marijuana | Law | Economy | Investing | Marketing | Entrepreneurship | Economic Policy | Globalization | Emerging Markets

Uncommon Knowledge: Vaclav Klaus

More videos from this partner:

38
Likes
0
Dislikes
RATE

  • Info
  • Bio
  • Chapters
  • Preview
  • Download
  • Zoom In
Advertisement
There are 35 comments on this program

Please or register to post a comment.
Previous FORAtv comments:
Caz Loth Avatar
Caz Loth
Posted: 10.11.10, 12:03 PM
One more psychopath blowing smoke. Environmentalism is not a religion or an ideology but expression of free will in the face of global destruction. And then there's always the BS that we don't want to be told what to do. Excuse me, when your seriously out of line I'm going to tell you so. We're getting tired of these neocons conning us. This guy needs to crawl back under the rock he crawled out from.
Prince of Lies Avatar
Prince of Lies
Posted: 09.30.10, 04:53 AM
Quote: Originally Posted by Kelly C Hitchcock Reagan did defeat communism. You said yourself that one of the reasons it fell was because of external pressure. It was Reagan who brought that pressure to bear. He started an arms race with the USSR which bankrupted it. He also challenged the USSR on moral terms calling it an evil empire and called for Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin wall. Those are fundamental challenges to communism which he made and no one else. Reagan contributed t the downfall of communism but if I had to compare his actions/motives with someone else, it would be Kaiser Wilhelm II. Both didn't really want war but strongly believed in negotiating from a position of strength with a good potion of manifest destiny thrown into the mix. With the fate of all of mankind at stake you just don't corner your enemy. This might work in cowboy-movies but when nuclear weapons are involved realpolitik is the name of the game not brinksmanship. Reagan was lucky , Wilhelm II was not. Reagan was a nice man that was way out of his league. Just imagine if Ustinow had lived longer, … Able Archer, and what if they had elected a hardliner to replace Tschernenko? Communism undermined itself, Reagan and Thatcher were not that important yet rather vocal about it. It was the difference between reality and ideology what mattered, the outside pressure perhaps accelerated the process, but that is about it. No-one but him made such challenges?????? How moral is it to risk a nuclear holocaust?
Kelly C Hitchcock Avatar
Kelly C Hitchcock
Posted: 09.29.10, 02:55 PM
Reagan did defeat communism. You said yourself that one of the reasons it fell was because of external pressure. It was Reagan who brought that pressure to bear. He started an arms race with the USSR which bankrupted it. He also challenged the USSR on moral terms calling it an evil empire and called for Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin wall. Those are fundamental challenges to communism which he made and no one else.
stLucifer Avatar
stLucifer
Posted: 09.28.10, 06:04 AM
Yes, yes we are. I'm not sure why he got elected. He's always been a complete tool. Especially with our previous president Vaclac Havel being so intelligent and internationally involved this guy just doesn't cut it *sigh*
francothai Avatar
francothai
Posted: 09.28.10, 01:16 AM
@Ryan Todd : First of all, I would recommend you look for a video on youtube named "how it all ends" or its prequel which is just 10 minutes named the "The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See". The guy over there explains very well who is the authority in every respect : scientific and economic. Apart from the IPCC, which some people deem untrustworthy since it is a UN body, 2 of the top scientific communities in the world are the AAAS and the NAS. These are the guys you pay for telling you the reality of what's going on out there, and what to expect in the future (even if you don't like the conclusions). Both these organisations have stated the following : - GW is real and caused by humans - Its effects are gonna be real bad - We must take action quickly The top authority in Economics (sorry! I don't remember the name) states that the worst that could happen on the economy if we take action is a decrease of 3% on GDP growth. Not a reduction ! Just a 3% slowdown on growth. And the cap that you're talking about is not the only measure that can be taken, but you'll note that even oil industries are calling for it. Improving energy efficiency is a big thing. Cars in USA are even worse efficiency-wise than cars in China (which was still a developing nation last time I checked). So yes ! taking action will impact some jobs. But it's that or much much worse. It shouldn't take too long to see where's the best bet. If we wait until after we've reached the point of no-return or until we figure out that we don't have enough time anymore... we'll be sorry and losing jobs will be the least of our concerns!
tomas1888 Avatar
tomas1888
Posted: 09.27.10, 06:07 AM
Sounds reasonable to me
Prince of Lies Avatar
Prince of Lies
Posted: 09.27.10, 05:22 AM
I've heard worse from Klaus, yet what strikes me as rather funny is how he argues. He does ! not ! say global warming is a lie but rather compares how it is being presented and its implications on personal freedom. I can almost wholeheartedly agree with that comparison but it lacks a crucial angle, that question of how meaningful such comparisons are. By Klaus' logic I can compare communism and its effects on personal freedom with what my doctor/GP tells me to eat and how to live and thus by the sheer power of association, lets my doctor look like a freedom hating communist. utter non-sense! He makes no bones out of his annoyance that an external cause (in this case global warming, formerly Communist doctrine) may dictate the limits of his actions. As the old saying goes, "Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." He does not address if Global warming might be that very fist in our collective global nose. This is the all important question, all else is trivial and him not addressing it makes him look like a pouting child. For the Americans in the audience who regard the EU as an evil institution that takes away the sovereignty of countries. - It is - , the same way the oh so revered and deified drafters of the US constitutions thought it necessary for the common good to expand the powers of a central government as opposed to a lose federation system laid out in the first US constitution "Articles of the Confederation" ...
FORAerl Avatar
FORAerl
Posted: 02.24.10, 06:35 PM
Very right on many/most esonomic issues; even if for the wrong reasons at times. Supreme narcissist, and one of the worst nationalists to boot. Grandpa from hell.
shopmalm Avatar
shopmalm
Posted: 12.21.09, 01:18 PM
I am a Dane living in the United States. This is an outstanding interview with a brilliant man who's perspective is one that we all can learn. Anyone who doesn't appreciate this clearly needs to brush up on their history. Freedom and free markets are co-dependant. My applaudes to the Heritage Foundation for bringing this enlightened view of todays political currents. The lessons here if learned may overt the upheavel that is coming to the United States where corrupt politicians are sidestepping the Constitution and the population's intent. I recommend this to all freedom loving people.
brucetbo Avatar
brucetbo
Posted: 12.19.09, 02:03 PM
not everything is designed to make you laugh mr.walsh. these men are discussing events that changed the world. dont fault the speaker for your intellectual flatline__________________________________________ ______________
Advertisement

Advertisement
FORA.tv ticker
FORA.tv ticker