Hillary Clinton slams Russia for attempting to rebuild the Soviet Union - Polidicks

[QUOTE=laserguided;38792940]Hey your post is bias.[/QUOTE] It's not biased, when your right [img]http://www.airsoftclub.lv/images/smilies/icon_lol.gif[/img]

[QUOTE=Conscript;38793083] They're graphs in a professor's archive for a cold war history course, HIS 327 at ramapo college. You'd have to ask him. [/QUOTE] you're insisting your sources are better than another source when you don't even know where they draw their data from?

[QUOTE=Conscript;38793083] Yea I'm biased, coming from a [B]nationalist balt[/B] who admires the his nation's collaboration with [B]fascist butchers[/B]. You're a [B]dishonest slanderer[/B] and a [B]shitposter[/B]. I almost feel for you, that post of yours is embarassing.[/QUOTE] I'll admit i am a nationalist, but i am a liberal nationalist. Collaboration ? You mean forceful conscription into a legion the people of my land never should of "joined" up in the first place ? Dishonest ? Well, if you making shit up and me proving you wrong is being dishonest. Shitposter ? Well, yes, i am a shitposter, i will give you that but what does that have to do with a internet fight which lays out facts against "facts" ? [editline]11th December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Conscript;38793200]They're graphs in a professor's archive for a [B]cold war history course[/B], HIS 327 at ramapo college. You'd have to ask him.[/QUOTE] A history course FROM a soviet college ? Totally not biased.

what is HAPPENING in this thread even

[QUOTE=Conscript;38791083]That's nice. You cited a secondary source from a nameless american author, and there's countless amounts of them, each with their own book and unique interpretation. Suffice to say I don't care. Being a russian historian doesn't mean shit. Otherwise apologists like grover furr or hysterical cold warrior propagandists like robert conquest would be an authority on the USSR. There is a historian divide on pretty much all segments of soviet history, from the so-called holodomor to the nature of the german-soviet relationship to reasons for the collapse of the USSR. The issue is too big and divisive to credit a single secondary source with the truth. Furthermore, doing a fucking paper for your class doesn't mean you 'know your stuff'. Jesus christ. No doubt all you did was pick up richard pipes, robert conquest, and the rest of the usual published secondary sources that flood the market and libraries in the west. Soviet history is too controversial to be left to be written by cold warriors and historian-entrepreneurs and the college students left to reference their work. The cold war has left a heap of crap on the grave of the USSR that will need to be blown away with time. Also, primary source > secondary source[/QUOTE] Wow you are an ignorant fuck. That author is Russian, the book translated into English. Did you even bother to look at what I posted? I'm gonna go believe you haven't actually read any decent kind of history book in your life. That book, among many others [I]always[/I] fucking take primary sources into account. It's literally impossible to publish a scholarly history book WITHOUT primary sources. To say that book and others are strictly secondary shows just how dumb you are. Also, there's no such thing as a history book without some kind of "interpretation". All scholarly books have a thesis in them. A history book of "just facts" is either a third grade text book (which I'm sure is the extent of your education) or a coloring book.

[QUOTE=TheJoey;38793321]what is HAPPENING in this thread even[/QUOTE] Internet fight.

[QUOTE=Itsjustguy;38793239] A history course FROM a [B]soviet college[/B] ? Totally not biased.[/QUOTE] sorry dude but [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramapo_College]ramapo[/url] is anything but soviet

[QUOTE=Itsjustguy;38793345]Internet fight.[/QUOTE] say it to my face fucker not online see what happens [editline]11th December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=trotskygrad;38793389]sorry dude but [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramapo_College]ramapo[/url] is anything but soviet[/QUOTE] Ew, north jersey :v:

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38793392] Ew, north jersey :v:[/QUOTE] exactly no soviet housing bloc compares to the horrors of hoboken

[QUOTE=trotskygrad;38793389]sorry dude but [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramapo_College]ramapo[/url] is anything but soviet[/QUOTE] Okay, backpedaling - i require a source from his words.

[QUOTE=Rika-chan;38777748]Hillary Clinton isn't looking her best[/QUOTE] she is 65, so, all things considered...

also about the defense budget, do you really believe the soviets could have maintained such a level of sophistication in their military with that level of money (much better tanks up until the 1980s, NBC protected vehicles before NATO, advanced TGMs, better [B]laser guided[/B] systems, more advanced EW capabilities, etc)? that's just bullshit

[QUOTE=trotskygrad;38793200]you're insisting your sources are better than another source when you don't even know where they draw their data from?[/QUOTE] All I said was primary sources are better than secondary sources. Although I will say a professor's academic archive, one which even has my opponent's cited secondary source on the required reading list for the course, is better than a simple book which can be written and published by anybody and can be citing anything, even other secondary sources, especially considering the track record of these sort of books and their authors and the controversial nature of the subject. The readers can judge. The cases have been made and both sides have cited sources. [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38793331] That author is Russian, the book translated into English. Did you even bother to look at what I posted?[/quote] The author lives in america as a professor and I have found no evidence he was born in russia sans the name, which isn't enough. That is enough to use the adjective 'american'. [Quote]I'm gonna go believe you haven't actually read any decent kind of history book in your life. That book, among many others [I]always[/I] fucking take primary sources into account. It's literally impossible to publish a scholarly history book WITHOUT primary sources. [/quote] The Black book of communism and to a lesser extent richard pipes' work will forever be a stain on secondary sources written by westerners. I have no reason to treat this book any differently, especially considering the title of his other book 'Anti-americanism from stalin to putin'. [Quote]To say that book and others are strictly secondary shows just how dumb you are. [/quote] ...they are secondary sources? [Quote]Also, there's no such thing as a history book without some kind of "interpretation". All scholarly books have a thesis in them. A history book of "just facts" is either a third grade text book (which I'm sure is the extent of your education) or a coloring book.[/QUOTE] Translation: everything is biased. Your post is 90% personal attack and 10% substance. I'm going to take that as a sign this discussion is becoming too much for you and others and devolving into hostilities.

[QUOTE=Conscript;38793492]All I said was primary sources are better than secondary sources. Although I will say a professor's academic archive, one which even has my opponent's cited secondary source on the required reading list for the course, is better than a simple book which can be written and published by anybody and can be citing anything, even other secondary sources, especially considering the track record of these sort of books and their authors and the controversial nature of the subject. The readers can judge. The cases have been made and both sides have cited sources.[/QUOTE] You jest, surely? "published by anyone"? The book is published by The University of North Carolina Press - a fricken university publisher. And written by a college professor [url]http://www.fpri.org/contributors/vladislav-zubok[/url]

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38793554]You jest, surely? "published by anyone"? The book is published by The University of North Carolina Press - a fricken university publisher.[/QUOTE] are you implying american peer review boards aren't biased?

[QUOTE=trotskygrad;38793576]are you implying american peer review boards aren't biased?[/QUOTE] Are you going to give a citation that they are?

[QUOTE=trotskygrad;38793484]also about the defense budget, do you really believe the soviets could have maintained such a level of sophistication in their military with that level of money (much better tanks up until the 1980s, NBC protected vehicles before NATO, advanced TGMs, better [B]laser guided[/B] systems, more advanced EW capabilities, etc)? that's just bullshit[/QUOTE] The only reason they had a massively advanced military is because they probably were paranoid of an attack from the west or vice versa.Cold war did a lot of military research in a short time period.

This author, from his biography, was the "director of Russia and East Block Archival Documents Database Project of the National Security Archive" No primary sources in the book, eh?

[QUOTE=Itsjustguy;38793605]The only reason they had a massively advanced military is because they probably were paranoid of an attack from the west or vice versa.Cold war did a lot of military research in a short time period.[/QUOTE] well ofc, my point that conscript posting graphs where soviet defense spending is a tiny portion of GNP is fucking stupid when those figures are blatantly false. [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38793596]Are you going to give a citation that they are?[/QUOTE] they're going to have an american perspective obviously.

[QUOTE=Falchion;38786130]mutually assured destruction is infact selfish and illogical. if an actual nuclear war broke out, why doom whole humanity instead of just die and let live. for deterrence and such shit it's best to keep saying that retaliation will happen but if you actually have to make the decision about whether to have the human race get bombed back into the stone age or your enemies to live it's something to think about.[/QUOTE] 'oh damn looks like america just launched its nukes at us, best just sit and watch'

[QUOTE=trotskygrad;38793629] they're going to have an american perspective obviously.[/QUOTE] As someone entering the history field, I take personal offense to that. The first damn thing they teach you in any upper level history courses at college is to critically think and look at things objectively. They keep respectively saying, "Every source is bias, primary and secondary". Hell, my university has a whole course dedicated to historiography.

[QUOTE=Conscript;38792637]Piss off with this question. I never said I was only pointed out that ridiculousness of my opponent claiming to be for the reasons he stated. Suddenly I must make the same claim and prove it? Go away.[/QUOTE] woah what lmao -post links to nytimes -doubts credibility of someone else -when he cites a source its a bad source -when asked for same level of credibility we get this reply A++ job bro the fact that anyone on sh even asks for citations is hilarious

[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;38793685]woah what lmao -post links to nytimes -doubts credibility of someone else -when he cites a source its a bad source -when asked for same level of credibility we get this reply A++ job bro[/QUOTE] First he says my source is crap (without even looking at it). Then he says, "Oh well it can be published by anyone" - I show it's published by a university He says "can be written by anyone" - a university history professor who lived in the USSR for a time Waiting for his response.

[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;38793685]woah what lmao -post links to nytimes -doubts credibility of someone else -when he cites a source its a bad source -when asked for same level of credibility we get this reply A++ job bro the fact that anyone on sh even asks for citations is hilarious[/QUOTE] Ny times cites OECD. My source is not bad, at best you can argue it's an orphaned graph. Don't ask me to substantiate a claim I never made just because my opponent did.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38793678]As someone entering the history field, I take personal offense to that. The first damn thing they teach you in any upper level history courses at college is to critically think and look at things objectively. They keep respectively saying, "Every source is bias, primary and secondary". Hell, my university has a whole course dedicated to historiography.[/QUOTE] historians are human too bro. people are going to have some level of bias no matter how hard they try to be objective.

[QUOTE=trotskygrad;38793727]historians are human too bro. people are going to have some level of bias no matter how hard they try to be objective.[/QUOTE] I have a feeling you haven't read a history book outside of a textbook. I have stated so before - all sources are bias and all published history books, [I]especially published from a university[/I] contain this magical thing called a "thesis". A thesis requires a "point of view", which is biased. Peer reviews do not look to see if a person is "right or wrong" in any academia. They review to see if the published work substantially backs up its claims with facts and sources.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38793762]I have a feeling you haven't read a history book outside of a textbook. I have stated so before - all sources are bias and all published history books, [I]especially published from a university[/I] contain this magical thing called a "thesis". A thesis requires a "point of view", which is biased. Peer reviews do not look to see if a person is "right or wrong" in any academia. They review to see if the published work substantially backs up its claims with facts and sources.[/QUOTE] is opposing viewpoints a textbook? :3 and yes, I know how academia works (first two posts were sarcasm btw, Conscript logic)

[QUOTE=trotskygrad;38793788]is opposing viewpoints a textbook? :3[/quote] History textbooks for public schools, at least in America, are utter shit. People are so terrified of making an offensive piont to some peoples in the US at one point in history that they give a painfully watered down version of events (sometimes out right lying). Take a read into this book [url]http://www.amazon.com/Lies-My-Teacher-Told-Everything/dp/0743296281[/url] [QUOTE=trotskygrad;38793788]and yes, I know how academia works (first two posts were sarcasm btw, Conscript logic)[/QUOTE] Oh :downs:

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38793882]History textbooks for public schools, at least in America, are utter shit. People are so terrified of making an offensive piont to some peoples in the US at one point in history that they give a painfully watered down version of events (sometimes out right lying). [/QUOTE] funnily enough I was discussing russian history textbooks earlier today [IMG]http://images.tiu.ru/5427093_w640_h640_9_rk.jpg[/IMG] [quote=Girl who's reading this]ok. There were Red party and White Party. Red killed Royal family Then civil war.Country in in a huge ass.Nobody cares about economics.Then Soviet Union and 72 year of isolation[/quote]

[QUOTE=trotskygrad;38793895]"Nobody cares"[/QUOTE] My eye twitched :v: