• We should now be fully online following an overnight outage. Apologies for any inconvenience, we do not expect there to be any further issues.

And Now, about America...

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
Originally posted by: Genx87
Take a look any pretty much any measure USA in 1950 vs USA in 2005

Our debt to GDP was close to or over 100% of GDP and unemployment probably over 20%.

if my point went any more over your head, it would have flow out into outer space.

Originally posted by: Frackal
LAME response

mockery is the only response dumb fscks like you deserve.
 

Strk

Lifer
Nov 23, 2003
10,197
4
76
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: Genx87
What doesnt make sense? You realize Europe has a negative birth rate for white christian europeans? How do you propose they sustain economic growth with a negative birth rate?

By 2060 the native population is expected to be a minority. Who do you think will fill in their place?

Maybe encourage the white christian Europeans to have more children? The Pope ought to be screaming that from his balcony in the Vatican.

Not exactly. It's more of an issue that comes with being in a developed country, educated and being at least middle class.

The issue is not necessarilly a European one, it's anywhere with similar conditions. If you take a look at America, the highest birthrates are more than likely not going to be your middle class white families.

I mean, in the past and possibly even still going, Australia has paid for vacations for, well, your guys.....
 

EatSpam

Diamond Member
May 1, 2005
6,423
0
0
Originally posted by: Strk
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: Genx87
What doesnt make sense? You realize Europe has a negative birth rate for white christian europeans? How do you propose they sustain economic growth with a negative birth rate?

By 2060 the native population is expected to be a minority. Who do you think will fill in their place?

Maybe encourage the white christian Europeans to have more children? The Pope ought to be screaming that from his balcony in the Vatican.

Not exactly. It's more of an issue that comes with being in a developed country, educated and being at least middle class.

The issue is not necessarilly a European one, it's anywhere with similar conditions. If you take a look at America, the highest birthrates are more than likely not going to be your middle class white families.

I mean, in the past and possibly even still going, Australia has paid for vacations for, well, your guys.....

I am a father in a white middle class family in a mostly white community, most of the families are having 2 or 3 kids, a few have 4. We're constantly building new schools. I'm not out in the middle of nowhere either. There's 2 universities here, an auto plant, 2 hqs of major insurance companies, 2 hospitals, etc and the nearest population > 1,000,000 city is 90 miles away. People still manage to find time to have families here. I don't know what's so different about Europe...
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: Genx87
What doesnt make sense? You realize Europe has a negative birth rate for white christian europeans? How do you propose they sustain economic growth with a negative birth rate?

By 2060 the native population is expected to be a minority. Who do you think will fill in their place?

Maybe encourage the white christian Europeans to have more children? The Pope ought to be screaming that from his balcony in the Vatican.

Of course that will fix that issue but it isnt happening.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
first of all, 2006 is a long ways off, and any projection that far in the future doesn't mean much.

It doesnt take a mathematician to see negative birth rates now showing consequences decades down the road.

second, i don't see the problem with negative population growth. Many european countries are very overpopulated. As long as the standard of living continues to increase, i don't see the problem.

Negative birth rates will cause a decrease in the amount of people who can work, buy, sustain the economy. If they want to sustain economic growth they will be required to have immigration so their industries can grow. If not they will remain stagnant like they have the past 10-15 years. Eventually with a stagnant economy other countries will overtake the EU in buying and economic power. With a smaller % of the economic power you can expect things to cost more for the EU and eventually erode their standard of living.

Third, why does it matter who, if anyone takes their place. You seem very distraught that whites and christians might become a minority in an other continent that you and your ilk have some bizarre distaste for. Explain why please.

Because we need the EU to help us in the fight against radical islam. If the EU see's a large influx of Muslims within their borders you can expect them to gain more political and economic power. Eventually this power will be enough to overturn many of the govts within the EU and we could see Islamic totalitarian nations erected right in the heart of Europe. We are already seeing the groundwork being laid in Europe for this eventual takeover with bombings and threats and murders of the native population by radical muslims.

 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
if my point went any more over your head, it would have flow out into outer space.

Then why dont you tell us your point? You seemed to be saying the 1950s USA was better off than the 2005 USA which is wrong.
 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
Originally posted by: Genx87
if my point went any more over your head, it would have flow out into outer space.

Then why dont you tell us your point? You seemed to be saying the 1950s USA was better off than the 2005 USA which is wrong.

the point of the discussion was american power relative to the rest of the world, and my point was, that the US had a lot more of it back then.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: Martin
Originally posted by: Genx87
if my point went any more over your head, it would have flow out into outer space.

Then why dont you tell us your point? You seemed to be saying the 1950s USA was better off than the 2005 USA which is wrong.

the point of the discussion was american power relative to the rest of the world, and my point was, that the US had a lot more of it back then.

That is debateable as well. We had a major superpower in the Soviet Union sitting right across the aisle from us.

Right now we have ??????
 
Apr 17, 2005
13,465
3
81
Originally posted by: Tango
Originally posted by: raildogg
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: Genx87
What doesnt make sense? You realize Europe has a negative birth rate for white christian europeans? How do you propose they sustain economic growth with a negative birth rate?

By 2060 the native population is expected to be a minority. Who do you think will fill in their place?

Maybe encourage the white christian Europeans to have more children? The Pope ought to be screaming that from his balcony in the Vatican.

That won't happen due to the perverse, decadent culture of Europe. The women are too busy with work. These Europeans don't seem to care at all about their religious past, so the Pope cannot do much. Especially outside of Italy and Spain. And Italy and Spain, the two most Catholic countries, have declining birth rates among their native populations.

Ireland seems to be doing better than the other countries, though. :)

When you leave religion behind, become a society with no morals and no self-control, disaster often occurs. It has occurred in Europe's past before, and it is happening right now. Perverse behavior was one of the reasons for Rome's decline.

If you think America is sexually outrageous, then you haven't seen these modern Europeans in action. They put everyone else to shame, maybe with the exception of the Japanese and the Russians.


Hum.... couple of questions:
1) What's wrong with non-white, non-christian people? Do you hate them so much that you think that only white-christian people are able to provide a country economic growth? If so, how do you explain what the "asian-tigers", or China or India have done in the past few years, and will do in the next few decades?

2) Are you serious about the "perverse" thing? I mean... I never thought anybody from this century could really be defining something in the sexual sphere as perverse... what are you specifically talking about? Topless beaches?

3) If you do world statistics, the declining birth rate is roughly an inverse proportion of the GDP-pro-capita. Something wrong with this? Last time somebody in Europe asked his country to have more children, he was preparing a war....
Also, right now the birth rate in european countries has nothing to do with religion. Europe is mostly a laic continent. The reason is, people have more fun staying single untill they are in their 30s. The accumulated wealth is very high, the cultural landscape incredibly resourcefull and diverse, and people are enjoying it. Individual necessities should lead people lifes; or are you advocating the government should take over personal decisions in the sexual, social and emotional spheres?

The point is> Europe doesn't want more power in the world system. It wants to mantain its social, economic and cultural system. That's the main, and probably only, target. That's why the military expenses are so low. Most european people believe in international organizations for power-sharing, and war is no longer see as a solution to any but the most catastrophic situations. Nobody is interested in trying to be the next hegemon, the only geopolitical interest is mantain a role as regional superpower, only using the soft power coming from being a cultural beacon. Economic prosperity is the long term target, and many european economists think this will be manteined by stability, not double digits growths. Anybody trying to ignore these cultural beliefs won't get re-elected. Possible exception: France still deep involved into African political and economical development and still willing to expand its military power, but I would say this is more a reflection of its will to play a major role inside the european union than true global power ambitions.



good point. i'm not here to debate who is doing better or this or that. i'm saying that the us and europe are concentrating on different things, the us wants to be the dominant political force which it has done for many years, and europe doesn't really want that...instead they are going for economic develoment and maintaining their standard or life.

as for the population crisis, its nothing to worry about...there will be billions of new immigrants to europe over the next few decades but they will come from not just islamic countries but also from india and china which are producing so many qualified professionals. I dont think that overall its a problem, unless these people have a problem with foreigners by the way they make it sound that the decrease of white christians is such a big deal.
 
Apr 17, 2005
13,465
3
81
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Martin
Originally posted by: Genx87
if my point went any more over your head, it would have flow out into outer space.

Then why dont you tell us your point? You seemed to be saying the 1950s USA was better off than the 2005 USA which is wrong.

the point of the discussion was american power relative to the rest of the world, and my point was, that the US had a lot more of it back then.

That is debateable as well. We had a major superpower in the Soviet Union sitting right across the aisle from us.

Right now we have ??????

keep things in perpective, the us is wary of china, and to a much lesser extent india. and neither of those countries, especially china, is going to put up with the unilateral nonsense of the us.
 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Martin
Originally posted by: Genx87
if my point went any more over your head, it would have flow out into outer space.

Then why dont you tell us your point? You seemed to be saying the 1950s USA was better off than the 2005 USA which is wrong.

the point of the discussion was american power relative to the rest of the world, and my point was, that the US had a lot more of it back then.

That is debateable as well. We had a major superpower in the Soviet Union sitting right across the aisle from us.

Right now we have ??????

One big power has been replaced by a multitude of smaller powers, whose sum is much greater than that one. its debatable only if one ignores facts and simply opposes the "other side".
 

Ldir

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2003
2,184
0
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Genx87
Status quo for EU is lots of social programs and 1.5% GDP growth.

Add to that today's news that EU inflation is at 2.2%. And the gloom and doomers here are so distressed about 1.2%...

That is the EU's annual inflation rate. Our 1.2% is for one month. Our annual inflation is almost double the EU's. You are really making a fool of yourself lately.
 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
2
0
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Schroeder is a Nazi himself. The man is a lunatic who advocated concentration camps. You don't need a better example of catastrophe than Europe, the continent of genocide.

you're posts are irrelevent. YOu spew more nonsense than anyone here, with the possible exception of a very select few.

you're posts are irrelevent. YOu spew more nonsense than anyone here, with the possible exception of a very select few.

real mature. :roll:

real mature. :roll:
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: Martin
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Martin
Originally posted by: Genx87
if my point went any more over your head, it would have flow out into outer space.

Then why dont you tell us your point? You seemed to be saying the 1950s USA was better off than the 2005 USA which is wrong.

the point of the discussion was american power relative to the rest of the world, and my point was, that the US had a lot more of it back then.

That is debateable as well. We had a major superpower in the Soviet Union sitting right across the aisle from us.

Right now we have ??????

One big power has been replaced by a multitude of smaller powers, whose sum is much greater than that one. its debatable only if one ignores facts and simply opposes the "other side".

Outside of China who are these other powers?
 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Martin
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Martin
Originally posted by: Genx87
if my point went any more over your head, it would have flow out into outer space.

Then why dont you tell us your point? You seemed to be saying the 1950s USA was better off than the 2005 USA which is wrong.

the point of the discussion was american power relative to the rest of the world, and my point was, that the US had a lot more of it back then.

That is debateable as well. We had a major superpower in the Soviet Union sitting right across the aisle from us.

Right now we have ??????

One big power has been replaced by a multitude of smaller powers, whose sum is much greater than that one. its debatable only if one ignores facts and simply opposes the "other side".

Outside of China who are these other powers?

EU didn't exist back then, and european countries used to support the US almost blindly.
Africa wasn't independent, now they want a Security council seat.
India was nothing, now they're doing their own thing, and its increasingly counting for something.
many emergying countires (like, south korea, taiwan) were basicly nothing back then.

You can see thing everywhere, even this sad thread. Here we have the Fracktal lambasting Canada for not kissing ass, something that really was expected (and which always happened) in the pass.

Anyway, I can keep going, but it won't make a difference to you. After all, you are blatantly ignoring things like the US decreased % of scientific output, decreased % of world GDP, as well as things like the utterly pathetic "coalition of the willing" that you tried to get going.
 

Strk

Lifer
Nov 23, 2003
10,197
4
76
Militarily, no one is really a match for the U.S. Sure, we have issues with peacekeeping, but we don't really spend much money on it. (Which is one of the reasons there are so many issues with Iraq) But as far as waging a war, no one can really do what we can do. There are very few countries capable of the mass mobilization we can do. (I think it's four countries total, but it might be five.) As well as our abilities to cripple an entire army with minimal casualties on our side. And again, please do not bring up post-war peacekeeping missions. Because that is an entirely different area.

However, our "relative power" is a bit diminished once you start throwing around economic power. In a recent article about large oil-producing countries, it spoke about how other countries are more capable of not being concerned with U.S. policy as much as they used to, or even simply ignoring it.
 
Apr 17, 2005
13,465
3
81
Originally posted by: Strk
Militarily, no one is really a match for the U.S. Sure, we have issues with peacekeeping, but we don't really spend much money on it. (Which is one of the reasons there are so many issues with Iraq) But as far as waging a war, no one can really do what we can do. There are very few countries capable of the mass mobilization we can do. (I think it's four countries total, but it might be five.) As well as our abilities to cripple an entire army with minimal casualties on our side. And again, please do not bring up post-war peacekeeping missions. Because that is an entirely different area.

However, our "relative power" is a bit diminished once you start throwing around economic power. In a recent article about large oil-producing countries, it spoke about how other countries are more capable of not being concerned with U.S. policy as much as they used to, or even simply ignoring it.


ehh...i dunno about that...if it came down to brute force, the us wouldnt really test china
 

Strk

Lifer
Nov 23, 2003
10,197
4
76
Originally posted by: Inspector Jihad
Originally posted by: Strk
Militarily, no one is really a match for the U.S. Sure, we have issues with peacekeeping, but we don't really spend much money on it. (Which is one of the reasons there are so many issues with Iraq) But as far as waging a war, no one can really do what we can do. There are very few countries capable of the mass mobilization we can do. (I think it's four countries total, but it might be five.) As well as our abilities to cripple an entire army with minimal casualties on our side. And again, please do not bring up post-war peacekeeping missions. Because that is an entirely different area.

However, our "relative power" is a bit diminished once you start throwing around economic power. In a recent article about large oil-producing countries, it spoke about how other countries are more capable of not being concerned with U.S. policy as much as they used to, or even simply ignoring it.


ehh...i dunno about that...if it came down to brute force, the us wouldnt really test china

China really can't move its Army. You're also talking about a country that is still behind Taiwan in military technology. (You know, that country we sell our old stuff to)
 

BarneyFife

Diamond Member
Aug 12, 2001
3,875
0
76
Originally posted by: raildogg
Yeah America isn't as dominant as it once was but it is a lot more powerful than Europe will ever be. Europe has seen its best days and is slowly fading away. I can't complain :)

These arrogant buffoons deserve everything they get. They appease the radical muslims, who come to their countries in wave after wave and will eventually be the majority. When these arrogant Europeans finally do speak out against the radical culture of the Mid East, they get killed. Like Van Gogh.

Europe is old history now. The future belongs to India and China and America and Russia. And of course, Israel.

HAHAHAHAHA! Yeah. India and China are both sweatshop havens. We all know how bad Russia is and Israel has no future unless the US keeps on sending them their monthly welfare check. You just named 5 countries and I would never step foot in 4 of those POS countries. Hey Kids! Lets go on vacation to India. LOL

 

TNM93

Senior member
Aug 13, 2005
965
0
0
Originally posted by: cwjerome
"I don't want to name any examples of catastrophes, where you can see what happens when there is no organized state. I could name countries, but the office I still hold forbids that- but everybody knows I mean America." -German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder

Of course everyone knows who you mean :roll:

As this buttclown takes one last cheap shot at the US before stepping down, I just have to reflect on the upsidedown nature of many moral dimwits, and just smile at their psychological infancy.

Of course we have the recent Nobel (as if that means anything anymore) Prize winner in Literature, British playwright Harold Pinter, speaking a couple years ago:

"The US is really beyond reason now. It is beyond our imagining to know what they are going to do next and what they are prepared to do. There is only one comparison: Nazi Germany."

And that's the lighter stuff...

Is it no wonder at all that the American public casts a skeptical eye towards our own leftist "internationalists" and Europe-worshipers?

But perhaps the best recent quote I came across was this funny bit by Peter Mayhew, who played Chewbacca, on his becoming an American citizen about a week ago:

"Whatever people say about America, it is still one of the most wonderful countries in the world, despite the politics, religion, and everything else that goes on."

:) I can actually appreciate his take, and I think it subtly defines the love-hate relationship many people have with the USA. And congrats on being an American, Peter!


I was with you until you decided on taking aim at "leftists", which I assume you mean Democrats. Face it, it's popular in Europe to be a little bit Anti-American. The French have known this and have capitalized on it for years, now the Germans are doing it as well. Schroeder isn't saying anything new.

 

MicroChrome

Senior member
Mar 8, 2005
430
0
0
Originally posted by: Frackal
Originally posted by: Martin
Originally posted by: Frackal
Where are you from?

Born in Bulgaria, grew up mostly in Canada. Why do you ask?

I actually typed out that you must be from Canada before erasing it. You have been real turds lately, I sincerely hope there is an opportunity where your vitriol and undeserved derision towards the US comes back to bite you.

Your nation has behaved absolutely disgustingly, spoiled and thankless Euro-sycophants who knife a longtime friend in the back at the first opportunity.

And continue to speak nastily about us in the so-called name of freedom and good principles while you ally with nations who have never promoted such things, and who are only around today to be free and prosperous, just as you are, because we either liberated them from tyrants or stood with them against tyrants.



Damn you must be really BUSHWHACKED!

I can see any NATION thinking USA is a totally F**KED UP! We got the worst retarded president that is at the helm...WTF do you expect?

Yeah, I talk to god too.... NOT!!! I use to be a born again, but after listening to one of bushes speaches, I become a sun worshiper overnight....

Well, not overnight ... But the very next morning!
 

Polish3d

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2005
5,500
0
0
Originally posted by: Martin
Originally posted by: Genx87
Take a look any pretty much any measure USA in 1950 vs USA in 2005

Our debt to GDP was close to or over 100% of GDP and unemployment probably over 20%.

if my point went any more over your head, it would have flow out into outer space.

Originally posted by: Frackal
LAME response

mockery is the only response dumb fscks like you deserve.


LAME response
 

Polish3d

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2005
5,500
0
0
[
You can see thing everywhere, even this sad thread. Here we have the Fracktal lambasting Canada for not kissing ass, something that really was expected (and which always happened) in the pass.

Anyway, I can keep going, but it won't make a difference to you. After all, you are blatantly ignoring things like the US decreased % of scientific output, decreased % of world GDP, as well as things like the utterly pathetic "coalition of the willing" that you tried to get going.

You're misleading. I never said Canada has to kiss ass. I do say that you should show a little more respect in general for us and what we've accomplished and done over the last century. Since you are judging our actions now, judge them in context to who we are and have been.

Canadians seem to be taking pride in a disproportionate and willful attitude of anti-Americanism, which is undeserved.

I don't mind disagreement, but you people have been taking it way too far, closer to German and French attitudes.

I honestly believe it is in part a slight different in cultural and political values, and frankly an always existing inferiority complex that used to be expressed in friendly joshing amongst allies but is now being taken to a level that is unreasonable and not equitable.

The US has stood against tyranny and done more to promote the causes of freedom and justice and other principles you espouse than any other nation ever, and you ought to show some goddamn respect.

Which means you disagree in a respectful way, rather than heap on the kind of pissant style derision I've seen from your people and your media over the last 4 years.



Frankly I think you and others like you in Canada and much of the world are glad they finally have a better reason to hate us.

 

MicroChrome

Senior member
Mar 8, 2005
430
0
0
You're misleading. I never said Canada has to kiss ass. I do say that you should show a little more respect in general for us and what we've accomplished and done over the last century. Since you are judging our actions now, judge them in context to who we are and have been.

Who YOU are and has been. Please don't put WE because I am american and I have never been like this... I can't remember when the USA was like this....