled back a few miles from Prague.

Honestly, they gave away much more than that to the communists. Think about it—they ceded large portions of Finland (which they could have taken entirely), parts of Greece, Northern Iran, and South Korea (and yes, in those early days right after the war, almost all of Korea was under communist control), plus Trieste, parts of Korea, and eventually much of Austria.
When it comes to Czechoslovakia, the agreement was simply to accept a democratic government, which the USSR actually respected during those first three years. In short, the USSR made up for that withdrawal from Czechoslovakia many times over elsewhere.

I’m honestly not sure how this ties back to Roosevelt. It wasn't like he just handed over half of Europe to the Russians on a silver platter; they simply moved in and took control, and there wasn't much anyone could have done to change that reality at the time. Neither Roosevelt nor anyone else in the USA had any intention of surrendering Western Europe—Germany included.

Richard Wilson4 said:People weren't really debating whether to wipe out the Germans entirely, it was more about slashing their population, leveling their cities and industry, and basically turning Germany back into a giant farming community.

But in the end, the Americans stepped in and blocked all of that. Their logic was pretty straightforward: they wanted to rebuild Germany into a respectable, stable nation as quickly as possible to serve as one of the primary bulwarks against the Red menace.

driftingseal12 said:Give me a break.🤣

Definition of genocide

Article 2 of The Convention defines genocide as

...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of The Group ; ( C ) Deliberately inflicting on The Group conditions of Life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part ; ( d ) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within The Group;
(c) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of The Group ; ( C ) Deliberately inflicting on The Group conditions of Life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part ; ( d ) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within The Group;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within The Group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

– Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 2 [ 3 ]

Expulsion of Germans after World War II

With at least 12 million[195][196][197] Germans directly involved, possibly 14 million or more, it was the largest movement or transfer of any single ethnic population in modern history[196] and largest among the, post-war expulsions in Central and Eastern Europe (which displaced more than twenty million people in total).[195]. Many German civilians were also sent to internment and labor camps. RJ Rummel estimates that 1,585,000 Germans were killed in Poland and 197,000 were killed in Czechoslovakia.[198] The events have been usually classified as population transfer,[199] or as ethnic cleansing.[200] Martin Shaw (2007) and W. D. Rubinstein (2004) describe the expulsions as genocide.[201] Felix Ermacora writing in 1991, (in line with a minority of legal scholars, considered ethnic cleansing to be genocide)[202][203] and stated that the expulsion of the Sudeten Germans was genocide.[204]

"...any of the following actions carried out with the specific goal of destroying, whether entirely or just partially, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, in its capacity as such:"
It just doesn't apply when you're talking about the Germans. There really isn't any intention to destroy Germans as a people. And that’s exactly why there’s no genocide.
It wasn't really an issue of wiping out Germans from the Sudetenland, Silesia, Prussia, or the Danube regions—it was more about relocation. While there were certainly instances where lives were lost, that was a much smaller fraction of the overall story, and honestly, those deaths weren't usually driven by ethnicity alone. It’s a bit more nuanced than just one single factor when you look at the broader picture.