Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

efarrer wrote:Your government is like a crack whore trying to pay it's dealer (Halliburton) with a credit card. Find some crack whores and ask them how well that worked for them in the long run.

efarrer... I don't know you, and I don't know where you're from... but I have a line.
You crossed it.

While I don't begrudge anyone in ANY country their right to criticize our government, I would appreciate it if, in the future, you would do it with just a little more class than that. As, apparently, a citizen of another country (jugding from the phrase "Your government"), what I -as an American- will ignore has its' limits.

If you're a citizen of the US... then you've got more leeway to criticize it in such a way... but I'd still have said something about it.

No anger here & no insult intended. I just needed to address that.

---back on subject---

Re: B.Clinton & Nafta... It's the one real thing I could throttle him over.
I don't think it's fair to say he's the guy that let Bin Ladin get away. Granted, he wasn't on our "Warm & Fuzzy" list at the time... and I think that, in Bill's place, I might have made the decision to do it... it's easy to criticize him in retrospect. Hindsight being 20/20, we can all say how much better we'd have done things.
Even if he HAD ordered Bin Ladin killed, there were plenty of other nutjobs in line who would have taken his place.
It wouldn't have gotten us anywhere substantially. Shoot! He wasn't even the planner of 9/11... So, there you go.

Mannahnin wrote:While we had pretty much unilateral support in Afghanistan, going after the culprits, he then proceeded to squander international support by engaging in a completely unnecessary war of choice with an uninvolved country.

Wow!
Talk about kicking a guy square in the Jiggly What-Nots!
I don't know whether to agree or disagree with you.

That being because I'm squarely in the middle of the road on this issue and just have not yet decided which direction I'm going to turn.

On one hand, I agree re: unilateral support in Afghanistan & that it was a war of choice with an uninvolved country. Like most people, I was completely taken in with his "evidence" of Iraq's wrongdoing. Hindsight -as I mentioned earlier- being what it is, I believe now that he KNEW the "evidence" was "questionable" and went after Hussein for personal reasons.

That being said, if he'd have said "My only reasons are because Saddam Hussein is a horrible person and a tyrannic dictator who needs to be stopped," I'd still be supporting Bush now. I don't support him anymore because I feel that I was lied to.

Now, the part of me that disagrees does so because I don't think it was an unnecesary war. I think Hussein needed to be stopped before he got too out of hand. I think the Elder Bush dropped the ball by letting him stay in power and not sending him into exile. I'm glad we went in & did what we did (though I hate the lying part), and I'm glad we stayed instead of just leaving, once he was gone, as it shows out willingness to help clean up after we've accomplished our goal. I DO think we need to get out, but I think to set a date is recipe for disaster.

I think Bush did the right thing for the wrong reasons. I don't know yet how the history books are going to apint that decision. Obviously, he's going to be "hit" for a lot of errors, mistakes & blunders he made, I'm just not sure if history will paint iraq as one of them. I guess it depends on how the next presidency or 2 handles the after effects.


Eric

I don't mean to start any sort of fight, but why do you feel an american has more right to vigorously criticise your government than a non-american? What if he were a non american living in america or something, would that be different? I agree the analogy lacks taste, but it is just an analogy.
Do you feel that people who have been screwed over by your government in other countries have less right to criticise also?
I am interested primarily in what you think on this subject. I'm not particularly judgemental about this sort of thing but I find your stance interesting. I know many Irish people with similar veiws but limited to the British Government.

I don't think he's saying that people can't criticize, just that we should try to actually criticize and not insult, or go for the cheap laugh. Which is hard for me since its the only laughs I ever go for. It is like talking about one's children I suppose. You can talk about what you don't like about your own kids all you want, but if someone else insults your children (even if they say the same thing perhaps) you will get angry. I don't have a problem with what efarrer said other being glib and poorly thought out. I suppose if your only experience with the US is Farenheit 9/11 it is to be expected.

I'm just going to copy and paste what I wrote about the New Hampshire Primaries elsewhere here:

Well the hag beat out Obama by 2%. That is not much of a win, even though they seem very excited at her camp, after losing to Obama in Iowa. If I have to pick a Democratic candidate it would be Obama. Hillary and Edwards can go kick rocks.

McCain won and beat Romney by 5%. Ron Paul had a better showing here (9%) but I think he's should acknowledge that it is over. The big joke, to me anyway, is that Fred Thompson (1% of votes) got beat by write-ins (2% of votes). I still don't know who I would want to be the Republican candidate yet. Possibly because they all look the same (old, white) or because it's still to early. I don't care for Romney to much, but that is just a gut impression. I like Gulliani kinda, but mostly because he's not afraid of the mob or to wear a dress.

I think it would be hard to find a person with an internet connection who has only had one exposure to america.

Patriotism is wierd to me as I'm not from a particularly patriotic background. I'm pro-Europe, but highly critical of it at the same time. Emotion rarely comes into it where my national identity is concerned, except with the gradual death of the Irish language perhaps. So I'm interested in the other side of things.

After a wee bit more research, I'm thinking I'd like to see a race between Obama and McCain. At least that way, whoever wins, I won't be too depressed.

(On a side note, I love political discussions and I'm always arguing with friends and on another forum about politics. I like arguing here too though because it is primarily american, and I get to see the various posters in two contexts. So for example, I disagree with many of the stances taken by jfrazell politically, but he's obviously an intelligent and well informed bloke. I might not have seen that on a site more focused on debate, but here it's obvious, which makes me evaluate everything he says differently. Hurrah! )

MagickalMemories wrote:

efarrer wrote:Your government is like a crack whore trying to pay it's dealer (Halliburton) with a credit card. Find some crack whores and ask them how well that worked for them in the long run.

efarrer... I don't know you, and I don't know where you're from... but I have a line.
You crossed it.

While I don't begrudge anyone in ANY country their right to criticize our government, I would appreciate it if, in the future, you would do it with just a little more class than that. As, apparently, a citizen of another country (jugding from the phrase "Your government"), what I -as an American- will ignore has its' limits.

If you're a citizen of the US... then you've got more leeway to criticize it in such a way... but I'd still have said something about it.

No anger here & no insult intended. I just needed to address that.
.

Meh. Why be insulted? I come from a nation which has been routinely described as pinko liberals who are "soft on terror" socialists who aren't willing to protect freedom (even as we die at a faster rate then any of our allies). If you don't like my comparison, ignore it, and ignore me if you want. Otherwise if you don't like something I say, please dispute it. Prove to me why my analogy sucks.

I'll break down the sentence which offended you to explain what I meant very carefully.
Crack whore - That was meanspirited, I should have simply said addict, but which is a better term for a collection of people willing to sell thier souls and the souls and lives of tens or even hundreds of thousands of your citizens into a meat grinder for what? Revenge, one upsmenship on daddy, a desire to show that they were the biggest on the block. War, I hate, but will accept it as a neccassary option (Afganistan), but torture on a wide scale, murders, and a criminal lack of planning, and to then send the victims (your injured soldiers) to disgraces such as Walter Reed where outsourced contracting has left soldiers in buildings I would not enter by choice and take photo ops with those victims in the nicer wards and shuffle them back. If you can find a better word to describe the deseased behavior of your government I would like to see it. For the record, I consider the current Canadian government to be as bad for supporting the effort to move towards a war in Iran.

Drug dealer- Haliburton gets my wrath in the original example but others (such as Blackwater) exist. Any corperation which has gotten as much as Haliburton has for so little is deplorable, but Halliburton takes the cake, both for it's efforts at home and abroad (although since it's registered in Dubai I guess I should say in America and Iraq). Your government is paying a disturbing amount of money to people who aren't doing thier jobs, and not questioning it. Blackwater and the outsourced intelligence "contractors" are the next on the list. These so called contractors make more then any American soldier so that the government can lie about the total number of troops on the ground in Iraq.

Credit card- This was the important point in the analogy really. The war isn't being paid for in the present. It's being paid for by people in the future, possibly. either that or like a drug addict who tries to use a credit card to pay for drugs it will cause the addict to go bankrupt. That scares me and that was my point.

Don't just say I'm classless for making the comparison, prove me wrong.

I am a Canadian and have heard so many vile things said about my country by members of your government and media that I really do wonder what you (the American people ) think of us, but I can't say I care one way or another.

I could have been nicer, I suppose, but I wanted to make sure I got my point across. America is in trouble. As a neighbour, I'm scared for you guys. And I'm not just scared because I don't want to see you collapse, I'm scared because I think you might harm us when things go downhill. Was my description over the top? Yes, but have you really looked at you situation? The economic realities of America are frightening me.

You, I notice, did not address anything else I said. Do you agree about how bad America's shape really is, or do you even care? I should note that I am very concerned by the fact I hear none of your candidates seriously discussing that debt, and what it will mean.

And to be perfectly clear, your government does not equal your nation. I may have many problems with the American government, but I have never had a bad encounter with an American person. Please remember to seperate the two in your mind when reading what I write.

That is the difference between America(USA) and Europe. In America you say the pledge of Allegiance every day and dying for your country is a good thing.
In Europe nobody even knows the word patriotism (at least not in Switzerland). They just think their country is better(logically, doesn't evrybody?). I've lived here for 5 years and only recently found out they have a national Anthem.

And of course, being Canadian, erfarrer is also american. Or at least, hailing from the continent known as North American, so he's american in the same way a Kenyan is African.
[/pointless niggling for the sake of it]

Da Boss wrote:

(On a side note, I love political discussions and I'm always arguing with friends and on another forum about politics. I like arguing here too though because it is primarily american, and I get to see the various posters in two contexts. So for example, I disagree with many of the stances taken by jfrazell politically, but he's obviously an intelligent and well informed bloke. I might not have seen that on a site more focused on debate, but here it's obvious, which makes me evaluate everything he says differently. Hurrah! )

flattery will get you everywhere.

and yes, Obama and McCain would be sweet. I'm surprised no one has brought up the specter of ballot stuffing by the Clinton camp . To have so many pols so wrong on the eve of the election...

Da Boss wrote:I don't mean to start any sort of fight, but why do you feel an american has more right to vigorously criticise your government than a non-american? What if he were a non american living in america or something, would that be different? I agree the analogy lacks taste, but it is just an analogy.
Do you feel that people who have been screwed over by your government in other countries have less right to criticise also?
I am interested primarily in what you think on this subject. I'm not particularly judgemental about this sort of thing but I find your stance interesting. I know many Irish people with similar veiws but limited to the British Government.

Don't worry. I'm pretty even keeled.
You almost have to be looking for a fight to find one with me (which you'd, then, succeeed at. LOL).

I think Ahtman said it well. It's not about criticizing. It's about insulting.
It's also about the topic.
He was speaking generally and not specifically.

If you want to criticize.. heck, even insult to a degree... the way ou government handled/is handling the war in Iraq, I'll let you without thinking twice about it. If you want to talk about our foreign policy, or our immigration "reform" issues, or our fethed up voter polls in Florida... Go for it. I'm all ears.

It's sitting back and issuing general "you suck' statements that I stand up for.

I do feel, however, than an American has the most right to make those statements. We're "here," and the government is "ours."
A non-American living here would put a sour taste in my mouth (provided he wasn't on the path to citizenship), but I'd stay as quiet as if it was an American. A non-American on the path to citizenship is as good as American in my eyes, so I'd afford him the same courtesy as another American.

Do you feel that people who have been screwed over by your government in other countries have less right to criticise also?

I do, provided it's "appropriate." Yes, I do understand that I'm using MY definition of appropriate... but it's my opinion, so it is only subject to facts where they influence my opinion. By appropriate, I'm referring to the specifics I mentioned above... that it make sense. KWIM? Criticize the heck out of the government. That's fine. Don't insult us.

I'd like to reiterate that I didn't take efarrer's opinions personally and I felt/feel no anger. I just felt the need to step up.
I don't want it to become a flame war. I hope it doesn't.

Eric

snorkle wrote:That is the difference between America(USA) and Europe. In America you say the pledge of Allegiance every day and dying for your country is a good thing.
In Europe nobody even knows the word patriotism (at least not in Switzerland). They just think their country is better(logically, doesn't evrybody?). I've lived here for 5 years and only recently found out they have a national Anthem.

I certainly don't think my country is the best. It's a nice place to live (hurrah for free education), yup, and Europe in general is pretty great in terms of comfort. But the US has many advantages too.
But there is a lot of patriotism in Europe. It's a good thing, even from my perspective: it keeps the federalists or the nationalists from gaining the upper hand, and means that instead of standing united and being hated, we are veiwed benignly as a collective which pulls in many different directions.

It's interesting that so much in the US comes down to the personality of one person. I really can't wait to visit. (I plan on making Adepticon one of these years!)

Edited to add: Magickal Memories, cool, thanks for the reply. I didn't initially catch the distinction between insulting and criticising.

George Bush should have zero impact on Adepticon.

at least so I hope.

Yeah Da Boss, I was exaggerating slightly. But I do believe that most people view their homecountry as the best or at least it's the one they like the most.
I also feel you shouldn't insult other people's countries. It's childish and gets you nowhere. Though yes countries who have been screwed over by the US or any other country have a right to criticize more openly.
Have loads of fun at Adepticon. I wish I could go to.

malfred wrote:George Bush should have zero impact on Adepticon.

at least so I hope.

I heard where he was running SAFH Space Marines.
What will have the biggest impact is my personal finances and the state of my thesis.

I fully expect a State of the Thesis speech every few
months.

I heard he's in the team tournament with air force fighter
pilots helping him with the rules

MagickalMemories wrote:

Don't worry. I'm pretty even keeled.
You almost have to be looking for a fight to find one with me (which you'd, then, succeeed at. LOL).

I think Ahtman said it well. It's not about criticizing. It's about insulting.
It's also about the topic.
He was speaking generally and not specifically.

If you want to criticize.. heck, even insult to a degree... the way ou government handled/is handling the war in Iraq, I'll let you without thinking twice about it. If you want to talk about our foreign policy, or our immigration "reform" issues, or our fethed up voter polls in Florida... Go for it. I'm all ears.

It's sitting back and issuing general "you suck' statements that I stand up for.

As pointed out above I am an American in general, just not a United States of America American.

But I really wasn't trying to make a you suck statement, I was in my post trying to discuss the very real problem that I don't think anyone in the current adminstration or the next as far as I can tell from the front runners. To restate my point fromt the original point.

"I think ultimately in 20 years time the great failing of the Bush Administration may be viewed as the tax cuts during a time of war. Dumberest."

I will admit the original post contained two innaccurate numbers only one of which I caught at the time (the cost is in the hundreds of billions (not a trillion dollars a year). That debt is going to be crushing when the time comes to pay the piper and the government must surely realize it by now. Why is the government not addressing it? Why aren't the intelligent people who can ask asking "What is going to be done about the debt?"

I do, provided it's "appropriate." Yes, I do understand that I'm using MY definition of appropriate... but it's my opinion, so it is only subject to facts where they influence my opinion. By appropriate, I'm referring to the specifics I mentioned above... that it make sense. KWIM? Criticize the heck out of the government. That's fine. Don't insult us.

I'd like to reiterate that I didn't take efarrer's opinions personally and I felt/feel no anger. I just felt the need to step up.
I don't want it to become a flame war. I hope it doesn't.

Eric

I wasn't accussing americans in general of being crack whores and I regret using the analogy, if only because it has distracted from my original point.

I wonder if Pakistanis refer to themselves as 'Indian' when they're being pedantic since they're from that sub-continent?

When someone says 'American' you can usually assume it has the generally ascribed meaning that it's held for the last 200 years. If someone means it generally, they need to be specific. The same if some says the French but means Frankish peoples generally.

It only gets troublesome when you're trying to figure out if Turkey, Russia and Britain are 'European' since the usage tends to vary so much.

I agree with Snorkle that most people (in the Western world) tend to think of where they live as being 'the best'. If they didn't, they'd live somewhere else. It's not universal, but I think it's generally pretty accurate.



As a note on the tax cuts angle, the President isn't an autocrat. If Congress had passed tax raises and had sufficient support (to override the veto) then Bush couldn't do much about it. It's just so much easier to blame one person than hundreds of faceless Congressmen no one outside of their home district has every heard of.

Ah I know, I was just poking semantic fun.

The US political structure has been on my list of things to learn for ages. Must get round to it.

Asmodai wrote:I wonder if Pakistanis refer to themselves as 'Indian' when they're being pedantic since they're from that sub-continent?

When someone says 'American' you can usually assume it has the generally ascribed meaning that it's held for the last 200 years. If someone means it generally, they need to be specific. The same if some says the French but means Frankish peoples generally.

Since I was just having fun (hence the wink) I think it's allowable.

Fair enough. Sorry for missing the wink. I've dealt with that concept enough times with very dense people thinking that they're smarter than everyone else, that I'm a bit thin-skinned with respect to it.

Carry on.

Asmodai wrote:
As a note on the tax cuts angle, the President isn't an autocrat. If Congress had passed tax raises and had sufficient support (to override the veto) then Bush couldn't do much about it. It's just so much easier to blame one person than hundreds of faceless Congressmen no one outside of their home district has every heard of.

I agree. I think it's really hard for a person to resist the urge to spend and ask for more money. But it's needed and I don't think anyone has the courage to say that. THe congress and the senate are as complicite in the looming problem as the president. But the piper is going to need to be paid, and I don't want to be around when he's told there is no money.

snorkle wrote:That is the difference between America(USA) and Europe. In America you say the pledge of Allegiance every day and dying for your country is a good thing.

Well, in America, some of us WANT TO say the Pledge of Alliegence every day but aren't allowed to because of some stupid laws passed with the support of the vocal minority. D@maned silent majority!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
efarrer:

The perceived "tone" of your post makes e think i might have insulted you, or come close.
It wasn't my intent - and I hope I didn't - so, I'm going to comment piece by piece to be certain i covered everything.

Meh. Why be insulted? I come from a nation which has been routinely described as pinko liberals who are "soft on terror" socialists who aren't willing to protect freedom (even as we die at a faster rate then any of our allies). If you don't like my comparison, ignore it, and ignore me if you want. Otherwise if you don't like something I say, please dispute it. Prove to me why my analogy sucks.

I don't want to ignore you. I didn't have a problem with everything you said. Just that one point. As has been said, it wasn't that you were criticizing something specific, you were insulting the government in general. I understood what you meant in your analogy, and I thought the credit card bit was a valid - even witty - choice. It was the "Crack Whore" piece that disturbed me.

I'll break down the sentence which offended you to explain what I meant very carefully.
Crack whore - That was meanspirited, I should have simply said addict, but which is a better term for a collection of people willing to sell thier souls and the souls and lives of tens or even hundreds of thousands of your citizens into a meat grinder for what? Revenge, one upsmenship on daddy, a desire to show that they were the biggest on the block.

LOL This makes your opinion on the war pretty clear. Truth be told, however, it isn't the fault of our government.
Well, it is... in a way... But it lies (no pun intended) on the deeds of our president and his cronies who presented falsified "evidence" and "facts" that drew us over there in the first place. Without his "evidence," he'd have never been able to get the support of Congress like he did.
Fact is, I think he wanted to finish what his father didn't. Not necessarily for one-upsmanship. IMO, it's probably more as a Christmas present
"Look, daddy. I got Saddam out of power for you."

War, I hate, but will accept it as a neccassary option (Afganistan), but torture on a wide scale, murders, and a criminal lack of planning, and to then send the victims (your injured soldiers) to disgraces such as Walter Reed where outsourced contracting has left soldiers in buildings I would not enter by choice and take photo ops with those victims in the nicer wards and shuffle them back.

Re: Torture... That is a matter of opinion. Whether I agree or disagree with you on whether or not there's torture going on, there is unfortunately little definitive evidence to prove either side. Both sides of the arguement have enough "evidence" to cast doubt on the other. I'm trying to stay neutral at the moment.

Re: Walter Reed & the treatment of Vet's (all vet's. Not just wounded ones). The US can do better. Period. No arguing with you. No disagreeing. the government just does not watch out for its' Vet's enough.

For that matter, neither does its' citizenry.

I'm certain we've all heard about the outporing of support for the 5 year old Iraqi child, Youseff, who had his face horribly burned by some terrorists in Iraq. Right? ... And how Americans pulled together to bring him here & fix his face the best we can... and footed the bill...

Did you hear about the horribly disfigured US soldiers who had THEIR faces burned in Iraq? The victims of the IED attacks who, when their story made it to CNN, we (Americans) all pitched in to get THEM fixed for free? Did you hear about those? No?
That's because it didn't happen.
I'm glad we pitched in to help little Youseff... but ashamed that nobody has done it for our own boys who got that way trying to make Youseff & his family free.

If you can find a better word to describe the deseased behavior of your government I would like to see it. For the record, I consider the current Canadian government to be as bad for supporting the effort to move towards a war in Iran.

Diseased is a bit harsh.
Misguided.
Thoughtless.
Asinine.
Shameful.
Those might be more appropriate for certain members of our government.

As for an effort to move towards a war with Iran... Who's doing that? Not the US? We couldn't afford it. there certainly is a lot of rhetoric going around... but you have to expect that when the little kid on the playground keeps provoking the big kid to prove how tough he is.
Truth is, it's Iran (or, Ahmedinijad - I'm sure I messed up THAT spelling- anyway) that is the one who wants the war. Think about it. Now, the "big bad US," who can't stop meddling in the affairs of other countries, wants to start a war with poor little them, too... and they weren't doing ANYTHING to the US first...

Drug dealer- Haliburton gets my wrath in the original example but others (such as Blackwater) exist. Any corperation which has gotten as much as Haliburton has for so little is deplorable, but Halliburton takes the cake, both for it's efforts at home and abroad (although since it's registered in Dubai I guess I should say in America and Iraq).

Haliburton is another point I won't argue.
Keep in mind that -though I don't claim to like it- our government is bloated enough as is. In order to get the kind of oversight we need, it would be an even further burden on the American taxpayer to get more people hired to supervise the myriad areas that need it. god knows that the lazy *donkeys* in Washington aren't going to do it. they already have "too much to do" already.

Your government is paying a disturbing amount of money to people who aren't doing thier jobs, and not questioning it. Blackwater and the outsourced intelligence "contractors" are the next on the list. These so called contractors make more then any American soldier so that the government can lie about the total number of troops on the ground in Iraq.

Now, I do disagree there.
Americans question everything. once we start asking questions, our government does. It's unfortunate that it works that way. Granted... but it does. As for lying about the # of troops on the ground... you're just wrong.
Any American who wants to know can find out how many (roughly) soldiers are in Iraq (etc.) right now with a little internet research. Same thing goes for employees of private security firms.

Credit card- This was the important point in the analogy really. The war isn't being paid for in the present. It's being paid for by people in the future, possibly. either that or like a drug addict who tries to use a credit card to pay for drugs it will cause the addict to go bankrupt. That scares me and that was my point.

No arquements on the whole "Credit card' thing!

Don't just say I'm classless for making the comparison, prove me wrong.

Umm... I didn't.

I am a Canadian and have heard so many vile things said about my country by members of your government and media that I really do wonder what you (the American people ) think of us, but I can't say I care one way or another.

That's about the same as it is down here. We know there's enough BS out there about our government that people trickle it down to us. We just don't care anymore (mostly).
Truth is, the majority of us feel quite fondly towards Canadians.
It's nice to know that, in this world, we have a global next door neighbor who we know isn't going to try anything nasty with us.

I could have been nicer, I suppose, but I wanted to make sure I got my point across. America is in trouble. As a neighbour, I'm scared for you guys.

Many of us are scared for us guys, too.

And I'm not just scared because I don't want to see you collapse, I'm scared because I think you might harm us when things go downhill. Was my description over the top? Yes, but have you really looked at you situation? The economic realities of America are frightening me.

It's comments like that... those are the ones that start arguements.
You think we'd harm you if things went downhill? That's absurd and proves you don't know nearly as much about us as you'd like to think.

You, I notice, did not address anything else I said. Do you agree about how bad America's shape really is, or do you even care? I should note that I am very concerned by the fact I hear none of your candidates seriously discussing that debt, and what it will mean.

I addressed what I had a problem with.
I care about America. I kind of resent the way you asked it, too... "or do [I] even care?" That's ridiculous. I love my country and I care about every wax and wane of its' strength.
Every problem we face in America weighs on the heart of every "true blooded" American. I am one of those.

Yes, I agree that America is having a serious down turn. I think that people who don't know better, however, tend to paint us with a bit too wide of a brush. Just because a man is holding on for dear life... just because he's holding onto a wet rope in a thunderstorn... it doesn't mean that he isn't going to get both hands onto that rope and, through sheer willpower and determination, pull himself back up to safety. It just means he's in danger and needs to draw on his reserves of strength and willpower to do it. We're holding on with one hand in a thunderstorm here... but we haven't dipped far into our reserves of determination, yet.

I'm not concerned about the lack of discussion on debt. It's a no-win topic. Politicians avoid those as much as possible.

And to be perfectly clear, your government does not equal your nation. I may have many problems with the American government, but I have never had a bad encounter with an American person. Please remember to seperate the two in your mind when reading what I write.

I understand all that.
A comparison was made to insulting our children earlier. let me make a differen analogy.

The governemt is the parent, where the people are the children.
It is the job of the parent to do the very best it can for it's kids.
Sometimes, the parent screws up.
Sometimes, you don't like what it's doing.

Sometimes, you think your mom is just a big B!TCH, and you make sure all your friends know it.

You with me, so far?
Now, imagine yourself in that situation and one of your friends says, "I swear. Your mom is such a b!tch!"

How long would it take YOU to tell him to shut up?

Nobody talks about my parents but ME and my siblings. I'd imagine most people agree.


Eric

Da Boss wrote:The US political structure has been on my list of things to learn for ages.

Me, too.

Eric

.

jfrazell wrote:Impressive. Bush is evil. Of course Bush isn't running so its irrelevant.

It’s not just Bush. It’s his entire administration, to some extent the rest of the party that supports him, and beyond that even to the Democrats and others in the government who’ve been unwilling to mount strong challenges to them. And certainly some guilt flows down to the people who voted to keep them in office.

But most immediately relevant is the fact that his party (and the candidates now representing it) are for the most part completely uncritical of what’s been going on.

I was directly responding to Clint’s comment:

.

Waagh Gonads wrote:Also Obama's slogan 'CHANGE We Can Believe In'. What is he changing?
Almost all he wants is pretty similar to the status quo but with a lefter leaning as would be expected from a democratic standpoint. .

What we have now should not be status quo. It represents a significant degradation of our government and our nation. We need to fix it. Insofar as the Republican Party is invested in supporting the corrupt and immoral policies and practices I summarized above, or likely to actually CONTINUE them, all their candidates are complicit. Even McCain, though in last night’s speech I was pleased to hear indications that he recognizes that the way things have been run since 2000 has been Wrong. When watching the Republican debates last year, it became obvious that most of them were not only unwilling to repudiate the Bush administration’s policies, they were practically guaranteeing that they’d continue them. The enthusiasm they expressed at the prospect of torturing a terror suspect was repugnant, and McCain was the big drag with his old-fashioned insistence that torture is wrong, immoral, unacceptable, and unreliable. Amazing that they had the gall to put on that display in front of someone who’s actually been tortured. That particular incident by itself was enough to demonstrate that most of the Republican candidates are completely unsuitable.

Da Boss wrote: The US system seems so wierd to me, since almost all Irish governments have to be coalitions of conflicting factions.

Our system used to be more like this, once upon a time. Originally the VP was the candidate who came in second in the Presidential race.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President_of_the_United_States

There’s a book I’ve heard great things about called Team of Rivals, about the Lincoln presidency, and how he assembled his cabinet from political opponents who he thought were still the best people for the jobs.

http://www.amazon.com/Team-Rivals-Political-Abraham-Lincoln/dp/0743270754

efarrer, I liked your crack whore analogy. It got a really good laugh from me. The kind of laugh where you’re slightly shocked, but as much by the accuracy of the insight as by the crudity of its expression. It kind of hit the comedic sweet spot for me. Good stuff.

Calling an entire political party evil - pretty much one third of the electorate - pretty much just ends the discussion. Its not a rational statement.

Oh well.

@MagickalMemories:
I wasn't saying that I don't want to recite the pledge of allegiance. I am extremely patriotic to the point of being srupid sometimes(I argue dumb points with my foreign friends,...). I just meant that nowhere in Europe do they practice such patriotism. It's a shame.

jfrazell wrote:Calling an entire political party evil - pretty much one third of the electorate - pretty much just ends the discussion. Its not a rational statement.

Oh well.

I think one of the distinguishing features of the US system is just how 'big tent' the major parties really are. People from parliamentary systems tend to lump all Republicans together. That's not very accurate. Both parties are huge and overarching. Giuliani is arguably further from Tancredo than he is from Hillary Clinton. The Republican party is a conglomeration of mostly right wing movements (Christian Democrats, small and big C conservatives, 'light' libertarians, etc.) and the Democratic likewise on the left (socialists, trades unionists, New Dealers, civil rights progressives, etc.) and there's a huge amount of overlap in the middle.

There is also a huge amount of dissent within the parties - for example Evangelicals tend to dislike Guiliani, and small government types dislike Huckabee. This is especially apparent in places like L.A. or Washington D.C. where all the political competition happens within the Democratic Party and the general election is just a formality to annoint the winner (Washington D.C. votes ~90% Democrat).

The US also doesn't have party discipline like in other countries. In Canada if a politician from the same party flouts the Prime Minister he'll be kicked out of his party and not able to run in the next election. In the US, there's really nothing Bush can use aside from strong language when a Republican upstages him and sides with the Democrats.

I think it's a mistake to try to define either party too narrowly - and that applies equally as much for value judgments like 'evil'.

snorkle wrote:@MagickalMemories:
I wasn't saying that I don't want to recite the pledge of allegiance. I am extremely patriotic to the point of being srupid sometimes(I argue dumb points with my foreign friends,...). I just meant that nowhere in Europe do they practice such patriotism. It's a shame.

No. No.
I understood your meaning.

You just caused me to lament the fact that the Pledge isn't as popular as it used to be.


WTF is wrong with pledging allegience to your dang country? Don't like the phrase "under God?" We can change it!
KWIM?

@ Asmodai... That thur wuz perty well sed fer a ferriner!

Eric

MagickalMemories wrote:
@ Asmodai... That thur wuz perty well sed fer a ferriner!

Eric

Well, I do have dual-citizenship and spent much of my formative years in Buffalo, NY.

legoburner wrote:Out of everything stupid/bad/awful that GWB has done, the one thing that stands out in my mind is how he managed to take the single biggest worldwide outburst of support and good wishes for the US, her government and her people after 9/11, in which no nation state said a bad thing about the US - even the palestinian government put out a 'we are sorry for your loss' propaganda piece, and then GWB managed to turn it around and made more citizens of earth hate the US than at any other time in history whilst polarizing the nation. A better man would have been able to completely change the world with that level of support but it was utterly destroyed by the administration. Bravo!

Preach on brother.

MagickalMemories wrote:Re: Torture... That is a matter of opinion. Whether I agree or disagree with you on whether or not there's torture going on, there is unfortunately little definitive evidence to prove either side. Both sides of the arguement have enough "evidence" to cast doubt on the other. I'm trying to stay neutral at the moment.

If the guy who wrote the book on surviving torture for the US governemnt calls it torture, I'm willing to accept his decision.

As for an effort to move towards a war with Iran... Who's doing that? Not the US? We couldn't afford it. there certainly is a lot of rhetoric going around... but you have to expect that when the little kid on the playground keeps provoking the big kid to prove how tough he is.
Truth is, it's Iran (or, Ahmedinijad - I'm sure I messed up THAT spelling- anyway) that is the one who wants the war. Think about it. Now, the "big bad US," who can't stop meddling in the affairs of other countries, wants to start a war with poor little them, too... and they weren't doing ANYTHING to the US first....

Given the lead up with Iran has been scripted so far. I respectfully disagree.

WMD threat? Check
Accusastions of terrorist attacks? Check
Villifaction by subserviant press/freindly think tanks? check
Friendly governments providing dubious proof? check
Silly stories like six motorboats attacking a flottilla? Chack (and come on, like really)

Haliburton is another point I won't argue.
Keep in mind that -though I don't claim to like it- our government is bloated enough as is. In order to get the kind of oversight we need, it would be an even further burden on the American taxpayer to get more people hired to supervise the myriad areas that need it. god knows that the lazy *donkeys* in Washington aren't going to do it. they already have "too much to do" already..

If you spend money, spend 1% on oversight. It'll save you millions in the long run.

And I'm not just scared because I don't want to see you collapse, I'm scared because I think you might harm us when things go downhill. Was my description over the top? Yes, but have you really looked at you situation? The economic realities of America are frightening me.

It's comments like that... those are the ones that start arguements.
You think we'd harm you if things went downhill? That's absurd and proves you don't know nearly as much about us as you'd like to think..

If the American economy collapses, so does ours. Your downfall= our harm. No need for active malice. You just don't know as much about our international relationship as I do, and nor should you. It really doesn't matter to you except in an abstract way. America's condition is as important to Canada as our own.

I addressed what I had a problem with.
I care about America. I kind of resent the way you asked it, too... "or do [I] even care?" That's ridiculous. I love my country and I care about every wax and wane of its' strength.

But it's a legit question. all the same, insulting to you personally, perhaps. It's not intended thus. If you answered, it doesn't matter to that then any discussion of the ecnomy is pointless as the respondent is simply looking for a fight. I'm not actually trying to rile you up. You just get offended at areas where I a Canadian don't see the point.

I'm not concerned about the lack of discussion on debt. It's a no-win topic. Politicians avoid those as much as possible.


But it became an important point in Candian politics for almost 15 years. It can happen, if people are couragous.
....

Eric