Now that is more of a reason to hate him than the fact that he thinks he is better than we are..........BECAUSE OF HIS WAFFLES!
Buy on AliExpress.com
The off topic thread (9 Viewers)
- Thread starter Badass J Elkann
- Start date
- Status
Buy on AliExpress.com
from what i see here, there are reasonable americans and recently in the news they were talking about how the 'ratings' i guess for bush were at an all time low. I'm sure the majority of the american population are reasonable, but to those who say that americans aren't reasonable or whatever, the image portrayed in the media of the common american man is very different.
here is a good article about the current situation and i think america turning to the left or something like that:
-----
American politics
Is America turning left?
Aug 9th 2007
From The Economist print edition
Probably—but not in the way many foreigners (and some Americans) hope
Getty Images
FOR George Bush, the presidency is becoming a tragic tale of unintended consequences. In foreign policy, the man who sought to transform Iraq, the Middle East and America's reputation has indeed had revolutionary effects, though not the ones he was aiming for. Now something similar seems to be happening in domestic politics. The most conservative president in recent history, a man who sought to turn his victories of 2000 and 2004 into a Republican hegemony, may well end up driving the Western world's most impressive political machine off a cliff.
That machine has put Republicans in the White House in seven of the past ten contests. At times it has seemed as if the Democrats (oddly, given their status as the less Godly party) have had to rely on divine intervention to get elected. Watergate helped Jimmy Carter in 1976, just as the end of the cold war and Ross Perot's disruptive third-party campaign helped Bill Clinton in 1992. Better organised and more intellectually inventive than their “liberal” rivals, American conservatives have controlled the agenda even when they have lost: Mr Clinton is best remembered for balancing the budget and passing welfare reform, both conservative achievements. In a country where one in three people see themselves as conservatives (against one in five as liberals) and where the South and West have grown far more quickly than the liberal north-east, it is easy to see why Mr Bush and his strategist, Karl Rove, dreamed of banishing Democrats from power for a generation.
Now they would settle for a lot less. Having recaptured Congress last year, the Democrats are on course to retake the presidency in 2008. Only one Republican, Rudy Giuliani, looks competitive in the polls, and his campaign is less slick than those of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Voters now favour generic Democratic candidates over Republican ones by wide margins. Democrats are more trusted even on traditional conservative issues, such as national security, and they have opened up a wide gap among the young, among independents and among Latinos (see article).
For this, he is not guilty
The easy scapegoat is Mr Bush himself. During his presidency, the words Katrina, Rumsfeld, Abramoff, Guantánamo and Libby have become shorthand for incompetence, cronyism or extremism. Indeed, the failings of Mr Bush's coterie are oddly reassuring for some conservatives: once he has gone, they can regroup, as they did after his father was ousted in 1992.
Yet this President Bush is not a good scapegoat. Rather than betraying the right, he has given it virtually everything it craved, from humongous tax cuts to conservative judges. Many of the worst errors were championed by conservative constituencies. Some of the arrogance in foreign policy stems from the armchair warriors of neoconservatism; the ill-fated attempt to “save” the life of the severely brain-damaged Terri Schiavo was driven by the Christian right. Even Mr Bush's apparently oxymoronic trust in “big-government conservatism” is shared in practice by most Republicans in Congress.
From this perspective, the worrying parallel for the right is not 1992 but the liberal overreach of the 1960s. By embracing leftish causes that were too extreme for the American mainstream—from unfettered abortion to affirmative action—the Democrats cast themselves into the political wilderness. Now the American people seem to be reacting to conservative over-reach by turning left. More want universal health insurance; more distrust force as a way to bring about peace; more like greenery; ever more dislike intolerance on social issues.
Be careful what you wish for
So some sort of shift seems to be under way. Would it be a change for the better? The Economist has never made any secret of its preference for the Republican Party's individualistic “western” wing rather than the moralistic “southern” one that Mr Bush has come to typify. It is hard to imagine Ronald Reagan sponsoring a federal amendment banning gay marriage or limiting federal funding for stem-cell research. Yet Mr Bush's departure hardly guarantees a move back to the centre. Social liberals like Mr Giuliani and Arnold Schwarzenegger are in a minority on the right. On the one issue where Mr Bush fought the intolerant wing of his party, immigration, the nativists won—and perhaps lost the Latino vote for a generation.
In terms of foreign policy, America's allies, especially in Europe, would also be unwise to start celebrating, for two reasons. First, some of the changes that would stem from a more Democratic America would be unwelcome. The Democrats are moving to the left not just on health care, but also on trade; and a more protectionist America would soon make the world's poor regret Mr Bush's passing. Similarly, many Europeans may yearn for a less interventionist America; but an isolationist superpower could be much more frightening.
Second, America, even if it shifts to the left, will still be a conservative force on the international stage. Mrs Clinton might be portrayed as a communist on talk radio in Kansas, but set her alongside France's Nicolas Sarkozy, Germany's Angela Merkel, Britain's David Cameron or any other supposed European conservative, and on virtually every significant issue Mrs Clinton is the more right-wing. She also mentions God more often than the average European bishop. As for foreign policy, the main Democratic candidates are equally staunch in their support of Israel; none of them has ruled out attacking Iran; Mr Obama might take a shot at Pakistan; and few of them want to cede power to multilateral organisations.
One finding that stands out in the polls is that most Americans distrust government strongly. Forty years ago they turned against a leftish elite trying to boss them around; now they have had to endure a right-wing version. In democracies political revolutions usually become obvious only in retrospect. In 1968, with America stuck in another bruising war, few liberals saw Richard Nixon's southern strategy as part of a long-term turn to the right. All that was clear then was that most Americans urgently wanted a change of direction. That is also true today.
economist.com
-----
American politics
Is America turning left?
Aug 9th 2007
From The Economist print edition
Probably—but not in the way many foreigners (and some Americans) hope
Getty Images
FOR George Bush, the presidency is becoming a tragic tale of unintended consequences. In foreign policy, the man who sought to transform Iraq, the Middle East and America's reputation has indeed had revolutionary effects, though not the ones he was aiming for. Now something similar seems to be happening in domestic politics. The most conservative president in recent history, a man who sought to turn his victories of 2000 and 2004 into a Republican hegemony, may well end up driving the Western world's most impressive political machine off a cliff.
That machine has put Republicans in the White House in seven of the past ten contests. At times it has seemed as if the Democrats (oddly, given their status as the less Godly party) have had to rely on divine intervention to get elected. Watergate helped Jimmy Carter in 1976, just as the end of the cold war and Ross Perot's disruptive third-party campaign helped Bill Clinton in 1992. Better organised and more intellectually inventive than their “liberal” rivals, American conservatives have controlled the agenda even when they have lost: Mr Clinton is best remembered for balancing the budget and passing welfare reform, both conservative achievements. In a country where one in three people see themselves as conservatives (against one in five as liberals) and where the South and West have grown far more quickly than the liberal north-east, it is easy to see why Mr Bush and his strategist, Karl Rove, dreamed of banishing Democrats from power for a generation.
Now they would settle for a lot less. Having recaptured Congress last year, the Democrats are on course to retake the presidency in 2008. Only one Republican, Rudy Giuliani, looks competitive in the polls, and his campaign is less slick than those of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Voters now favour generic Democratic candidates over Republican ones by wide margins. Democrats are more trusted even on traditional conservative issues, such as national security, and they have opened up a wide gap among the young, among independents and among Latinos (see article).
For this, he is not guilty
The easy scapegoat is Mr Bush himself. During his presidency, the words Katrina, Rumsfeld, Abramoff, Guantánamo and Libby have become shorthand for incompetence, cronyism or extremism. Indeed, the failings of Mr Bush's coterie are oddly reassuring for some conservatives: once he has gone, they can regroup, as they did after his father was ousted in 1992.
Yet this President Bush is not a good scapegoat. Rather than betraying the right, he has given it virtually everything it craved, from humongous tax cuts to conservative judges. Many of the worst errors were championed by conservative constituencies. Some of the arrogance in foreign policy stems from the armchair warriors of neoconservatism; the ill-fated attempt to “save” the life of the severely brain-damaged Terri Schiavo was driven by the Christian right. Even Mr Bush's apparently oxymoronic trust in “big-government conservatism” is shared in practice by most Republicans in Congress.
From this perspective, the worrying parallel for the right is not 1992 but the liberal overreach of the 1960s. By embracing leftish causes that were too extreme for the American mainstream—from unfettered abortion to affirmative action—the Democrats cast themselves into the political wilderness. Now the American people seem to be reacting to conservative over-reach by turning left. More want universal health insurance; more distrust force as a way to bring about peace; more like greenery; ever more dislike intolerance on social issues.
Be careful what you wish for
So some sort of shift seems to be under way. Would it be a change for the better? The Economist has never made any secret of its preference for the Republican Party's individualistic “western” wing rather than the moralistic “southern” one that Mr Bush has come to typify. It is hard to imagine Ronald Reagan sponsoring a federal amendment banning gay marriage or limiting federal funding for stem-cell research. Yet Mr Bush's departure hardly guarantees a move back to the centre. Social liberals like Mr Giuliani and Arnold Schwarzenegger are in a minority on the right. On the one issue where Mr Bush fought the intolerant wing of his party, immigration, the nativists won—and perhaps lost the Latino vote for a generation.
In terms of foreign policy, America's allies, especially in Europe, would also be unwise to start celebrating, for two reasons. First, some of the changes that would stem from a more Democratic America would be unwelcome. The Democrats are moving to the left not just on health care, but also on trade; and a more protectionist America would soon make the world's poor regret Mr Bush's passing. Similarly, many Europeans may yearn for a less interventionist America; but an isolationist superpower could be much more frightening.
Second, America, even if it shifts to the left, will still be a conservative force on the international stage. Mrs Clinton might be portrayed as a communist on talk radio in Kansas, but set her alongside France's Nicolas Sarkozy, Germany's Angela Merkel, Britain's David Cameron or any other supposed European conservative, and on virtually every significant issue Mrs Clinton is the more right-wing. She also mentions God more often than the average European bishop. As for foreign policy, the main Democratic candidates are equally staunch in their support of Israel; none of them has ruled out attacking Iran; Mr Obama might take a shot at Pakistan; and few of them want to cede power to multilateral organisations.
One finding that stands out in the polls is that most Americans distrust government strongly. Forty years ago they turned against a leftish elite trying to boss them around; now they have had to endure a right-wing version. In democracies political revolutions usually become obvious only in retrospect. In 1968, with America stuck in another bruising war, few liberals saw Richard Nixon's southern strategy as part of a long-term turn to the right. All that was clear then was that most Americans urgently wanted a change of direction. That is also true today.
economist.com
The thing is though, that's pretty much the concept of an election. If Bush is elected, that ought to mean the general American agrees with the policies of the Bush administration. Now there's obviously more to it than this ideal principle:
a) Lots of people don't even know what everyone is talking about. Politics are way over their heads. Most blame should go to these people. There is not a single reason why you should be retarded. If it's medical, you shouldn't be allowed to vote.
b) Bush cheated his way into winning his first election. It's as simple as that. He wasn't elected, thus he cannot represent Americans. There would have been a national outrage if more people would have known what happened.
c) Expert propaganda. After years of training idiots, it's not hard to fool them. You do the exact opposite of what a serious politician should do. You talk in quotes. The word "crusade" might sound horrible to any intelligent lad out there, but it sure as hell sounds righteous to your average retarded Montana farmer (and to Vinman).
In conclusion I'd say something isn't right in the American educational system. American top universities might be world class, but everything else doesn't seem up to standards.
a) Lots of people don't even know what everyone is talking about. Politics are way over their heads. Most blame should go to these people. There is not a single reason why you should be retarded. If it's medical, you shouldn't be allowed to vote.
b) Bush cheated his way into winning his first election. It's as simple as that. He wasn't elected, thus he cannot represent Americans. There would have been a national outrage if more people would have known what happened.
c) Expert propaganda. After years of training idiots, it's not hard to fool them. You do the exact opposite of what a serious politician should do. You talk in quotes. The word "crusade" might sound horrible to any intelligent lad out there, but it sure as hell sounds righteous to your average retarded Montana farmer (and to Vinman).
In conclusion I'd say something isn't right in the American educational system. American top universities might be world class, but everything else doesn't seem up to standards.
I realise the country is divided in two, the Bush election has proven that. I know it was a close-call twice but I cannot understand the motivation to vote for Bush.
He has done nothing but give his country misery. He has led them in a war they cannot win under false pretences and has abandonned the lessfortuned citizens when they needed him the most. Katrina struck New Orleans where the population is mainly poor and black. He didn't give a rat's ass about them.I hate him and his posse but I love Americans. I only believe many of them are ignorant of what is going on in Washington. When I lived there you never heard a critical not on the war not in the papers, not on tv. It was all, free Iraq from Saddam and destroy the 'evil'. I'm not saying Americans are stupid, they were kept ignorant. But like I've said, at last you can hear the critical voice now too.
He has done nothing but give his country misery. He has led them in a war they cannot win under false pretences and has abandonned the lessfortuned citizens when they needed him the most. Katrina struck New Orleans where the population is mainly poor and black. He didn't give a rat's ass about them.I hate him and his posse but I love Americans. I only believe many of them are ignorant of what is going on in Washington. When I lived there you never heard a critical not on the war not in the papers, not on tv. It was all, free Iraq from Saddam and destroy the 'evil'. I'm not saying Americans are stupid, they were kept ignorant. But like I've said, at last you can hear the critical voice now too.
.
But you see, all this is easy to say and has been said time and time again. Yes, many people don't follow politics or care about other countries, but the same can be said about other people around the world. Most know Bush is in office because of nonsense, but still people blame people such as myself for electing him, yet I had no part in it. That's why I hate this sort of shit and generalization even though some of it is true.
And propoganda makes the world go round, no matter where we are talking about. Juts like anywhere, if you try hard enough, people will agree with you. We've known that far before Hitler.
And propoganda makes the world go round, no matter where we are talking about. Juts like anywhere, if you try hard enough, people will agree with you. We've known that far before Hitler.
You're missing one important issue here:
It doesn't happen in other rich countries. Yes, it happens in Ethiopia, yes it happens in America, but it just doesn't happen in Germany, Switzerland or even the United Kingdom.
You see, every, every, every European will be able to locate Greece or Italy on a world map. I wonder if you could say the same about every American.
I'm not saying you're directly to blame for any of this. I firmly believe ignorant people are guilty themselves. But you should ask yourself if the American intellectual elite does enough to change the situation. I mean, does it do any good to ridicule Michael Moore? Even though he's full of bullshit himself, he could have been used more wisely IMO.
It doesn't happen in other rich countries. Yes, it happens in Ethiopia, yes it happens in America, but it just doesn't happen in Germany, Switzerland or even the United Kingdom.
You see, every, every, every European will be able to locate Greece or Italy on a world map. I wonder if you could say the same about every American.
I'm not saying you're directly to blame for any of this. I firmly believe ignorant people are guilty themselves. But you should ask yourself if the American intellectual elite does enough to change the situation. I mean, does it do any good to ridicule Michael Moore? Even though he's full of bullshit himself, he could have been used more wisely IMO.
You see, this is why I don't exactly respect your opinions. All your arguments are based upon generalizations, that of which are highly biased. I could easily say that many Europeans would not know how to locate certain places on the US map, including States such as Rhode Island, Utah and New Hampshire. Many of my friends know where Greece is located, perhaps that's partly why they are my friends, but you can't hold this supposed worldy igorance against everybody here. Yes, we have quite a number of idiots here, but you should feel blessed that you live in a place where learning other languages are crucial and other cultures are so close by.Just like I might not understand the typical European (although I think I do), perhaps many Europeans don't understand the typical American. Too many people are trying to relate the American goverment to the citizens, and while many here are idiots, not all of us are. This is something that does piss me off more than anything else.
You see, this is why I don't exactly respect your opinions. All your arguments are based upon generalizations, that of which are highly biased. I could easily say that many Europeans would not know how to locate certain places on the US map, including States such as Rhode Island, Utah and New Hampshire. Many of my friends know where Greece is located, perhaps that's partly why they are my friends, but you can't hold this supposed worldy igorance against everybody here. Yes, we have quite a number of idiots here, but you should feel blessed that you live in a place where learning other languages are crucial and other cultures are so close by.Just like I might not understand the typical European (although I think I do), perhaps many Europeans don't understand the typical American. Too many people are trying to relate the American goverment to the citizens, and while many here are idiots, not all of us are. This is something that does piss me off more than anything else.
Make no mistake, Andy, most Europeans who have lived for a long period of time in the USA don't paint a pretty image.
when I atteded college in Ohio, people asked me where I was from; I told them I came from Belgium and some replied 'Never heard of that town" Now I understand Belgium is't exactly a large country but Brussels is the capital of Belgium and Europe.
I'd like to think that my english was so good they actually believed I was American. And this was in college. I know there are many idiots and there are many brilliant men in America, I think most of the public in the US don't know much about the rest of the world.though. I know USA is a big country but something is wrong in the education when you only know your own country and hardly anything about the rest of the world. I doubt Americans have ever heard of Bagdad prior to the wars.
I'd like to think that my english was so good they actually believed I was American. And this was in college. I know there are many idiots and there are many brilliant men in America, I think most of the public in the US don't know much about the rest of the world.though. I know USA is a big country but something is wrong in the education when you only know your own country and hardly anything about the rest of the world. I doubt Americans have ever heard of Bagdad prior to the wars.
- Status