NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, needless to say those were not the results I had hoped to see. As much as Kerry didn't sell the world on his brilliance, the results of Bush policy have been clear for a while now. What we – the “rest of the world” - were waiting for was the results of the American referendum on those policies. Indeed, over the past four years, the world opinion of the US electorate has vacillated greatly. from amusement over the great Florida fiasco of 2000, immense sympathy and shared anger in September of 2001, to distrust and some anger at the resultant policies ever since. Iraq. Quantanimo. Etc.

But for all of that, as the world opinion diminished, for most there was still a clear separation in our eyes. A separation between what was thought of the American people versus what was thought of the Administration.

The reasons for that were largely our understanding of the fact that Bush had not achieved an outright plurality in the popular vote in 2000, and an understanding that the populace had not had an opportunity to vote on the direction the country had headed. They had voted for a “compassionate conservative uniter” during a time of peace and prosperity. 9-11 changed everything, and this was the opportunity for the American people to embrace or reject the resultant fundamental policy shifts that had transpired.

By achieving a clear majority of the popular vote, the rest of the world wakes up to the understanding that the majority of America chooses to define itself as being in agreement with this Administration. We wake up to the understanding that what we hoped (and thought) was the best of America has been overtaken by what we consider to be some of its less endearing qualities.


America, in the eyes of the world, now willingly stands for the following:

- For the arrogant and unfettered use of military force under circumstances that seem to approach an executive whim.
- For the "you're with us or you're against us" mentality.
- For the idea that Bible has supplanted the Constitution as the primary law of the land.
- For intolerance.
- For fiscal recklessness.
- For the doctrine of preemption.
- For never second-guessing a decision and for never learning from mistakes.

That is the face that we see in GW. The face that you have chosen as your public mirror and spokesperson. Not to paint him as the devil incarnate, but to paint him as the spokesperson for self-righteous infliction of a single religious moral code on everything he can. And the biggest lesson learned by this turnout must have been that which was learned by the evangelical right. The lesson being that if they all show up at the polls, they have the numbers to shape the government. This fact is probably the most alarming to me as this moves the US closer towards becoming a true Christian theocracy than any other event since the demise of prohibition.

The exit polls confirmed that in state after state. That the final decision of the voters was not, in fact, predicated on the issues of security, but rather on that amorphous term: "values". The only thing we outsiders can take with that is the idea that most Americans consider John Kerry to be a man of lesser moral fiber than GW, presumably from his assertion that it is his duty to put his personal religious beliefs to the side when making policy in favour of a more open-minded and tolerant viewpoint. The separation of Church and State that has been so hard-won around the Western World seems to be on the decline in the US with the blessing of it’s citizens.

What things do I look to as the most likely lasting impacts of the next four years? The possible stacking of the Supreme Court for decades to come with equally theologically bent judges, and the continued selling off of American debt to the Chinese - thereby providing your most likely future major competitor with fiscal leverage to hold over you. Indeed, it seems entirely conceivable that by the end of 8 years GW will have doubled the national debt, and with the bulk of that increase going to the East.

Those possibilities do not, to us, bode as well for the vision of America's future that we had hoped for. The shining beacon in the world has been tarnished in our eyes in a way that I have never seen before. This is not an expression of anger with America, more one of disappointment. And not expressed with a sense of superiority but rather more akin to that felt when a close friend reveals secrets that are antithetical to our own belief structures. We still care for the friend, but it just puts some distance and strain on the close bonds we had. But where both candidates talked about America's position as the world leader as some sort of mandated position, the path we see you embarking upon is not one that engenders a large cadre of willing followers in us. That probably does not matter to most American’s nor do I expect it to. This was simply stated as fact.

From a Canadian perspective, this means one thing above all to me. It has become ever more crucial that we work diligently to wean ourselves as much as possible from the interdependent teat of the combined Canadian-American economy. Our proximity means that this will always be a factor, however our primary mission to ensure our own stability must be to actively cultivate far more economic ties with the EU and Asia if we are not going to find ourselves inexorably drawn along a path that we might prefer not to go.

Sup Zep, wheres the missus?

- For the idea that Bible has supplanted the Constitution as the primary law of the land.


I must somewhat disacree with this. They take only those parts of the Bible they like. I'm not christian myself (I'm Discordian), but I see many great ideologies mainly in what Jesus teaches:
-Turn the other cheek
-Love thy neighbor
-Thou shall not kill
-Everyone is a child of Loving, Compassionate and Caring God

Those are the ideals that should be fostered. Not these despising, hating, loathing, contradicting and negative stances.
This way they use Bible as a weapon against other people is hypocritical and double standarded. It's really sad. They are insecure people, lost in their own pettiness.

Zeppistan, that post was great; it pretty much describes how the vast majority of the rest of the world feel. I know there are so many wonderful American people out there, but the re-election of Bush has screwed up international relations between the US and many other nations. OK, so he may be good mates with frigging Tony over here, but he is certainly not good mates with the British people. I have yet to meet anyone from the UK that supports him - I'm sure there are some, but far from a majority.

While I admit that I objected to the Iraq war, and thought it was done for the wrong reasons, my main gripe with Bush is the fact that he brings religion into politics. He is more than entitled to believe what he will, but how dare he try and force that opinion on others? But America has spoken, and endorsed this behaviour again. Yesterday, results day, was a sad day for the future of civil liberties.

Once again, the world sees things one way and we Americans see them another. What you see as arrogance, we see as us FINALLY standing up for ourselves. What you see as a clear mandate of the people, we see as the result of poor options. I would NEVER have voted for Bush if I thought Kerry did not have a chance. Kerry would have tied us to the UN and he was soft on our sovereignty. He "thought" he understood the average American and tried to paint himself as one. He lost very badly here in the South, and Edwards did NOTHING for him in North carolina as the margin there was HUGE!!

Some here decry the US as wanting to create an "empire." Yet, every time US troops have been used, they have left. We occupy no other lands longer than is necessary. If that were otherwise, Germany and Japan would not be what they are today. The US has a history of helping others out when needed. That will not stop. However, just because we have a leader who puts the US first for a change is not the 7th sign.

The world will go on and things will get better in time.

When Austria elected Kurt Waldheim (a known Nazi) did the world go crazy? No. So why should those outside the US worry so much? Kerry would have been so much worse, yet the hatred of Bush blinds outsiders to that fact. WE elect OUR leaders to work for OUR benefit, noone elses.

Zeppistan, that post was great; it pretty much describes how the vast majority of the rest of the world feel.
Too bad we don't give a crap. Get a life and worry about your own country for a change. Don't you know when the world attacks our president it makes people more likely to vote for him?

Too bad we don't give a crap.

It's ok, really. We don't need your crap.

Too bad we don't give a crap. Get a life and worry about your own country for a change. Don't you know when the world attacks our president it makes people more likely to vote for him?

Of course only Americans are stupid enought to think that a draft dodging coward can defend them from terrorists better than an decorated war hero...

Too bad we don't give a crap. Get a life and worry about your own country for a change. Don't you know when the world attacks our president it makes people more likely to vote for him?
Well we can attack him all we want now, as he isn't going to stand again ;)

Of course only Americans are stupid enought to think that a draft dodging coward can defend them from terrorists better than an decorated war hero...
Sorry but it's kind of hard to dodge the draft by joining the military.

Sounds more like Bill Clinton the draft dodger and George Bush the war hero in 1992. Or Bill Clinton the draft dodger and Bob Dole the war hero in 1996. Americans don't care about a candidate's military service.

Once again, the world sees things one way and we Americans see them another. What you see as arrogance, we see as us FINALLY standing up for ourselves. What you see as a clear mandate of the people, we see as the result of poor options. I would NEVER have voted for Bush if I thought Kerry did not have a chance. Kerry would have tied us to the UN and he was soft on our sovereignty. He "thought" he understood the average American and tried to paint himself as one. He lost very badly here in the South, and Edwards did NOTHING for him in North carolina as the margin there was HUGE!!

How have you not been standing up for yourself? And if you haven't you have yourself to blame, you'r the most powerful country in the world (Politically, economically, militarily and culturally). And since when did showing off your strengths constitute standing up for yourself?

Also what do you think the chances are for the US to export their sovereignty permanently? International law only exists in writing, and only really applies to small countries.

I agree with you on Kerry though.

Some here decry the US as wanting to create an "empire." Yet, every time US troops have been used, they have left.

Empire is a fairly ambigious term. Really is should only be used to describe holding onto to external territories, but it is usually not used to descibe this (eg, the early Portuguese empire, the Aztec Empire)

The world will go on and things will get better in time.

One can only hope so

When Austria elected Kurt Waldheim (a known Nazi) did the world go crazy?

Some did, but as a whole it was ignored as Austria is not a superpower (not justifying that attitude, just that people only tend to get excited about things they feel might effect them).

So why should those outside the US worry so much?

Because many feel that they will be effect by American policies in the next 4 years.

Kerry would have been so much worse

Not sure if he would be worse, but I doubt he would be any better.

Sorry but it's kind of hard to dodge the draft by joining the military.

Actually, this is one of those things which makes he think that Bush isn't as thick as he is made out to be. After all, what the best way not to go to war? Join the army, but the part that will never go to war unless something hideous happens.

Sounds more like Bill Clinton the draft dodger and George Bush the war hero in 1992. Or Bill Clinton the draft dodger and Bob Dole the war hero in 1996. Americans don't care about a candidate's military service.

The amount of effort put into why each candidate would make a better CiC (with a view of their military service) seems to suggest otherwise. Although, I am willing to accept that this is due to a vocal minority largely ignored by the majority of the voting population.

Sorry but it's kind of hard to dodge the draft by joining the military.

Sounds more like Bill Clinton the draft dodger and George Bush the war hero in 1992. Or Bill Clinton the draft dodger and Bob Dole the war hero in 1996. Americans don't care about a candidate's military service.

Managed to avoid Vietnam though... It's a shame that Clinton was elected. The man was clearly morally bankrupt. Dole would have been good despite his age- For me John McCain would be good presidential candidate just like Kerry or Dole. I think I agree with some of your points Americans just vote for whoever has the least integrity or intelligence. I think the ideal american president in the eyes of the American people - Is a religous, stupid, inbred, incapable of being truthful and would place the commercial interests of Oil producing countries and companies they or their families/friends/Vice-Presidents are connected to above the safety of soldiers or people.

Once again, the world sees things one way and we Americans see them another. What you see as arrogance, we see as us FINALLY standing up for ourselves. What you see as a clear mandate of the people, we see as the result of poor options. I would NEVER have voted for Bush if I thought Kerry did not have a chance. Kerry would have tied us to the UN and he was soft on our sovereignty. He "thought" he understood the average American and tried to paint himself as one. He lost very badly here in the South, and Edwards did NOTHING for him in North carolina as the margin there was HUGE!!

Some here decry the US as wanting to create an "empire." Yet, every time US troops have been used, they have left. We occupy no other lands longer than is necessary. If that were otherwise, Germany and Japan would not be what they are today. The US has a history of helping others out when needed. That will not stop. However, just because we have a leader who puts the US first for a change is not the 7th sign.

The world will go on and things will get better in time.

When Austria elected Kurt Waldheim (a known Nazi) did the world go crazy? No. So why should those outside the US worry so much? Kerry would have been so much worse, yet the hatred of Bush blinds outsiders to that fact. WE elect OUR leaders to work for OUR benefit, noone elses.


The thing is, you always putted your interest in front of others. You joined late in WW1 because it was good for your economy, and in terms of political power. You joined WW2, because the Japs attacked you. You went to Vietnam because.. well, because you thought you could tell people of other countries how they can live. You have fostered sometimes tyranical regimes just because they were quick to abide to your interests. You use your diplomatic force to get economical force (the Echelon system as been several times used for corporate espionage). You have an empire, not set in colonies, but military outposts around the world. And when Austria elected Kurt Waldein, they didnt knew he was a Nazi. After this was found out, he got kicked (he was the UN secretary by then, right?). You know Bush is a liar, and did you kicked him out?

Sorry but it's kind of hard to dodge the draft by joining the military.

Sounds more like Bill Clinton the draft dodger and George Bush the war hero in 1992. Or Bill Clinton the draft dodger and Bob Dole the war hero in 1996. Americans don't care about a candidate's military service.
SURPRISE SURPRISE! Uh, yeah, you can. He joined the National Guard and got out of being sent to Vietnam. Not that he actually showed up when he was supposed to, mind....

Some here decry the US as wanting to create an "empire." Yet, every time US troops have been used, they have left.
FIne, not empire-- hegemony.

Funny really, how most Labour MPs over here were torn between hating Bush getting re-elected and realising that it boded well for their own chances of re-election...

Though Labour are obviously going to win the next election. There's simply no credible alternative.

As I said earlier today: at the risk of sounding populist, Canadians so often seem to be a quiet voice of reason in the room of shouting idiots that has regularly become global politics.

I haven't been on NS for that long, but long enough to see that threads posted by Zeppistan and Stephistan are always worth a look.

I really don't think you can say much more man, it's about perceptions, and unfortunately there is something of a gap between the a majority in the US and the rest of the world. They see the link in my sig as "global american leadership". Cynical others see it as "Imperialism".

God help the poor bastards who voted Kerry, they get a REALLY shitty deal out of all this- criticized by the rest of the world for being americans despite voting for a more reasonable candidate (so few of these critics I expect to make this distinguishment).

Funny really, how most Labour MPs over here were torn between hating Bush getting re-elected and realising that it boded well for their own chances of re-election...

Though Labour are obviously going to win the next election. There's simply no credible alternative.

Whats wrong with people of a left of centre or centre political bent voting Lib Dem?

Once again, the world sees things one way and we Americans see them another. What you see as arrogance, we see as us FINALLY standing up for ourselves. What you see as a clear mandate of the people, we see as the result of poor options. I would NEVER have voted for Bush if I thought Kerry did not have a chance. Kerry would have tied us to the UN and he was soft on our sovereignty. He "thought" he understood the average American and tried to paint himself as one. He lost very badly here in the South, and Edwards did NOTHING for him in North carolina as the margin there was HUGE!!

Some here decry the US as wanting to create an "empire." Yet, every time US troops have been used, they have left. We occupy no other lands longer than is necessary. If that were otherwise, Germany and Japan would not be what they are today. The US has a history of helping others out when needed. That will not stop. However, just because we have a leader who puts the US first for a change is not the 7th sign.

The world will go on and things will get better in time.

When Austria elected Kurt Waldheim (a known Nazi) did the world go crazy? No. So why should those outside the US worry so much? Kerry would have been so much worse, yet the hatred of Bush blinds outsiders to that fact. WE elect OUR leaders to work for OUR benefit, noone elses.
I find this comment extremely interesting. With 55 Million people voting for Kerry (48%), just who is this "average American" that you refer to, the one who voted for Bush, or the one who voted for Kerry? Do you really know what the "average American" wants?

BTW, only 19% of the total US population actually voted for Bush.

Brittanic States take the flaming out of your post and it will be fine. Stop flaming.

Stephanie
Game Moderator

Well, needless to say those were not the results I had hoped to see. As much as Kerry didn't sell the world on his brilliance, the results of Bush policy have been clear for a while now. What we – the “rest of the world” - were waiting for was the results of the American referendum on those policies. Indeed, over the past four years, the world opinion of the US electorate has vacillated greatly. from amusement over the great Florida fiasco of 2000, immense sympathy and shared anger in September of 2001, to distrust and some anger at the resultant policies ever since. Iraq. Quantanimo. Etc.

But for all of that, as the world opinion diminished, for most there was still a clear separation in our eyes. A separation between what was thought of the American people versus what was thought of the Administration.

The reasons for that were largely our understanding of the fact that Bush had not achieved an outright plurality in the popular vote in 2000, and an understanding that the populace had not had an opportunity to vote on the direction the country had headed. They had voted for a “compassionate conservative uniter” during a time of peace and prosperity. 9-11 changed everything, and this was the opportunity for the American people to embrace or reject the resultant fundamental policy shifts that had transpired.

By achieving a clear majority of the popular vote, the rest of the world wakes up to the understanding that the majority of America chooses to define itself as being in agreement with this Administration. We wake up to the understanding that what we hoped (and thought) was the best of America has been overtaken by what we consider to be some of its less endearing qualities.


America, in the eyes of the world, now willingly stands for the following:

- For the arrogant and unfettered use of military force under circumstances that seem to approach an executive whim.
- For the "you're with us or you're against us" mentality.
- For the idea that Bible has supplanted the Constitution as the primary law of the land.
- For intolerance.
- For fiscal recklessness.
- For the doctrine of preemption.
- For never second-guessing a decision and for never learning from mistakes.

That is the face that we see in GW. The face that you have chosen as your public mirror and spokesperson. Not to paint him as the devil incarnate, but to paint him as the spokesperson for self-righteous infliction of a single religious moral code on everything he can. And the biggest lesson learned by this turnout must have been that which was learned by the evangelical right. The lesson being that if they all show up at the polls, they have the numbers to shape the government. This fact is probably the most alarming to me as this moves the US closer towards becoming a true Christian theocracy than any other event since the demise of prohibition.

The exit polls confirmed that in state after state. That the final decision of the voters was not, in fact, predicated on the issues of security, but rather on that amorphous term: "values". The only thing we outsiders can take with that is the idea that most Americans consider John Kerry to be a man of lesser moral fiber than GW, presumably from his assertion that it is his duty to put his personal religious beliefs to the side when making policy in favour of a more open-minded and tolerant viewpoint. The separation of Church and State that has been so hard-won around the Western World seems to be on the decline in the US with the blessing of it’s citizens.

What things do I look to as the most likely lasting impacts of the next four years? The possible stacking of the Supreme Court for decades to come with equally theologically bent judges, and the continued selling off of American debt to the Chinese - thereby providing your most likely future major competitor with fiscal leverage to hold over you. Indeed, it seems entirely conceivable that by the end of 8 years GW will have doubled the national debt, and with the bulk of that increase going to the East.

Those possibilities do not, to us, bode as well for the vision of America's future that we had hoped for. The shining beacon in the world has been tarnished in our eyes in a way that I have never seen before. This is not an expression of anger with America, more one of disappointment. And not expressed with a sense of superiority but rather more akin to that felt when a close friend reveals secrets that are antithetical to our own belief structures. We still care for the friend, but it just puts some distance and strain on the close bonds we had. But where both candidates talked about America's position as the world leader as some sort of mandated position, the path we see you embarking upon is not one that engenders a large cadre of willing followers in us. That probably does not matter to most American’s nor do I expect it to. This was simply stated as fact.

From a Canadian perspective, this means one thing above all to me. It has become ever more crucial that we work diligently to wean ourselves as much as possible from the interdependent teat of the combined Canadian-American economy. Our proximity means that this will always be a factor, however our primary mission to ensure our own stability must be to actively cultivate far more economic ties with the EU and Asia if we are not going to find ourselves inexorably drawn along a path that we might prefer not to go.
Most excellent post Zep and I concur wholeheartedly!!

Brittanic States take the flaming out of your post and it will be fine. Stop flaming.

Stephanie
Game Moderator

What Flame? Im asking a legimate question and you are censoring it because its critical of your husband.
here it is again- wheres the flame?
Zeppistan yours is not *THE* view from outside its *A* view from outside. Dont you dare presume to speak for me because you dont, Who the heck do you think you are claiming to speak for the outside world? You do not , and never will speak for the conservatives of the world.

Perhaps your thread title would appear, less opininiated and less arrogant if you had went with *A* view of the outside world. Meh you must be trying to tell us something about yourself tho eh?

*Modedit to take out the flames. - Stephanie.
*Playeredit - grammar and shit*

So I am not allowed to call someone pretending to speak in the name of the whole non-American world arrogant. I see.

BTW, I am not Brittanic States but I suppose your comment was meant as much for me as for him seeing as my post got deleted as well.

I didn't touch your post. Was not me.

Stephanie
Game Moderator

I am removing all off topic posts.

Stephanie
Game Moderator

Whats wrong with people of a left of centre or centre political bent voting Lib Dem?

I'll be doing that if it won't let a tory in.

And you call Americans arrogant? That post is one of the most arrogant things I've ever read. Combine that with the fact that most of what was said is not true. The US is not becoming a theocracy. That's ridiculous. Look at all the Supreme Court decisions upholding the separation of church and state. You're just sore because you hate Christians (don't deny it, it's obvious from your post) and the current POTUS happens to be one. The Bible has not supplanted the Constitution; another ridiculous and baseless misconception.

You're also suffering from a colossal case of sour grapes because you're a leftist Canadian and Americans actually had the gall to elect someone who opposes your collectivist ideology. And the fact that you weren't able to browbeat and insult America into subjugating her defense to you and the EUros. Too bad, you don't get a say in our elections, or our policy. In fact, your meddling was a factor in the high conservative turnout at the polls on Tuesday. How does it feel to shoot yourself in the foot?

Lastly: you make a post like that, calling the American people a bunch of warmongering idiots, and then wonder why we have a "with us or against us" attitude sometimes? What planet are you on? Your post makes it absolutely clear that you believe Canucks and EUros are inherently intellectually superior to Americans.

I close with another question: Which country has produced the most Nobel Prize winners?

And you call Americans arrogant?

You either didn't read his post or you didn't understand it. One of the two based on your response.

Zeppistan yours is not *THE* view from outside its *A* view from outside. Dont you dare presume to speak for me because you dont, Who the heck do you think you are claiming to speak for the outside world? You do not , and never will speak for the conservatives of the world.

Perhaps your thread title would appear, less opininiated and less arrogant if you had went with *A* view of the outside world. Meh you must be trying to tell us something about yourself tho eh?


So, out of a thousand-word essay what get's your panties in a bunch is .... the title?

Or is that you assume that people are stupid enough to believe that I am indeed the unified spokesperson for the worldwide collective of non-americans? Or that I believe that I have been appointed such?

There might equally be an American Democrat complaining that my comment should not be directed at him as he didn't vote for Bush. But the facts remain that a) the comment is directed towards the elections results where a majority of American's that voted did so for Bush, and b) that the majority of the rest of the Western world by all polls taken would have preferred Kerry.

You may like fact A), but not b), however that does not make either of those facts any less true.


Now - beyond your childish whine about the title, have you anything of substance to add to the discourse?

<big whiney section snipped>

I close with another question: Which country has produced the most Nobel Prize winners?


And this is relevant because.....?????


OK, let's play the " bringing up totally irrelevant facts to sidetrack the discussion" game.


The answer: In the context of this discussion....Who cares?

Too bad we don't give a crap. Get a life and worry about your own country for a change. Don't you know when the world attacks our president it makes people more likely to vote for him?

Exactly. They are partially responsible for Bush's victory. I wonder if they even realize, in their arrogance, what they did to cripple their own intentions?

:D It's great to see that more and more people who now after the elections see America the way I see it. Even some of my ultra liberal friends finally saw the light. I'm glad Bush won. Anti American movements never had a better chance. And a Kerry victory could have ruined this. Now, I just hope Bushy starts making threatening sounds towards Iran, Syria etc....soon!!

Exactly. They are partially responsible for Bush's victory. I wonder if they even realize, in their arrogance, what they did to cripple their own intentions?


So, you are saying that American's don't care enough about their own country to vote unless it seems that other DO care about your own country? And then their response is simply to knee-jerk vote the opposite?


That's hilarious!

****NEWSFLASH TO THE REST OF THE WORLD*****

We can now totally run the US. All we have to do is figure out what we want them to do, and then all complain at them to do the opposite. It's just like parenting teenagers!


They will be totally in our power, but not even know it!


Spread the word!



For our next project.... let's start telling them to frickin' well STOP exporting their jobs to us. We don't want 'em......

:D

Actually, this is one of those things which makes he think that Bush isn't as thick as he is made out to be. After all, what the best way not to go to war? Join the army, but the part that will never go to war unless something hideous happens.

Congrats, a-hole, you just insulted about one-third of the US military. I hope they never expend any effort, money, or blood to defend your sorry ass.

I close with another question: Which country has produced the most Nobel Prize winners?
Is that per capita, or just the most? Considering the size of America, it has a definite advantage over most western countries in the latter respect.

Also, how many of them would have voted for Bush?

SURPRISE SURPRISE! Uh, yeah, you can. He joined the National Guard and got out of being sent to Vietnam. Not that he actually showed up when he was supposed to, mind....

Ditto for you.

So, out of a thousand-word essay what get's your panties in a bunch is .... the title?
The title shows you for what you are dude, arrogant enough to use that title- well gee isnt it amazing that only your fellow liberals take the rest of your essay seriously;) Oh and I dont wear panties dude, I dont hide behing my wifes skirt either:D.

Or is that you assume that people are stupid enough to believe that I am indeed the unified spokesperson for the worldwide collective of non-americans? Or that I believe that I have been appointed such?
Nope I dont assume people are stupid , Im not a liberal, its that I hold the opinion you are arrogant, vain , opinionated and conceited enough to act as if you were the spokesman for the rest of the world- Which I made perfectly clear before your wifie butchered my posts in this thread.

There might equally be an American Democrat complaining that my comment should not be directed at him as he didn't vote for Bush. But the facts remain that a) the comment is directed towards the elections results where a majority of American's that voted did so for Bush, and b) that the majority of the rest of the Western world by all polls taken would have preferred Kerry.

You may like fact A), but not b), however that does not make either of those facts any less true. Buddy of course I like fact A and fact B doesnt matter to me since the decision that matters was made by the Americans in America;)


Now - beyond your childish whine about the title, have you anything of substance to add to the discourse?
You talk of substance in the same sentence as ad hominem on my maturity ?
Whatever, to be honest the only substance I have on this issue is to thank you from the bottom of my heart. The anti republicanism and anti americanism of people like you from outside the US was a great help in mobilising the Bush vote inside the US. You should be happy , you *did* make a difference, you and your kind got conservatives to the polls in record numbers
Four more years ! Thanks again;)

Congrats, a-hole, you just insulted about one-third of the US military. I hope they never expend any effort, money, or blood to defend your sorry ass.
OMG I feel so bad!

But tell me, exactly how have I insulted 1/3 of the US army?

Anyway, the Army which defends me is better trained and better experienced, if the US army ever defended me then I would probably be shot accidentally and called "collateral damage."

You either didn't read his post or you didn't understand it. One of the two based on your response.

Don't be so arrogant yourself. Of course I read it. And I understood it. Your assertion that I didn't understand it shows again the penchant for people like yourself to believe that you are inherently intellectually superior to Americans.

Having read it, and understood it, I still conclude that it is absolute hogwash. None of the "predictions" or mischaracterizations in that post are true or valid.

The title shows you for what you are dude, arrogant enough to use that title- well gee isnt it amazing that only your fellow liberals take the rest of your essay seriously;) Oh and I dont wear panties dude, I dont hide behing my wifes skirt either:D.


Nope I dont assume people are stupid , Im not a liberal, its that I hold the opinion you are arrogant, vain , opinionated and conceited enough to act as if you were the spokesman for the rest of the world- Which I made perfectly clear before your wifie butchered my posts in this thread.

Buddy of course I like fact A and fact B doesnt matter to me since the decision that matters was made by the Americans in America;)



You talk of substance in the same sentence as ad hominem on my maturity ?
Whatever, to be honest the only substance I have on this issue is to thank you from the bottom of my heart. The anti republicanism and anti americanism of people like you from outside the US was a great help in mobilising the Bush vote inside the US. You should be happy , you *did* make a difference, you and your kind got conservatives to the polls in record numbers
Four more years ! Thanks again;)


For someone who claims to not take the essay seriously, you sure are spending a lot of effort complaining about it.


And your hipocricy in you extending the semantics of the title to equating me to being "arrogant, vain , opinionated and conceited" (one of which is a rather redundant inclusion), but complaining that my describing your whine using the descriptive term "childish" as an ad hominem attack is even funnier.


Just as is the thought that it was the rest of the world that got conservatives to vote.

Anyway, it is apparent that all you want to do is get personal with me rather than have a discussion on the issue itself, so clearly this conversation is not worth pursuing.

So, out of a thousand-word essay what get's your panties in a bunch is .... the title?

Or is that you assume that people are stupid enough to believe that I am indeed the unified spokesperson for the worldwide collective of non-americans? Or that I believe that I have been appointed such?

No, it's the arrogance and condescension that ticks me off. Your assertions are false, your predictions are baseless, and your pretentiousness is beyond belief.

Biff Pileon:
WE elect OUR leaders to work for OUR benefit, noone elses.

Well there's the problem: your leaders are influencing our lives too. When Bush decided to retreat from the Kyoto protocol, was it just your air quality and your climate that suffered? When he attacked Iraq, destabilizing the whole region, was it your peace that was thrown away?

American leaders seem to think they have the right to sacrifice the interest of other countries to assumed benefit of their own people. Mr Bush trades off global climate security for the benefit of the america economy, he trades off the lives of thousands of iraqi's for a favorable public opinion (i don't see any other reasons for the attack on iraq).

This doctrine comes down to the right of the strongest: citizens of the most powerfull countries get priority over others. remember this phrase? "all are equal, but some are more equal then others". There's a lack of global democracy.

Nice post btw Zeppistan.

And this is relevant because.....?????


OK, let's play the " bringing up totally irrelevant facts to sidetrack the discussion" game.


The answer: In the context of this discussion....Who cares?

Stop cutting 90% of my post and then claiming I didn't say anything! I addressed what you said in your post, but you cut the whole substance and then challenge one out-of-context side remark. What an intellectual coward!

so clearly this conversation is not worth pursuing.
Aw but I was having so much fun! Gee guess our chat is over *sniff*
You keep talking the liberal talk tho fella, it sure does wonders for the conservative vote
Four more years :D

So, out of a thousand-word essay what get's your panties in a bunch is .... the title?

Or is that you assume that people are stupid enough to believe that I am indeed the unified spokesperson for the worldwide collective of non-americans? Or that I believe that I have been appointed such?

You mean you are not? :eek:

And this is relevant because.....?????


OK, let's play the " bringing up totally irrelevant facts to sidetrack the discussion" game.


The answer: In the context of this discussion....Who cares?

And I'll tell you how it's relevant. Because your post attacked the intelligence of Americans in general. I asked the question rhetorically (do you know what that means?) to disprove your insults. The answer to the question is: THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

[QUOTE=Conceptualists]Is that per capita, or just the most? Considering the size of America, it has a definite advantage over most western countries in the latter respect.[QUOTE]

By your false and invalid argument, China, India, Russia, and Brazil should all have more than the US. But they don't.

And I'll tell you how it's relevant. Because your post attacked the intelligence of Americans in general. I asked the question rhetorically (do you know what that means?) to disprove your insults. The answer to the question is: THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Wow (http://www.nobellaureatesoniraq.org/)

He may have attacked the intelligence of Americans in general, but dragging out smart Americans doesn't nessasarily [sp] prove that Americans, as a whole, are clever.

btw, I don't think that Americans are stupid, but about average (just like most western countries)

Is that per capita, or just the most? Considering the size of America, it has a definite advantage over most western countries in the latter respect.

By your false and invalid argument, China, India, Russia, and Brazil should all have more than the US. But they don't.
Except those countries aren't western countries.

But still, is that percapita of the population or just most.

Biff Pileon:


Well there's the problem: your leaders are influencing our lives too. When Bush decided to retreat from the Kyoto protocol, was it just your air quality and your climate that suffered? When he attacked Iraq, destabilizing the whole region, was it your peace that was thrown away?

American leaders seem to think they have the right to sacrifice the interest of other countries to assumed benefit of their own people. Mr Bush trades off global climate security for the benefit of the america economy, he trades off the lives of thousands of iraqi's for a favorable public opinion (i don't see any other reasons for the attack on iraq).

This doctrine comes down to the right of the strongest: citizens of the most powerfull countries get priority over others. remember this phrase? "all are equal, but some are more equal then others". There's a lack of global democracy.

Nice post btw Zeppistan.

Every country's actions influence every other country. That's a cop-out. OK, I demand that the US have a say in the elections in your country (if you're allowed to vote, that is).

Oh, and "global warming" (in the sense of long-term climatological change, not short-term above-median temperatures) is a MYTH. It's politically motivated junk science.

Every country's actions influence every other country. That's a cop-out. OK, I demand that the US have a say in the elections in your country (if you're allowed to vote, that is).
I actually agree with this. The best way I heard it said was in one of those Clark County emails to the Guardian. I'll see if it is still online.

Is that per capita, or just the most? Considering the size of America, it has a definite advantage over most western countries in the latter respect.

Also, how many of them would have voted for Bush?

Milton Friedman would

Milton Friedman would
Somehow I find it hard to believe that a Libertarian would vote for either Bush or Kerry.

New Galtania:
Every country's actions influence every other country. That's a cop-out. OK, I demand that the US have a say in the elections in your country (if you're allowed to vote, that is).

Yes, dutchmen are allowed to vote ;) I dont say i want to elect your president, i just want to have a say in where this world is going to.

On domestic issues we will only give advise, nothing more. But when Bush decides to attack another country, or to spoil the global climate he is going too far. No-one gave him the mandate to do that. To say that there's nothing to do about influencing other countries is too defeatistic to me. If your president doesnt restrict himself when he's working beyond his mandate, someone else (the UN?) should restrict him.

The term values can mean a lot of things in different contexts depending on who you ask. It is not automatically equated with religious values, despite what Mansfield and the rest of the CBC and media in other countries might say. I think for many, the decision came down to whether he or she believed each candidate was true to his convictions. It was pretty clear that the president did a much better job and displaying this to voters. Independence is a value we really hold dear in the US. In this respect, I really think "world opinion" backfired. Americans will trust another American's opinion, they will generally not trust an outsider's opinion nor will they be comfortable with someone who might put the interests of outsiders ahead of our own. Look at our history and you'll see that.

In general, I think Americans can and should do a better job understanding the perspectives of outsiders. However, it should be understood that we're not always going to agree nor are we going to acquiece to your point of view. At the same time, the rest of the world needs to understand Americans much better. Making sweeping generalizations about our lack of intelligence and abilities to make reasoned decsions because many view the world from a different perspective does not help in fostering a greater understanding. Because conventional world opinion is different from that of America does not make the world 100% right nor does it make us 100% wrong. There's more to the US than New York and LA. You seem to have a good handle on the people there, but need to do a better job at understanding and accepting middle America.

New Galtania:


Yes, dutchmen are allowed to vote ;) I dont say i want to elect your president, i just want to have a say in where this world is going to.

On domestic issues we will only give advise, nothing more. But when Bush decides to attack another country, or to spoil the global climate he is going too far. No-one gave him the mandate to do that. To say that there's nothing to do about influencing other countries is too defeatistic to me. If your president doesnt restrict himself when he's working beyond his mandate, someone else (the UN?) should restrict him.
The UN and the whole concept of international law is useless. There is no higher power to bring advanced, powerful nationstates to account, for better or worse, the top nations have carte-blanche to do what they want, international tut-tutting achieves nothing.

War isn't about getting mandates it is about imposing the countries will on another nation (whether good or bad depends on your politcal views and location), and nothing can stop a superpower. I mean, could you imagine the world placing sanctions on America or even Europe?

Somehow I find it hard to believe that a Libertarian would vote for either Bush or Kerry.

When you only have 2 choices....

of course, Bush would make Friedmans goal of legalized drugs less attainable.

New Galtania:


Yes, dutchmen are allowed to vote ;) I dont say i want to elect your president, i just want to have a say in where this world is going to.

On domestic issues we will only give advise, nothing more. But when Bush decides to attack another country, or to spoil the global climate he is going too far. No-one gave him the mandate to do that. To say that there's nothing to do about influencing other countries is too defeatistic to me. If your president doesnt restrict himself when he's working beyond his mandate, someone else (the UN?) should restrict him.

Look to your own country, then; mind your own business. First, global climate change due to human activity is a myth; nothing but junk science. Second, America will do what is her best interest, and will not subjugate her national security to ANYONE. You expect your government to do what is best for your citizens, and to protect you, why should America be different? Every country acts in its own interest, not just America.

So you're going to "restrict" America, huh? How are you going to do that?

When you only have 2 choices....

of course, Bush would make Friedmans goal of legalized drugs less attainable.
You have two more options. Vote for a third candidate or abstain.

New Galtania:


Yes, dutchmen are allowed to vote ;) I dont say i want to elect your president, i just want to have a say in where this world is going to.

On domestic issues we will only give advise, nothing more. But when Bush decides to attack another country, or to spoil the global climate he is going too far. No-one gave him the mandate to do that. To say that there's nothing to do about influencing other countries is too defeatistic to me. If your president doesnt restrict himself when he's working beyond his mandate, someone else (the UN?) should restrict him.

Maybe you guys(the world, not just the Dutch) should have thought about that before you spent all your money on social programs instead of developing a more powerful economy or military.

You have two more options. Vote for a third candidate or abstain.

I voted for Badnarik. Anyway the point was about Friedman and whether he would have voted for Bush. I think given the option of Kerry or Bush, he would go Bush.

America, in the eyes of the world, now willingly stands for the following:

- For the arrogant and unfettered use of military force under circumstances that seem to approach an executive whim.
- For the "you're with us or you're against us" mentality.
- For the idea that Bible has supplanted the Constitution as the primary law of the land.
- For intolerance.
- For fiscal recklessness.
- For the doctrine of preemption.
- For never second-guessing a decision and for never learning from mistakes.

1. No one else had the spine to take on terrorists where they live and breed. If not for the US Military and President Bush. The world would have the likes of the Taliban and Saddam still threatening the world.

2. We only have that mentality against states that sponsor terrorists. If you or your country feel that you are against us, that's something you'll have to deal with.

3. What a load of crap. You know nothing about the law of the land. LOL

4. Intolerance? Like the intolerance we are hearing from you? Intolerant - "Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs."

5. Fiscally recklessness is not a trait that only the Republicans hold. The Democrats are just as reckless. I'll have to admit that I've been disappointed with the amount of spending in Bushs' first 4 years. I'd hope that spending comes down over the next 4.

6. America was attacked on 9/11. If preemption will keep this from happening again, I am all for it!

7. I for one am proud that Bush makes a decision and stands by it. As far as learning from mistakes. What mistakes are you claiming that the US or Bush has not learned from?

In the long run you come over as a bitter person. Angry that Kerry lost and hateful of Bush. I say get over it and continue on with your life. In 4 more years there will be another chance for you to whine about the US elections.

Bush won 51% of the popular vote. This is something that even Bill Clinton could not do. More people voted for Bush than any other President in history!

Things I hope to see done in the next 4 years.
- End to the war in Iraq. A free and democratic people of Iraq.
- Usama Bin Laden's capture and subseqent termination.
- Iran and North Korea, disband nuke programs. Though diplomatic channels.
- US Deficit reduced to 1/2.
- Development of alternative/renewable fuel sources.
- Removal of US troops and bases from Europe. Really what purpose do they hold now that the cold war is over.

Will these happen in the next 4 years? One can hope.

Zeppistan, I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm also sorry for my very American existence. I didn't vote for Shrub, and yet I'm lumped together with those who did. It hurts me deeply.

Why does your opinion matter in particular? I deal with crabby Europeans, gently chiding Canadians daily, including my lover, who is Canadian. Why should someone I don't know, nor really paid that much attention to their posts right now, have this sick, nauseating effect on me while the others I just feel deep empathy and sympathy for?

I'm not sure. But something in that post made me cry. Maybe it was the finality of it all? That now in the eyes of the world, we are one with our administration?

That could be it. It could also be the fact that I know, with a sinking feeling, that America will go down in history as a big giant bully with supposedly stupid, ignorant people who care for NOTHING about other countries, care little for the environment, model themselves after an archaic religious book, and damn anyone who isn't Christian.

I wish I had never been born in America.

- Asylum Nova

1. No one else had the spine to take on terrorists where they live and breed. If not for the US Military and President Bush. The world would have the likes of the Taliban and Saddam still threatening the world.

Not all terrorist are Muslim or connected to Al-Q. Also the only reason terrorists are living and 'breeding' in Iraq is because of how the War was handeled. The Taliban and Saddam didn't threaten the world. They threatened their local populations (but all states do), but not the world. Also we still have the likes of the Taliban and Saddam.

2. We only have that mentality against states that sponsor terrorists. If you or your country feel that you are against us, that's something you'll have to deal with.

Like Saudia-Arabia or Libya (Britain sorted out Libya btw)?
3. What a load of crap. You know nothing about the law of the land. LOL

Looks like hot water. Better not pour oil onto it.

4. Intolerance? Like the intolerance we are hearing from you? Intolerant - "Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs."

Yep, just like that

5. Fiscally recklessness is not a trait that only the Republicans hold. The Democrats are just as reckless. I'll have to admit that I've been disappointed with the amount of spending in Bushs' first 4 years. I'd hope that spending comes down over the next 4.

He never said it was only confined to one party, but it does look like Bush has been more fiscally reckless then Clinton.

6. America was attacked on 9/11. If preemption will keep this from happening again, I am all for it!

Britain was attacked by terrorists many times, Ireland was never invaded.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

7. I for one am proud that Bush makes a decision and stands by it. As far as learning from mistakes. What mistakes are you claiming that the US or Bush has not learned from?

He's still giving tax cuts and seems to just throws money & soldiers at the Iraqi problem

In the long run you come over as a bitter person. Angry that Kerry lost and hateful of Bush. I say get over it and continue on with your life. In 4 more years there will be another chance for you to whine about the US elections.
IMO Kerry would be just as bad, all in all.
Bush won 51% of the popular vote. This is something that even Bill Clinton could not do. More people voted for Bush than any other President in history!

Great. But the majority is not always right.

Things I hope to see done in the next 4 years.
- End to the war in Iraq. A free and democratic people of Iraq.
- Usama Bin Laden's capture and subseqent termination.
- Iran and North Korea, disband nuke programs. Though diplomatic channels.
- US Deficit reduced to 1/2.
- Development of alternative/renewable fuel sources.
- Removal of US troops and bases from Europe. Really what purpose do they hold now that the cold war is over.

Will these happen in the next 4 years? One can hope.

1. The minute you make elections in Irak it will be an Islamic Republic just like Iran (not that Bushy will let it happen anyway)

2. Osama Bin Laden is one of the greatests friends of the United States' Oligarchy, that's why he never was found and he never will.

3. HAHAHAHA!!! Maybe when the United States destroy all of their nukes... please, what a sucker!

4. With Bush in power? HAHAHA!!! Only if he raises taxes, oh no wait that's "unamerican"

5. ??? You're kidding me right? Again... with the oligarchs in power... oh my...

6. And give up on trying to control more countries through political/economical/military presure... yeah right...

As you said you can only hope... but it will never happen.

Zeppistan, I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm also sorry for my very American existence. I didn't vote for Shrub, and yet I'm lumped together with those who did. It hurts me deeply.

Why does your opinion matter in particular? I deal with crabby Europeans, gently chiding Canadians daily, including my lover, who is Canadian. Why should someone I don't know, nor really paid that much attention to their posts right now, have this sick, nauseating effect on me while the others I just feel deep empathy and sympathy for?

I'm not sure. But something in that post made me cry. Maybe it was the finality of it all? That now in the eyes of the world, we are one with our administration?

That could be it. It could also be the fact that I know, with a sinking feeling, that America will go down in history as a big giant bully with supposedly stupid, ignorant people who care for NOTHING about other countries, care little for the environment, model themselves after an archaic religious book, and damn anyone who isn't Christian.

I wish I had never been born in America.

- Asylum Nova

Oh, boo hoo hoo...None of your mischaracterizations of America are true, you're just wallowing in self-pity. GTFO, then.

Oh, boo hoo hoo...None of your mischaracterizations of America are true, you're just wallowing in self-pity. GTFO, then.

Did you notice the word 'supposedly' tacked on in front of those 'mischaracterizations' I personally don't believe that. I'm just stating the general complaints that I've dealt with. *shrug*

- Asylum Nova

Will you Europeans ever stop nagging about this?!??! The majority of the country voted for him, he's going to be here for another four years, DEAL WITH IT.

Will you Europeans ever stop nagging about this?!??! The majority of the country voted for him, he's going to be here for another four years, DEAL WITH IT.
Did you kill of all the people who didn't vote? Or have they become non-people now?

Will you Europeans ever stop nagging about this?!??! The majority of the country voted for him, he's going to be here for another four years, DEAL WITH IT.

That's just the point. They are UNABLE to deal with it. Whenever strong emotions - like hatred - are invested in the outcome of a contest, insufferable anguish follows a defeat. To listen to them, Bush's election is Arma-f*cking-geddon.

*Munches his popcorn, eyes glued to the Zep vs Brittanic/Galtania discussion*

Ok, first post I know but don't hold that against me, I only have a few things to say before I fade back into the obscurity of the sidelines.

First of all I'd like to say I am from the UK and (of course) I felt rather dissapointed by the electoral results but I cannot say that I was supprised. I also must state that I lived in the USA for the middle ten years of my life and so I have a slightly more balanced view of Americans than most of my european friends. Some of those friends might point out that the inhabitants of Grapevine and Houston Texas are not the most balanced examples of the US population, but I digress.

So, validations out of the way, I would like to say a few things, I will not add to what Zep has said because I believe he has said everything important already.

Brittanic, he may not speak for you but I certainly know very few people who are pro Bush or are in agreement with his more 'unique' policies and the scaremongering of his political party. The fact is that the vast majority of Europe would rather have seen Kerry taking over the reigns than Bush, despite Kerry's repeated failures to look or sound like any sort of leader.

You ask the question why the rest of the world cares and how we have formed our views about the USA? In his four years of presidency Bush has done little positive in our eyes. He has gone to war twice, the second time on the merits of a downright bare faced lie. How does this look to all of us out here in our socialy minded free countries? It scares us and that is why we are concerned, we are all very much affraid of global war once more rearing its malfomed head, and in this day and age, and with the mentalities behind the various red buttons around the world, this would not be a pretty thing.

Look to your own country, then; mind your own business. First, global climate change due to human activity is a myth; nothing but junk science.

This, I am afraid to say, is perfectly true, any global warming you see is perfectly natural and all part of our planet's life cycle. That's not to say that what we see happen in flicks such as 'The Day After Tommorow' will not occur, on the contrary, such circumstances could and probably will occur but they will be perfectly natural.

But what's so wrong with the Kyoto Agreement? It won't 'stave off our fate' as much as it would like to think, but under its guidlines you Americans would be driving more efficient, reliable cars and breathing fresher healthier air. And this would be a significant thing too not just spare change, in all estimations the cash you could save on fuel alone would probably go a long way to paying for that hair transplant or whatever you fritter your cash away on.

Now, Galtania, we all know that you have a lot to say and I'm sure you have some valid arguments and stunningly witty reposts to Zep's posts so how about posting them and stop all this baseless name calling and unsupported claims and arguments that you always respond with, or else nobody will ever side with you.

Oh well, at least we can all sit back now and wait for Michal Moore's new film/book to come out.

And why not visit http://www.bushgame.com until then? I personally am stocking up on tinned goods...

:rolleyes:

Did you kill of all the people who didn't vote? Or have they become non-people now?

Of course not, don't be ridiculous. This is the "OMFG the world is ending" attitude I'm talking about.

I suggest a 1 month worldwide boybott of central and south US products (from floridan orange juices to texan computers).

Of course not, don't be ridiculous. This is the "OMFG the world is ending" attitude I'm talking about.
How the hell did you extrapolate that from my post?

It was a reply to "The majority of Americans voted for Bush," which is blantantly untrue, as it ignores the existence of people that didn't vote (and could).

Either dig yourself out of your inferiority complex or get off your high horse and join us mortals.

I suggest a 1 month worldwide boybott of central and south US products (from floridan orange juices to texan computers).
And harm those that didn't vote for Bush or at all. Sorry but I'm not a fan of the "Punish the many to get the few" philosophy. Or harming those who exercised there right to vote for who they want.

Actually, come to think of it, I don't think I buy anything from those regions anyway.

I suggest a 1 month worldwide boybott of central and south US products (from floridan orange juices to texan computers).

Good luck with that, dude. :rolleyes:

It was a reply to "The majority of Americans voted for Bush," which is blantantly untrue, as it ignores the existence of people that didn't vote (and could).

And which then implied that those who voted for Bush now view said persons as non-persons, which is a ridiculous implication.

I suggest a 1 month worldwide boybott of central and south US products (from floridan orange juices to texan computers).

No he's right that IS kinda pointless...

And which then implied that those who voted for Bush now view said persons as non-persons, which is a ridiculous implication.

Well, its a ridiculous implication from your point of view, anyway. Others may feel differently than you.

And which then implied that those who voted for Bush now view said persons as non-persons, which is a ridiculous implication.
No, it implied that those who say the majority of America voted for Bush must view them as non-persons.

No he's right that IS kinda pointless...
The point is to show them that they are dependant on the outside world and that they can't ignore worldwide opinion.
I agree that it may affect the wrong people as well though. Therefore the idea is not good enough.

Once again, the world sees things one way and we Americans see them another. What you see as arrogance, we see as us FINALLY standing up for ourselves. What you see as a clear mandate of the people, we see as the result of poor options.

Just because they only choice is between Satan and Hitler doesn't excuse choosing Satan (note, this is a similie not a metaphor).

I would NEVER have voted for Bush if I thought Kerry did not have a chance. Kerry would have tied us to the UN and he was soft on our sovereignty. He "thought" he understood the average American and tried to paint himself as one. He lost very badly here in the South, and Edwards did NOTHING for him in North carolina as the margin there was HUGE!!

Just FYI, the fact that Bush comfortably won Texas, Mississippi and Alabama would not be considered a plus point in the eyes of the rest of the world

Some here decry the US as wanting to create an "empire." Yet, every time US troops have been used, they have left. We occupy no other lands longer than is necessary. If that were otherwise, Germany and Japan would not be what they are today.

But McDonalds and KFC didn't leave. We know the US isn't creating an empire in the traditional mould, it's a commercial empire. When all, or the majority of (there's still the chance of a contingent similar to the former Saudi one), the US troops leave Iraq do you think Haliburton and Texaco will go too?

But you know what? Knock yourselves out. Personally I couldn't give a toss whether or not the US has a commercial empire. It has for the last 50 years and things were pretty cosy. What worries me is when the quest to spread the commercial empire/democratic ideal (whichever is the main driving force at the moment) starts to seriously endanger international security. That is what may be happening now (it's too early to tell but the job the current administration has done so far in Iraq is not exactly encouraging).

The US has a history of helping others out when needed.

Really? Care to give examples? I mean, of course, ones that were not significantly aimed at securing commercial interests (Gulf War 1), pursuing ideological enemies (Korea, Vietnam) or a response to aggressive actions (WWI and II). Kosovo I will give you but after that I'm really struggling.

That will not stop. However, just because we have a leader who puts the US first for a change is not the 7th sign.

Putting the US first is a perfectly valid stance. It just helps if you have the wits to do it in a way that isn't likely to horribly backfire.

The world will go on and things will get better in time.

Hopefully. I don't see a great deal to be optimistic about, though.

When Austria elected Kurt Waldheim (a known Nazi) did the world go crazy? No. So why should those outside the US worry so much?

Erm, because:
1) Austria didn't have nuclear weapons
2) Austria didn't have the single most effective armed forces in the world
3) Austria wasn't the world's largest economy
4) Austria wasn't the world's sole superpower
5) Austria didn't have the ability to seriously fudge up the world

Besides, there was somewhat more of a stink made at the time than you imply

Kerry would have been so much worse,

Well we'll never know now but it's hard to see how.

yet the hatred of Bush blinds outsiders to that fact. WE elect OUR leaders to work for OUR benefit, noone elses.

Well better luck next time. For future reference if your own benefit is of primary concern then someone with a track record of divisive social policies, the kind of economic policies that would result in a disastrous credit rating in an individual and reckless foreign policy that incites violent opposition (yes, incites, if you think there's less violent Islamic fundamentalists now than 2001 then you need to think again) may not be the best choice.

Well, needless to say those were not the results I had hoped to see. As much as Kerry didn't sell the world on his brilliance, the results of Bush policy have been clear for a while now. What we – the “rest of the world” - were waiting for was the results of the American referendum on those policies. Indeed, over the past four years, the world opinion of the US electorate has vacillated greatly. from amusement over the great Florida fiasco of 2000, immense sympathy and shared anger in September of 2001, to distrust and some anger at the resultant policies ever since. Iraq. Quantanimo. Etc.

The people of the United States had the choice of Kerry or Bush! In the end, they decided to reject Kerry's stances and give Bush a second term in office. As much as this pleased me, I have to say to Kerry that it was a well runned Campaign and that you gave Bush a fight. However, the American people want consistency and Kerry did not offer that. That was just one of many factors in my opinion that caused Kerry this election. BTW, good opening Zeppistan!

But for all of that, as the world opinion diminished, for most there was still a clear separation in our eyes. A separation between what was thought of the American people versus what was thought of the Administration.

At least people can make this distinction. To often than not, it is the exact opposite which is sad. Just like I don't like the French Government or the German Government but I respect the people of both nations.

The reasons for that were largely our understanding of the fact that Bush had not achieved an outright plurality in the popular vote in 2000, and an understanding that the populace had not had an opportunity to vote on the direction the country had headed. They had voted for a “compassionate conservative uniter” during a time of peace and prosperity. 9-11 changed everything, and this was the opportunity for the American people to embrace or reject the resultant fundamental policy shifts that had transpired.

In our country, and something most foreigners don't understand, is that we don't do things by the Popular vote for President. For Senators, Congressmen, Governors etc., the popular vote is used. We use an Electoral College to decide who our next leader is. Though Bush did not win the popular vote, he did win the Electoral Vote and thus became President.

By achieving a clear majority of the popular vote, the rest of the world wakes up to the understanding that the majority of America chooses to define itself as being in agreement with this Administration. We wake up to the understanding that what we hoped (and thought) was the best of America has been overtaken by what we consider to be some of its less endearing qualities.

This I can agree with. Obviously the people felt that George W. Bush deserved a second term. If they felt that he shouldn't, then Kerry would've been elected.

America, in the eyes of the world, now willingly stands for the following:

- For the arrogant and unfettered use of military force under circumstances that seem to approach an executive whim.
- For the "you're with us or you're against us" mentality.
- For the idea that Bible has supplanted the Constitution as the primary law of the land.
- For intolerance.
- For fiscal recklessness.
- For the doctrine of preemption.
- For never second-guessing a decision and for never learning from mistakes.

Now here I have to call bull. Under the US Constitution, all the President needs is approval from Congress to use our military forces! However, he also has the capacity to send in our forces without Congressional Consent for 90 days but has to report this to Congress. From there, Congress can vote to approve of it, in which case they can stay and fight but if they disapprove it, they have to leave after the 90 day grace period is up. Second Point! He's talking about the war on Terror there. You are either Against the terrorists or for them! There is no neutral Ground! Third Point! The Bible has not supplanted the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land no matter how much the Liberals try to say otherwise. Fourth Point! What intolerance? If your talking about being Anti-gay marriage, don't forget that Kerry is against it too but would've supported Civil Unions. Bush, near the end of the Campaign, said this too! Fifth Point! Welcome to war! Also, it is Congress's responsiblility to curve it too. Look at what Congress approves every year. Not just what the President Wants but take a good look at all the pork that is in a budget Bill. Sixth Point! The Doctrine of Pre-emption is a sound strategy. Look at WWII for example. Everyone knew what Hitler was doing was in violation of the Treaty of Versailles but they did nothing until he Invaded Poland. If the world did something, I don't think WWII would've been as catastrophic as it turned out to be. It still would've been bloodied but France would not've been occupied and Britain Bombed. Seventh and final Point! Again bull! You are referring to that question regarding three mistakes during the debate that was totally sat up! Kerry did not receive this question in case you didn't know that. Everyone makes mistakes and I'm willing to bet that he has learned from them otherwise, we wouldn't be in the process of revamping the Intelligence Community.

That is the face that we see in GW. The face that you have chosen as your public mirror and spokesperson. Not to paint him as the devil incarnate, but to paint him as the spokesperson for self-righteous infliction of a single religious moral code on everything he can. And the biggest lesson learned by this turnout must have been that which was learned by the evangelical right. The lesson being that if they all show up at the polls, they have the numbers to shape the government. This fact is probably the most alarming to me as this moves the US closer towards becoming a true Christian theocracy than any other event since the demise of prohibition.

And I could say the same about your blindly following your Liberal Prime Miniser though he has done nothing to fix what is wrong in Canada. Your military is in shambles which is a crime shame especially the state of your Navy. Your healthcare system is a joke, and I could go on and on. You talk about scare tactics, I've seen what your Prime Minister said regarding the Conservative Party. That really pissed me off and I would've voted conservative in that election based on that alone.

The exit polls confirmed that in state after state. That the final decision of the voters was not, in fact, predicated on the issues of security, but rather on that amorphous term: "values". The only thing we outsiders can take with that is the idea that most Americans consider John Kerry to be a man of lesser moral fiber than GW, presumably from his assertion that it is his duty to put his personal religious beliefs to the side when making policy in favour of a more open-minded and tolerant viewpoint. The separation of Church and State that has been so hard-won around the Western World seems to be on the decline in the US with the blessing of it’s citizens.

That is why you shouldn't trust exit polls. Fox News through them out because they were inaccurate. To my knowledge, they were the only ones that did. Before you say anything, the last Opinion Dynamics Poll had John Kerry winning the election! As to lesser moral value, most polls spelled that out actually even in the state of Mass. As for Seperation of Church and State, last time I checked, we still have it unless you have proof that says otherwise.

What things do I look to as the most likely lasting impacts of the next four years? The possible stacking of the Supreme Court for decades to come with equally theologically bent judges, and the continued selling off of American debt to the Chinese - thereby providing your most likely future major competitor with fiscal leverage to hold over you. Indeed, it seems entirely conceivable that by the end of 8 years GW will have doubled the national debt, and with the bulk of that increase going to the East.

As much as you see this, I don't think that this will happen. Under how the Senate is structured for a judicial pass, you need 60 votes (a supermajority) whereas the Constitution says you only need 51 (a simple majority). You still have the checks and balances in place and they do work too no matter what party is in power.

Those possibilities do not, to us, bode as well for the vision of America's future that we had hoped for. The shining beacon in the world has been tarnished in our eyes in a way that I have never seen before. This is not an expression of anger with America, more one of disappointment. And not expressed with a sense of superiority but rather more akin to that felt when a close friend reveals secrets that are antithetical to our own belief structures. We still care for the friend, but it just puts some distance and strain on the close bonds we had. But where both candidates talked about America's position as the world leader as some sort of mandated position, the path we see you embarking upon is not one that engenders a large cadre of willing followers in us. That probably does not matter to most American’s nor do I expect it to. This was simply stated as fact.

Us meaning the rest of the world? I think in this election we basically told the rest of the world to shut up. You people can think all you want about America but really most Americans don't care.

From a Canadian perspective, this means one thing above all to me. It has become ever more crucial that we work diligently to wean ourselves as much as possible from the interdependent teat of the combined Canadian-American economy. Our proximity means that this will always be a factor, however our primary mission to ensure our own stability must be to actively cultivate far more economic ties with the EU and Asia if we are not going to find ourselves inexorably drawn along a path that we might prefer not to go.

Good luck in that endeavor since all world economies are linked to eachother. If you find a way let us know so we can ween ourselves from the rest of the world's economy! Now as for economic ties, the EU economies are not doing very well and the only economy in Asia doing well is basically China but if you want to do more businesses with them, be my guest!

Once again, the world sees things one way and we Americans see them another. What you see as arrogance, we see as us FINALLY standing up for ourselves. What you see as a clear mandate of the people, we see as the result of poor options. I would NEVER have voted for Bush if I thought Kerry did not have a chance. Kerry would have tied us to the UN and he was soft on our sovereignty. He "thought" he understood the average American and tried to paint himself as one. He lost very badly here in the South, and Edwards did NOTHING for him in North carolina as the margin there was HUGE!!

I agree with you here Biff! The US sees differently because we are more likely to understand what is going on more than what the rest of the world sees.

Some here decry the US as wanting to create an "empire." Yet, every time US troops have been used, they have left. We occupy no other lands longer than is necessary. If that were otherwise, Germany and Japan would not be what they are today. The US has a history of helping others out when needed. That will not stop. However, just because we have a leader who puts the US first for a change is not the 7th sign.

Here here! Unfortunately, the rest of the world won't see it because they are too blind to our power. They think that we should have the same power as them even though we are more technologically advances than half the world, especially in Military Power. We use it when necessary then leave.

The world will go on and things will get better in time.

Seconded

When Austria elected Kurt Waldheim (a known Nazi) did the world go crazy? No. So why should those outside the US worry so much? Kerry would have been so much worse, yet the hatred of Bush blinds outsiders to that fact. WE elect OUR leaders to work for OUR benefit, noone elses.

I find this ironic that they go crazy over Bush but not when a Nazi gets elected. Strange isn't it Biff? We choose our own leaders for our nation. We don't choose our leaders for the Worlds sake but for our own sake. Get used to it.

Of course only Americans are stupid enought to think that a draft dodging coward can defend them from terrorists better than an decorated war hero...

Funny, I thought that was Bill Clinton who also got a second term in office and he dodged the draft!

Bush didn't dodge it but joined the National Guard which is still military.

I find this comment extremely interesting. With 55 Million people voting for Kerry (48%), just who is this "average American" that you refer to, the one who voted for Bush, or the one who voted for Kerry? Do you really know what the "average American" wants?

BTW, only 19% of the total US population actually voted for Bush.

Actually the number was 51% of the people that voted, voted for Bush and that number was at 59 Million! Bush beat Kerry by about 3 million votes! Nader got 1% Nice job on focusing on one number Zeppistan!

Now as for the 19% of the total US population voting for Bush, the numbers DO NOT spell that out.

First of all, nice post.

Secondly is an issue which has been nagging at me for some time:



Us meaning the rest of the world? I think in this election we basically told the rest of the world to shut up. You people can think all you want about America but really most Americans don't care.


But WHY don't you care? Isn't there some slim chance that the rest of the world has a point? And weather you believe this or not, shouldn't the oppinions of other people have some bearing on your own views?

[QUOTE=Conceptualists]The whole concept of international law is useless. There is no higher power to bring advanced, powerful nationstates to account, for better or worse, the top nations have carte-blanche to do what they want, international tut-tutting achieves nothing.[QUOTE]

Replace "international" with "federal" and "nationstates" with "states". Of course the UN has no god-given mandate to dictate anything to any country. Neither does the US federal government have a god-given right to dictate that the more powerful states (e.g. California) should abide by any of its laws. BUT if a country joins the UN then it surrenders a degree of sovereignity in exactly the same way the US states did by freely joining the United States of America. Of course if the US government feels it no longer wishes to surrender such sovereignity then it is free to withdraw from the UN in the same way the southern states should have been free the secede from the US in 1860.

Too bad we don't give a crap. Get a life and worry about your own country for a change. Don't you know when the world attacks our president it makes people more likely to vote for him?No man is an island, no country is unaffected by the US elections. I'm not niaive enough to think that the worldwider support for Kerry was going to 'matter' to the average US citizen , but I do know that an overwhelming number of non-US citizens are going to be tangibly affected by the outcome of your election in the way that few other countries are able to emulate.

Maybe the outside world doesn't exist for most of you in the US (I hear say that an overwhelming majority have never had a passport, though that might be apocryphal) but the US is more than just a source of films and tv programmes (from dire to inspired) to the outside world. And I'm talking as someone who likes the US, in principle, and can only imagine how hard the job of president must be, but would have prefered to see what a different president could have done over the next four years, allowing the giant that is The United States Of America to pause and at least look down at its feet to see what it's stomping all over before blundering on its way again...

My opinion is not necessarily representative of the views of the majority of the world's population, but I've not heard much serious support for Bush amongst non-citizens (except for the guardedly diplomatic statements that most state leaders feel compelled to expound, and would have similarly expounded anyway had the situation been otherwise).

First of all, nice post.

Thanks

Secondly is an issue which has been nagging at me for some time:





But WHY don't you care? Isn't there some slim chance that the rest of the world has a point? And weather you believe this or not, shouldn't the oppinions of other people have some bearing on your own views?

A slim point! I try to listen to all points of view but when they start to get accusatory, I stop listening. This is wht the rest of the world, IMHO, has done throughout this election. Now that the people have spoken and gave GWB a mandate, which btw he is the first President in 16 years to receive a majority of the popular vote, I was hoping that this could be put to rest but now they are accusing Americans of what they perceive us to be. Not what we really are.

No man is an island, no country is unaffected by the US elections. I'm not niaive enough to think that the worldwider support for Kerry was going to 'matter' to the average US citizen , but I do know that an overwhelming number of non-US citizens are going to be tangibly affected by the outcome of your election in the way that few other countries are able to emulate.

Maybe the outside world doesn't exist for most of you in the US (I hear say that an overwhelming majority have never had a passport, though that might be apocryphal) but the US is more than just a source of films and tv programmes (from dire to inspired) to the outside world. And I'm talking as someone who likes the US, in principle, and can only imagine how hard the job of president must be, but would have prefered to see what a different president could have done over the next four years, allowing the giant that is The United States Of America to pause and at least look down at its feet to see what it's stomping all over before blundering on its way again...

My opinion is not necessarily representative of the views of the majority of the world's population, but I've not heard much serious support for Bush amongst non-citizens (except for the guardedly diplomatic statements that most state leaders feel compelled to expound, and would have similarly expounded anyway had the situation been otherwise).

The US is effected by your country's elections also. Should we be demanding a say in your elections, as you are in ours?

Now here I have to call bull. Under the US Constitution, all the President needs is approval from Congress

Which the American people returned with a Republican majority in both houses.

to use our military forces! However, he also has the capacity to send in our forces without Congressional Consent for 90 days but has to report this to Congress. From there, Congress can vote to approve of it, in which case they can stay and fight but if they disapprove it, they have to leave after the 90 day grace period is up. Second Point! He's talking about the war on Terror there. You are either Against the terrorists or for them! There is no neutral Ground!

Zeppistan never said it was a case of "either for terrorism or against it" he said it was "either for us or against us". It's a fallacy, that you repeat, that if you are against the US administration's actions you are for terrorism. For that to be true it would need to be the case that:
a)all the US administration's aggressive actions would need to be entirely (OK, I'll be generous, primarily) aimed at eliminating terrorism
b)these actions are more likely to succed than fail in this goal.
It was the belief that the war on Iraq failed to fulfill one or both of these criteria that was the main motivation behind the opposition to the war in Iraq.

Sixth Point! The Doctrine of Pre-emption is a sound strategy. Look at WWII for example. Everyone knew what Hitler was doing was in violation of the Treaty of Versailles but they did nothing until he Invaded Poland. If the world did something, I don't think WWII would've been as catastrophic as it turned out to be. It still would've been bloodied but France would not've been occupied and Britain Bombed.

False analogy. No historian that I have come across has seriously suggested that France and Britain should have launched a pre-emptive strike against Germany. To have done so solely on the basis of technical breaches of the Versailles Treaty (a treaty that was rapidly coming to be seen as inherently unfair) would not only have led to the same conclusion, world war, but would have led to the ridiculous situation of the Nazis having a legitimate moral standpoint. Remember that the French occupation of the Rhineland in 1923 in reaction to German violations of Versailles was widely seen as unfair. Indeed, the Germans may even have gained more allies in the war.
The allies' failiures were in giving up land concessions at the Munich conference and then failing to act when the Germans invaded Czechoslovakia. Neither of these failiures have any relevance to the situation with Iraq before the war.

Us meaning the rest of the world? I think in this election we basically told the rest of the world to shut up. You people can think all you want about America but really most Americans don't care.

I would have thought that viewpoint would have gone out of date on September the 11th 2001. The sad fact is that worldwide anti-american sentiment does not stop being voiced outside of bulletin boards, newsgroups and chatrooms. In the current climate it can lead to horrendous conclusions.

The US is effected by your country's elections also. Should we be demanding a say in your elections, as you are in ours?

Who exactly is saying they should be given the vote in the US?

Who exactly is saying they should be given the vote in the US?

You haven't been here long, so I'll just say: Read these boards, paying particular attention to the desire of EUropeans and Canucks to pick America's leaders for us, and then throw all sorts of insults and profane abuse at us when we don't elect their choice.

Zeppistan, I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm also sorry for my very American existence. I didn't vote for Shrub, and yet I'm lumped together with those who did. It hurts me deeply.

Why does your opinion matter in particular? I deal with crabby Europeans, gently chiding Canadians daily, including my lover, who is Canadian. Why should someone I don't know, nor really paid that much attention to their posts right now, have this sick, nauseating effect on me while the others I just feel deep empathy and sympathy for?

I'm not sure. But something in that post made me cry. Maybe it was the finality of it all? That now in the eyes of the world, we are one with our administration?

That could be it. It could also be the fact that I know, with a sinking feeling, that America will go down in history as a big giant bully with supposedly stupid, ignorant people who care for NOTHING about other countries, care little for the environment, model themselves after an archaic religious book, and damn anyone who isn't Christian.

I wish I had never been born in America.

- Asylum Nova

Wow! Is this serious? Have you ever been to another country? I've filled up a couple passport visa pages and I wouldn't become a citizen of any other country, let alone move my home and family there.

David in Georgia

You haven't been here long, so I'll just say: Read these boards, paying particular attention to the desire of EUropeans and Canucks to pick America's leaders for us, and then throw all sorts of insults and profane abuse at us when we don't elect their choice.

Offering advice, no matter how impassioned, or criticism, no matter how vitriolic, is not the same as demanding the right to decide the outcome.

Wow! Is this serious? Have you ever been to another country? I've filled up a couple passport visa pages and I wouldn't become a citizen of any other country, let alone move my home and family there.

David in Georgia

Well, harumph, harumph, you see...that's because...well, you're from the American south, which means you are a stupid, ignorant, uncouth, uncultured hick. You see, if you agreed with the intellectually superior EUropeans, you wouldn't think that way.

Offering advice, no matter how impassioned, or criticism, no matter how vitriolic, is not the same as demanding the right to decide the outcome.
It is to me, when they subject my country, my fellow citizens, and me to their abuse and insults just because we didn't elect their choice. I will reiterate: read these boards. See if you don't see Americans called stupid, uncultured, unworldly, ignorant, evil, barbarians, the cause of all ills in the world, and the bringer of Arma-f*cking-geddon. All because WE voted to elect George W. Bush the President of OUR country. See if you don't see them calling for boycotts and all manner of "restrictions" on the US, because "US policy effects me too."

Which the American people returned with a Republican majority in both houses.

Yes they did! The people have spoken there as well. Are you going to condemn the people's right to put into power those that they want?

Zeppistan never said it was a case of "either for terrorism or against it" he said it was "either for us or against us". It's a fallacy, that you repeat, that if you are against the US administration's actions you are for terrorism. For that to be true it would need to be the case that:
a)all the US administration's aggressive actions would need to be entirely (OK, I'll be generous, primarily) aimed at eliminating terrorism
b)these actions are more likely to succed than fail in this goal.
It was the belief that the war on Iraq failed to fulfill one or both of these criteria that was the main motivation behind the opposition to the war in Iraq.

And Bush made that quote after the 9/11 attacks. The quote was aimed at the world. You are either with the terrorists or against them. There are policies that I disagree with the administration on! Does that make me a terrorist? No it does not! However, if you support terrorism, then you have what is coming to you. That is what the quote was going for. As for Iraq, I made no mention of Iraq anywhere. I made a point that the stated quote was that you are either against terrorism or for it. There is no neutrality in this case.

False analogy. No historian that I have come across has seriously suggested that France and Britain should have launched a pre-emptive strike against Germany. To have done so solely on the basis of technical breaches of the Versailles Treaty (a treaty that was rapidly coming to be seen as inherently unfair) would not only have led to the same conclusion, world war, but would have led to the ridiculous situation of the Nazis having a legitimate moral standpoint. Remember that the French occupation of the Rhineland in 1923 in reaction to German violations of Versailles was widely seen as unfair. Indeed, the Germans may even have gained more allies in the war.
The allies' failiures were in giving up land concessions at the Munich conference and then failing to act when the Germans invaded Czechoslovakia. Neither of these failiures have any relevance to the situation with Iraq before the war.

However, the League of Nations could've done something and they didnt! They went with appeasement and look at how that turned out. My Analogy regarding WWII was a good one. If Britain and France have jumped on Germany when Hitler broke Versailles, Hitler couldn't do a thing about it. Instead, they did nothing and Hitler's power, as well as Germany's military, grew. As for the Rhineland, it was a demilitarized zone, meaning no troops. As for France in 1923, I felt it justified because Hitler broke Versailles. The rest of the world stating that is unfair goes to show that they would rather have appeasement than anything else and consequently we had WWII as a result of it. As for Iraq, it had everything to deal with it. Hitler was in violation of Versailles and Hussein was in violation of UN Resolutions. They are both one and the same. The League of Nations did nothing against Germany and the UN did nothing against Iraq.

I would have thought that viewpoint would have gone out of date on September the 11th 2001. The sad fact is that worldwide anti-american sentiment does not stop being voiced outside of bulletin boards, newsgroups and chatrooms. In the current climate it can lead to horrendous conclusions.

No kidding! This is about the only thing I can agree with you but also look at who fosters this. That'll be the Foreign Governments! If the governments stop spouting it, maybe it wouldn't be as prevelent but the people take their cues from the Government.

Well, harumph, harumph, you see...that's because...well, you're from the American south, which means you are a stupid, ignorant, uncouth, uncultured hick. You see, if you agreed with the intellectually superior EUropeans, you wouldn't think that way.

You just lost my respect New Galtania!

You just lost my respect New Galtania!

I'm not sure you realized it, but that post was sarcasm.

I'm not sure you realized it, but that post was sarcasm.

Sure didn't sound like it to me to be honest!

In our country, and something most foreigners don't understand, is that we don't do things by the Popular vote for President. For Senators, Congressmen, Governors etc., the popular vote is used. We use an Electoral College to decide who our next leader is. Though Bush did not win the popular vote, he did win the Electoral Vote and thus became President.


That is something I am very well aware of, nor did I imply anywhere that GW was not the duly elected President. All I stated was that we can take that to mean something different from an absolute majority as well which would imply a stronger level of public support than an Electoral College win with a minority vote. The popular vote is not what get's you the office, however it IS a benchmark we use to determine public support. Fair enough? Also, you focussed on the one line and completely ignored the main point which was our understanding that this was the first vote on the handling of the post 9-11 world.



Now here I have to call bull.

Why? Because it IS bull? Or because my description of how this administration is perceived is bull? They ARE different things after all.

After all - even in the US Bush is perceived by many as being a President of lessor intelect. Does that make it true?


But sure - let's go through it point by point.

Under the US Constitution, all the President needs is approval from Congress to use our military forces! However, he also has the capacity to send in our forces without Congressional Consent for 90 days but has to report this to Congress. From there, Congress can vote to approve of it, in which case they can stay and fight but if they disapprove it, they have to leave after the 90 day grace period is up.

A description of the legalities around what a President CAN do is different that then actuality of what Presidents DO do. Please name one other war where a President got the country involved based on such faulty intelligence and did it in such a blustering manner in front of the rest of the world. Vietnam perhaps? Was that your other greatest shining moment? Or name one other time that the Congress went to far as to rename cafeteria foodstuffs (Freedom Fries) as a derisive attempt to insult an ally because they did not agree with you on a given matter?

Again - I am talking about much of the world's perception of what this administration stands for.

Second Point! He's talking about the war on Terror there. You are either Against the terrorists or for them! There is no neutral Ground!


So - it is a global war on terror that we all have a vested interest in, but only the American's have the best ideas on how it should be prosecuted? It IS possible to have agreement on a goal but diferent opinions on how best to acheive that goal. This administration was perceived as having little interest in anyone else's input on anything... besides the provision of cash and cannon fodder for something they would be in total charge of the planning and running of. Other countries balk at that in the same as you would if we tried to ask the same of you.

Third Point! The Bible has not supplanted the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land no matter how much the Liberals try to say otherwise.

So, that was an exaggeration. Still, we have seen fighting over school prayer. An attempt to change the Constitution to restrict rights. The fighting over commandments in the courtroom. A myriad of decision on things like sex-ed which clearly were being decided based upon religious viewpoints. Restructuring community funding to put more of it through faith-based groups. Changes to overseas funding of groups dealing with things ike Aids in africa if they did not meet a certain set of defined "moral guidelines".

The church has seemed to have become a larger factor in many aspects of policy lately, and that also seems to be an increasing trend - not a decreasing one.

Fourth Point! What intolerance? If your talking about being Anti-gay marriage, don't forget that Kerry is against it too but would've supported Civil Unions. Bush, near the end of the Campaign, said this too!


Yes, although in this election the people actually got to vote on those issues directly didn't they? 11 states. 11 bans. Plus Kentucky even banning civil unions.

Fifth Point! Welcome to war! Also, it is Congress's responsiblility to curve it too. Look at what Congress approves every year. Not just what the President Wants but take a good look at all the pork that is in a budget Bill.


I think a lot of people are mistakenly attributing far more of the deficit to the war than should be. Both wars cost something on the order of 120B over the past fiscal year. The deficit was nearly four times that. As to the pork, this administration holds the dubious distinction of never refusing to sign a spending bill. Not one thing sent back for too much pork in four years. That is SUPPOSED to be his job as part of the checks and balances in the system. He failed at it.


Sixth Point! The Doctrine of Pre-emption is a sound strategy. Look at WWII for example. Everyone knew what Hitler was doing was in violation of the Treaty of Versailles but they did nothing until he Invaded Poland. If the world did something, I don't think WWII would've been as catastrophic as it turned out to be. It still would've been bloodied but France would not've been occupied and Britain Bombed.


The doctrine of pre-emption against REAL and IMMINENT threats IS valid. That is why they are considered legal under international law. The threat from Iraq to the US was neither real nor imminent.

Seventh and final Point! Again bull! You are referring to that question regarding three mistakes during the debate that was totally sat up! Kerry did not receive this question in case you didn't know that. Everyone makes mistakes and I'm willing to bet that he has learned from them otherwise, we wouldn't be in the process of revamping the Intelligence Community.


Really? You are willing to bet that? Hell - all he said was that he could come up with a few appointments he shouldn't have made, but that he wouldn't say who they were for fear of embarrassing them.

Tell me this then - what people that he appointed have been fired?

Even if these were his only mistakes, what has he done to correct them?


And I could say the same about your blindly following your Liberal Prime Miniser though he has done nothing to fix what is wrong in Canada. Your military is in shambles which is a crime shame especially the state of your Navy. Your healthcare system is a joke, and I could go on and on. You talk about scare tactics, I've seen what your Prime Minister said regarding the Conservative Party. That really pissed me off and I would've voted conservative in that election based on that alone.


Now you are assuming facts not in evidence. I do NOT blindly suport the Liberal party of Canada. I have many criticisms of them - and yes, that includes the state of the military. Your characterization of our health care as being a joke is off the mark though. It needs some fixing up to be sure, however we don't beat the US in statistics of longevity and infant mortality for no reason either.

But your assertion that you would vote one way or another based simply on election rhetoric I think says a lot more about you than anything else. Most of us decry such tactics, but endeavour to look past them and vote based on who we think will implement the better policies. Becuase rhetoric goes away as soon as it is said. The policies are what you have to live with.

As much as you see this, I don't think that this will happen. Under how the Senate is structured for a judicial pass, you need 60 votes (a supermajority) whereas the Constitution says you only need 51 (a simple majority). You still have the checks and balances in place and they do work too no matter what party is in power.


Well, if an opening comes up, it will have to be filled. If GW were to put forth a rabidly-right option to be rejected, and then just a pretty-far-right as a follow-up, do you think he will get that person in?


Us meaning the rest of the world? I think in this election we basically told the rest of the world to shut up. You people can think all you want about America but really most Americans don't care.

I'm pretty sure I said that in my post too. Oh look! I did! Thanks for confirming it....

Good luck in that endeavor since all world economies are linked to eachother. If you find a way let us know so we can ween ourselves from the rest of the world's economy! Now as for economic ties, the EU economies are not doing very well and the only economy in Asia doing well is basically China but if you want to do more businesses with them, be my guest!


I guess by the end you were skimming. To refresh your memory:

It has become ever more crucial that we work diligently to wean ourselves as much as possible from the interdependent teat of the combined Canadian-American economy. Our proximity means that this will always be a factor, however our primary mission to ensure our own stability must be to actively cultivate far more economic ties with the EU and Asia if we are not going to find ourselves inexorably drawn along a path that we might prefer not to go.

Currently 86% of our exports go to the US. I fear that this increased debt obligation to China, the almost total move away from domestic manufacturing, foreign anti-us opinion possibly translating to anti-us purchasing habits, and other factors put the US economy at great risk to become unstable in the future. Obviously we will always be tied greatly to you, however I think that Canada needs to look to it's own safety and reduce that interdependance by growing new markets. Obviously one does not turn one's back on a large market next door nor was I suggesting that we do.

Sure didn't sound like it to me to be honest!

Trust me, it was. I was trying to impress on the EUros and Canucks what they sound like to most Americans.

Whats wrong with people of a left of centre or centre political bent voting Lib Dem?

I seriously doubt the Lib Dems are quite ready for leadership yet. I think that, come the General Election, the Lib Dems will stand to gain whereas the Conservatives stand to lose out, but I don't think that they're quite there yet.

Sorry for the late reply.

It is to me, when they subject my country, my fellow citizens, and me to their abuse and insults just because we didn't elect their choice. I will reiterate: read these boards. See if you don't see Americans called stupid, uncultured, unworldly, ignorant, evil, barbarians, the cause of all ills in the world, and the bringer of Arma-f*cking-geddon. All because WE voted to elect George W. Bush the President of OUR country.

I see it, I don't support it at all, but it still isn't demanding a say.

See if you don't see them calling for boycotts and all manner of "restrictions" on the US, because "US policy effects me too."

This, however, is a valid point. Such boycotts are evidently wrong. If you want to boycott US products on the basis of policy decisions that's fair enough but to do so but it's completely wrong to do so on the basis of American voters exercising their democratic right in a way you disagree with.

That being said, however, on my reading (OK, not everything by a long stretch but a good number of different threads) those suggesting such boycotts are still a tiny minority. Those getting really pissy are a considerably larger number but still a minority. It seems that most posters were just expressing their opinions about Bush and then their feelings when he was re-elected. There's been idiocy from both sides but also intelligent points from both sides. In any case a non-American arguing why Bush is a bad choice, or even screaming it, is no more demanding a say than a Democrat who argues in the same terms would be demanding you vote Kerry.

Trust me, it was. I was trying to impress on the EUros and Canucks what they sound like to most Americans.


Really?

My premise all along has been that the American electorate honestly voted their dearly-held and considered opinions, and that I (and many others) are disappointed that this honest opinion is so far from our own. I even took the time to write it out in an effort not to offend but to simply put it into a cohesive framework.


IT seems to have been American's who have needed to retort with insults, both to me and to themselves as they credit their electorate with little more maturity than voting along juvenile knee-jerk anti-Eurpoean lines.

Frankly, I gave the American voter more credit than YOU have. All I've done is state that we hold a fundamental difference of opinion on certain matters of public policy where we once thought that our viewpoints were closer. No more. No less. The fact that you can't seem to take this as being anything other than an insult against you is rather unfortunate. I have to wonder, do you treat you friends in real life the same way? Insult them personally if they prefer a diferent band? A different colour? Ketchup instead of mustard? Whatever?

If so - I fear that you will find yourself leading a lonely existence.

Really?

My premise all along has been that the American electorate honestly voted their dearly-held and considered opinions, and that I (and many others) are disappointed that this honest opinion is so far from our own. I even took the time to write it out in an effort not to offend but to simply put it into a cohesive framework.


IT seems to have been American's who have needed to retort with insults, both to me and to themselves as they credit their electorate with little more maturity than voting along juvenile knee-jerk anti-Eurpoean lines.

Frankly, I gave the American voter more credit than YOU have. All I've done is state that we hold a fundamental difference of opinion on certain matters of public policy where we once thought that our viewpoints were closer. No more. No less. The fact that you can't seem to take this as being anything other than an insult against you is rather unfortunate. I have to wonder, do you treat you friends in real life the same way? Insult them personally if they prefer a diferent band? A different colour? Ketchup instead of mustard? Whatever?

If so - I fear that you will find yourself leading a lonely existence.

hee, heeeeeeee...I musta hit a nerve! :D

hee, heeeeeeee...I musta hit a nerve! :D

If you think that - you don't know how to read people... at all!

It amazes me that you gutless cowards would talk about my country like that when your country sucks far worse then ours. I am especially amazed at the people in countries that are to scared to take on terrorism would dare criticize the way in which we do so. I hope the terrorists invade your country and destroy you.

That is something I am very well aware of, nor did I imply anywhere that GW was not the duly elected President. All I stated was that we can take that to mean something different from an absolute majority as well which would imply a stronger level of public support than an Electoral College win with a minority vote. The popular vote is not what get's you the office, however it IS a benchmark we use to determine public support. Fair enough? Also, you focussed on the one line and completely ignored the main point which was our understanding that this was the first vote on the handling of the post 9-11 world.

Fair enough for me. However, you can make a case that the Senate/House elections of 2002 was the first vote on handling the 9-11 world. This was the first Presidential election but I will concede this point to you too.



Why? Because it IS bull? Or because my description of how this administration is perceived is bull? They ARE different things after all.


After all - even in the US Bush is perceived by many as being a President of lessor intelect. Does that make it true?

And yet in another thread, someone posted both Kerry's and Bush's SAT Scores in which Bush scored higher. As for making it true? No it doesn't make it true. I trust the American People to make the right choice. If they felt that Kerry was better to lead America, I would've taken the vote and lived with it and not complain because the people have spoken. I would've accepted Al Gore but he did not win the presidentcy.

But sure - let's go through it point by point.

Lets do so! I'm glad you actually broke it down too!



A description of the legalities around what a President CAN do is different that then actuality of what Presidents DO do. Please name one other war where a President got the country involved based on such faulty intelligence and did it in such a blustering manner in front of the rest of the world. Vietnam perhaps? Was that your other greatest shining moment? Or name one other time that the Congress went to far as to rename cafeteria foodstuffs (Freedom Fries) as a derisive attempt to insult an ally because they did not agree with you on a given matter?

Vietnam under Lyndon B Johnson (D)! We went in for no apparent reason! I'm still not sure why we went in unless it was to bail the French out! As for the foodstuffs, I found it funny. Call it a political backlash because of what the French Promised as well as the Germans and Russians when they signed on to 1441! Powell said don't support this if your NOT going to support the second one. They supported it 15-0 but blocked the 2nd one! That was why there was a massive anti-French movement.

Again - I am talking about much of the world's perception of what this administration stands for.

Yes it was a world's perception but their perceptions don't count in our elections! Only our perceptions count in our elections.



So - it is a global war on terror that we all have a vested interest in, but only the American's have the best ideas on how it should be prosecuted? It IS possible to have agreement on a goal but diferent opinions on how best to acheive that goal. This administration was perceived as having little interest in anyone else's input on anything... besides the provision of cash and cannon fodder for something they would be in total charge of the planning and running of. Other countries balk at that in the same as you would if we tried to ask the same of you.

Terrorism is a global problem. You are right in that regard. However, what your getting is that we are dictating how this is supposed to be runned. We are not. Every nation can fight terror in their own way. I don't care how its fought as long as we can stamp out most of it.

So, that was an exaggeration. Still, we have seen fighting over school prayer. An attempt to change the Constitution to restrict rights. The fighting over commandments in the courtroom. A myriad of decision on things like sex-ed which clearly were being decided based upon religious viewpoints. Restructuring community funding to put more of it through faith-based groups. Changes to overseas funding of groups dealing with things ike Aids in africa if they did not meet a certain set of defined "moral guidelines".

I will grant you most of these. I find it ironic though that if they ban the commandments in courtrooms, they'll have to remove them from the US Supreme Court Building which has basically been engraved there when the building was built. That'll be very interesting to watch. However, the bible IS NOT supplanting the US Constitution. It is our money anyway. Not the worlds and we can spend it however we want too.

The church has seemed to have become a larger factor in many aspects of policy lately, and that also seems to be an increasing trend - not a decreasing one.

Good if you want my opinion. Maybe we can get back on track from where we were when President Kennedy took prayer out of public school.



Yes, although in this election the people actually got to vote on those issues directly didn't they? 11 states. 11 bans. Plus Kentucky even banning civil unions.

As well as Ohio. That I do not agree with to be honest.

I think a lot of people are mistakenly attributing far more of the deficit to the war than should be. Both wars cost something on the order of 120B over the past fiscal year. The deficit was nearly four times that. As to the pork, this administration holds the dubious distinction of never refusing to sign a spending bill. Not one thing sent back for too much pork in four years. That is SUPPOSED to be his job as part of the checks and balances in the system. He failed at it.

As far as I'm concerned, no president has refused to sign a spending bill! It is so large and will take forever to go through.




The doctrine of pre-emption against REAL and IMMINENT threats IS valid. That is why they are considered legal under international law. The threat from Iraq to the US was neither real nor imminent.

Unless you count them shooting at our planes as an Imminent threat.

Really? You are willing to bet that? Hell - all he said was that he could come up with a few appointments he shouldn't have made, but that he wouldn't say who they were for fear of embarrassing them.

And that was a smart move on his part.

Tell me this then - what people that he appointed have been fired?

His former Secretary of the Treasury I think it was!

Even if these were his only mistakes, what has he done to correct them?

Puts in a new SecTreasury and we'll never know what he did to correct them. Its none of my business on how he corrects mistakes.




Now you are assuming facts not in evidence. I do NOT blindly suport the Liberal party of Canada. I have many criticisms of them - and yes, that includes the state of the military. Your characterization of our health care as being a joke is off the mark though. It needs some fixing up to be sure, however we don't beat the US in statistics of longevity and infant mortality for no reason either.

And it takes forever to get looked at whereas I can walk into a medical center, fill out a form and wait a half hour to an hour to see a doctor rather than a month or two.

But your assertion that you would vote one way or another based simply on election rhetoric I think says a lot more about you than anything else. Most of us decry such tactics, but endeavour to look past them and vote based on who we think will implement the better policies. Becuase rhetoric goes away as soon as it is said. The policies are what you have to live with.

Then consider it taken back! I was trying to make a point! I've seen what the Canadian Liberal Party has done and I would've voted Conservative Party anyway based on what the Liberal party did and does. But I'm not Canadian so I don't get to choose who your leaders are and I don't tell the people of Canada how to vote either.

Well, if an opening comes up, it will have to be filled. If GW were to put forth a rabidly-right option to be rejected, and then just a pretty-far-right as a follow-up, do you think he will get that person in?

nope I don't think he will because of how the Senate went. Under the Minority Leadership of Daschel (D-SD), he made it where you need 60 votes to get a nominee through the Senate. Also Filibusters are a tool that seems to be used quite often these days by Democrats. Sometimes its necessary but sometimes it isn't.

I'm pretty sure I said that in my post too. Oh look! I did! Thanks for confirming it....

Your Welcome!!!!


I guess by the end you were skimming. To refresh your memory:

It has become ever more crucial that we work diligently to wean ourselves as much as possible from the interdependent teat of the combined Canadian-American economy. Our proximity means that this will always be a factor, however our primary mission to ensure our own stability must be to actively cultivate far more economic ties with the EU and Asia if we are not going to find ourselves inexorably drawn along a path that we might prefer not to go.

Currently 86% of our exports go to the US. I fear that this increased debt obligation to China, the almost total move away from domestic manufacturing, foreign anti-us opinion possibly translating to anti-us purchasing habits, and other factors put the US economy at great risk to become unstable in the future. Obviously we will always be tied greatly to you, however I think that Canada needs to look to it's own safety and reduce that interdependance by growing new markets. Obviously one does not turn one's back on a large market next door nor was I suggesting that we do.

Our economy has stablized nicely after 9/11! Our economy is the fastest growing in 20 odd years. Not since Reagan has our economy grew like this. I think our nation will survive the unstability as you say because we have in the past. As for the last statement, that is what you said when you said cultivate ties with EU and Asia and ween yourselves from us.

wean ourselves as much as possible from the interdependent teat of the combined Canadian-American economy.

Those are your words Zeppistan.

It amazes me that you gutless cowards would talk about my country like that when your country sucks far worse then ours. I am especially amazed at the people in countries that are to scared to take on terrorism would dare criticize the way in which we do so. I hope the terrorists invade your country and destroy you.


LOL! Curious things, most countries that are against the US have had terrorist attacks in their ground ages before 9/11 (Spain, France, England, Italy, Greece, to name a few), and they kept fighting them, they kept living their lives.. they didnt panicked and started invading other countries, and curtailing their civil liberties for it :p
So yea, "other countries" got the right to criticize you, because they have fought terrorists before. And your actions actually interfer in the living on them. Hell, Bush won, Oil went up to 51$ a barril, that was the market's reaction.

And terrorists haven't been invading countries. The US as.

Yes they did! The people have spoken there as well. Are you going to condemn the people's right to put into power those that they want?

Er, no. Nor have I ever done so. I was merely pointing out that since Zeppistan's point was about how the results election make America appear to non-Americans that the fact that the results of all elections are relevant, not just the Presidential race.

And Bush made that quote after the 9/11 attacks. The quote was aimed at the world. You are either with the terrorists or against them. There are policies that I disagree with the administration on! Does that make me a terrorist? No it does not! However, if you support terrorism, then you have what is coming to you. That is what the quote was going for. As for Iraq, I made no mention of Iraq anywhere. I made a point that the stated quote was that you are either against terrorism or for it. There is no neutrality in this case.

And if Bush had said "if you don't oppose terrorism you support it" there would be no argument. That isn't what he said, however. He said "you're either for us or against us." The clear implication of this is that if you don't support the US totally you are an enemy and by implication a sponsor of terrorists. There's a reason Zeppistan used that quote and that's because that is how the statement came across to non-Americans. Maybe Bush meant your argument and just didn't express it well (it would hardly be a first) but the complete and utter condemnation of any nation that dared oppose the Iraq war suggests otherwise. This is all about perception, not about absolute right and wrong, and both Bush's words and actions suggest a "for us or against us" mentality where any country that has a differing view of foreign policy to the Bush administration is an enemy to non-Americans.


However, the League of Nations could've done something and they didnt!

What, exactly? The League was largely toothless, especially after Congress failed to ratify the treaty (I'm not blaming the US at all, such a decision was entirely understandable, but the fact remains that the League was a glorified talking shop with considerably less power than the UN which itself would struggle to deal with such an issue).

They went with appeasement and look at how that turned out. My Analogy regarding WWII was a good one. If Britain and France have jumped on Germany when Hitler broke Versailles, Hitler couldn't do a thing about it. Instead, they did nothing and Hitler's power, as well as Germany's military, grew. As for the Rhineland, it was a demilitarized zone, meaning no troops. As for France in 1923, I felt it justified because Hitler broke Versailles. The rest of the world stating that is unfair goes to show that they would rather have appeasement than anything else and consequently we had WWII as a result of it.

Precisely. This is why your suggestion that a pre-emptive strike in 38/39 would have been a wise choice is flawed. The rest of the world would have been considerably more sympathetic to the Nazis. Western Europe barely held out as it is, who knows what would have happened had the UK and France embarked on an adventure that no-one else supported. America could invade Iraq with most of the rest of the world opposing because Iraq was nowhere near equal militarily. What you are suggesting would have been like the US attacking China with a sizeable chunk of the rest of the world supporting China.

As for Iraq, it had everything to deal with it. Hitler was in violation of Versailles and Hussein was in violation of UN Resolutions. They are both one and the same. The League of Nations did nothing against Germany and the UN did nothing against Iraq.

What you are suggesting is that it is perfectly legitimate for any nation to invade a soverign state with the aim of decapitating their government and replacing it with one more of your liking on the basis of breaches of international law, without the support of the body that made that law. Do you seriously believe that?

No kidding! This is about the only thing I can agree with you but also look at who fosters this. That'll be the Foreign Governments! If the governments stop spouting it, maybe it wouldn't be as prevelent but the people take their cues from the Government.

Wait a sec, you complain about non-Americans dictating to Americans how they should or shouldn't vote on the basis of their own interests, but on the other hand you're suggesting that foreign governments should ignore the will of their own people and refuse to condemn anything the US does because it's in the best interests of Americans?

When I see a forum like this, I wonder how many of those who make bombastic posts actually try to make the world a better place by actively and passionately participating in it. The fact that you can devote so much time to writing on an unimportant forum shows me that you probably don't try to make the world a better place. Get out there and do something damnit.

I know that was off-topic, but seeing people devote so much time to an issue on a obscure gaming forum irks me.

Oh, and please don't insult my or anyone's intelligence by making completely obvious points under the facade of sophisticated debate. Red herrings and ad hominem attacks seem to abound on these forums also...

Vietnam under Lyndon B Johnson (D)! We went in for no apparent reason! I'm still not sure why we went in unless it was to bail the French out! As for the foodstuffs, I found it funny. Call it a political backlash because of what the French Promised as well as the Germans and Russians when they signed on to 1441! Powell said don't support this if your NOT going to support the second one. They supported it 15-0 but blocked the 2nd one! That was why there was a massive anti-French movement.


Then consider it taken back! I was trying to make a point! I've seen what the Canadian Liberal Party has done and I would've voted Conservative Party anyway based on what the Liberal party did and does. But I'm not Canadian so I don't get to choose who your leaders are and I don't tell the people of Canada how to vote either.


Our economy has stablized nicely after 9/11! Our economy is the fastest growing in 20 odd years. Not since Reagan has our economy grew like this. I think our nation will survive the unstability as you say because we have in the past. As for the last statement, that is what you said when you said cultivate ties with EU and Asia and ween yourselves from us.



Those are your words Zeppistan.


a) You didnt went to Vietnam to bail out the French, that had exited the area in 1954, you went there in support of the south Vietnamise dictatorship, against the North vietnam comunists.

b)Don't know about Canada, but the US secretary of State was telling the EU to speed up the entry of Turkey in the EU. If you can go around telling us what to do, why not the contrary? Besides, the way i see it, we were actually trying to help you..

c) The grownth of the US economy is largely based on its consumption, that fuels that huge deficit that you have.. a deficit that you will have to pay, in future grownth.

It's ok, really. We don't need your crap.
the world has such a large history of eagerly gobbling up anything america will give them be it financial, cultural, or military aid..i for one say we cut out any spending on foreign countries..stop our trade with you..close the borders and bring every american home and let you all stew in your own ineptness...

the world has such a large history of eagerly gobbling up anything america will give them be it financial, cultural, or military aid..i for one say we cut out any spending on foreign countries..stop our trade with you..close the borders and bring every american home and let you all stew in your own ineptness...


Actually, 30% of the US public debt is owned by foreigners, and growing. If the trend continues, the United States may find itself increasingly hostage to global financial markets—and perhaps even to the whims of foreign governments. :)

And cut spending, like in what? Investment? Newsflash buddy, this is a global economy, you go down,we go down, you go down, we go down and so on.

It amazes me that you gutless cowards would talk about my country like that when your country sucks far worse then ours. I am especially amazed at the people in countries that are to scared to take on terrorism would dare criticize the way in which we do so. I hope the terrorists invade your country and destroy you.

You, and all the puppets you've been using to flame have been deleted. If you do it again, you'll be IP banned.

Have a nice day.


http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/EyeOfMyrth.jpg
Myrth
The Eye of Myrth is upon thee
Forum Moderator

Actually, 30% of the US public debt is owned by foreigners, and growing. If the trend continues, the United States may find itself increasingly hostage to global financial markets—and perhaps even to the whims of foreign governments. :)

And cut spending, like in what? Investment? Newsflash buddy, this is a global economy, you go down,we go down, you go down, we go down and so on.
no in foreign aid we give more in aid to the world than any other country to my knowledge...

*Munches his popcorn, eyes glued to the Zep vs Brittanic/Galtania discussion*

Ok, first post I know but don't hold that against me, I only have a few things to say before I fade back into the obscurity of the sidelines.

First of all I'd like to say I am from the UK and (of course) I felt rather dissapointed by the electoral results but I cannot say that I was supprised. I also must state that I lived in the USA for the middle ten years of my life and so I have a slightly more balanced view of Americans than most of my european friends. Some of those friends might point out that the inhabitants of Grapevine and Houston Texas are not the most balanced examples of the US population, but I digress.

So, validations out of the way, I would like to say a few things, I will not add to what Zep has said because I believe he has said everything important already.

Brittanic, he may not speak for you but I certainly know very few people who are pro Bush or are in agreement with his more 'unique' policies and the scaremongering of his political party. The fact is that the vast majority of Europe would rather have seen Kerry taking over the reigns than Bush, despite Kerry's repeated failures to look or sound like any sort of leader.

You ask the question why the rest of the world cares and how we have formed our views about the USA? In his four years of presidency Bush has done little positive in our eyes. He has gone to war twice, the second time on the merits of a downright bare faced lie. How does this look to all of us out here in our socialy minded free countries? It scares us and that is why we are concerned, we are all very much affraid of global war once more rearing its malfomed head, and in this day and age, and with the mentalities behind the various red buttons around the world, this would not be a pretty thing.



This, I am afraid to say, is perfectly true, any global warming you see is perfectly natural and all part of our planet's life cycle. That's not to say that what we see happen in flicks such as 'The Day After Tommorow' will not occur, on the contrary, such circumstances could and probably will occur but they will be perfectly natural.

But what's so wrong with the Kyoto Agreement? It won't 'stave off our fate' as much as it would like to think, but under its guidlines you Americans would be driving more efficient, reliable cars and breathing fresher healthier air. And this would be a significant thing too not just spare change, in all estimations the cash you could save on fuel alone would probably go a long way to paying for that hair transplant or whatever you fritter your cash away on.

Now, Galtania, we all know that you have a lot to say and I'm sure you have some valid arguments and stunningly witty reposts to Zep's posts so how about posting them and stop all this baseless name calling and unsupported claims and arguments that you always respond with, or else nobody will ever side with you.

Oh well, at least we can all sit back now and wait for Michal Moore's new film/book to come out.

And why not visit http://www.bushgame.com until then? I personally am stocking up on tinned goods...

:rolleyes:

Hear, hear!

a) You didnt went to Vietnam to bail out the French, that had exited the area in 1954, you went there in support of the south Vietnamise dictatorship, against the North vietnam comunists.

I guess you don't know the History of Vietnam to well then. We were in there well before the official start date of the Vietnam War and that was to bail the French Out.

b)Don't know about Canada, but the US secretary of State was telling the EU to speed up the entry of Turkey in the EU. If you can go around telling us what to do, why not the contrary? Besides, the way i see it, we were actually trying to help you..

Turkey should be part of the EU! It is a part of NATO which is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. WHy shouldn't they be in the EU?

c) The grownth of the US economy is largely based on its consumption, that fuels that huge deficit that you have.. a deficit that you will have to pay, in future grownth.

Nah really? We are in a War in case you haven't noticed lately.

I guess you don't know the History of Vietnam to well then. We were in there well before the official start date of the Vietnam War and that was to bail the French Out.



Turkey should be part of the EU! It is a part of NATO which is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. WHy shouldn't they be in the EU?



Nah really? We are in a War in case you haven't noticed lately.

Okay, agreed, you had military advisers there in 1950, and it was to help the French in Indochina, which they failed (dien bien phu screw them hard)

And.. well, your part about turkey.. my point exactly. I accept and listen your opinion about it, and I am a European. Why am i arrogant when i tell you not to vote Bush, for he will only bring more harm for the US and the rest of the world?

And your deficit as been growing steadily since 2000, more because of irresponsible tax policies than due to the war. Sincerily, I study economics, this isnt much about bush, its a thing of Fiscal responsability: You don't cut taxes when your expenses are raising. Bush could be a bleeding heart liberal, that he would still be stupid doing that.

When I see a forum like this, I wonder how many of those who make bombastic posts actually try to make the world a better place by actively and passionately participating in it. The fact that you can devote so much time to writing on an unimportant forum shows me that you probably don't try to make the world a better place. Get out there and do something damnit.

I know that was off-topic, but seeing people devote so much time to an issue on a obscure gaming forum irks me.

Oh, and please don't insult my or anyone's intelligence by making completely obvious points under the facade of sophisticated debate. Red herrings and ad hominem attacks seem to abound on these forums also...



Nice of you to drop by a forum and present a thinly veiled insult at all of it's members (not to mention the game forum itself) along with the suggestion that they should not bother frequenting it.

Especially given the fact that you must be wasting a lot of your OWN time to spend searching the Internet for popular forums simply in order to deride it's members for their participation. After all, you indicate more than a passing familliarity with such fora to go along with your admnishment.

So, on behalf of all of the members (or, to avoid a repeat of an earlier comment in this thread - "on behalf of all members of this forum who wish to echo my sentiment") : let me take this opportunity to thank you for taking the time from your own busy life to search down us poor, trapped denizens of the ethernet and provide us all with your observations on our actions.

'tis truly a community service that you are providing, and we thank you for showing us the error of our ways.

Look to your own country, then; mind your own business. First, global climate change due to human activity is a myth; nothing but junk science. Second, America will do what is her best interest, and will not subjugate her national security to ANYONE. You expect your government to do what is best for your citizens, and to protect you, why should America be different? Every country acts in its own interest, not just America.

So you're going to "restrict" America, huh? How are you going to do that?

I am sorry, but climate change due tho human activity is not junk science. However, there is a lot of junk science on this subject claiming it's myhical; most of it eminates from "scientific" bodies that happen to be funded by major corporations with a vested interest in preventing tighter environmental regulations (eg, Exxon).

no in foreign aid we give more in aid to the world than any other country to my knowledge...

In gross aid, yes. In per capita aids, you go in like 20th, which means that you aren't that generous. Still, you want to cut aid to countries? Go right ahead. Im seeing every country in the world that takes your aid stopping US investment on their soil. It would be fun then to see your own companies begging for you to help poor foreign goverments, so that they would open their borders to your investment.

OH, and by the way, remember the coalition of the willing? It is made of mostly small, weak and poor countries that take lots of funding from the US. Perhaps you should cut that aid. Really.

In gross aid, yes. In per capita aids, you go in like 20th, which means that you aren't that generous. Still, you want to cut aid to countries? Go right ahead. Im seeing every country in the world that takes your aid stopping US investment on their soil. It would be fun then to see your own companies begging for you to help poor foreign goverments, so that they would open their borders to your investment.

OH, and by the way, remember the coalition of the willing? It is made of mostly small, weak and poor countries that take lots of funding from the US. Perhaps you should cut that aid. Really.


I agree completely. The USA comes in at number 20 in aid given per capita, giving 23.76 USD per person. This compares with 352.30 USD in the number 1 ranking country, Luxembourg. (My country, Sweden comes in at 5th, giving 191.48 USD per person). Out of the top twenty countries, 15 are in Europe (including all of the top 10).

Incidentally, this data is from the American Central Intelligence Agency.

Well, harumph, harumph, you see...that's because...well, you're from the American south, which means you are a stupid, ignorant, uncouth, uncultured hick. You see, if you agreed with the intellectually superior EUropeans, you wouldn't think that way.

Next time would you put a little smiley thing up thar so I'd know if you were joking? It's such a chore looking up all those big words, too. Europe, is that the country run by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels?

The Stupid Hick.

Next time would you put a little smiley thing up thar so I'd know if you were joking? It's such a chore looking up all those big words, too. Europe, is that the country run by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels?

The Stupid Hick.


a) Europe is not a country. Yet.
b) The European Parliament is directly elected by the European citizens. It constitutes the basis for European Goverment, which is the European Comission. The Head of the Comission is appointed by the chiefs of state of the various countries of the EU, but the Comission itself must be aproved by the parliament.
c) It isnt the words that matter, it is the actions.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/42/61/31504039.pdf

Too bad, you don't get a say in our elections, or our policy. In fact, your meddling was a factor in the high conservative turnout at the polls on Tuesday. How does it feel to shoot yourself in the foot?
Hope you don't mind if I borrow your quote? I really didn't know that us outsiders were that powerful? Now can we try for impeachment? :eek:

Every country's actions influence every other country. That's a cop-out. OK, I demand that the US have a say in the elections in your country (if you're allowed to vote, that is).

Oh, and "global warming" (in the sense of long-term climatological change, not short-term above-median temperatures) is a MYTH. It's politically motivated junk science.
Hmmmm "junk science" huh? Well since you have such high regard for Nobel Laureates, perhaps you could write one of them that is listed on this web site and share your wealth of knowledge with them. I am sure that it won't take you long to convince them that you are right and they don't know what they are talking about?

http://dieoff.org/page123.htm

Or perhaps you would rather take the matter up with the UCS, which is an independent nonprofit alliance of more than 100,000 concerned citizens and scientists.

http://www.ucsusa.org/ucs/about/index.cfm

Let us know how you make out?

OMG I feel so bad!

But tell me, exactly how have I insulted 1/3 of the US army?

Anyway, the Army which defends me is better trained and better experienced, if the US army ever defended me then I would probably be shot accidentally and called "collateral damage."

If any one shot you somehow i don't think it would be accidentally.

To the "Rest of the World" who hates us:

So you won't challenge the authority of dictators to oppress thier own people but you will challenge our authority to stop them? how pathetic. And you wonder why we don't care about your opinion :rolleyes:

I agree completely. The USA comes in at number 20 in aid given per capita, giving 23.76 USD per person. This compares with 352.30 USD in the number 1 ranking country, Luxembourg. (My country, Sweden comes in at 5th, giving 191.48 USD per person). Out of the top twenty countries, 15 are in Europe (including all of the top 10).

Incidentally, this data is from the American Central Intelligence Agency.

Your right econmically were not that genrous. But their are other factors such as lives. How many luxembuurg soldiers died preventing genocide in Somalia? I read a lot about both pakistani and American deaths but oddly enough no luxembourg. How many Luxembourg soldiers where their fighting in kosovo? It's easy to give money, but it much harder to do something.

Hope you don't mind if I borrow your quote? I really didn't know that us outsiders were that powerful? Now can we try for impeachment? :eek:

That is not going to happen because there aren't any grounds for it!

To the "Rest of the World" who hates us:

So you won't challenge the authority of dictators to oppress thier own people but you will challenge our authority to stop them? how pathetic. And you wonder why we don't care about your opinion :rolleyes:
I thought the war was against "terrorism", not the "war on dictators"? :eek:

If any one shot you somehow i don't think it would be accidentally.
I think you might be right.

Your right econmically were not that genrous. But their are other factors such as lives. How many luxembuurg soldiers died preventing genocide in Somalia? I read a lot about both pakistani and American deaths but oddly enough no luxembourg. How many Luxembourg soldiers where their fighting in kosovo? It's easy to give money, but it much harder to do something.

LOL!!! Luxembourg, BY THEIR LAW, doesnt even have an army or an air force. Do you know how big their army is? GUESS! 450 MEN! AH! They are a tiny peaceful country. And they still manage to have a small contigent deployed in Bosnia... lol. Couldnt have picked a bigger country to pester?

Zep, while I don't feel like reading or participating in the inevitable flamewar, please keep this in mind: while you've adequately summed up the feelings of the rest of the world, you're forgetting that you've also summed up the feelings of 48% of the population of the United States.

Just because we live with idiots doesn't mean we're all idiots.

Zep, while I don't feel like reading or participating in the inevitable flamewar, please keep this in mind: while you've adequately summed up the feelings of the rest of the world, you're forgetting that you've also summed up the feelings of 48% of the population of the United States.

Just because we live with idiots doesn't mean we're all idiots.

And just because you voted for kerry doesn't make you smart. I voted for bush i have my reasons, but that doesn't make me an idiot. Although your last statment does make you sound pretty arogant/stupid/pompus.

LOL!!! Luxembourg, BY THEIR LAW, doesnt even have an army or an air force. Do you know how big their army is? GUESS! 450 MEN! AH! They are a tiny peaceful country. And they still manage to have a small contigent deployed in Bosnia... lol. Couldnt have picked a bigger country to pester?

Just a real quick question? How do you not have an army by law but have 450 men in it? :) (sarcasim) I'm assuming you ment Navy and Air force.

I don't mean to diminish any soldiers actions. I praise anyone who is willing to put their life on the line. This is not a post against any nations soldiers. This is a post to show that not everything has a price tag on it.

Now as for why i picked Luxembourg. I picked it simply because it was the higest amount per capita. I know Luxembourg is small and peacful. While we may not give as much money, we do pay for it in lives as well. So i suppose i'll make it more direct how many swedish troops died in Somalia?

Oh as a final thought i wish we could be like luxembourg. I wish there was no need to maintain any military force what so ever. Unfortantly I live in the real world and Their is great evil in it. Somebody has to stand against it.

I think you might be right.

And it wouldn't be because your of another country.

Your post is both insightful and logical, Zeppistan; a rarity in a political climate which, generally speaking, is far more form than substance. I enjoyed your analysis of world opinion immensley.

I do take issue with one aspect of your conclusion, however. Americans tend to be pragmatic, if not practical. There is a contingent of die-hard Bush supporters in our country; particularly in the American South. Karl Rove and the Republican machine anticipated that their hatred of moderate, considerate policies (i.e., protection of a woman's right to control her child-producing capacity, economic support of poor families, etc.) could be used to generate a larger turnout of the electorate; thus propelling Bush into a second term with an ostensible "public mandate." Bush used them to secure a second term, and they will use Bush to further their secular political agenda. It is not a question of "Christian fundamentalism" at a governmental level as much as it is pragmatic politics. It is not necessary for Bush & Co. to actually believe in the tenets of Christianity in order to rely upon them to remain in power---which is, after all, the entire point of the American political game. Remember that politics equals money in the United States, and everyone here wants to live an economically comfortable lifestyle.

Even if---especially if---that comes at the expense of those who do not share your beliefs.

Zep, while I don't feel like reading or participating in the inevitable flamewar, please keep this in mind: while you've adequately summed up the feelings of the rest of the world, you're forgetting that you've also summed up the feelings of 48% of the population of the United States.

Just because we live with idiots doesn't mean we're all idiots.


A fact I (as do most) fully recognize, although I have never gone so far as to characterize Republicans as idiots. Just people with a diferent political outlook.. However, if one believes in democracy, and the majority of people in a country who feel strongly enough about hings to vote do vote a certain way, then that is taken as the de-facto majority viewpoint of the nation

In other words, the majority viewpoint that shapes the policies that may affect us all.

I am certainly cognizant of how split your country is, and how acrimonious that split has become. However, until such time as the citienship votes to set the country on a different path, we must assume that this IS the path that your country will follow because the majority of your citizens want to follow it.

I must somewhat disacree with this. They take only those parts of the Bible they like. I'm not christian myself (I'm Discordian), but I see many great ideologies mainly in what Jesus teaches:
-Turn the other cheek
-Love thy neighbor
-Thou shall not kill
-Everyone is a child of Loving, Compassionate and Caring God

Those are the ideals that should be fostered. Not these despising, hating, loathing, contradicting and negative stances.
This way they use Bible as a weapon against other people is hypocritical and double standarded. It's really sad. They are insecure people, lost in their own pettiness.
And to that, I would only respond that you cannot take a few verses and ignore the fact that Jesus did consider certain things to be sins. But hey, ignorance is bliss. Ignore the guy who has actually studied the subject. Even certain practices (such as homosexuality) are specifically considered sins in the New Testament.


And as for the rest of that rather long beginning post, I can only say that I am quite sick and tired of hearing non-Americans bitch about our elections. I am losing my ability to remain civil on this topic. And insulting Americans with opinions based only on European media hype and the comments of a few hard-core liberals really doesn't reflect well on you. I couldn't care less if you think Americans are idiots, or we are evil. The fact is that we are looking out for ourselves, just as every other nation on this planet is doing. And as for intelligence, I can only point out that we have far higher numbers of entreprenoures than any other nation in the world, and that so far we have been pretty damn successful with the system we have chosen. So I'll simply look to the past, and laugh long and hard at those who continue to cry foul over this election.

And as for the rest of that rather long beginning post, I can only say that I am quite sick and tired of hearing non-Americans bitch about our elections. I am losing my ability to remain civil on this topic. And insulting Americans with opinions based only on European media hype and the comments of a few hard-core liberals really doesn't reflect well on you. I couldn't care less if you think Americans are idiots, or we are evil. The fact is that we are looking out for ourselves, just as every other nation on this planet is doing. And as for intelligence, I can only point out that we have far higher numbers of entreprenoures than any other nation in the world, and that so far we have been pretty damn successful with the system we have chosen. So I'll simply look to the past, and laugh long and hard at those who continue to cry foul over this election.


Please take the time to actually READ the post. Nowhere did I call American's idiots or evil, nor - frankly - do I base my opinions on "European media hype". Most especially - I NEVER cried foul. Instead I took this election as a FAIR litmus test of the mindset of the majority of Americans.

So your need to come up with sort of measure (entrepreneurs) as a form of proof of your intelligence is unneccessary and completely beside the point.

You may think that the bulk of the rest of the Western world disagrees with this Administratrions policies only because of liberal media hype if you like. But perhaps it is more what I said it to be - a fundamental diference in outlook between the majority of us as compared to the majority of voting Americans as demonstrated by this election.

This is not a derogatory statement, but more of an observation. I realize that you have just emerged from one of the most negative campaigns ever seen - by BOTH sides, however I hope that you can put that aside and recognize that pointing out diferences is NOT always accompanied by a feeling of personal acrimony.

Not from me anyway. If I felt the need to dislike everyone that I found some philosphical disagreement with, frankly I would waste far to much of my life disliking people for stupid reasons. And what would the sense be in that?

And it wouldn't be because your of another country.
I know. I don't think I'm the type that would be shot accidently.

No man is an island, no country is unaffected by the US elections. I'm not niaive enough to think that the worldwider support for Kerry was going to 'matter' to the average US citizen , but I do know that an overwhelming number of non-US citizens are going to be tangibly affected by the outcome of your election in the way that few other countries are able to emulate.

Maybe the outside world doesn't exist for most of you in the US (I hear say that an overwhelming majority have never had a passport, though that might be apocryphal) but the US is more than just a source of films and tv programmes (from dire to inspired) to the outside world. And I'm talking as someone who likes the US, in principle, and can only imagine how hard the job of president must be, but would have prefered to see what a different president could have done over the next four years, allowing the giant that is The United States Of America to pause and at least look down at its feet to see what it's stomping all over before blundering on its way again...

My opinion is not necessarily representative of the views of the majority of the world's population, but I've not heard much serious support for Bush amongst non-citizens (except for the guardedly diplomatic statements that most state leaders feel compelled to expound, and would have similarly expounded anyway had the situation been otherwise).The US is effected by your country's elections also. Should we be demanding a say in your elections, as you are in ours?I'm including the entirity of my message to show you that I've not, at any point in it, called for a say in your elections... I've discussed "preference" for Kerry and "no serious support" for Bush.

It's a 'worldview' I was hoping that you all might have, not a direct say by us Craazzzeeee Eengleeesh. As far as I can tell, from those US citizens I have personally talked to, both the Bush line about international politics and the bin Laden reverse psychology were prime influences for dampening or reversing swings towards Kerry's camp on the day. And 'everyone' (for certain values of 'everyone') over here in Blighty mumbling "Please vote for Kerry, please vote for Kerry..." under our breaths didn't affect things at all, which is a defeat for the concept of remote mind-control, but not exactly unexpected.

(Actually, though, let's check. Yes, the UK is around twice the population of California, giving us 50-odd votes if that's the primary figure used in calculation [I can't immediately find out how many Representatives we would have under the US govenernmental system]. Had the UK been a "51st state" we might have had over 100 electoral votes, based purely on population. Well, at least that sets my mind at rest, in that the more right-wing presidential incumbants wouldn't want to do that.)

Turkey should be part of the EU! It is a part of NATO which is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. WHy shouldn't they be in the EU?Strange argument. By that token, the US and Canada should be members of the EU as well.

(I know what you mean, but the way you say it was just too easy to pick up on... Sorry... ;))

And just because you voted for kerry doesn't make you smart. I voted for bush i have my reasons, but that doesn't make me an idiot. Although your last statment does make you sound pretty arogant/stupid/pompus.



Tell me.

What were those reasons?

a) Europe is not a country. Yet.
b) The European Parliament is directly elected by the European citizens. It constitutes the basis for European Goverment, which is the European Comission. The Head of the Comission is appointed by the chiefs of state of the various countries of the EU, but the Comission itself must be aproved by the parliament.
c) It isnt the words that matter, it is the actions.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/42/61/31504039.pdf

Sarcasm is kind of lost on this group. I guess that's what happens when a bunch of ...Well forget that.

Sarcasm off --- My point was that Europe might as well be a country. The individual nations have surrendered so much of their sovereignity that the national governments are irrelevant.

Case in point, maybe two. A couple years ago, an unelected bureaucrat in Brussels decided pigs were bored. He issued a mandate to put toys in pig styes. That's a pen for you elite city dwellers. The farmers in England, France, Spain, and where ever else hogs are raised in the EU had to amuse their pigs. What crap!

Next, another bureacrat decided that it was important to be able to trace the history of a chicken egg. I don't know if this one ever became policy or not, but the requirement was to stamp the egg with the mother/father/farm/city...I saw these in Israel and it is just silly. That, and a lot of work for a small farm.

This kind of sillynes would get an elected representative recalled, not reelected. But as we all know, there is no recourse to bureacratic decisions. This is the kind of thing that makes me doubt the sanity of Europe. No national currency, but that's another whole problem. Maybe it's the centuries of inbreeding. You know what that did to the Prussians.

Dave, the stupid hick, in Georgia

Sarcasm is kind of lost on this group. I guess that's what happens when a bunch of ...Well forget that.

Sarcasm off --- My point was that Europe might as well be a country. The individual nations have surrendered so much of their sovereignity that the national governments are irrelevant.

Case in point, maybe two. A couple years ago, an unelected bureaucrat in Brussels decided pigs were bored. He issued a mandate to put toys in pig styes. That's a pen for you elite city dwellers. The farmers in England, France, Spain, and where ever else hogs are raised in the EU had to amuse their pigs. What crap!

Next, another bureacrat decided that it was important to be able to trace the history of a chicken egg. I don't know if this one ever became policy or not, but the requirement was to stamp the egg with the mother/father/farm/city...I saw these in Israel and it is just silly. That, and a lot of work for a small farm.

This kind of sillynes would get an elected representative recalled, not reelected. But as we all know, there is no recourse to bureacratic decisions. This is the kind of thing that makes me doubt the sanity of Europe. No national currency, but that's another whole problem. Maybe it's the centuries of inbreeding. You know what that did to the Prussians.

Dave, the stupid hick, in Georgia

a) It is an utter misconception that European nations do not have the greater part of their sovereignty. Still, if they are relinquishing it, it is on common accord, what is the big thing?
b) Show me the pig law. And markings on Eggs are necessary to know who to sue in case of food contamination, etc.. (you need to trace the foodstuff origin)
c) You don't elect your secretary of commerce, do you? Its the same thing with the bureocrats in Brussels, except that they are accountable to the Comission, which is accountable to the Parliament.
d) The Euro is not a problem, i ashure you. It is slowly gaining reputation and solidity in international markets, and its introduction as been quite benefecial for intra-European trade.
e) Well, the prussians became the most powerful state in the unified germany, guess it turned out alright for them.

America, in the eyes of the world, now willingly stands for the following:

- For the arrogant and unfettered use of military force under circumstances that seem to approach an executive whim.
- For the "you're with us or you're against us" mentality.
- For the idea that Bible has supplanted the Constitution as the primary law of the land.
- For intolerance.
- For fiscal recklessness.
- For the doctrine of preemption.
- For never second-guessing a decision and for never learning from mistakes.

That is the face that we see in GW.

You know, the thing about the US is that after voting for the guy that runs the country, we don't have much control. America doesn't neccesarily support Bush's views, it's just that we had a pretty pathetic choice of candidates. Until Americans stop blindly allowing people like Bush and Kerry to become president, things aren't going to change.

d) The Euro is not a problem, i ashure you. It is slowly gaining reputation and solidity in international markets, and its introduction as been quite benefecial for intra-European trade.
Let's not forget that since the introduction of the Euro prices have been skyrocketing. To give you an example of what I mean. When we still had the Guilder, Dutch currency, a pint of beer cost 3 Guilders. Now it's 3 Euro's. Plus the whole Maastricht stability pact, which demands budget deficits to stay under 3%, has lead to cutbacks in all areas. Cause our clueless leaders lack ideas. Which in turn resulted in reduced investements in education, science, military expenditure etc.....while on the other hand we were forced to except 10 new members who all joined up for the subsidies. Eventhough countries like Portugal, Spain and Greece still recieve money to pull them up to the desired standards. The Euro is a massive problem.

You know, the thing about the US is that after voting for the guy that runs the country, we don't have much control. America doesn't neccesarily support Bush's views, it's just that we had a pretty pathetic choice of candidates. Until Americans stop blindly allowing people like Bush and Kerry to become president, things aren't going to change.I'm sorry, but that's crap. We've had four years of this guy and his policies--there's no question about what he stands for and what his future policies are likely to look like. You can't drop your responsibility for that by saying "we don't have much control." The US as a whole might not support Bush's policies, but enough of them did so that he'll be in office for four more years, and those of you who voted for him share culpability for the decisions he makes, because if you disagreed with his policies, you had the chance to throw him out, and you didn't. Whether or not you liked Kerry, there was a clear and certain difference between him and Bush, and between his policies and Bush's. If you voted for Bush, you made the choice.

Strange argument. By that token, the US and Canada should be members of the EU as well.

(I know what you mean, but the way you say it was just too easy to pick up on... Sorry... ;))

HEHE!!! As long as the EU capitol moves to NYC and is the new tenet of the UN Building, why not? :p :D ;)

a) It is an utter misconception that European nations do not have the greater part of their sovereignty. Still, if they are relinquishing it, it is on common accord, what is the big thing?
b) Show me the pig law. And markings on Eggs are necessary to know who to sue in case of food contamination, etc.. (you need to trace the foodstuff origin)

We have an excellent model for the EU right here in the U.S. The federal government takes all the power it can, and leaves the rest to the states. The states then, try to regain all the power that they should have had in the beginning by litigating. Sometimes we vote for politicians that promise decreased federal interference, but they usually turn out to be liars.

For a nation to willingly surrender any power to a conglomerate is just beyond my comprehension. That's the stuff wars have been made from for eons. And still should be. It's one thing to form bonds for commerce, the Common Market was probably the right thing to do. NAFTA is a good thing.

PIG TOYS...below. As far as the chicken eggs go, it is still a silly idea that overregulates small farms. Egg crates could be marked, bills of lading could be kept. All of that wouldn't require the machinery required to stamp an egg with it's lineage.

c) You don't elect your secretary of commerce, do you? Its the same thing with the bureocrats in Brussels, except that they are accountable to the Comission, which is accountable to the Parliament.

Now does the U.S. have any serious problems with anonymous bureacrats? You bet! We have so many agencies I can't even begin to name them. I'd just rather poke fun at foreigners, while voting against the pols that want to increase our government bureacracy. By the way, there was supposed to be humor in that statement. Any civilization that knows pigs need toys should appreciate humor.

As far as the Prussians, they kind of went insane in the early 1900s and left the door open for a lot of other foreigners to exert influence. I wouldn't confuse the Prussian royalty of the 1800s with the modern day Germans.

My original point is unchanged. The U.S. is still the only place I'd care to live. It's fun to visit places like Spain and Italy. There aren't too many other places that provide the same opportunities for success that exist in the U.S. Now I think I'll go hunting and see what I can bring home for dinner.

That's scary...I have a banjo in the corner, I hunt and fish for food, I listen to country music, I can fix my car and my plumbing. I think I'm a stereotype.

Bye...
British Farmers Worried About 'Pig Toy' Regulations
By Mike Wendling
CNSNews.com London Bureau Chief
January 30, 2003

London (CNSNews.com) - Pig farmers in Britain are worried about increasing government regulation as a European regulation requiring hogs to have access to "manipulable material" is about to be enshrined into U.K. law.

The new regulations, expected to come into force on Friday, prompted a flurry of British media reports about new "pig toy" rules.

The London Times reported that farmers would face up to three months in jail if they refuse to provide toys for their hogs as part of "environmental enrichment" regulations.

I'm sorry, but that's crap. We've had four years of this guy and his policies--there's no question about what he stands for and what his future policies are likely to look like. You can't drop your responsibility for that by saying "we don't have much control." The US as a whole might not support Bush's policies, but enough of them did so that he'll be in office for four more years, and those of you who voted for him share culpability for the decisions he makes, because if you disagreed with his policies, you had the chance to throw him out, and you didn't. Whether or not you liked Kerry, there was a clear and certain difference between him and Bush, and between his policies and Bush's. If you voted for Bush, you made the choice.

Wasn't this the only election ever where an incumbent with a less than 50% approval rating at the time of the election won?

So basically a majority thinks the nation is on the wrong path, but then re-elects the guy who has been driving the whole time....interesting

Too bad we don't give a crap. Get a life and worry about your own country for a change. Don't you know when the world attacks our president it makes people more likely to vote for him?

Unfortunately, this is the true testament to the American ideal of "My dick is bigger than your dick, and we're going to stand up and prove it". When you think "blind patriotism", you focus on the patriotism and forget the blindness.

And trust me, we worry about ur own countries. We worry which ones Bush will want to control next. Oh sorry, I meant "liberate" next.

Wasn't this the only election ever where an incumbent with a less than 50% approval rating at the time of the election won?

So basically a majority thinks the nation is on the wrong path, but then re-elects the guy who has been driving the whole time....interesting

This was an election where the incumbent won with more than 51% of the vote. I'd say that was a better than 50% approval rating. The polls prior to election day were around 50%, but because of statistical uncertainty, the correct answer was in the noise. Usually +/- 3% is the figure I saw most often.

Maybe the other inference that can be made is that the nation might not like the present direction, but the challenger wasn't up to the task of re-directing it.

Unfortunately, this is the true testament to the American ideal of "My dick is bigger than your dick, and we're going to stand up and prove it". When you think "blind patriotism", you focus on the patriotism and forget the blindness.

And trust me, we worry about ur own countries. We worry which ones Bush will want to control next. Oh sorry, I meant "liberate" next.

Well if you're not part of the problem, I wouldn't worry. That was supposed to be humor. Without trying to be trite, if you aren't living in a nation that supports international terrorisim, I don't think the U.S. has any need for your territory. If you live in one of those nations, the U.S. will probably liberate you from some sort of authoritarian rule, put an end to mass murder by the ruling party, and keep your country safe enough to hold free elections. Then we will leave you to screw up your government all by yourselves. Used to be we just wanted some room to bury our dead, but through the marvels of modern refrigeration, we don't even ask for that anymore.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a case where we were able to manipulate the free government after liberating them. I don't remember much about the Kuwaiti goverment after we liberated them. We certainly didn't want to stick around and control the Serbs and the Bosnians and the Herzigovinians, and the Croats, and all those others in that part of the world. I don't remember any nationalization of any country in the last four years, let alone since the Monroe Doctine was formulated to keep the meddling Europeans out of the Americas.

If we like you, we will even leave you with the system of customary measurements, allowing you to cast off the evil metric system forever. Oh, and baseball, too. Then you don't have to watch soccer or football or whatever.

Turkey should be part of the EU! It is a part of NATO which is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. WHy shouldn't they be in the EU?
Because they are not an European country and NATO and the EU are different organisations. Even an American should be able to understand that. Although I guess thats asking for to much.

Let's not forget that since the introduction of the Euro prices have been skyrocketing. To give you an example of what I mean. When we still had the Guilder, Dutch currency, a pint of beer cost 3 Guilders. Now it's 3 Euro's. Plus the whole Maastricht stability pact, which demands budget deficits to stay under 3%, has lead to cutbacks in all areas. Cause our clueless leaders lack ideas. Which in turn resulted in reduced investements in education, science, military expenditure etc.....while on the other hand we were forced to except 10 new members who all joined up for the subsidies. Eventhough countries like Portugal, Spain and Greece still recieve money to pull them up to the desired standards. The Euro is a massive problem.

a) Such form of conversion (1 guilder for 1euro) is illegal, you can complain to authorities. Prices indeed increased, but this was due to abuse of sellers, not because of the Euro itself. Hell, technically, the euro exists since 1996, when the European Monetary System was introduced, that fixed the conversion rates of different european currencies. This enabled to, among other things, blast away currency floating speculation, and boost economical grownth.
b) The Grownth and stability pact as N-O-T-H-I-N-G to do with the Euro. It is basically a pact to control govermnent finances, since large deficits mean higher interest rates. Even if the Euro did not exist, you could maintain such pact (except your GDP would be measured in guilders and not on Euroes)
c) Granted, they joined to take subsidies. And in exchange, we get to access their huge, poor but growing, markets :) Lots of investment opportunities there! They get our money, we get their markets, its a win win situation.
d) As a Portuguese, i say CUT OUR BLOODY FUNDING.
d) Where is the problem with the Euro?



to Myrmidonisia:

Well, I really don't believe the US is a good example for the EU, since there aren't 25 different cultures in the US, 25 different central goverments, 25 different histories, you are ONE nation, the EU is 25 nations. If you do not understand why a nation willingly surrender its powers, well, that is your opinion. In the past, many groups of individuals have come togheter to form nations and states, without any wars involved. Italy was made out of City-states, Germany of different states, same thing for the Swiss. Did not Texas joined the US after the US was originally formed? Its a choice of the peoples and their leaders.


About chicken eggs, granted, the law in its practical introduction may have not been perfect, far from being the best, but the principle stands: Food must obey strict criteria of quality.

If the US is the only place you care to live, great for you. I want to visit as many places i can, but i also will never leave my tiny peace of soil, planted near the sea :)
But without you seeing the entire world, living in the entire world, isnt it a little precipitated to say that there aren't too many other places where you have the opportunities you have in the US?

And about the pigs, here you have the law:
http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l12057.htm

The news have been less than clear to get the idea of the law out.

But without you seeing the entire world, living in the entire world, isnt it a little precipitated to say that there aren't too many other places where you have the opportunities you have in the US?


Okay, you got me there. I've had to have my passport replaced twice because the visa pages were filled up. I'm working on a third, all before the 15 year expiry. I think I've hit all the continents, including McMurdo station at the South Pole, and even...Europe. I'd go back to Spain or Italy any time, never back to France. There are still some places that I haven't been, so maybe I am a little precipitated.

Why do I think the U.S. has such superior opportunity? Well for instance, India doesn't allow anyone to own more than a few acres of land. It sucks to be in a lower caste, too. I don't remember any castes in the U.S. Just ambitious or lazy attitudes. Went to Pakistan shortly after that and I won't go back. Rawalpindi was kind of pleasant, if you enjoy enclave living and armed guards at the hotels. Karachi wasn't. I don't think China lets anyone own anythng. The standard of living in most countries is so low, people don't own cars, even when it would be to their advantage, although you wouldn't know that if you looked at the traffic problems. Real estate in Israel is easily two to three times what I would expect a similar dwelling in the U.S. to be, so people rent. I saw a townhouse for sale in Switzerland that went for 600,000 Euros. A comparable townhouse would have been 165,000 U.S. in Georgia. Hardly any countries outside the U.S. encourage their citizens to own firearms, and most discourage protection of one's own property. In fact, the U.K. has condemned property owners that actually protect themselves and their property as worse than the criminals.

But you know what the worst thing is about any country outside the U.S? They all use the metric system. What the heck is it about abstract measurements that thrill the rest of the world? Must be because it's French. There's another story I read about the kilogram shrinking. Something about the material the standard is made from losing molecules over time. So if the standard changes...what is standard? What a conundrum. On the other hand, a pound is a pound and a mile is a mile, unless it's a nautical mile, of course.

Back to the pigs. This is where centralized government sucks. Not just hogs, but the overregulation of everything.

And about the pigs, here you have the law:
http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l12057.htm

The news have been less than clear to get the idea of the law out.

The newspaper was probably not nearly as bad as the actual "regulation", or directive.

1) OBJECTIVE
To establish minimum standards for the protection of pigs for rearing in order to protect them and to prevent differences distorting competition among producers in the different Member States.

Is this to protect pigs, or someone else? Looks to me someone in the EU is better at raising hogs than someone else, and it wouldn't be fair if that were so. Hog farmers don't need to be told how to raise hogs by the Department of Agriculture, anyway. Hog farmers do poorly when the hogs are raised poorly and the farmers do well when the hogs are raised well. So they have every incentive to keep hogs from mauling each other, making the living spaces suitable, and keeping the animals well fed. These things don't need to be regulated.

Farming is fun, but it's too much work to be profitable. The last thing farmers need is a government inspector looking down their backs, trying to figure out if their pigs are 'happy'. Like I said earlier, I think this is really a law to protect someone in favor, not pigs.

Regards,
Dave, not a farmer, from Georgia

Okay, you got me there. I've had to have my passport replaced twice because the visa pages were filled up. I'm working on a third, all before the 15 year expiry. I think I've hit all the continents, including McMurdo station at the South Pole, and even...Europe. I'd go back to Spain or Italy any time, never back to France. There are still some places that I haven't been, so maybe I am a little precipitated.

Why do I think the U.S. has such superior opportunity? Well for instance, India doesn't allow anyone to own more than a few acres of land. It sucks to be in a lower caste, too. I don't remember any castes in the U.S. Just ambitious or lazy attitudes. Went to Pakistan shortly after that and I won't go back. Rawalpindi was kind of pleasant, if you enjoy enclave living and armed guards at the hotels. Karachi wasn't. I don't think China lets anyone own anythng. The standard of living in most countries is so low, people don't own cars, even when it would be to their advantage, although you wouldn't know that if you looked at the traffic problems. Real estate in Israel is easily two to three times what I would expect a similar dwelling in the U.S. to be, so people rent. I saw a townhouse for sale in Switzerland that went for 600,000 Euros. A comparable townhouse would have been 165,000 U.S. in Georgia. Hardly any countries outside the U.S. encourage their citizens to own firearms, and most discourage protection of one's own property. In fact, the U.K. has condemned property owners that actually protect themselves and their property as worse than the criminals.

But you know what the worst thing is about any country outside the U.S? They all use the metric system. What the heck is it about abstract measurements that thrill the rest of the world? Must be because it's French. There's another story I read about the kilogram shrinking. Something about the material the standard is made from losing molecules over time. So if the standard changes...what is standard? What a conundrum. On the other hand, a pound is a pound and a mile is a mile, unless it's a nautical mile, of course.

Back to the pigs. This is where centralized government sucks. Not just hogs, but the overregulation of everything.


The newspaper was probably not nearly as bad as the actual "regulation", or directive.

Is this to protect pigs, or someone else? Looks to me someone in the EU is better at raising hogs than someone else, and it wouldn't be fair if that were so. Hog farmers don't need to be told how to raise hogs by the Department of Agriculture, anyway. Hog farmers do poorly when the hogs are raised poorly and the farmers do well when the hogs are raised well. So they have every incentive to keep hogs from mauling each other, making the living spaces suitable, and keeping the animals well fed. These things don't need to be regulated.

Farming is fun, but it's too much work to be profitable. The last thing farmers need is a government inspector looking down their backs, trying to figure out if their pigs are 'happy'. Like I said earlier, I think this is really a law to protect someone in favor, not pigs.

Regards,
Dave, not a farmer, from Georgia


Well, you cited many examples of where the US as superior opportunities, but the basic question is, it is not the only place where people have opportunities. Europe, Australia, Canada, even countries in development have liberties as great or even greater than those of the US, why is the US necessarely the best? The rest of the "motives" you presented are from your cultural point of view, that isnt necessarely the best. In my country, it is allowed to have firearms. Yet, no one barely as any, because people trust the army and the police for their security. It is a question of culture, not of liberties or opportunities. The housing situation you mentioned, that is an economical factor, what does it matter for liberties or opportunities? Have you considered that perhaps Switzerland as more expensive housing due to the fact that either the demand is very high, or even the offer of housing is low?

And hell, Americans talk about Europe, jesus, picking on the metric system?? WTF? It works for me, it works for Europe and most non-anglosaxonic countries, what is the problem? Or are you telling me that if you have a kilogram of steel and a pound of steel, the pound of steel as magical properties?

And the law is explicit and logic. If the US as other legal enquadrement, so be it, we respect it. In europe, we believe that in order for fair competition, everyone must start from the same mark, ence the regulation. And besides, for a common market to work, everyone must have the same rules, or how could you call it a common market?

Because they are not an European country and NATO and the EU are different organisations. Even an American should be able to understand that. Although I guess thats asking for to much.

I am an American Von Witzleben. Look at the map of Turkey. See where Istanbul is? It is in EUROPE thus making it an European Country. A student of Geography will tell you that.

I am an American Von Witzleben. Look at the map of Turkey. See where Istanbul is? It is in EUROPE thus making it an European Country. A student of Geography will tell you that.


Turkey is located in both southeastern Europe and Southwestern Asia (that portion of Turkey west of the Bosporus is geographically part of Europe, and east is part of Asia). 90% of Turkish Territory is Asian.

PS: Go turkey for europe!

Turkey should be part of the EU! It is a part of NATO which is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. WHy shouldn't they be in the EU? NATO Membership does not give you Automatic EU membership...

Would the EU want America as a Member?....I doubt it...

And hell, Americans talk about Europe, jesus, picking on the metric system?? WTF? It works for me, it works for Europe and most non-anglosaxonic countries, what is the problem? Or are you telling me that if you have a kilogram of steel and a pound of steel, the pound of steel as magical properties?

Again, my attempts at humor fall flat. I'll quit. This was based in fact, however. I don't know how to do a clickable link, but here is the article that poses the problem.
http://physics.csufresno.edu/wassign/phys4a/hall/Kilogram.htm


And the law is explicit and logic. If the US as other legal enquadrement, so be it, we respect it. In europe, we believe that in order for fair competition, everyone must start from the same mark, ence the regulation. And besides, for a common market to work, everyone must have the same rules, or how could you call it a common market?

See, the thing that the U.S. still offers up is competition. If one can do something better, cheaper, or faster that the rest of the pack, he can be successful. That isn't true when one is regulated to within an inch of extinction. Fair just means everyone has the same chance to succeed. Fair isn't handicapping the system so that no one can excel. Like I said before, the law looks like a favor to someone that just doesn't want to change the way they have done things for a very long time.

This has been fun, I've enjoyed the conversation. Hope you have too. I entered the thread after seeing how someone was ashamed to be born in the U.S. Honor required a defense. I've not seen any answer from them, so I guess the effort has been futile. Probably scared them off with my opinionated style.

By the way, I saw in another response that you are in Portugal. Haven't been there, although I used to enjoy some mateus wine that a friend would bring back after trips to the country. Anyway, I did have a lot of correspondence with a different fellow at the University in Lisbon. He was doing some research on autonomous underwater vehicles at the same time I was finishing my PhD research on an autonomous air vehicle. You have a really good university, there. Almost as good as Georgia Tech. Just the wrong kind of football team. Oops! That was humor, sorry.

This country thing is just a frame of reference problem. My natural reference is the U.S. and I'm spoiled to have grown up in this country. I'm glad Europeans can be proud of the EU. I guess you are duty bound to stick up for it, too.

Take care and I'll look for you on another occasion.

I think turkey should start its own Union. We could call it Turikian Union. And then we could put some gravy on it and get some cranberries. And some mashed potatoes and some buns. and well you get the idea.

Once again, the world sees things one way and we Americans see them another.

"If we can't convinced other like minded democratic nations that what we're doing is right, then it's time to step back and re-examine our thinking."

-Bob McNamara

I am an American Von Witzleben. Look at the map of Turkey. See where Istanbul is? It is in EUROPE thus making it an European Country. A student of Geography will tell you that.
See where the mass of the country, twice the size of Germany, is? It ain't Europe. And I sort of guessed to what your nationality is from your name. And another excellent reason to not allow them in is that America wants it to be in. That alone should be enough reason to drop the whole issue.

awww

:fluffle:


Well, you too should be proud of your country. Despite common bashing, i guess we should all respect each other, and you do have many admirable things.

NATO Membership does not give you Automatic EU membership...

Would the EU want America as a Member?....I doubt it...

We don't want to be part of the EU but Turkey does deserve it.

See where the mass of the country, twice the size of Germany, is? It ain't Europe. And I sort of guessed to what your nationality is from your name. And another excellent reason to not allow them in is that America wants it to be in. That alone should be enough reason to drop the whole issue.

Sighs

You just never learn do you? Turkey is in both Europe and Asia, much like Russia is on both continents.

Now on to the second part of your statement. Thanks for showing that you support the French Position who tried to bully other members of the soon to be joining EU nations into NOT supporting our operation in Iraq. They did anyway and France did nothing. Now why do you say that because America wants them in that you say, for that reason only, they shouldn't be in? Care to explain your reason?

Call me culturally ignorant, but I read a BBC article about a study that reported most women in Turkey think domestic violence is acceptable when a woman has cheated on her husband. Bit barbaric, to my way of thinking. I mean, not to be intolerant and cruel, but is that the kind of thinking you want to encourage in the EU?

I don't think China lets anyone own anythng.

That may have been true 30 years ago but it most certainly isn't now. Modern China is a right-wing capitalist dictatorship, decked out in the odd hammer and sickle.

That may have been true 30 years ago but it most certainly isn't now. Modern China is a right-wing capitalist dictatorship, decked out in the odd hammer and sickle.

Last time I was there, mainland not Hong Kong or Taiwan, I didn't get that impression. It seemed to me that people could sort of own something until the goverment thought someone else should own it. In other words, property rights don't appear to be a strong suit in the PRC. Again, my opinion of PRC is colored by stories friends have told of Mao and his Cultural Revolution. One guy I know lived in a cave for three years after his family was scattered to the corners of China. Then Nixon insisted Mao stop all that nonsense and the family was able to re-unite.

I thought I was done, but property rights are essential to a successful, self-sufficient country. We could carry that discussion on forever, I'm sure, but there is only one right answer.

Regards,

Eh... skipping all the fluff in the middle, I'll just say this to Zeppiwhatever. If you think Canada should deal with the EU... great. More power to you. Whatever makes Canada happy, Canada should do. I love Canada. I go to Toronto all the time. I have family in Canada. I wish only the best for Canada, and if that is not dealing with America... fine.

Now then... please don't be mad when I say that I really don't care what folks outside America think about our election, although I'm more likely to hear what folks from your country and England have to say and mull it over. To me, America is finally standing up for itself. The UN is the most corrupt organization in the history of the world. Tanzania should have no say what goes on in my country at all. Neither should Venezuela, Thailand, etc. Kerry would have sold us out to them. He would have had America kiss the worlds ass so France could send an ambulance and two nurses to help in Iraq. Sorry, but I'd rather be at odds, than at mercy. So yeah... whatever you guys need to do to feel good, do it.

Eh... skipping all the fluff in the middle, I'll just say this to Zeppiwhatever. If you think Canada should deal with the EU... great. More power to you. Whatever makes Canada happy, Canada should do. I love Canada. I go to Toronto all the time. I have family in Canada. I wish only the best for Canada, and if that is not dealing with America... fine.

Now then... please don't be mad when I say that I really don't care what folks outside America think about our election, although I'm more likely to hear what folks from your country and England have to say and mull it over. To me, America is finally standing up for itself. The UN is the most corrupt organization in the history of the world. Tanzania should have no say what goes on in my country at all. Neither should Venezuela, Thailand, etc. Kerry would have sold us out to them. He would have had America kiss the worlds ass so France could send an ambulance and two nurses to help in Iraq. Sorry, but I'd rather be at odds, than at mercy. So yeah... whatever you guys need to do to feel good, do it.

Well, if you read it carefully you will note that I did not suggest dealing more with the EU and asia as some form of punishment or petulance over the election results. It is not just something to make us "feel good". I just feel that this administration's economic direction is dangerous to your long-term fiscal wellbeing, and that we need to make a serious effort to diversify our trade as a matter of self-protection. Mind you, growing overseas markets is a damn good idea anyway for us as we could use the growth.

You DID note that your President is abot to ask for a 680B increase in your debt cieling right? Is this an indication that he really expects to be shrinking the deficit as he claims?

I think not.

And China will continue to buy up your debt, cheerfully, as the future political leverage that this will give them is something they are happy to attain.

This may not worry you, but it sure as hell worries me!

Dude... America is resourceful. Aside from certain Hollywood actors, activists and honest to god traitors, when America is down, Republicans and Democrats and everyone else comes together to work miracles. It is the 'act' of getting in deep dog crap with China that pisses me off. Actually 'being' in deep dog crap with China doesn't. It's just another opportunity, not a problem. Figure that out, and you'll understand how we scrapped from being a country of refugees and frontiersmen to the powerhouse we are today.

You know... the simple thing you guys from other countries fail to understand, and it obviously boggles you, is that you guys are the ones who made us strong, and you guys are the ones who make us stronger. It was immigrants from your own shores who came here to succeed or die trying. It was people fed up with the status quo in Italy, France, Germany, Africa, Guatemala, etc. who came to this country and asked for more. Yeah, we've had hiccups. Yeah, we've had problems. We overcome.

You know... I can't put into words exactly how I feel. It's not patriotism, because there is a definite feeling of 'me' and 'I' in it. But it's not a bad thing either, because if it's not 'me' or 'I', it might as well be the guy or gal standing next to me than someone else.

Dude... America is resourceful. Aside from certain Hollywood actors, activists and honest to god traitors, when America is down, Republicans and Democrats and everyone else comes together to work miracles. It is the 'act' of getting in deep dog crap with China that pisses me off. Actually 'being' in deep dog crap with China doesn't. It's just another opportunity, not a problem. Figure that out, and you'll understand how we scrapped from being a country of refugees and frontiersmen to the powerhouse we are today.

You know... the simple thing you guys from other countries fail to understand, and it obviously boggles you, is that you guys are the ones who made us strong, and you guys are the ones who make us stronger. It was immigrants from your own shores who came here to succeed or die trying. It was people fed up with the status quo in Italy, France, Germany, Africa, Guatemala, etc. who came to this country and asked for more. Yeah, we've had hiccups. Yeah, we've had problems. We overcome.

You know... I can't put into words exactly how I feel. It's not patriotism, because there is a definite feeling of 'me' and 'I' in it. But it's not a bad thing either, because if it's not 'me' or 'I', it might as well be the guy or gal standing next to me than someone else.


You know, what you completely fail to note is that Canada was populated in EXACTLY the same way. Yet we still retain some philosophical diferences in outlook than you.

And the idea that it is OK to dig a hole now because you have the faith that future generations will be willing to put in the sacrifice and effort to get out of it seems asinine to me. Yes, you may be right. They might, and probably will.

However it seems a hell of a lot smarter (and kinder to your grandchildren) to do your damndest to try NOT to put them in that position in the first place.

Perhaps THAT attitude is hard for you to understand, that being that you take on a bit of personal sacrifice yourself rather than just pass it all on to your progeny, however many of us lump that under the heading "family values" that kept cropping up in your election.

And the idea that it is OK to dig a hole now because you have the faith that future generations will be willing to put in the sacrifice and effort to get out of it seems asinine to me. Yes, you may be right. They might, and probably will.

However it seems a hell of a lot smarter (and kinder to your grandchildren) to do your damndest to try NOT to put them in that position in the first place.

Perhaps THAT attitude is hard for you to understand, that being that you take on a bit of personal sacrifice yourself rather than just pass it all on to your progeny, however many of us lump that under the heading "family values" that kept cropping up in your election.

Can't agree more, hat of. Damn pitty that there are not more people on NS that know to debate like you.

Really, great post, like most of yours. :)

Last time I was there, mainland not Hong Kong or Taiwan, I didn't get that impression. It seemed to me that people could sort of own something until the goverment thought someone else should own it. In other words, property rights don't appear to be a strong suit in the PRC. Again, my opinion of PRC is colored by stories friends have told of Mao and his Cultural Revolution. One guy I know lived in a cave for three years after his family was scattered to the corners of China. Then Nixon insisted Mao stop all that nonsense and the family was able to re-unite.

I thought I was done, but property rights are essential to a successful, self-sufficient country. We could carry that discussion on forever, I'm sure, but there is only one right answer.

Regards,

Well I've lived in China for over a year now and am yet to hear about the government seizing people's property or passing it to someone else. I'm not saying the government doesn't interfere in business (I do know of officials shutting down businesses on spurious causes, but that's a by-product of corruption (not greasing the right palms) of the kind that's endemic in almost all less developed countries, not communism) or that such things never occur, just that the statement "in China you can't own anything" simply doesn't match with the experience of the vast majority of Chinese.

As for Nixon single-handedly ending the Cultural Revolution, give me a break.

Oh, and as regards the "Turkey isn't in Europe" rationale of not allowing them into the EU, can anyone tell me why I didn't notice this argument being used when Cyprus (which is east of Istanbul) was let in?

However, the "Turkey is part of NATO" argument is equally invalid. NATO is a military organisation and as such doesn't have the same criteria on human rights and economics as the EU.

As for Nixon single-handedly ending the Cultural Revolution, give me a break.

As little as I like Nixon, I don't think Mao would have ended this on his own. What does your vast experience tell you about the causes and the end of the Cultural Revolution?

As little as I like Nixon, I don't think Mao would have ended this on his own. What does your vast experience tell you about the causes and the end of the Cultural Revolution?

Oooh, "vast experience", bitchy. I wasn't claiming to have a monopoly on experience, just that mine has been quite different to yours. As for the Cultural Revolution my knowledge of it is not based on experience (I've found that the common perception of the event in China is less than ideally accurate) but on my reading of the history of the time. While I don't disagree that Nixon's intervention may well have been an important factor by and large the end of the Cultural Revolution was caused by the Red Guards becoming increasingly uncontrollable and anarchic. This resulted in relative moderates, such as Zhou Enlai, senior military figures and even a number of relative die-hards within the regime pressing for Mao to do something to curb them. Hence the mass "re-education" program to send them to the villages.

Oooh, "vast experience", bitchy. I wasn't claiming to have a monopoly on experience, just that mine has been quite different to yours. As for the Cultural Revolution my knowledge of it is not based on experience (I've found that the common perception of the event in China is less than ideally accurate) but on my reading of the history of the time. While I don't disagree that Nixon's intervention may well have been an important factor by and large the end of the Cultural Revolution was caused by the Red Guards becoming increasingly uncontrollable and anarchic. This resulted in relative moderates, such as Zhou Enlai, senior military figures and even a number of relative die-hards within the regime pressing for Mao to do something to curb them. Hence the mass "re-education" program to send them to the villages.

The "I've lived here for a year" phrase wasn't pedantic? Okay, something like the CR would be difficult to hold together and I wouldn't expect Nixon to get any credit from the Chinese. So, sure a history of events would look like the CR just collapsed from it's own weight. I read a lot about the CR because I couldn't believe the stories I heard from Chinese customers and associates. Most of the stories ended up with some credit to Nixon, personally-not as a generic term for the U.S., for forcing Mao to end the CR in return for favorable treatment. I don't recall seeing that sort of mention in any written histories.

But look at who writes the papers. University scholars. Those are the worst sort of liberal-bedwetting-socialist types that can be found in the world. That's why I'm not at a university, now, I couldn't stand the constant crap that they seem happy to believe. Different subject, probably deserves a different thread.

Now, when it comes to property ownership, most of my knowledge has been gained while drinking a beer or two with a customer. I come from an agricultural area and I like to think in terms of land ownership. Not cars and bikes, those aren't real property. When I ask the question, "Can I buy 100 acres and plant it with soybeans and wheat?", the answer is invariably no. Is that inconsistent with your experience in China? This is a recent article that I found that discusses the topic.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-10/23/content_385045.htm

Regards,

Apologies about the delay in replying.

The "I've lived here for a year" phrase wasn't pedantic?

Not really, more a time saver. If I'd just spouted off without backing myself up then you'd be perfectly reasonable to call me out on it. In which case I'd state that I've been living in China, the probable response would be "how long?" so....

Oh, and the "oooh, bitchy" comment wasn't meant as a flame, I wasn't offended, it was light-hearted. I should have put a smilie in there so have a belated one ;)

Okay, something like the CR would be difficult to hold together and I wouldn't expect Nixon to get any credit from the Chinese. So, sure a history of events would look like the CR just collapsed from it's own weight. I read a lot about the CR because I couldn't believe the stories I heard from Chinese customers and associates. Most of the stories ended up with some credit to Nixon, personally-not as a generic term for the U.S., for forcing Mao to end the CR in return for favorable treatment. I don't recall seeing that sort of mention in any written histories.

But look at who writes the papers. University scholars. Those are the worst sort of liberal-bedwetting-socialist types that can be found in the world. That's why I'm not at a university, now, I couldn't stand the constant crap that they seem happy to believe. Different subject, probably deserves a different thread.

Actually most history professors in my experience tend to be lean to the right, I guess the subject kind of lends itself to conservatism. Anyway, though Nixon undoubtedly had a role I'm not keen on giving any one person primary responsibility for stopping something as like the CR, which had multiple causes and involved a lot of complex politiking. This is why it moderately annoys me when so many Chinese I know give Zhou Enlai all the credit, though of course I don't say anything.

Which leads me to my final point, in my experience the Chinese tend to be pretty prickly about waiguaren (foreigners) meddling in, or even commenting on, their affairs. If there hadn't at least some people inside the CCP moving towards stopping things themselves, then, it would have been highly unlikely that Nixon would have got any more of a response than being told to mind his own damn business (the usual Chinese response to such things). So he may have pushed things along but I doubt he was the only one with an interest in doing so.

Now, when it comes to property ownership, most of my knowledge has been gained while drinking a beer or two with a customer. I come from an agricultural area and I like to think in terms of land ownership. Not cars and bikes, those aren't real property. When I ask the question, "Can I buy 100 acres and plant it with soybeans and wheat?", the answer is invariably no. Is that inconsistent with your experience in China? This is a recent article that I found that discusses the topic.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-10/23/content_385045.htm

Regards,

Can't say I know too much about land ownership in the countryside, I'll have to ask around about it. Though it goes without saying that you couldn't buy anything, as far as I know ownership laws for foreigners are non-existent. Couldn't have dastardly waiguaren subverting the (non-existent) socialist ideal

Here in the cities though I know plenty of people who have bought houses without any problems, aside from the occasional need to grease palms. Everything I've been told suggests this has been the norm for a while now, though of course it wasn't always so.

As the article you mention points out there was a constitutional amendment recently (I actually remember hearing about that, though it'd slipped my mind). All the ammendment was doing, however, was formalising a policy that had already been long in place. Though it seems that China genuinely is moving more towards a law-based society (a government department even lost a case recently) it's still true that CCP dictats often have more effect on the ground. Ever since Deng Xiaoping's reforms private ownership has been allowed. OK, granted, it may not have existed in law per se but like I said often the law in China doesn't reflect the reality. Besides, as a UK citizen I live with the knowledge that the Queen could legally do all manner of things to my property. Doesn't mean it's ever going to happen.

I seriously doubt the Lib Dems are quite ready for leadership yet. I think that, come the General Election, the Lib Dems will stand to gain whereas the Conservatives stand to lose out, but I don't think that they're quite there yet.

Sorry for the late reply.

I don't think the conservatives will lose out - I think they will gain.
Liberals will probably gain alot though.. A hung parliament is not unrealistic..

By achieving a clear majority of the popular vote, the rest of the world wakes up to the understanding that the majority of America chooses to define itself as being in agreement with this Administration. We wake up to the understanding that what we hoped (and thought) was the best of America has been overtaken by what we consider to be some of its less endearing qualities.

Just a clarification here Zepp, 2-3% is by no means a "clear majority" That falls well within the error margin for a vote of this size.

But, if it will make you feel better:

http://www.sorryeverybody.com/gallery/1/

[QUOTE=Ita]Your right econmically were not that genrous. But their are other factors such as lives. How many luxembuurg soldiers died preventing genocide in Somalia? I read a lot about both pakistani and American deaths but oddly enough no luxembourg. How many Luxembourg soldiers where their fighting in kosovo? It's easy to give money, but it much harder to do something.[/QUOTE
I would imagine Luxembourg does not have a very big military given its size, if it even has a professional (ie non-conscript based) force at all.
Many of the countries in the top 20 have a long history of participation in UN peacekeeping forces worldwide.

Sighs

You just never learn do you? Turkey is in both Europe and Asia, much like Russia is on both continents.

Now on to the second part of your statement. Thanks for showing that you support the French Position who tried to bully other members of the soon to be joining EU nations into NOT supporting our operation in Iraq. They did anyway and France did nothing. Now why do you say that because America wants them in that you say, for that reason only, they shouldn't be in? Care to explain your reason?

Don't throw stones if you have glass mmm.. how does the saying goes? Roofs?

http://misnomer.dru.ca/2003/02/11/a_coalition_of_the_willing.html
http://www.ips-dc.org/COERCED.pdf

Just a clarification here Zepp, 2-3% is by no means a "clear majority" That falls well within the error margin for a vote of this size.

But, if it will make you feel better:

http://www.sorryeverybody.com/gallery/1/
WOW!! Quite the web site there!! :cool:

Just a clarification here Zepp, 2-3% is by no means a "clear majority" That falls well within the error margin for a vote of this size.



Margins of error only apply to statistical samples. The sample is used to estimate a result. The popular vote wasn't a sample, it was the whole thing. So, 3.5 million people was the real difference.

And who the hell are you apologizing to?

Apologies about the delay in replying.
Can't say I know too much about land ownership in the countryside, I'll have to ask around about it. Though it goes without saying that you couldn't buy anything, as far as I know ownership laws for foreigners are non-existent. Couldn't have dastardly waiguaren subverting the (non-existent) socialist ideal

Here in the cities though I know plenty of people who have bought houses without any problems, aside from the occasional need to grease palms. Everything I've been told suggests this has been the norm for a while now, though of course it wasn't always so.

As the article you mention points out there was a constitutional amendment recently (I actually remember hearing about that, though it'd slipped my mind). All the ammendment was doing, however, was formalising a policy that had already been long in place. Though it seems that China genuinely is moving more towards a law-based society (a government department even lost a case recently) it's still true that CCP dictats often have more effect on the ground. Ever since Deng Xiaoping's reforms private ownership has been allowed. OK, granted, it may not have existed in law per se but like I said often the law in China doesn't reflect the reality. Besides, as a UK citizen I live with the knowledge that the Queen could legally do all manner of things to my property. Doesn't mean it's ever going to happen.

I guess it remains to be seen whether on not the Chinese are just paying lip service to the idea of property ownership, or not. To be able to own, use, and sell real property is a necessity for a developed civilization. From what you say, and from what the papers indicate, it is something that may well come to pass. Good for them!