westvirginia Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 Is there something inherently bad about an American president being warmly greeted by the citizens of the world's largest trading bloc? Wouldn't it be handy to have those folks think we're kinda cool and actually listen to what we have to say instead of assuming our president is an inarticulate stone deaf halfwit? Your assertion is fine, as far as it goes. I think you're answering the wrong question though. The question I'd like to see asked is, why are we so entangled in the affairs of the rest of the world that this even concerns us? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 Is there something inherently bad about an American president being warmly greeted by the citizens of the world's largest trading bloc? Wouldn't it be handy to have those folks think we're kinda cool and actually listen to what we have to say instead of assuming our president is an inarticulate stone deaf halfwit? Sure. Until they invade Poland and we have to start carpet bombing the Huns back to the stone age. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 Your assertion is fine, as far as it goes. I think you're answering the wrong question though. The question I'd like to see asked is, why are we so entangled in the affairs of the rest of the world that this even concerns us? That is a great question. There are several answers and it would be interesting to see what people think about this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 That is a great question. There are several answers and it would be interesting to see what people think about this. We have to look at the reality of this world... To an extent we are entangled in the events that occur world wide and can not necessarily extricate our selves from these events for numerous reasons. We are dependent upon foreign oil, we are dependent upon developing nations to manufacture inexpensive consumer goods, we are dependent upon South America to supply certain food stuffs, We are dependent upon Africa... well, we need to fight proxy wars in Africa due to all of the other reasons above (that and we feel obligated, for humanitarian reasons, to take care of the great unwashed masses there). To take a stance of isolationism would severely and dramatically destabilize the US and our Economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 We have to look at the reality of this world... To an extent we are entangled in the events that occur world wide and can not necessarily extricate our selves from these events for numerous reasons. We are dependent upon foreign oil, we are dependent upon developing nations to manufacture inexpensive consumer goods, we are dependent upon South America to supply certain food stuffs, We are dependent upon Africa... well, we need to fight proxy wars in Africa due to all of the other reasons above (that and we feel obligated, for humanitarian reasons, to take care of the great unwashed masses there). To take a stance of isolationism would severely and dramatically destabilize the US and our Economy. I'm not talking about isolationism - look at the Swiss. They don't mess around in world affairs, and they are prosperous and happy. They have enough military that Hitler didn't screw with them. I mean, I don't want to emulate everything about Switzerland, but we CAN be friends to everyone if we so desire. We can still trade with everyone. Give value for value. Everyone in the world typically wants to do business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 I'm not talking about isolationism - look at the Swiss. They don't mess around in world affairs, and they are prosperous and happy. They have enough military that Hitler didn't screw with them. I mean, I don't want to emulate everything about Switzerland, but we CAN be friends to everyone if we so desire. We can still trade with everyone. Give value for value. Everyone in the world typically wants to do business. Good point, but Switzerland is a small country with a small population and not near the consumerist society we are. Another thing, their industry is not based as heavily on international trade, unless it be monetary, as ours is. Another unfortunate part of our place in the world is that we are the defacto police of the world. When there are issues in other countries, it is expected that the US do something. For instance, the world berates us for not doing more to fight the global war on AIDS, for not sending more food relief to African nations, for not giving more money to UN organizations... We are inextricably linked to the world, the Swiss never chose to go this route, we did, because altruism is a characteristic of this nation and its people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 I'm not talking about isolationism - look at the Swiss. They don't mess around in world affairs, and they are prosperous and happy. They have enough military that Hitler didn't screw with them. I mean, I don't want to emulate everything about Switzerland, but we CAN be friends to everyone if we so desire. We can still trade with everyone. Give value for value. Everyone in the world typically wants to do business. The Swiss control HUGH sums of the world's capitol. The Geramns didn't invade in part because it wouldn't have been worth the materials and men. Ever try tanks in the Alps? The Germans didn't want to try due to diminishing returns on a country so small. "Friends with everyone' in the Swiss case also means holding onto known Nazi funds even to this day. Must be nice, keeping money confiscated from the jews by a country other than your own and you get to keep it. They also wear terrible uniforms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 Ummm, the Germans didn't invade the Swiss because they were using the Swiss banks to launder their money for them. The money the Huns stole from the Jews went there. The Swiss then stole it when the Germans lost the war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 The Swiss control HUGH sums of the world's capitol. The Geramns didn't invade in part because it wouldn't have been worth the materials and men. Ever try tanks in the Alps? The Germans didn't want to try due to diminishing returns on a country so small. "Friends with everyone' in the Swiss case also means holding onto known Nazi funds even to this day. Must be nice, keeping money confiscated from the jews by a country other than your own and you get to keep it. They also wear terrible uniforms. They make one cool ass knife though... http://www.swissarmy.com/MultiTools/Pages/...duct=53792& Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 They also wear terrible uniforms. Wow, there's just certain images that you can't "unsee" no matter how much you wished you could. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 (edited) Another unfortunate part of our place in the world is that we are the defacto police of the world. When there are issues in other countries, it is expected that the US do something. For instance, the world berates us for not doing more to fight the global war on AIDS, for not sending more food relief to African nations, for not giving more money to UN organizations... We are inextricably linked to the world, the Swiss never chose to go this route, we did, because altruism is a characteristic of this nation and its people. I don't know about the altruism part being a driver for us playing the role of world policeman. I do accept that there is an altruistic streak here (there is the same in Europe too) because we're both (US and Europe) aware that we can make a difference by helping - disaster aid, etc. We have the means and we have the will, we have the conscience too. But the role of world policeman is in large part voluntary and results from a desire to shape the world the way one wants it and, most importantly, benefit from it. There have only been two real world policemen - Britain and the US - but it could be argued that both had the same motives - wealth through (physical / land) empire and wealth through (financial dominance) empire. Either way, the role of world policeman is largely a means to an end - wealth and protection of that wealth. Edited July 25, 2008 by Ursa Majoris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 The Swiss control HUGH sums of the world's capitol. The Geramns didn't invade in part because it wouldn't have been worth the materials and men. Ever try tanks in the Alps? The Germans didn't want to try due to diminishing returns on a country so small. "Friends with everyone' in the Swiss case also means holding onto known Nazi funds even to this day. Must be nice, keeping money confiscated from the jews by a country other than your own and you get to keep it. They also wear terrible uniforms. Yet they went to Belgium... The money in Swiss banks is the reason TO invade, not a prohibition. All that wealth would have made a great feather in the cap. The Germans couldn't have taken those banks and run them? The problem is, there is a machine gun and ammunition in every Swiss house with an adult male in it. They've been practicing blowing those mountain passes for generations. They would've slaughtered the Krauts in the Alps and been home in time for dinner, and Hitler knew it. With huge concentrations of world wealth, the Swiss have never been screwed with. There are two reasons for that - 1) They are neutral in every conflict, and 2) Like the US, there are guns all over the place in private hands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 You sir, come across as a condescending sanctimonious and self-righteous pickle-cavity. Are you a skins alias? I had the same thought when reading this thread. It's like every political thread turns into a giant argument about the BS he's spewing rather than about the topic at hand, and I think he's trying to lean toward my side of the aisle, but it's just embarrassing. You know... like how you must feel about moneymakers. Shiznit, are you skins? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 Shiznit, are you skins? Negative Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted July 25, 2008 Author Share Posted July 25, 2008 I had the same thought when reading this thread. It's like every political thread turns into a giant argument about the BS he's spewing rather than about the topic at hand, and I think he's trying to lean toward my side of the aisle, but it's just embarrassing. You know... like how you must feel about moneymakers. Shiznit, are you skins? No...I just would like my side of the isle to not like Obama for principled reasons...and not for all the nonsensical reasons I constantly have to read. I myself am impressed by him...I disagree...but I am impressed. Does this make me skins? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 Does this make me skins? Are you bald, like Injuns and tap yer foot under the bathroom stall in most out-of-state airports? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted July 25, 2008 Author Share Posted July 25, 2008 Are you bald, like Injuns and tap yer foot under the bathroom stall in most out-of-state airports? Are you in the stall next to me......this is important information? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 BTW Why was there not any REAL mention of the fact that two popular German music groups, reggae artist Patrice and rock band Reamonn were giving a free concert BEFORE Obama spoke? Think that had anything to do with the throngs that showed up? When I was young, dumb and full of... myself, I would endure just about anything for a free concert. On top of that, ya' wonder how juiced up those folks were by the time he took THE STAGE? I've been to Germany, and just getting out of bed in the morning is reason enough to down a liter of bier. I'm sorry folks, I don't see any "change" to the same old dogmatic drumbeat from either side. There will be no change with either candidate. Until we purge congress and break the roadblock that exists in that joint, there are just not a lot of things that can/will get done. The worst thing about it is that this great speech giver with the rock star aura, will destroy the idealistic hopes of many young voters if he doesn't win. I am already prepping myself for four years of conspiracy whining if that happens. I personally really liked listening to his speeches in the beginning. He should have/could have been a great actor. I was attracted to his style during the last DNC and immediately knew he was a rising young star in the Dem party. After a while though, he just says the same thing, over and over with the same methodical delivery style. It has become so canned that it, to me, is now unwatchable. Not the WORDS, the delivery. He is like a robot after you have seen about 10 or so of his speeches. And like Gore, I am offended by his often "scolding" tone, as if I'm being lectured to. McCain on the otherhand can't do speeches. He is much better off the cuff, but gets excited and talks too fast. He makes a lot of gaffes that when listened to in context, it is easy to know what he meant. But in this sound byte world, that is just as bad as being a robot. Its almost like watchin Wall-E (JMcC) and Eve (BHO) running against each other for president. One is a broken-down retread trying to clean up the mess left behind while the other is a slick and shiny new model trying to attain a final objective independent of the situational reality. Neither goal is attainable until all of us decide it is time to do so. WOW, I finally understand what the message of that movie was! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 No...I just would like my side of the isle to not like Obama for principled reasons...and not for all the nonsensical reasons I constantly have to read. I myself am impressed by him...I disagree...but I am impressed. Does this make me skins? Nuanced bs, and claiming to be a republican while supporting practically communistic ideals in every thread? Yes. Yes it does. Let me get this straight... you're an anti-war pro-tax republican who thinks money isn't earned and Obama is neato? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 Nuanced bs, and claiming to be a republican while supporting practically communistic ideals in every thread? Yes. Yes it does. Let me get this straight... you're an anti-war pro-tax republican who thinks money isn't earned and Obama is neato? I know you hate me but... this was . Seriously Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 Nuanced bs, and claiming to be a republican while supporting practically communistic ideals in every thread? Yes. Yes it does. Let me get this straight... you're an anti-war pro-tax republican who thinks money isn't earned and Obama is neato? u guys can have him for a 12th rounder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 Its almost like watchin Wall-E (JMcC) and Eve (BHO) running against each other for president. One is a broken-down retread trying to clean up the mess left behind while the other is a slick and shiny new model trying to attain a final objective independent of the situational reality. Neither goal is attainable until all of us decide it is time to do so. WOW, I finally understand what the message of that movie was! but together they saved the world ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted July 25, 2008 Author Share Posted July 25, 2008 Nuanced bs, and claiming to be a republican while supporting practically communistic ideals in every thread? Yes. Yes it does. Let me get this straight... you're an anti-war pro-tax republican who thinks money isn't earned and Obama is neato? I don't believe in income taxes at all. I believe taxes are necessary to run a government...and I believe those who obtain more from a set of circumstances owe more into it....that said...I believe in spending very little at the Federal Level and believe all politicians should be put in jail if we dificit spend for any reason. However...one also must deal with reality....this is not going to happen. I will stress this once again....go back and see what Eisenhower stood for....those are what my grandpa taught me about...those were his principles and he influenced heavily as a child. Just because you lack the cerebral ability to understand various positions...doesn't mean I can't. I have told people what I believe....I just challenge them to own up to theirs...challenge mine...I am game. I am fiscally conservative in the Ike sense...and leave me the hell alone socially...in the sense of WestVirgina. Is this clear enough? BTW....I am impressed by Obama. I watched him campaign here in Illinois and voted for him....because who was I going to vote for...someone who support reparations for slaves carpetbagger Alan Keyes? Keyes was a much worse option. He wanted to bring religion into the public square and let it mold policy...so I picked Obama....I voted for Perot in 1991, Clinton over Dole, Bush in 2000, Kerry in 2004(saw enough of the faux republican) and will probably vote for a third party this year.....YOU? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 I voted for Perot in 1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted July 25, 2008 Author Share Posted July 25, 2008 (edited) He was on the ballot then wasn't he....I hope he was...I was waffling between him and Bush Sr. ETA: Can't get one past you...1992...thanks for the correction! Edited July 25, 2008 by TheShiznit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.