|
Post by Hook on Feb 11, 2005 10:46:56 GMT -8
|
|
JohnHJohnson
Intern
A Brit living in the US. Now I know how John Crichton felt in the Farscape Universe.
Posts: 75
|
Post by JohnHJohnson on Feb 14, 2005 9:01:34 GMT -8
Being a Brit who now resides in America, I can see things from both sides. However, I wouldn't change where I live for anything. Sure, they can be a bit odd at times and I have been mistakened for being Australian (grr!), but I love living here. That's not to say it's not to everybodies taste, it just works for me.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Feb 15, 2005 15:39:58 GMT -8
well, that's too bad...there's a dishonest man who posed as a reporter so that the U.S. government could look a little better on t.v. this MUST mean that America "blows." yup, the entire country.
good thing nothing like this has ever happened in Britain, or Germany, or Japan, or....well, it's just a good thing that the rest of the world is so much better than the U.S.
In all seriousness, give me a break. At least the guy's been caught and he's out of it and the administration has to deal with it now. Let the people who are to blame fix their mistakes and get over it. You can't say 200 million people "blow" for the mistakes of a few.
|
|
Tex
Scoring Assistant
"Why so serious?"
Posts: 183
|
Post by Tex on Feb 25, 2005 0:20:38 GMT -8
Hey! What the? Hook, where are you from, anyway? Wasn't it some sort of Banana Republic? Didn't we INSTALL your government or something? As an American, I'm highly offended. Only one person between the two of us gets to say my country blows and that's ME! Who do you think you are, steppin' on my toes like that? My grandfather fought in WWII so us proud Americans could make fun of the fricken' dumbasses we "probably" elected in "most likely" legal circumstances, and I'm not gonna have some two-bit punk telling me the bleedin' obvious. Yeah, my country sucks . . . I can figure out that out myself, thank you very much. Now if you'll excuse me . . . I'm gonna go hibernate for the next 4 years. [glow=red,2,300]PLJ[/glow] PS -- actually, most of us like getting blown, we just don't like doing the blowing.
|
|
|
Post by Carlton the Barbarian on Feb 25, 2005 5:11:58 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Feb 25, 2005 9:41:25 GMT -8
Hey! What the? Hook, where are you from, anyway? Wasn't it some sort of Banana Republic? Didn't we INSTALL your government or something? Now, that's a joke, and a funny one at that, but it's something that pisses me off. People ask me, with all due right, why I would care. In reality, I shouldn't care and be selfish and try to horde all the money to myself. But when a country so influential and powerful turns into George Orwell's worst nightmares, I worry. I don't see the decline of a country, I see the decline of civilization. And let's say there isn't anything fishy about the administration, that the Iraq war was justified when they found Saddam's WMD undies ("Inspected by n°19? Holy cow!"), and that they're always right. Ok, fine... How can you vote for someone so dumb!? I'm not being partisan here. John McCain, war hero, was right there 4 years ago and you blew it. Both of them are comedians, but while McCain has great lines and is there with the stand-up crowd of Crystal and Seinfeld, Bush is there with the Carrot Tops and unintentionally slams melons while he's at it. And, it's a shame, because it's a country that has very admirable characteristics. My gripes perhaps come from the fact that I used to admire your country very much. But now I see a Concerned Women for America group that basically runs the damn country! And it's headed by a man! How the f*** can that happen? I worry, that's all. Nothing inspiring or philosophical about it. For the record, my country blows as well, but for different reasons.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Feb 28, 2005 9:15:50 GMT -8
Hey, I for one, would have liked McCain to win, but that's all water under the bridge now. The problem with U.S. presidential elections is that we're usually faced with a decision between the lesser of two evils. Do we elect an idiot (though, to his credit Bush has surrounded himself with people more intelligent--though perhaps less honest--than himself), or a man with no integrity? Bush might be a moron, but I think he's the most honest moron ever to be elected president, with the possible exception of Jimmy Carter, and I guess i'd rather have an idiot with principles, than an "intellectual" without any. The sad thing about Pres. Bush is that I think he's honestly trying to do the right thing most of time. He's just turned out wrong about a few things.
|
|
|
Post by Carlton the Barbarian on Feb 28, 2005 14:32:12 GMT -8
But some things are just hard to forget (ask Mc Cain) ;D
Yeah Rummy's pretty intelligent, he's a milatary genuis. And that Ashcroft guy, he sure knew how to sing, and Condy, she sures knows about those Russians. They are such an intelligent bunch. ;D
And your statement about the picking dilemma just highlights where a major problem lies- the media and the way they package candidates. Cleary Bush isn't total idiot. He's a great politician, though he's not someone I would want writing policy, or debating, or... But the man has been coached well, the slip-ups are less glaring (where's the media), even though the true side of the man can be seen in press conferences (like the one from red room?) and debates (the first presidential one)
Again the man is a great politican, but by defintion, he's definelty NOT honest. Bush has gotten his facts wong on several ocassion and that shows that he isn't honest. Yeah, I believed in 2000 when he hinted that he didn't care if he lost and he really didn't want to be president (especially considering the vicious attacks laid out against Mc Cain). Yeah, I believed him when he said that he doesn't read newspapers. Yeah I believed him when he hinted that Al Queda and Saddam were sleeping together (or did they only get Cheney to tow that line).
Yeah, I belived all the WMD apocaltyic stuff about Saddam (he's an imminent threat). Yeah, I believe that he believes in all the freedom crap he's starting to spew out now. Whatever happended to that I'm not a supporter of nation-builiding. Oh Yeah, I forgot 9-11 changed everything. Bush the number one supporter of freedom, the number one supporter of a Palenstian state, a Tibetan state, and so on, really cares about getting rid of evil in the world, unless of course that involves going into Sudan. (It's funny because Republicans/Conservatives generally don't think that it's the US job to be spreading freedom.) How many Republicans really supported Clinton's efforts in Bosnia and...
Principles...The man tried to decieve every single American. Now I don't want to get into a whole discussion about Iraq because that'll start a whole "Does the end justify the means" argument, and a national interest debate. But I really like Bush's automatic gun principles and his environment principles, and so on.
Yeah Bush really emphatizes with the poor and the middle-class. He did that tax-cut for them. Yeah a constitutional admendment that limits freedom is the right thing to do. Yeah he's such a great Uniter. I beleved his message in 2000 and what he trying to do now is the "right thing" Bush, he's such an honest and moral president. How could 55 million people not vote for him?
Huh, Wrong about what things?...
-Carlton
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Feb 28, 2005 20:04:42 GMT -8
I simply wanted to make a slight correction: Bush the man behaves like a great politician, but it's not in him. He simply surrounds himself with some of the smartest people in the biz who are, as well, the most evil and senseless human beings to have never come out of a jackal.
Anyone who disagrees with me is walking poop. And that's that.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Mar 2, 2005 9:08:43 GMT -8
Since when does getting facts wrong make someone dishonest? He was acting on what he thought was fact (and what many other people thought was fact, I might add). Making a mistake doesn't make someone dishonest, it just makes them wrong, there's a big difference.
So Bush was wrong about the WMDs. Again, that doesn't make him dishonest. EVERYONE thought Iraq had WMDs. Bush was making a dicision based on bad information, and it's come back to bite him over and over again. I feel sorry for the guy.
|
|
|
Post by Carlton the Barbarian on Mar 2, 2005 12:21:35 GMT -8
Getting facts wrong can make someone dishonest if they are decieving others by using facts that they know are not fully true... First of all the president recieves more than 10 times as much information as any regular Senator does, and secondly other people didn't use false information for a basis to invade a whole country. Yes other Presidents like Clinton proclaimed that Iraq had WMD, but they did not "decieve" the American Public into invading Iraq. Part of the reason why Clinton and others have proclaimed that Saddam has WMD is because it is in our best interst to do so, and this goes into a whole national interest discussion.... Here are the facts. I hate to quote Al Gore, but "Pres. Bush lead us on an ill-concieved journry that was planed before Sept. the 11th, ever took place." Immediately after 9/11, There was even serious debate about attacking Iraq before Afghanistan. In order to get public support for the War, Bush decieved us. He used faulty info to drum up support for his war. His administration decieved us about the justification and cost of the war. Go Back and read thier speeches. Look at what the Pres. and Vice Pres. said. Part of the reason why Bush attacked Iraq so quickly, and why he didn't wait to get more inspectors, etc was because he wanted the war to happen. To garner support for his "preemptive plan" he needed to exploit the image of Saddam. Saddam is evil, he kills his own people (so do we, we even elimate junevilles at least until the recent 5-4 Court desicion), and so on. But these characteristcs are common for a lot of national leaders. So What did Bush say? He said Saddam was an "imminent danger" to the American People, and he and his administration insinuated dishonest information to help his war effort. The statement that Saddam was an imminent danger was a flat out lie, and it shows that Bush was being dishonest.... He needed a way to get support for his war. This wasn't a mistake, it was a PLAN. Isn't ignornance a great defense? Bush was making a desicion based on National interest. I don't want to start a whole "does the end justify the mean" argument, but Bush basically lied to us so that he could get the public behind his preemptive plan. Is that so hard to recognize. -Carlton
|
|
|
Post by Jon Broxton on Mar 3, 2005 1:37:44 GMT -8
Just wanted to say thanks to everyone who is posting in this thread for making strong, valid points, having opposing views, but KEEPING IT CIVIL.
Keep it up, guys. ;D
|
|
Tex
Scoring Assistant
"Why so serious?"
Posts: 183
|
Post by Tex on Mar 4, 2005 0:08:19 GMT -8
Oh, please. I know what I'm getting YOU for your birthday -- 20 jugs of water, 12 cans of creamed corn, a can opener and a shotgun for that bunker you've no doubt built in your backyard to await the coming apacolypse. Seriously, since the first homonid learned how to turn a monkey bone into a permanant ass scratcher, civilization has been on the decline. Like geosynchronous orbit, it's just one steady fall, each slip a little more ridiculous than the last. Orwell, by the way, was scared to death of the Russians. Remember them? Where are they now? Kerplunkt. The Christians feared the Romans. Where are they now? They're Catholic. The Brits once had a quarter of the globe. What do they have now? A small scone processing plant off the coast of Argentina. The precise moment that U.S. lawmakers violated the three principles of Washington's Farewell Address, it stamped its end. I give us till the end of this century -- and then I think we'll be where Britain is now (that being a mass-market emporium for lousy food and cross dressing comedic troupes). People are born to die and empires are made to fall. It's as simple as that. If America is REALLY the scariest thing on your plate, then thank your lucky stars and bars -- at least we're a passing fad in the grando stream of things. *Btw, I'd start learning Chinese about now -- they're gonna be next on your rant-o-list, no doubt* Why is it nobody gets it that Bush went in for Neo-Wilsonian reasons? Of course the WMDs were overexaggerated. His whole intent, like Woodrow's, was never about logic or (for the last @#$%ing time, people!) oil -- it was about making the world safe for corporate oligarchy. In many ways, I find that scarier ... since it's based on a certain ethnocentric naivity that hasn't seen so much promise since Europe circa 1918. Let's see . . . ummm . . . I don't know. Maybe because Mcain wasn't NOMINATED? Had I been ABLE to vote for him, I would've. A lot of people would have. Unfortunately, there's a boatload of politics involved here that gets surprisingly complex. Basically, though, you can thank, in part, that exact same media that fed you that Bush story you posted. They're the ones who dropped Mcain like a live hand grenade the second he placed 2nd in the S.C. primary. This is what I mean about the complexities in this country -- the same media that conservatives paint as liberal will just as happily not question the president's assumptions until AFTER the fact, so as to boost their ratings. CNN: "How can this be!? Bush was WRONG!? Well, we'll have to do an investigation -- tune in at 11 for our report. And now back to the Iraqi ratings bonanza we helped create but now will have to call into question." To quote Dr. Mcoy: "The bureaucratic mentality is the only constant in the universe."Do you want the short explanation, or the long one? Either way, neither side's gonna like it. But I can tell it like it is, if you want. If you wanna be pissed off, fine. That's your right. But if you wanna say America sucks as a whole, keep in mind: Bush won by a relatively slim majority. Practically HALF the voting population (including myself) DIDN'T VOTE FOR HIM! What's more, plenty of people didn't vote in the first place -- nobody knows where they stood. So it's not exactly fair to the country as a whole to say we blow when only a fraction of us are the ones doing the blowing. Second, I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish here. To those of us like me, you're only preaching to the choir . . . and insulting us for good measure. To those who were Bush supporters in the first place, they're not gonna be convinced anyway. If you wanna keep it up, go ahead -- but I don't wanna be lopped together with some of the nuts this country has to offer. We're not ALL imbeciles, here, you know. After awhile, the overseas lecturing gets a little stale. If anything, it seems like pretty tough talk from a country whose only recent major contribution to society was being the place that Jurassic Park island was next to. Despite all the hammering, some of us are trying to do things here on our own. We can take care of our own problems ourselves if we try. [glow=red,2,300]PLJ[/glow]
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Mar 4, 2005 8:52:05 GMT -8
Ok, my mistake. I will comment on things, as always, from my limited viewing stance, and what I think of them. Although one is tempted to put labels, they're of no consequent use. Just as my "America blows" comment is ill-conceived, so is the notion that an individual speaks for the government or the power his nation has (in reference to the Jurassic Park comment).
On the other hand, the sad reality of survival is every man for himself. To broaden things so as to include communities and other social networks found in nature, each X looks out for its interests. Not that it's working. In a 100 years it's probable that China has taken over the market and found itself in a broil with the EU and Japan, but it's also probable that most of the world won't be able to sustain itself. Basic thermodynamics. Too many people, too much energy, the system collapses. It's inevitable because of human nature (I mean, there are ways of prevention, we're just not mentally prepared for those).
So what's the point in arguing? Well, maybe, just maybe, I can get someone else distracted for a while, look back in retrospection at his species' doings and say: "Damn!"
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Mar 4, 2005 9:24:12 GMT -8
Carlton, your argument that Bush knew that Iraq didn't have WMDs and convinced the United States people of their existence anyway, is incorrect. The intelligence given to him and his administration was wrong, but the CIA did, in fact, tell the Bush administration Iraq had WMDs, as the previous administration also believed. That's why we've had inpectors over there for the last few years. You're right when you say that a president knows 10 times more information than any given senator. However, when I say that more people than Bush believed that Iraq had WMDs, I'm not merely referring to U.S. congressmen. I was thinking of the leaders of other nations, who would have been just as in-the-know as Bush was. Sure, many countries opposed the U.S. invading Iraq, but none of them argued with the fact that Iraq had WMDs--that was a perceived reality accepted by the prime ministers and presidents of most of the countries allied with the United States. You mention that Clinton also said Iraq had WMDs but did not dupe the american public into invading iraq. You're right--clinton never got congress to declare war. He just decided to bomb Iraq without consulting congress because Sadam represented a threat to the U.S., and this he decided to do this right after he admitted that he'd lied about the whole Monica Lewinsky thing. The timing on that seemed just a little fishy to me. So, I don't think Clinton can be used as a model president as far as violence against Iraq is concerned. I don't think Bush needed WMDs to get support for his war on Iraq. Now, please don't think that I agree with everything Bush has done. I don't think the war in Iraq has been pretty, I'm just saying that I think Bush didn't deliberately deceive the American people. First of all, Bush's approval ratings went through the roof after sept. 11. The war in Afghanistan was quick and relatively painless. When he decided to attack Iraq, most of the nation was already behind him. He might have used an entirely different arguement to justify the war had he not believed that Iraq had WMDs. He might have said that a corrupt government led by a dictator and an ethnic minority was ruling Iraq and commiting a variety of attrocities against whoever it wanted. That was Clinton's justification for Bosnia--Slobidan Milosovic (or however you spell it was the same thing. I think the result of U.S. participation in Bosnia was a good thing. I hope Iraq turns out well. Whether or not our children's teachers tell them that Bush Jr.'s war on Iraq was a good or bad thing will probably depend on how things turn out there. One thing is certain, the public supported him, and the republican-majority congress supported him. Bush didn't need WMDs to invade Iraq (Afghanistan didn't have them and the U.S. still invaded them). He said Iraq had 'em because he thought they did, and as I've already mentioned, so did just about every other leader of countries in the U.N. phew, sorry about the length of this one --Chris
|
|