I like the occasional bluntness if it is paired with politness and isn't one-sided.

I guess it is a sign of quite high tolerance that even the crudest conspiracy theories are just ignored and nothing else. One could try to expose the absurdity of these theories but I don't have the time for it and even then it would not be certain that people would stop believing in such things. Or should it be deleted by GOG?

On the other hand. Who if not the people must do the discussions in a democracy. Even if we all feel not literate enough, there is simply nobody else available. We have to do it and the result can only be as good as we are smart. That's life. Still I prefer it to a tyranny where someone tells you what to do and what to think. It's certainly worse.

So, yes I agree. We aren't very smart. But there is simply no alternative. Politics is for everyone by definition.

Where the discussion is going? I guess nobody knows. There are no easy solutions. But then, this also makes the discussion so fascinating. And there are huge consequences. In Greece live like 10 million people and their economic fate for the next generations is highly affected by everything that is decided by politicians who are elected by you and me. It's not like a computer game where one just restarts, it's precious real life. So the discussion is in my eyes at least worth it.

Is there a consensus? Maybe. Nobody knows. Does there have to be one? Usually what you do is agreeing on first principles (like democracy, like freedom, like responsibility, like solidarity) and then the rest is logic. Or you find common interests. Or you just look for a win-win solution and spread the advantages for both involved parties equally. But with Greece it's not clear how to do that. How much solidarity with Greece should the rest of Europe show (GB for example shows none)? How much responsibility have the Greeks to carry for themselves? How much of the debt is sustainable? How long should the paying back period last? Which reforms do they have to do? Which not? Who decides? Or would a breakup be better?

The question are not so difficult. Basically they are all negotiable. The official consensus is that Greece stays in the euro, gets 80 billion euros, must cut military and pensions and lift VAT among other things. Yesterday the Greek parliament agreed with a 2/3 majority and today other parliaments will probably too and than the discussion is probably mostly over.

In one or two years we will meet again.

So here is my bluntness: It's every people's duty in a democracy to inform him/herself about politics and have an opinion (hopefully informed one). If you don't do this you open the door wide for every kind of mismanagement or tyranny. Discussions like this one here can help and should not be limited unless there is hate speech or insults or other statements outside of a constitutional framework. The civil part of this discussion helps me sharpen my own opinion and that's good.

No words are being put in your mouth you simply need to stop insisting you have said something that cannot actually be derived from what you wrote. You may have meant something else or failed to express yourself completely which is fine, that's why I questioned you, but words have meanings and the precise words you used do not deliver the meanings you subsequently want to apply to them. So yes you may not be resigned to something but your statement is:

___________________

Again from what you said (less safety nets) only neoliberalism is the required understanding but if your meaning went further implying fascism as well, that's fine, either way it doesn't effect the outcomes of what I wrote.

Again the distinction is fine I just don't see it's relevance to what was said. Rolling back safety nets is part of the neoliberal agenda and is implicated when you speak of their rolling back. Merkel and other liberalizing types in the EU will not refer to themselves as fascists, I'm simply using the terms they apply to themselves and/or follow via their policies. Given those policies are undemocratic the term fascist could arguably be applied.

Is the neoliberal roll back of safety nets across Europe inevitable from your point of view or isn't it? If not what are you advocating? Seven or so posts from you now, mostly of insults that don't speak to these 2 simple questions.

Perhaps I missed something with all of the condescending and "mustache twirling." Don't blame the reader for poor writing.

I'm only saying your initial post requires it. That may not have been your intent, you may have intended to include other things as well but apathy is a necessary condition of your statement as the inevitability it proposes is a fatalist view.

You may say your statement is hyperbole and for that you can certainly apply it to "I got some land to sell you," but hyperbole would be misused if you are trying to apply it to the beginning of that section "Greece is a prelude" etc. There simply is no hyperbole or alternate meanings from the following statement:

The second half of that sentence, "as the financial systems..." validates the implicit 'why' of the first half. Calling the whole thing hyperbole is nonsense and a misapplication of the term. Further there is no other context needed to understand that sentence, therefore the literalness of "eventually" is the only understanding a reader can legitimately derive.

I really don't want to spend paragraphs on english lessons but your insistent complaint that I'm reading you out of context or not taking hyperbole into account is simply a lie.

Unsurprisingly another smug ending and still no engagement in 2 simple questions. Is the erosion of safety nets through neoliberal doctrine (or fascism as you may see it) inevitable or not? If not what are you advocating?

I disagree with that Greece the reforms went to Greece's breaking point. In some areas yes, in other areas not. For example if now the military is to be cut, then you surely could have done it already five years ago. If not privatizations are to be done, you surely could have done them already five years ago.

And of course time is of the essence. The longer the Greek economy is not recovering the longer people will stay unemployed. The more money is lost. I don't really mind actually because I don't feel so close to the Greeks and if they have time... but I think they should be very concerned about not progressing fast enough. Time is a lot of money for them whichever way they take.

They have an immediate problem of a failing economy and they need an immediate solution for it. (But unfortuantely Syriza decided to negotiate the long term problems first, instead of missing stimulus. They did not negotiate very good.)

Also I would say that Greece had a lot of time of making it's case.

In the end I disagree that the short way is opposing the complex solution. A short and complex solution is possible. It is probably consisting of doing cuts and reforms faster but also supporting the economy much more. This would have been the best.
Not everyone concedes this. Let me correct it a bit.

1st: part of the debt is unpayable but nobody knows how much
2nd: the reforms in Greece were totally necessary and without alternative
3rd: the austerity policies were also necessary to a large extent
4th: a flanking stimulus was missing and that killed the whole programme

All in all not very nice, but catastrophic? I think that rather this means that the EU will have to write off a higher part of the debt. So in a way they will pay for their own sins.

And additional: Greece could have avoided this by leaving the euro and devaluating. Why didn't they do it? It was in their won best interest.

I guess this is what people might concede.

So first you say my statement is resigned to something. My statement is not a being. It does not have a will or agency. This is the same error as saying a statement is Xist. It seems obfuscation; if you believe my intent is not resigned, just say it, if you believe my intent is resigned, just say it. Act in good faith instead of going into this semantics deepdive.

You go on to say fascism vs neoliberalism is irrelevant, despite my insisting the distinction matters. Perfect example that you're not listenign or not understanding. Whose fault that is does not matter (maybe I'm not expressing myself well, maybe you're not reading well). Still the misunderstanding is clear. If I had to guess, I'd say the misunderstanding is based on your belief that neoliberalism goal is to destroy safety nets, when rather it's just a kind of safety net (state driven - unsustainable, inefficient) that is usually the target of criticism. Also part if it is your insistence on neoliberalism, whereas I have a couple of times indicated I'm using the term to facilitate communication as it does not actually represent me correctly. If what you are interested in is the destruction of safety nets, suggest we drop the obfuscatory ideological generalizations.

Then we get to a clear root cause of your animosity. No, it is not neoliberal destruction of safety nets that I see as inevitable. What I actually see as inevitable is that political power over economic realities will increase (fascism) with the question being if that will happen at a transnational EU stage or rather at individual member nations level. As to your questions on safety nets, which unless I'm very mistaken you are only making explicitly now (I could have missed it in all the personal attacks flying around), I don't consider it's inevitable they will be destroyed, I already admitted that was hyperbole in the OP a couple of times even. There are huge political interests engaged in maintaining them (the status quo), and the associated leverage over the populace. They are however in big trouble, but not mainly due to neoliberal boogeymen, rather due to the pure economic reality that most of them are clearly unsustainable. The attribution of responsibility here is akin to blaming the tax collector for bankrupting you. The "messenger" is not the root cause.

As to my condescension and sarcasm, have I ever denied it? I went out of the way to be transparent on it. I also expressed often why I think you are arguing in bad faith, therefore justifying my sarc. In fact after you first clarified your question was honest (which I'm still relatively unconvinced, given your following actions) I answered you perfectly neutrally and normally, for you to come back and, as I earlier referred to it, jump the shark. You can't memory hole the sequence of events mate... and again I never pretended to be an angel.

The financial systems I was referring to are the fascist systems I have made explicit now. Basically I wish political control of the economy to be reduced. You might call that neoliberal or whatever, but the point is, to me that is what will bring back community, solidarity and safety nets: individual personal responsibility and removing the paternalistic socialist state. As should be clear I consider the abuses of these systems to have become globalized to an extent that likely outcomes are all bad in the short term. I further think your interpretation about "only meaning that can be derived" is a perfect example that you are indeed being hugely reductionist, likely due to bias, whether it is / was personal or ideological.

Let's give you another shot here, certainly this reply of yours was a step in the right direction. I think of your final two questions I answered both. Kindly restate to me what my answers are to:

Do I believe the erosion of social nets to be inevitable? What do I advocate?

Hint: No. Individual responsibility.
Case in point: Individual responsibility. Tolerance. Honesty. Humility. Patience. Ain't it lovely?

My thoughts about the article:

- I don't like that it puts only the two country whose name starts with G against each other. This concentration is good for more drama but neither accurate nor fair. If you ask me the German bashing is seriously wrong because in general the whole EU is divided on that topic and if you really ask me, we should have debt locks everyhwere and soon reforms in Italy and France must be made because otherwise sooner or later these two heavy weights will get serious problems and better to act early than too late. So this disagreement might go on in the future with other pairings.

- I don't really like this insistence on sovereignty because it is also a bit misleading. Whenever you take a credit you loose some sovereignty (pacta sunt servanda). So sovereignty means not so much in this context. You always have a lot of contracts, are in a lot of partnerships across borders and therefore full sovereignty is just an illusion. It is here only used on an emotional basis. On the other hand if sovereignty is important, so is the right of the others to hold back their money. In the end the best solution is a rules based approach which balances sovereignty (you never get it in full) and solidarity.

So I would say the EU is founded on the principle of autonomy and economic partnership and peace and cultural exchange. It was not really prepared to this crisis and needs to define rules how to deal with it yet. I hope they will still come. And I hope the balance will not be towards a total transfer union without a political union. This would be the worst in my eyes.

- It's all so exagerrated. Do some privatizations. This is not the end of Greece. This is normal in such situations. And it's not really the EU who is forcing Greece to do it. It is the sheer economic necessity. If Greece wouldn't want to do it, why not exiting the euro. It's so absurd to see how the Greek politicians steal themselves out of any responsibility. Nothing, really nothing, that has been done in the last years was ever their fault, they were all just forced by the EU. In a way they victimize themselves and show not much will to take their fate into their own hands although for sure EU has made some stupid mistakes and made it much more difficult for them but still they are quite comfortable blaming others. I don't like this.

- In this sentence however "This would, in effect, shift the burden of the Greek debt from the Greeks to the European Union..." George Friedman gets it totally right and meets the core of the problem: Who pays how much? It's not about ideology (mostly) it is only about money. That's all there is. The referendum really looked like a blunt try of Greek politics to force Germany to pay more - even if people may have seen it different - and that is just the one thing to stimulate strong resistance. If the referendum would have had two distinct alternatives (accept offer or exit the euro) it would have been different but just saying no without any better alternative...

- The nightmare scenario of Greece leaving the euro is quite exaggerated. There are a bit of fears but a potential exit of the euro of Greece is strongly supported here. Here I think George Friedman errs. Greece is a very special case and leaving the euro (especially if you want to come back) doesn't mean leaving the EU.

- And consequently he also errs in the next paragraph. It is totally clear how the economy of Greece would benefit from a devaluated currency (more exports, more jobs, more growth). Just look at Argentina in 2001. That he doesn't see it - maybe George Friedman is not so smart after all. (And yes, the liquidity and debt problems are the same regardless of euro or not euro - that's why you don't need to mention it - it's a constant.)

- Then some nonsense talk about German primacy ... super boring. It's more wishful thinking than any truth and the quite human wish to simplify things and have a single person responsibility. But instead the EU is quite interdependent. Germany is not so much bigger or more powerful that it could dominate. Either he is seriously deluded or he has a bit of personal dislike against G.

- Amongst all the crazy politics talk I found some interesting points. For example the French-German relations. On a personal level they are quite good. On a political level there are some differences especially when opposing parties are in the governments. But who would actually expect that France and Germany always have exactly the same opinion. Wouldn't this be crazy?

- My personal conclusion is that France is actually in the more balanced position in all of this. They would ask Greece for exactly the same reforms but would provide additional stimulus. G. should have better listened to them and moved a bit closer to the French position.

- Then George Friedman goes back to WW2? Not good. This guy should be smart enough to see the dangers of mingling so different things. It's basically the populistic approach (We need money, let's remind them of what they 100 years ago because, well because this is a shame game. This will surely work.).

- One last point. Noone made an example with Cyprus. This guy is indeed crazy. If you look how Cyprus develops you see that the EU actually helped them and rescued them.

All in all: I didn't like the article at all. It sayed many things that I would say are crazy and was hopelessly colored by ideology. I hope not too many people read it and liked it but then, it's democracy isn't it.

I'm more optimistic. We will go forward to 21st centry. Globalization limited what national movements can achieve - they only don't know it yet.

And what a relaxing feeling it is too. There is actually really too much hate in this thread. This must be exhausting. A break now and then and a step back can reduce the stress.

How so? Are there a lot of self proclaimed fascists in office I don't know about? Obviously not. What specific policies then do you see as fascist? Clearly my usage of the term neoliberalism applies to the people that advertise themselves as such and/or whose policies reflect that doctrine.

No it's common terminology anyone posting about politics should know.

What totalitarian whole is forming? What are you talking about? Be specific. What social safety nets are based on the individual? Do you realize what the word 'social' entails? Is this some Ayn Rand crap about taking care of myself makes the world a better place? The statement "with personal responsibility we can build social...safety nets," is a total contradiction in terms. If you take care of yourself by definition you are not helping others that are in need. That's quite the invisible net you're proposing.

Apparently writing insults is still easier for you than addressing questions or providing substance in your responses.

Nope again not my terminology it's commonly used. I'm not sure why this is so controversial to you. Again define your terms of fascism because what you're saying is at odds with itself without further details. You can't give dominant power to a few select private interests through liberalization in a society and say that empowers individuals. I think you need a lesson in understanding the difference between and [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty]negative liberty. It sounds like you don't know the difference.

I'm not sure we have a common enemy given the wonky usage of some of your terms. Until I know exactly what you feel is moving us to fascism, what is fascism etc I'm inclined to disagree.

Stocisim vs nihilism. Sigh. So lets break this fortune cookie. Are you trying to say mastery of your self is the only way of freeing you from determinism or some such shit. And what would be the relevance in terms of policy? Why are you constantly hiding instead of expressing your thoughts? Is this insecurity also responsible for so much of the condescension and posing you do throughout your writing? Are you afraid to make your positions known and vulnerable for inspection? Or do you just not know yourself? In either case it's tiresome.

Huh? This needs so much unpacking. "Read between what lines"? "True liberalism"? Really, what nonsense are you going on about. Is true liberalism suppose to be libertarianism? Something else? How is "true liberalism" different from standard liberalism. I just read this as more posturing and insults - call me unsurprised.

You misrepresent yourself easily enough on your own. I don't need to help you with that at all.

Or it just stays as it is and slowly the countries will integrate themselves more. EU wide social insurances, unemployed, pensions, debt locks everywhere, institutional changes. There is still much to do without even doing really big steps.

This was covered:

__________________________________

It is to the outcomes of what I wrote as was already said.

Your initial comment talked about the destruction of safety nets. Neoliberalism is implicated in this destruction. Whether that is the goal or outcome is irrelevant.

If you want to say something more extreme, like you meant fascism is the reason for safety net destruction that's fine it simply isn't an understanding that can be derived from your initial comment without more exposition. There are a lot of additional thoughts that have to be written to get there. This is simply due to the fact that no one (I'm aware of) who is responsible for what is happening in Greece or anywhere else across Europe describes themselves as fascists following a fascist doctrine as they destroy safety nets. They are all in the camp of neoliberalism.

I didn't accuse you of being a follower of neoliberalism. It is simply the implied cause of destruction in your initial comment on safety nets.

No one knows what you believe because a) you prioritize insults over clarity and/or b) obfuscate to make your position less vulnerable to questioning.

My distain is earned. It's not given freely. Ideologically I have no idea where you are so any animosity you feel is by way of your vapid posturing and insults as I have already mentioned many times.

Again your terms, what do you see as fascism? Define it. Political power over economic realities seems to ignore the dominance of capital over politics.

Yes you are very mistaken as this was the first thing being questioned from post 1 - "eventualities" etc.

And I already explained which parts (grammatically) can't be read as hyperbole.

The first two sentences contradict themselves. You state financial systems are the problem but then you want less control of them? Are you aware that the 2008 collapse was caused by lack of oversight and regulation? The Laisse-faire capitalism, neoliberalism you are advocating caused the economic downturn that is pushing governments over the edge after they 1) bailed out the banks to prevent them from failing and 2) have to pay for social programs on top of the bailouts. Spain is in this exact position. You might want to invest your attention here - and I mean that seriously.

Finally there's a huge gap in logic here that removing the state from the equation is magically going to allow for safety nets to exist. Exactly how are these safety nets going to come together without cooperation? Further without the scale of the state how would anything less be more effective?

Given you are only now responding to my question in saying you don't see the destruction of safety nets as inevitable I'm not sure I'm the one that's reductionist or biased. As for the english lesson - I've already given it - refer to the prior post. You can't squeeze hyperbole into that sentence without destroying it.

I'll answer here also to your other posts. Basically I just don't see the deeper integration as happening due to sincere cultural solidarity and democratic humanism. If it happens it will be due to political and economical elitist interests.

In that perspective, some of your criticisms of the Stratfor article gain in relief. As well, you might just be uncomfortable with the picture it paints of German self-interested motivations? I find said interpretation very neutral - as I'm sure you've noticed there are those that think Germany is acting from actual malice, or villainous self-interest.

Anyway, I see the choice of Germany and Greece to focus on as basically contextual. Other examples could be found to highlight what's happening to the EU, but this is the one on the spotlight at present. Debt locks would be great, but unless I'm mistaken Germany due to reunification was precisely the main proponent to avoid implementing them? This is an example of what I called earlier the missed leadership opportunity.

We need to distinguish economic sovereignty and political sovereignty. The two are connected however, and it's precisely the fact that the economic good times have ended that is highlighting the deep differences in opinion of what kind of political project the EU should be. I agree with you that deeper political integration, and giving up more national sovereignty could be a huge part of a better future in tandem with the kind of economic transnational models that are emerging. Just that the emotional aspect is very much present and I think we are a very small minority in advocating deeper political union.

Not commenting on specifics of Greek political leadership at this time. Others are offering good specifics there.

The nightmare Grexit scenario is exaggerated of course. By evaluating the extreme scenarios one gets a better understanding of the dynamics at play in reality... it's an analytical technique, not an actual prediction, rather a conditional IF... THEN... And by the way, at the geopolitical stage, the realpolitik tendency is to take extreme scenarios seriously. More seriously than they should IMO, but that's also being reinforced by sensationalist mass media.

I don't recall what specific forecast predictions Friedman makes for Greece in a Grexit scenario. I don't think it's a stretch to say it would be a difficult path. I agree with you there would be light at the end of the tunnel. But there is light either way, it's just a different tunnel.

I'm reaching the part where you comment on Stratfor analysis of German motivations. I have context there that you probably lack as I read many other of their articles on the EU, the German re-emergence, etc... I think I would just say, it's not wishful thinking so much as another of those extremes that help analyze the situation as it is. Bringing up WW2 in this discussion is not only honest representation of what some key people have been doing themselves (like Greek rhetoric demanding repayment for Nazi war damages) but fundamental to a deeper point, which is geopolitical.

Let me go back to Germany after mentioning Cyprus briefly. What the Cyprus precedent demonstrated was that the EU was creating precedents and rationales for taking even more control of economic policy even inside individual member states. This applies of course more strongly to the Eurozone. I could say this is leveraging what is available instead of doing the right thing (leading on political integration), akin to treating all problems as nails because you only have an hammer, but the reality is it happened. As far I'm concerned, whether it's the EU imposing raids on individual savings in Cyprus, or it's a nationally elected government imposing capital controls a la Hungary - which will reflect on individual savings a tad more indirectly - the consequence is the same, and I tend to describe it as the increasing fascism in Europe. Basically it's a central authority replacing itself to democratic markets, precisely to avoid dealing with the consequences of past stupidity.

Anyway, that last para I was getting more heated up, I don't like fascism viscerally... Back to the cool streams of Geopolitical analysis. You know how the Polish question in the ... I guess 18th century, was the defining problem of European geopolitics? Only to become moot with the end of European empires at the end of WW1? Well, I see the German question as being the defining question of our times in Europe, and it's far from resolved. Germany tried twice to gain by force a better geopolitical position. First it lost its empire, then it lost significant home territory and was itself partitioned. No wonder after two such attempts it has no appetite for a third go. Instead, whether consciously or unconsciously, a, let's call it strategy, of economic development was chosen. It is in many ways ironic that the US needed/chose to transform both Germany and Japan into what they are today, as part of contributing to the Cold War. It was certainly smart, particularly of France, to kind of take advantage of German lack of assertiveness to direct how the EU would be born and take shape. Doesn't matter. It's all history. The reality is that Germany is an economic powerhouse in Europe, partly because that was their outlet of effort, and it is fairly unique in how it privileges the EU integrationist perspective above its domestic matters. Don't laugh, I'm not saying its domestic aspects don't matter, German reunification showed that very well. Anyway, this unique perspective carries with it a certain inability to understand other attitudes, more attached to their national sovereignty and to different focuses over internal economical productivity. So I agree with you that France is closer to the center position if one looks at Europe together. To finish, the underlying geopolitical reality is this: Germany is central in Europe and economically relatively more powerful in Europe than it's ever been. I'd argue its economical leverage is higher now that its military ever was by the way. And yet, it's almost a caricature of the unwilling leader pushed to the front by circumstances. It's to be expected that the unwillingness to lead and assert itself will disappear - not just is it being demanded by others to do something, but the cultural memory of the results of past German "Will" is obviously losing power ever so slowly. The question obviously is: What will Germany do with this power? I don't see a willingness to accept it is exceptional (taboo!) and lead morally / ideologically (taboo!) into deeper political integration. It will continue to think and act economically and industrially, until it doesn't... but far from me to actually guess which way the pendulum will swing. To have some forecasting fun, I anticipate Poland will become an interesting player in this topic. Poland joining the Euro or not, Poland accepting deeper integration with Germany or not would be very powerful symbols. Of course Russia and the US will interfere as well. The former being the more relevant one.

That is a bit strange. GDP of Romania is at an all time high (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/romania/gdp-per-capita) and still growing with as much as 4% per year lately while unemployment is constant or slightly declining on a very moderate level of 7%. No comparison to Greece. (Also Romania has its own currency.)

But because the state of the public sector in Romania would probably be rather bad after the cuts you mentioned there is only one explanation left: the private sector must be thriving.
Is this true?

Really anything? Even ruining his country (with help from the EU)? Judging by the last vote of the parliament probably yes.

In the end Romania with the lei might fare much better than Greece with the euro.

Considering what gog was created for, I don't doubt that there are many people in their 30+, which came here for nostalgia.
Between these people definitely should be people with background in economics.
From the posts I have seen, Telika definitely the one whose education doesn't put Switzerland bank gnomes into shame:)
Personally, I can tell that I have specialist degree in economics with red diploma (equiv of master, 95%+ A marks), IQ ~140+
I've worked for 3 years as economist in Research institute, now I work in Gazprom and see possibility to defend doctorate in economics on its inner structure.
I've hired team of programmes to write me a service, which I plan to offer to my government as possible solution to problems in public service area.
As a backup I have a friend in the 2M city, which own a firm, working on municipal contracts, he can implement it on his own.
As a backup of backup I have investor from Zambia, which interested in this service too, and I would use his money for worldwide launch.
I feel pretty confident in my knowledge and willpower to discuss these questions or solve such global problems.
But this is internet, you can write the same.

Personally, I think that Greece doesn't live in the petri dish, and its problems are part of EU problems, and discussing them is pretty fine.

About suspicion - let's be realists - it would never dissipate. Kids in schools are taught about soviet invasions and occupations, without mentions of built roads, schools, hospitals, naval yards, nuclear powerstations, metallurgy, etc.
Even preserved by soviet linguists local languages (Litvanian, Lithuanian, Estonian) and cultures aren't mentioned.
If we talk about Poland, Stanislav Lem belongs to golden fund of soviet science fiction. I like Ioanna Khmelevskaya, my family had 10+ books. Her 'ironical detectives' resulted in whole genre being born.

As for US imposing embargo on Europe... It is already done through manipulation of public opinion.
Imagine situation: Russia hires black gang in US to kill inbred redneck with 'Obama antchrist' sticker.
They commit murder, and 'Russia today' goes apeshit about 'Obama kills opposition'. Killed by blacks - check, didn't like Obama - check. Every day there is new interview with yet another public person, which worries about 'Obama being evil dictator and killing opposition'.
If anyone from US tries to say 'sorry, but it's just inbred redneck which wasn't a threat to Obama', he's being called obamabot. Then ANOTHER inbred redneck dies - 'Enough of this, we put sanctions until you start to respect human rights'.
I do have one specific death in mind while writing this.

As a result of sanctions on Russia[read:embargo on Europe], EU loses billions, while US takes your share of market.
http://i.imgur.com/wzfreAx.jpg

y does this make my **** ache?

Fair points. I assume discussion helps in some way, while it has the potential to hurt in other. I'm not one to leave things to others, but I usually have different political and economical views from others which always attract the ignorant type of attention. The thread was an interesting read at times. I'll give it that. Sometimes it was even informing me of things that I didn't know.