Export thread

The meter is running: Obama's first year

#1

strawman

strawman

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

Of those promises that are settled, 30% are either broken or required significant compromise, and about 70% that have been kept.

Which is better than his approval rating (49% and dropping...)

So he's doing pretty good for the first year. Trying to push through all the unpopular stuff now, so that he can focus on the feel good stuff when re-election time comes around, and so it can actually have time to pass.


#2

GasBandit

GasBandit

Those are some rosy, rosy glasses you are wearing there steinman.

"Of those promises that are settled," indeed. You fail to mention that even by that article's count, only 105 of his allegedly 511 promises have had favorable resolution (kept or compromised). The plurality of them are still "in the works," which in politics is, as often as not, a status that never resolves.

Plus, most of those were his bread crumb promises... hospitals in Louisiana, funding for local emergency planning, yadda yadda. How's he doing on his BIG promises? His claims to being a great unifier? We're more divided than ever, though perhaps that's a good thing as to be united with Obama is to march in lockstep to ruin. Closed Gitmo in 2009? No, the date's been pushed back AGAIN into 2011. Health care reform? Well, there's a bill passed in both houses, but it has very little to actually do with reforming health care and a great deal to do with doling out money to pet districts. Got us out of Iraq yet? That was a big thing during the campaign... as was "the real fight is in Afghanistan!" Has he thrown our full weight into afghanistan, or has he dragged his feet, reluctantly giving his generals a fraction of what they want only when they go public and make him look like the weakling he is? Speaking of which, have Iran, North Korea, China, or even Russia come to the bargaining table with him yet, for the sit-downs he promised on the campaign trail? Or have they continued to smile to his platitudes and do exactly as they pleased all along, knowing that the tiger has voted away its fangs?

The buyer's remorse keeps mounting.


#3

Covar

Covar

The important thing is that healthcare is passed and that none of the "benefits" go into effect until Obama is a lame duck.


#4

Krisken

Krisken

Those are some shit colored glasses you're wearing Gas. If every Obama campaign promise was kept, you'd still find a way to spin it in a negative light.

I give Obama a lot of credit for trying to repair all the crap





did to our national reputation. If some of you want to pretend that amounts to nothing, keep going with it.


#5

Dave

Dave

Covar said:
The important thing is that healthcare is passed and that none of the "benefits" go into effect until Obama is a lame duck.
Click to expand...
Health care upgrade is a fucking joke due to the insurance companies and lobbyists getting their mitts on it and the Democrats not having the balls to do what's right for the country and not their own party (even though this hurt them more than helped them).

The public option is gone. That would have caused private insurers to have to bring down costs and control how they gouge people. Now they have no incentive to lower rates and they will continue to rise.
The prescription drug portion of the bill is gone. Pharmaceutical companies didn't like this because it allowed people to get drugs from cheaper sources instead of having to pay exorbitant prices here. It would have driven down costs there due to competition. Now we're going to get higher and higher drug costs.
People have to show proof of insurance to the IRS. GREAT idea! Now people will stop paying taxes because they know it'll be years before they get audited thanks to their not having insurance. What happens if they can't prove it? THEY GET FINED!! What the fuck? The reason people don't have insurance is because it's too expensive! And THESE are the people we're going to fine? Again I say What the fuck? Bad, bad, BAD idea! Don't even get me started on why it's the IRS. Holy shit.
Abortion. For the record, I am neither for nor against abortion. I think it's a bad idea but I see the need in times of incest or rape. I don't think it's murder but I don't think it's morally right, either. Having said that, it's a legitimate and LEGAL MEDICAL PROCEDURE! To say that this will not be paid with government money while other procedures will is not only stupid and probably unconstitutional but is a very, very bad precedent.
Tax Credits for Small Businesses. Big fucking deal. So they get tax credits. If they don't offer health insurance they lose nothing! Riddle me this, Batman. Will small businesses GAIN more through tax credits than they stand to lose with paying insurance premiums, etc? I don't think so.

This whole thing is a good idea, but the way they went about doing it is stupid, dangerous and puts it all on the backs of people like me who can't afford insurance right now and just makes insurance companies and pharmaceuticals richer and richer. Fucking Democrats got put into office to do a job and they fucked us in the ass. Nice job, dipshits. Have fun being run out of office in the next election cycle.


#6

fade

fade

I find it hard to reply seriously to arguments like this. The underlying implication is that somehow he's actively weaseling out of these promises, which just doesn't pass the sniff test. In fact, that's been my approach to political arguments lately. Step back. Does it pass the sniff test? Is the only way for the opposing argument or its implications to be true is if the person being attacked is stupid, incompetent, or morally repugnant. Since most people who've made it to a high office aren't really any of those things, what's the real reason? Have his, like pretty much every other candidate in the history of this country's, attentions been redirected? Have outcomes not been as expected? Has he faced strong opposition? Misinformation and public opinion based on misinformation? Etc., etc.

He's not blameless, mind you. He shouldn't have made these promises in the first place. He should've make some concrete promises and given abstract hope on others. It turned deeply divided partisan sentiment even further against him.

On the other hand, I find the accounting of promises, especially insofar as to assign an actual number to them downright silly. I also want to understand why he had to get these things done first in the first 90 days, then in the first six months, and now in the first year.


#7

GasBandit

GasBandit

Krisken said:
Those are some shit colored glasses you're wearing Gas. If every Obama campaign promise was kept, you'd still find a way to spin it in a negative light.

I give Obama a lot of credit for trying to repair all the crap the bush administration did to our national reputation. If some of you want to pretend that amounts to nothing, keep going with it.
Click to expand...
LOL @ "Repairing our reputation." Our reputation has gone from "scary but strong" to "weak and in a tailspin." Way to repair that image.

As for damage, I'm more worried about the damage Obama is doing by outspending Bush, when Bush was previously thought to have been crazy to spend so much.

fade said:
The underlying implication is that somehow he's actively weaseling out of these promises, which just doesn't pass the sniff test.
Click to expand...
No, the underlying implication is that obama supporters and the press (but I repeat myself) are trying to give him credit for things he hasn't accomplished.


#8

Dave

Dave

The problem with spending, Gas, is that the huge amounts he spent are widely thought to have kept us out of another Great Depression. And that's by economists, not the Liberal Media.

Now, though, it seems like he's passing stuff to be passing stuff to say he did it. I'd rather have no legislation than bad legislation.

Example. The original health care bill with the public option had everyone covered. Yes, it cut the shit out of medicare and medicaid, but if they are covered it's just medical coverage and is indistinguishable from what they'd had. In some cases of Medicare it's better than they had. The money used to cover those in Medicare & Medicaid would still be used for health care. It would cost a bit more but nothing like what the alarmists were spouting.

Now, though, the costs are still there but the benefits have been stripped to favor big business. It's like the Republicans all over again. Screw the little guy and the citizens they purport to represent and give all the benefits to the already rich. nicely done.


#9

Krisken

Krisken

Replace "strong" with "treats their allies like shit", and you got that just about right. The Bush administration understood the "carry a big stick" part, but no idea how to "walk softly". There is more than one kind of strength.


#10

GasBandit

GasBandit

Krisken said:
Replace "strong" with "treats their allies like shit", and you got that just about right. The Bush administration understood the "carry a big stick" part, but no idea how to "walk softly". There is more than one kind of strength.
Click to expand...
Exactly what allies are you claiming were treated like shit? The ones who wouldn't back us when it might shed light on their own under the table dealings with a certain baathist in the middle east?


#11

Krisken

Krisken

GasBandit;324708][QUOTE=Krisken said:
Replace "strong" with "treats their allies like shit", and you got that just about right. The Bush administration understood the "carry a big stick" part, but no idea how to "walk softly". There is more than one kind of strength.
Click to expand...
Exactly what allies are you claiming were treated like shit? The ones who wouldn't back us when it might shed light on their own under the table dealings with a certain baathist in the middle east?[/QUOTE]
Are you talking about the countries who listen to their people when it comes to going to war with countries that never attacked them?


#12

tegid

tegid

No, it actually went from 'arrogant idiotic assholes' to 'hey they are powerful but nicer'.


#13

Terrik

Terrik

Not what what my Chinese friends are telling me. The US definately seems a lot weaker than before to them. They actually liked bush because he had done a lot a for Sino-US relations wheras they are getting cranky with obama and the percieved trade protectionism.


#14

tegid

tegid

Ah yes, sorry! I'm talking about my perception as a European. I don't know how the rest of the world views the US :)


#15

North_Ranger

North_Ranger

Hmmm. For some reason this thread reminds me of a guy who wants a ten-minute egg in two and a half minutes. But that's just me :p


#16

fade

fade

North_Ranger said:
Hmmm. For some reason this thread reminds me of a guy who wants a ten-minute egg in two and a half minutes. But that's just me :p
Click to expand...
That's kind of what I was saying. Everyone else gets four years, but if Obama can't do it in 90 days, he's a fraud.


#17

Terrik

Terrik

Well, to be fair, if you look at some of his "broken promises" on the list, quite a few of them have to do with government transparency, like the C-SPAN coverage and letting citizens see bills beforehand and so forth. Those are promises that definitely COULD have been kept within 90 days..or even 1 day.


#18

Krisken

Krisken

Terrik said:
Well, to be fair, if you look at some of his "broken promises" on the list, quite a few of them have to do with government transparency, like the C-SPAN coverage and letting citizens see bills beforehand and so forth. Those are promises that definitely COULD have been kept within 90 days..or even 1 day.
Click to expand...
Which is one of the things that really bothers me. The government transparency should go a lot further than it has.


#19

strawman

strawman

Boy you are a testy lot. He's gotten through about 1/4 of his promises in 1/4 of his presidency, and has kept the lion's share of them.

That's all I was saying.

We'll see how many are done by this time next year, and if any aren't in proces by then, chances are they will be his campaign promises for his next term.

If he gets one.

What makes me laugh is the democrats have congress and the white house, and they can't get anything with teeth passed. It's ludicrous. Republicans can't even filibuster, and yet the democrats are passing watered down legislation.

Whoever thought that the democrats got their act together and won because of that in 2008 were dead wrong - people were just sick of the republicans, it wasn't because the democrats were finally getting their wagon back on track.


#20

Espy

Espy

fade;324782][QUOTE=North_Ranger said:
Hmmm. For some reason this thread reminds me of a guy who wants a ten-minute egg in two and a half minutes. But that's just me :p
Click to expand...
That's kind of what I was saying. Everyone else gets four years, but if Obama can't do it in 90 days, he's a fraud.[/QUOTE]

Actually if memory serves me right examining how a president does every year of his short 4 years in office is pretty normal.


#21

Troll

Troll

Espy;324812][QUOTE=fade;324782][QUOTE=North_Ranger said:
Hmmm. For some reason this thread reminds me of a guy who wants a ten-minute egg in two and a half minutes. But that's just me :p
Click to expand...
That's kind of what I was saying. Everyone else gets four years, but if Obama can't do it in 90 days, he's a fraud.[/QUOTE]

Actually if memory serves me right examining how a president does every year of his short 4 years in office is pretty normal.[/QUOTE]

Examining? Yes. But this time people are more prone to condemn than examine (people in general, not in this discussion).


#22

Espy

Espy

A Troll;324824][QUOTE=Espy;324812][QUOTE=fade;324782][QUOTE=North_Ranger said:
Hmmm. For some reason this thread reminds me of a guy who wants a ten-minute egg in two and a half minutes. But that's just me :p
Click to expand...
That's kind of what I was saying. Everyone else gets four years, but if Obama can't do it in 90 days, he's a fraud.[/QUOTE]

Actually if memory serves me right examining how a president does every year of his short 4 years in office is pretty normal.[/QUOTE]

Examining? Yes. But this time people are more prone to condemn than examine (people in general, not in this discussion).[/QUOTE]

I 100% disagree with you. I think it's terribly normal and human nature, which also means I wouldn't get to worked up over it.


#23



Kitty Sinatra

Yeah, we harped on Bush every chance we got.


#24



Kitty Sinatra

hmmm, I should've went with my original "jumped on Bush" line for the juvenile double entendre . . . and I still like how y'all's 2000 presidential election was sex versus violence


#25

Troll

Troll

Espy;324825][QUOTE=A Troll;324824][QUOTE=Espy;324812][QUOTE=fade;324782][QUOTE=North_Ranger said:
Hmmm. For some reason this thread reminds me of a guy who wants a ten-minute egg in two and a half minutes. But that's just me :p
Click to expand...
That's kind of what I was saying. Everyone else gets four years, but if Obama can't do it in 90 days, he's a fraud.[/QUOTE]

Actually if memory serves me right examining how a president does every year of his short 4 years in office is pretty normal.[/QUOTE]

Examining? Yes. But this time people are more prone to condemn than examine (people in general, not in this discussion).[/QUOTE]

I 100% disagree with you. I think it's terribly normal and human nature, which also means I wouldn't get to worked up over it.[/QUOTE]

Okay. Do I seem worked up to you?


#26

strawman

strawman

Gruebeard said:
hmmm, I should've went with my original "jumped on Bush" line for the juvenile double entendre . . . and I still like how y'all's 2000 presidential election was sex versus violence
Click to expand...
Hey, it's two of our big three - sex, violence and drugs. You know they are pandering to the masses when they pit our pleasures against each other.


#27



Kitty Sinatra

sex vs violence vs drugs . . .

Bush vs Gore vs ????? . . . quite the 3 way that is.


#28

Espy

Espy

A Troll said:
Okay. Do I seem worked up to you?
Click to expand...
Well you are all sweaty.


#29



makare

I'm very pleased with Obama's presidency. I think he is doing the best possible with the crap he was left with.

I am also glad that Obama doesn't feel the need to stomp all over the world like Bush did. If Bush made America look strong it was reactionary. We were attacked during the time we looked strong so what was the benefit of it? Maybe instead we should look reasonable and like we want to be a part of the world instead of ruling over it.


#30



Kitty Sinatra

I don't think Bush made the US look strong, anyway. I remember 2 major intelligence failures:

1) The inability to find Bin Laden after 9/11 - they made a show of him being American Enemy #1 but never came close to getting him. Whether y'all came close or not is insignificant because it appears you never did.

2) Colin Powell's UN presentation. He went there, in front of the world, with intelligence that showed Iraq had WMD. Iraq didn't.

All of America's vaunted high-tech spy stuff, nothing but failure in the eyes of the world.

Then there's the military, boots-on-the-ground stuff. Iraq never really went all that well after the air strikes. It seems like you have lots of firepower, but little staying power.

I just don't see how Bush made the US look strong.


#31

fade

fade

Espy;324812][QUOTE=fade;324782][QUOTE=North_Ranger said:
Hmmm. For some reason this thread reminds me of a guy who wants a ten-minute egg in two and a half minutes. But that's just me :p
Click to expand...
That's kind of what I was saying. Everyone else gets four years, but if Obama can't do it in 90 days, he's a fraud.[/QUOTE]

Actually if memory serves me right examining how a president does every year of his short 4 years in office is pretty normal.[/QUOTE]

That's true, but not what I said.


#32

Espy

Espy

fade;324912][QUOTE=Espy;324812][QUOTE=fade;324782][QUOTE=North_Ranger said:
Hmmm. For some reason this thread reminds me of a guy who wants a ten-minute egg in two and a half minutes. But that's just me :p
Click to expand...
That's kind of what I was saying. Everyone else gets four years, but if Obama can't do it in 90 days, he's a fraud.[/QUOTE]

Actually if memory serves me right examining how a president does every year of his short 4 years in office is pretty normal.[/QUOTE]

That's true, but not what I said.[/QUOTE]

My mistake then, it sounded like you were saying "everyone else gets 4 years before" they are judged on their performance. What did you mean?


#33



WolfOfOdin

Things could be better, but things could also be a hell of a lot worse. if anything I'm pleased that our President, if nothing else, presents a less "if you don't agree with us FUCK YOU COWARD" mindset to the world at large. I'm not happy with the lack of transparency at all though...I could do with a lot more of that. I'm also horribly dismayed at how badly the healthcare bill was gutted...christ, as long as you scream socialism, it seems you can blackball anything.


#34

@Li3n

@Li3n

Gruebeard said:
I just don't see how Bush made the US look strong.
Click to expand...

Same way the idiot everyone avoids because he's so annoying looks strong...


#35

North_Ranger

North_Ranger

@Li3n;324971][QUOTE=Gruebeard said:
I just don't see how Bush made the US look strong.
Click to expand...

Same way the idiot everyone avoids because he's so annoying looks strong...[/QUOTE]

Or a hillbilly with a shotgun...


#36

Krisken

Krisken

North_Ranger;324986][QUOTE=@Li3n;324971][QUOTE=Gruebeard said:
I just don't see how Bush made the US look strong.
Click to expand...

Same way the idiot everyone avoids because he's so annoying looks strong...[/QUOTE]

Or a hillbilly with a shotgun...[/QUOTE]
Damn, all this time I thought he was trying to bluster his way through like countries ruled by dictatorships. His administration just never understood that when you don't have an opposing superpower you don't have to act like you are strong when you are strong. Gives the impression you are pretending.


#37

@Li3n

@Li3n

Meh, the US has been doing that to small, dictatorship run countries for ages...

North_Ranger;324986][QUOTE=@Li3n;324971][QUOTE=Gruebeard said:
I just don't see how Bush made the US look strong.
Click to expand...

Same way the idiot everyone avoids because he's so annoying looks strong...[/QUOTE]

Or a hillbilly with a shotgun...[/QUOTE]

Hey now... no need to insult the poor hillbillies.


#38

GasBandit

GasBandit

makare1: actually, we started projecting strength AFTER we were attacked... and then we weren't attacked successfully again, until xmas 2009, which only avoided being a tragedy by a nigerian's lack of expertise with binary explosives.

as for everybody else re:strength, remember it was bush foreign policy that got libya to simmer down and start playing ball. It was obama foreign policy that got him up on the podium in the UN to make demands of us.


#39

Seraphyn

Seraphyn

After all is said and done, ~1/4th of promises kept, 1/4th of the way in on his presidency is a pretty good track record for a politician in my opinion.

As for strength: I think everyone and their mother knows the US has great military power, the only difference between the 2 presidents from my point of view was that Bush would attack just about any opponent without any real justifications while Obama would rather reason first. I think most are confusing weak with actually using diplomacy.
Of course how this works for the US itself is something different, Obama plays more ball and is thus more likely to give up something to get something while Bush would just demand to get something. Which lead to deteriorating relations. All in all I think the 'weaker' approach gets more positive results in the end. There is a time and place to play hard-ball and while Obama still needs to use it more, Bush just played it 24/7.


#40



crono1224

GasBandit said:
makare1: actually, we started projecting strength AFTER we were attacked... and then we weren't attacked successfully again, until xmas 2009, which only avoided being a tragedy by a nigerian's lack of expertise with binary explosives.

as for everybody else re:strength, remember it was bush foreign policy that got libya to simmer down and start playing ball. It was obama foreign policy that got him up on the podium in the UN to make demands of us.
Click to expand...
You know minus the DC sniper? The midwest mailbox bomber, the Los Angeles Airport Shooting You mean minus all those?


#41



makare

GasBandit said:
makare1: actually, we started projecting strength AFTER we were attacked... and then we weren't attacked successfully again, until xmas 2009, which only avoided being a tragedy by a nigerian's lack of expertise with binary explosives.

as for everybody else re:strength, remember it was bush foreign policy that got libya to simmer down and start playing ball. It was obama foreign policy that got him up on the podium in the UN to make demands of us.
Click to expand...
After we were attacked is when we started projecting dickishness, not strength.


#42

Shakey

Shakey

Don't forget the anthrax scare.


#43

Troll

Troll

crono1224;325144][QUOTE=GasBandit said:
makare1: actually, we started projecting strength AFTER we were attacked... and then we weren't attacked successfully again, until xmas 2009, which only avoided being a tragedy by a nigerian's lack of expertise with binary explosives.

as for everybody else re:strength, remember it was bush foreign policy that got libya to simmer down and start playing ball. It was obama foreign policy that got him up on the podium in the UN to make demands of us.
Click to expand...
You know minus the DC sniper? The midwest mailbox bomber, the Los Angeles Airport Shooting You mean minus all those?[/QUOTE]

Don't bother. Gas isn't interested in facts, he's just here to make wild claims for the rest of us to laugh at.


#44

GasBandit

GasBandit

crono1224;325144][QUOTE=GasBandit said:
makare1: actually, we started projecting strength AFTER we were attacked... and then we weren't attacked successfully again, until xmas 2009, which only avoided being a tragedy by a nigerian's lack of expertise with binary explosives.

as for everybody else re:strength, remember it was bush foreign policy that got libya to simmer down and start playing ball. It was obama foreign policy that got him up on the podium in the UN to make demands of us.
Click to expand...
You know minus the DC sniper? The midwest mailbox bomber, the Los Angeles Airport Shooting You mean minus all those?[/QUOTE]

DC Sniper: Domestic serial killer, not foreign terrorist. Only turned jihadist after being imprisoned as smokescreen. Accepted motive for mass murder was to kill his estranged wife but have enough other murders so as to make it all appear random, thus not leading to his being suspected.

Mailbox bomber: Domestic murder and mayhem, not foreign terrorism.

LA Airport shooting: While terrorist in intent, ruled to be one guy with a gun, no foreign backing. Killed 2, wounded 4, shot dead.



On another note, I find it very telling that so many of the "I like obama" posts are coming from Europeans. Polls of Europeans have shown they overwhelmingly desire america weakened on the international stage.


#45

@Li3n

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
makare1: actually, we started projecting strength AFTER we were attacked... and then we weren't attacked successfully again, until xmas 2009, which only avoided being a tragedy by a nigerian's lack of expertise with binary explosives.
Click to expand...
Hmmm... i don''t think you're using that word the way i was taught it should be used...


After we were attacked is when we started projecting dickishness, not strength.
Click to expand...
Actually seem to recall that for a while there after 9/11 everyone was on your side...


#46



makare

@Li3n;325167][QUOTE=GasBandit said:
makare1: actually, we started projecting strength AFTER we were attacked... and then we weren't attacked successfully again, until xmas 2009, which only avoided being a tragedy by a nigerian's lack of expertise with binary explosives.
Click to expand...
Hmmm... i don''t think you're using that word the way i was taught it should be used...


After we were attacked is when we started projecting dickishness, not strength.
Click to expand...
Actually seem to recall that for a while there after 9/11 everyone was on your side...[/QUOTE]

What choice did anyone have?


#47

Krisken

Krisken

@Li3n;325167][QUOTE=GasBandit said:
makare1: actually, we started projecting strength AFTER we were attacked... and then we weren't attacked successfully again, until xmas 2009, which only avoided being a tragedy by a nigerian's lack of expertise with binary explosives.
Click to expand...
Hmmm... i don''t think you're using that word the way i was taught it should be used...


After we were attacked is when we started projecting dickishness, not strength.
Click to expand...
Actually seem to recall that for a while there after 9/11 everyone was on your side...[/QUOTE]
Yup. Until, of course, the rhetoric turned to Iraq. We squandered a whole lot of world sympathy on that one.


#48



WolfOfOdin

I'm surprised the "Europeans love Obama because they want the US to be teh weak!" hadn't come up earlier. I'm to the point of thinking Europeans like Obama because he's willing to try negotiation first before letting the hammer drop.


#49

tegid

tegid

GasBandit said:
we started projecting strength AFTER we were attacked... and then we weren't attacked successfully again, until xmas 2009, which only avoided being a tragedy by a nigerian's lack of expertise with binary explosives.
Click to expand...
Yeah it wasn't because of paranoid airport control, tighter controls everywhere or anything like that. I mean, the terrorists were SO scared of you and now with Obama they're like 'yay! back to bombing! It was getting boring here in Iraq'

WolfOfOdin said:
I'm surprised the "Europeans love Obama because they want the US to be teh weak!" hadn't come up earlier. I'm to the point of thinking Europeans like Obama because he's willing to try negotiation first before letting the hammer drop.
Click to expand...
In my case it's more or less that. It's a matter of attitude more than anything else.


#50

Troll

Troll

tegid said:
WolfOfOdin said:
I'm surprised the "Europeans love Obama because they want the US to be teh weak!" hadn't come up earlier. I'm to the point of thinking Europeans like Obama because he's willing to try negotiation first before letting the hammer drop.
Click to expand...
In my case it's more or less that. It's a matter of attitude more than anything else.
Click to expand...
No, I'm pretty sure you are just a communist who hates America and wants to see it destroyed. That's how EVERYONE outside of America is, afterall. Just ask Gas!


#51



WolfOfOdin

A Troll;325302][QUOTE=tegid said:
WolfOfOdin said:
I'm surprised the "Europeans love Obama because they want the US to be teh weak!" hadn't come up earlier. I'm to the point of thinking Europeans like Obama because he's willing to try negotiation first before letting the hammer drop.
Click to expand...
In my case it's more or less that. It's a matter of attitude more than anything else.
Click to expand...
No, I'm pretty sure you are just a communist who hates America and wants to see it destroyed. That's how EVERYONE outside of America is, afterall. Just ask Gas![/QUOTE]

Nah, just someone who believes Foreign Policy doesn't have to grow out of the end of an artillery emplacement.


#52

North_Ranger

North_Ranger

GasBandit said:
On another note, I find it very telling that so many of the "I like obama" posts are coming from Europeans. Polls of Europeans have shown they overwhelmingly desire america weakened on the international stage.
Click to expand...
I'll try to be as tactful as possible... You, sir, may go and fuck yourself. Once again you've loosened up your shit-bags and started spewing all over an entire goddamn continent with very different cultural and political aspirations. I'd like to see those polls you are quoting, since the wording sounds like you've been sticking your head in some pretty deep conservative shi... I mean, sites again. Most of the people I know and have discussed politics with are of the mind that it's a good thing the United States might now be more of a reasonable guy willing to talk softly before using the big stick instead of a paranoid, lying loony.

Oh, and did I already tell you to go fuck yourself? I did? Oh well, never hurts saying it twice...


#53

Dave

Dave

North_Ranger;325411][QUOTE=GasBandit said:
On another note, I find it very telling that so many of the "I like obama" posts are coming from Europeans. Polls of Europeans have shown they overwhelmingly desire america weakened on the international stage.
Click to expand...
I'll try to be as tactful as possible... You, sir, may go and fuck yourself. Once again you've loosened up your shit-bags and started spewing all over an entire goddamn continent with very different cultural and political aspirations. I'd like to see those polls you are quoting, since the wording sounds like you've been sticking your head in some pretty deep conservative shi... I mean, sites again. Most of the people I know and have discussed politics with are of the mind that it's a good thing the United States might now be more of a reasonable guy willing to talk softly before using the big stick instead of a paranoid, lying loony.

Oh, and did I already tell you to go fuck yourself? I did? Oh well, never hurts saying it twice...[/QUOTE]

Play. Nice.


#54



Kitty Sinatra

Next year's Secret Santa, whoever gets North_Ranger really oughtta send him a coupon for tact lessons. :p


#55

North_Ranger

North_Ranger

Dave;325439][QUOTE=North_Ranger;325411][QUOTE=GasBandit said:
On another note, I find it very telling that so many of the "I like obama" posts are coming from Europeans. Polls of Europeans have shown they overwhelmingly desire america weakened on the international stage.
Click to expand...
I'll try to be as tactful as possible... You, sir, may go and fuck yourself. Once again you've loosened up your shit-bags and started spewing all over an entire goddamn continent with very different cultural and political aspirations. I'd like to see those polls you are quoting, since the wording sounds like you've been sticking your head in some pretty deep conservative shi... I mean, sites again. Most of the people I know and have discussed politics with are of the mind that it's a good thing the United States might now be more of a reasonable guy willing to talk softly before using the big stick instead of a paranoid, lying loony.

Oh, and did I already tell you to go fuck yourself? I did? Oh well, never hurts saying it twice...[/QUOTE]

Play. Nice.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, boss. Won't happen again.


#56



makare

I liked it :)


#57

Krisken

Krisken

I can understand how you feel NR. Sometimes it's hard to resist the troll when you're in his cave.


#58

North_Ranger

North_Ranger

Gruebeard said:
Next year's Secret Santa, whoever gets North_Ranger really oughtta send him a coupon for tact lessons. :p
Click to expand...
Oh come on :( It's not like I fly off the handle at the drop of a hat.

I just hate listening to a *BEEP*ing donkey-*BEEP*ing know-it-*BEEP*-all go all "Urop hatz uz, hurhurhurhur!".


#59

North_Ranger

North_Ranger

Krisken said:
I can understand how you feel NR. Sometimes it's hard to resist the troll when you're in his cave.
Click to expand...
It's not that. I just hate him dissin' my neighbourhood.


#60

Espy

Espy

It would have been more effective to ask him for a source to those polls he brought up. I'd love to see them.


#61

Troll

Troll

Krisken said:
I can understand how you feel NR. Sometimes it's hard to resist the troll when you're in his cave.
Click to expand...
At the end of the day I take solace in the certainty that ultimately he will be proven wrong, as he has so many times before.


#62

North_Ranger

North_Ranger

Espy said:
It would have been more effective to ask him for a source to those polls he brought up. I'd love to see them.
Click to expand...
I thought I did. I just did so while giving an opinion of his "fact-finding" habits.


#63



Kitty Sinatra

North_Ranger;325451][QUOTE=Gruebeard said:
Next year's Secret Santa, whoever gets North_Ranger really oughtta send him a coupon for tact lessons. :p
Click to expand...
Oh come on :( It's not like I fly off the handle at the drop of a hat.[/QUOTE]
You know me, Ranger. I'm just playing off your comment about trying to be tactful.


#64

@Li3n

@Li3n

makare1;325172][QUOTE=@Li3n;325167][QUOTE=GasBandit said:
makare1: actually, we started projecting strength AFTER we were attacked... and then we weren't attacked successfully again, until xmas 2009, which only avoided being a tragedy by a nigerian's lack of expertise with binary explosives.
Click to expand...
Hmmm... i don''t think you're using that word the way i was taught it should be used...


After we were attacked is when we started projecting dickishness, not strength.
Click to expand...
Actually seem to recall that for a while there after 9/11 everyone was on your side...[/QUOTE]

What choice did anyone have?[/QUOTE]

Stay out of it, like some did with Iraq.


#65

Seraphyn

Seraphyn

You remember, the whole "if you're not with us you're against us" thing?

Staying out of it would've probably resulted in a lot of lost deals, and lost political support. For most countries that was not an option.


#66

@Li3n

@Li3n

I remember that was still in place when Iraq happened, which is why i mentioned it.


#67



JCM

@Li3n;325593][QUOTE=makare1;325172][QUOTE=@Li3n;325167][QUOTE=GasBandit said:
makare1: actually, we started projecting strength AFTER we were attacked... and then we weren't attacked successfully again, until xmas 2009, which only avoided being a tragedy by a nigerian's lack of expertise with binary explosives.
Click to expand...
Hmmm... i don''t think you're using that word the way i was taught it should be used...


After we were attacked is when we started projecting dickishness, not strength.
Click to expand...
Actually seem to recall that for a while there after 9/11 everyone was on your side...[/QUOTE]

What choice did anyone have?[/QUOTE]

Stay out of it, like everybody (but 3-4 countries) did with Iraq.[/QUOTE]Corrected that for you :p


#68

tegid

tegid

One of which was Spain :(


#69

GasBandit

GasBandit

The poll was linked in a previous GBPT thread... like a year ago unfortunately, so lost it probably is to the sands of time. It was a Pew research center poll conducted in early 2008... lemme see if I can find it.

Oh and Dave, don't worry about NR - he's just mad cause I laughed at his summer hovel in the woods ;) I'm a big boy and can take the slings and arrows. Plus, you know me - when someone melts down like that and degenerates into slinging vitriol like that, it just confirms in my mind that he knows he's got nothing. I take it as a sign of capitulation, kind of like when a feminist can't win a logical argument with a man, so she tries to "trump" him by calling him a misogynist.

Anyway, closest thing I can find right off the cuff is this 2004 report on page 9, where it shows overwhelming support for the EU being as strong as america (read: America weakened on the global stage to the level of the EU) would be a good thing for the world.


#70

GasBandit

GasBandit

tegid said:
One of which was Spain :(
Click to expand...
And then terrorism successfully grabbed the reins of Spain's political system with the train bombings 3 days before the election, and they cast off their spines faster than the french ever have in the entirety of recorded history.


#71

Dave

Dave

GasBandit said:
Oh and Dave, don't worry about NR - he's just mad cause I laughed at his summer hovel in the woods ;) I'm a big boy and can take the slings and arrows. Plus, you know me - when someone melts down like that and degenerates into slinging vitriol like that, it just confirms in my mind that he knows he's got nothing. I take it as a sign of capitulation, kind of like when a feminist can't win a logical argument with a man, so she tries to "trump" him by calling him a misogynist.
Click to expand...
It had nothing to do with how well the target could take it but is instead a measure of decorum. I know you can take it. But you shouldn't have to.


#72

Seraphyn

Seraphyn

Must've been moron voting day to be honest. A strong US is what gives NATO (thus most of the important EU members) and to a large extent the UN it's power.

I'd hate to see a weak US, but I'd like the US not to be an ass that's only thinking of itself in the world politics setting. With Obama we get at least the idea that he's actually listening and cares about our issues/situations. We had little of that with Bush. On that alone, many EU citizens will always prefer people like Obama over people like Bush.


#73

Krisken

Krisken

Seraphyn said:
Must've been moron voting day to be honest. A strong US is what gives NATO (thus most of the important EU members) and to a large extent the UN it's power.

I'd hate to see a weak US, but I'd like the US not to be an ass that's only thinking of itself in the world politics setting. With Obama we get at least the idea that he's actually listening and cares about our issues/situations. We had little of that with Bush. On that alone, many EU citizens will always prefer people like Obama over people like Bush.
Click to expand...
That impression was largely the fault of Yosemite Sam (John Bolton), who famously said "There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is only the international community, which can only be led by the only remaining superpower, which is the United States."

What a diplomat!


#74

North_Ranger

North_Ranger

GasBandit said:
Oh and Dave, don't worry about NR - he's just mad cause I laughed at his summer hovel in the woods ;) I'm a big boy and can take the slings and arrows. Plus, you know me - when someone melts down like that and degenerates into slinging vitriol like that, it just confirms in my mind that he knows he's got nothing. I take it as a sign of capitulation, kind of like when a feminist can't win a logical argument with a man, so she tries to \"trump\" him by calling him a misogynist.

Anyway, closest thing I can find right off the cuff is this 2004 report on page 9, where it shows overwhelming support for the EU being as strong as america (read: America weakened on the global stage to the level of the EU) would be a good thing for the world.
Click to expand...
It also MIGHT have something to do with you bundling up an entire continent into one big Obama-lovin' ball and then spitting all over it. I merely answered your essentialist bovine byproduct in the level of maturity that seemed equal to your statement. "In America."

Also, congrats on finding outdated evidence that you misinterpret to suit your own political agenda. *golfclap*

As for the "hovel"... your loss, bub, if you can't enjoy peace and quiet. "In America."


#75

North_Ranger

North_Ranger

Seraphyn said:
Must've been moron voting day to be honest. A strong US is what gives NATO (thus most of the important EU members) and to a large extent the UN it's power.

I'd hate to see a weak US, but I'd like the US not to be an ass that's only thinking of itself in the world politics setting. With Obama we get at least the idea that he's actually listening and cares about our issues/situations. We had little of that with Bush. On that alone, many EU citizens will always prefer people like Obama over people like Bush.
Click to expand...
I just think it's funny that GB needs to put his own spin on his own evidence. What I read as wanting to strengthen the position of the EU as a political entity, he reads as wanting to chip away US power.


#76

tegid

tegid

GasBandit said:
Anyway, closest thing I can find right off the cuff is this 2004 report on page 9, where it shows overwhelming support for the EU being as strong as america (read: America weakened on the global stage to the level of the EU) would be a good thing for the world.
Click to expand...
Yeah, if you read whatever you want then fine. But in the report I read, it said, and I quote

'Moreover, half or more of the public in each of the five European nations surveyed say it would be a good thing if the European Union becomes as powerful as the United States.'

Which has the obvious interpretation of the EU rising in power, as opposed to what you are saying. More so if you read about the consequences, etc.

[EDIT: NR put it better than me.
I also find it funny that apparently Americans are more reticent of a powerful EU than Europeans are of a powerful US]

gb said:
And then terrorism successfully grabbed the reins of Spain's political system with the train bombings 3 days before the election, and they cast off their spines faster than the french ever have in the entirety of recorded history.
Click to expand...
Erm... except that the then governing party fucked things up trying to twist the bombings in their favor saying they had been done by local terrorists when the investigation was clearly giving other leads.

So yeah no bending over to terrorists. We have our own history and experience on dealing with terrorists, and we don't give in to their aspirations.


#77

@Li3n

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
Anyway, closest thing I can find right off the cuff is this 2004 report on page 9, where it shows overwhelming support for the EU being as strong as america (read: America weakened on the global stage to the level of the EU) would be a good thing for the world.
Click to expand...

:rofl: You sir are the funniest person on this forum... i almost choked laughing. 10x man.:rofl:



And remember kids, whenever GB says he wants America to be strong what he really means is that he wants the rest of the world to die of hunger.


#78



WolfOfOdin

With the way this thread is going, next GB's going to say the Spanish have no idea how to deal with Fascism or oppressive governments. I'm slightly worried about how something like that would go though.


(I am aware the nightmare Spain went through in the past and in no way imply that the nation is anything but a group of die-hard fighters who know what it is to sacrifice for Freedom)


#79

TommiR

TommiR

GasBandit said:
Anyway, closest thing I can find right off the cuff is this 2004 report on page 9, where it shows overwhelming support for the EU being as strong as america (read: America weakened on the global stage to the level of the EU) would be a good thing for the world.
Click to expand...
It could also be taken as the EU citizenry expressing support for a beefing up of european militaries and defence co-operation to the level of the US, not necessarily as indication of a desire to bring US capabilities down. Given that the world seemed to develop towards a less internationally safe place post 9/11, and the foreign policy posture of the US shifting towards a more belligerent stance overall, I'm not sure it is unreasonable for the EU public to express desire to be more capable of looking after their own defences.

EDITED TO ADD: Um, yeah, what the above posters said... Missed the continuance of the discussion.


#80

GasBandit

GasBandit

North_Ranger said:
I just think it's funny that GB needs to put his own spin on his own evidence. What I read as wanting to strengthen the position of the EU as a political entity, he reads as wanting to chip away US power.
Click to expand...
Given that (1) the poll was given in context of "how do you feel about the US?" being the question right above it, and (2) since strength is all relative, an EU "as strong" as the US is a de facto weakening of the US (with france wanting it 90%, they being the most Ameriphobic of the lot), it's really hard how NOT to see it as a desire for a weaker US.


#81



crono1224

The parasite wants to weaken the strong to his level, the strong wants to increase their power to the levels of their betters. Not really even an half ass quote from Atlas Shrugged, but the generalities remain the same. There is two ways of looking at it, A) EU wants to becomes stronger and match the level of the US, or B) the EU wants the US to degrade to the power of them. Now you gotta decide which do you think they are, I tend to think they think more along the lines of option A where their is no benefits of them not improving themselves except they look better in comparison to an arbitrary country.


#82

GasBandit

GasBandit

crono1224 said:
The parasite wants to weaken the strong to his level, the strong wants to increase their power to the levels of their betters. Not really even an half ass quote from Atlas Shrugged, but the generalities remain the same. There is two ways of looking at it, A) EU wants to becomes stronger and match the level of the US, or B) the EU wants the US to degrade to the power of them. Now you gotta decide which do you think they are, I tend to think they think more along the lines of option A where their is no benefits of them not improving themselves except they look better in comparison to an arbitrary country.
Click to expand...
Given the socialist nature of Europe, I dare say they're closer to the parasite than the strong, in reference to that quote. However, unlike economies, national political strength on earth is a closed system with no absolutes and all relatives. the strengthening of one in direct relation to another is the de facto weaking of the other. If an emergent union wants to be as strong as the global hegemon, by its very nature it desires to break the hegemony, thus weakening the hegemon. It's not rocket surgery.


#83

@Li3n

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
Given the socialist nature of Europe, I dare say they're closer to the parasite than the strong, in reference to that quote. However, unlike economies, national political strength on earth is a closed system with no absolutes and all relatives. the strengthening of one in direct relation to another is the de facto weaking of the other. If an emergent union wants to be as strong as the global hegemon, by its very nature it desires to break the hegemony, thus weakening the hegemon. It's not rocket surgery.
Click to expand...
Yeah Gas, by becoming someone's equal that someone is no longer the strongest... and next week we'll be learning about algebra.


#84



crono1224

GasBandit;325795][QUOTE=crono1224 said:
The parasite wants to weaken the strong to his level, the strong wants to increase their power to the levels of their betters. Not really even an half ass quote from Atlas Shrugged, but the generalities remain the same. There is two ways of looking at it, A) EU wants to becomes stronger and match the level of the US, or B) the EU wants the US to degrade to the power of them. Now you gotta decide which do you think they are, I tend to think they think more along the lines of option A where their is no benefits of them not improving themselves except they look better in comparison to an arbitrary country.
Click to expand...
Given the socialist nature of Europe, I dare say they're closer to the parasite than the strong, in reference to that quote. However, unlike economies, national political strength on earth is a closed system with no absolutes and all relatives. the strengthening of one in direct relation to another is the de facto weaking of the other. If an emergent union wants to be as strong as the global hegemon, by its very nature it desires to break the hegemony, thus weakening the hegemon. It's not rocket surgery.[/QUOTE]

That would almost be true if the only two powers at play were US and EU and no other powers existed, and we were in direct competition of each other.


#85

@Li3n

@Li3n

You forgot the part where his statement is stupid because no one wants to be weak... so by his logic everyone wants to weaken the US, whether or not the actions undertaken benefit the US in other areas besides the global hegemony thing too.




Oh, and btw Gas, a long time ago you said somethign about the US being the 1st superpower... fun fact, the guy that coined the word explicitly said the British Empire was the first one, i thought you should know, so people will maybe stop calling you uneducated.


#86

tegid

tegid

it's really hard how NOT to see it as a desire for a weaker US.
Click to expand...
Weell... Try not to hurt your head but please put some effort into it.

'Among those favoring a more powerful EU,
majorities in every country say they would
continue to take this position even if it means that
Europe would have to pay the costs of taking
greater responsibility for international problems.'

This does sound much more like europeans who wanted the EU to be as powerful as the US wanted just that and not what you are infering. You say the USA would become weaker as a consequence? Fine. The people answering the poll either wanted to 'take the power' from other nations or much more probably, just didn't realize/think about that.

At the very least, the US' favorability ratings are incompatible with all the people who want a more powerful EU wanting a less powerful US.

Also, I guess the third of Americans who don't think a more powerful EU is a bad idea are just anti americans who want to see their country striped of power.


That is, supposing you are right and our rising in power inevitably means you'd lose some. I also question that, since that power can be mesured against non-allied countries, for instance, and the US is, at least somehow, regarded as an ally.

EDIT: re: Europe tends to be parasitic: :lol: those're some prejudices you've got there, cowboy! You really don't get us. Can't you understand that we are a different culture with different aspirations?


#87

Denbrought

Denbrought

GasBandit;325669][QUOTE=tegid said:
One of which was Spain :(
Click to expand...
And then terrorism successfully grabbed the reins of Spain's political system with the train bombings 3 days before the election, and they cast off their spines faster than the french ever have in the entirety of recorded history.[/QUOTE]
Yeah. In fact, Spain's populace was overwhelmingly in favour of invading Irak and only started protesting en masse against the war after those bombings. Furthermore, the party that rose to power after those elections only started promising to get us out of the war after the bombings happened.

Man, I love reinterpreting history.


#88

GasBandit

GasBandit

@Li3n said:
You forgot the part where his statement is stupid because no one wants to be weak... so by his logic everyone wants to weaken the US, whether or not the actions undertaken benefit the US in other areas besides the global hegemony thing too.
Click to expand...
You're starting to catch on. Everyone *does* want to weaken the US, even if only to make themselves comparatively stronger.




Oh, and btw Gas, a long time ago you said somethign about the US being the 1st superpower... fun fact, the guy that coined the word explicitly said the British Empire was the first one, i thought you should know, so people will maybe stop calling you uneducated.
Click to expand...
Hm, I don't think I ever said that. You might be confusing me with someone else. I did, however, call the US the world's LAST superpower.

crono1224;325801][QUOTE=GasBandit;325795][QUOTE=crono1224 said:
The parasite wants to weaken the strong to his level, the strong wants to increase their power to the levels of their betters. Not really even an half ass quote from Atlas Shrugged, but the generalities remain the same. There is two ways of looking at it, A) EU wants to becomes stronger and match the level of the US, or B) the EU wants the US to degrade to the power of them. Now you gotta decide which do you think they are, I tend to think they think more along the lines of option A where their is no benefits of them not improving themselves except they look better in comparison to an arbitrary country.
Click to expand...
Given the socialist nature of Europe, I dare say they're closer to the parasite than the strong, in reference to that quote. However, unlike economies, national political strength on earth is a closed system with no absolutes and all relatives. the strengthening of one in direct relation to another is the de facto weaking of the other. If an emergent union wants to be as strong as the global hegemon, by its very nature it desires to break the hegemony, thus weakening the hegemon. It's not rocket surgery.[/QUOTE]

That would almost be true if the only two powers at play were US and EU and no other powers existed, and we were in direct competition of each other.[/QUOTE]It doesn't matter how many slices are cut from the pie, if one slice is made bigger, even the slices that stay the same size are comparatively smaller. And don't fool yourself, we ARE all in competition with each other, directly and indirectly.

@Li3n said:
Yeah Gas, by becoming someone's equal that someone is no longer the strongest... and next week we'll be learning about algebra.
Click to expand...
So you agree with me. Glad we had this little chat. The reasons why Europeans (and Chinese and Russians and Iranians and North Koreans) like Obama is the same reason why foxes like old, blind, deaf dogs to guard henhouses.


#89

tegid

tegid

GasBandit said:
It doesn't matter how many slices are cut from the pie, if one slice is made bigger, even the slices that stay the same size are comparatively smaller. And don't fool yourself, we ARE all in competition with each other, directly and indirectly.
Click to expand...
That's your problem there. You have this mentality of wanting to be strong in spite of others, and can't understand some of us may want to be strong alongside others and even (omg!) for others.

So you agree with me. Glad we had this little chat. The reasons why Europeans (and Chinese and Russians and Iranians and North Koreans) like Obama is the same reason why foxes like old, blind, deaf dogs to guard henhouses.
Click to expand...
Refer to my response just above. Also, you are truly delusional and paranoid. Seriously, not everyone's out to get you. We just like him BECAUSE HE'S NOT AN ASSHOLE. Is it that hard to understand?


#90

Seraphyn

Seraphyn

Man, you make it sound like we want America to burn to the ground or something. This is going nowhere, I'm out.


#91

tegid

tegid

You mean you don't want that????


#92

GasBandit

GasBandit

Much as you would like to think otherwise, the earth is a closed system and its nations and peoples are, for want of ability to escape to other planets, locked in competition for finite resources. In a competition, say, a race, it is only natural to want to win. Thus, it is not an attack on your morality or your character when I say you want to comparatively weaken the united states by comparatively strengthening yourself. It's an acknowledgment of human nature, natural law, physics and fact. We cooperate and ally for common interests, defense, that sort of thing... but if you believe we are not economic and political competitors, you have lulled yourself into a fantasy world.


#93

tegid

tegid

I don't care if it's an attack on my moral character or not from your point of view. It's just untrue. Maybe Europeans are delusional but we don't want a weakened US, and the report you brought doesn't show that.

We're natural competitors? Fine. The United States have a much better grasp on that and want the other countries to be weak because that means they'll be better off? Fine. Do European citizens want that? No. :)


#94



makare

Hey not all people in the US are like Gas.


#95

North_Ranger

North_Ranger

Wow... after reading some of GB's responses here, I now hear him as Bandit Keith from Yu-Gi-Oh the Abridged Series: "In America."

He takes a five years old poll done in five of the twenty-seven EU member states, reads the results through a skewed lense to fit his notion of that the EU/Europe - which he apparently thinks are interchangeable - wants to weaken the US, whose hegemonic position must not be challenged in GBverse. "In America."

And then he has the balls to go and insult the Spanish for drawing out of the war, the French by painting them as America-haters and the whole flippin' continent by labeling Europe as a whole as socialist, never mind the fact that there's 50 sovereign states with widely different cultural and political traditions. It's all bloody Ruritania for him. "In America."

Dude, I'm sorry but until you stop smoking whatever crazy weed you have there, I can't take you seriously anymore. "In America."


#96

Troll

Troll

N_R, just give up. He doesn't listen to logic, he has zero compassion or empathy for other people, and he's an all-around loon. Arguing with him does nothing. Just sit back and watch him spin and spit, for entertainment's sake.


#97

tegid

tegid

makare1 said:
Hey not all people in the US are like Gas.
Click to expand...
I know, I know. It was for the sake of the argument. I just meant that if he thought that, fine, I wasn't going to discuss it. Only the europeans thing.


To Gas: I thought you liked serious discussion, not just discussion for the sake of it and without ever reaching to a conclusion?


#98

North_Ranger

North_Ranger

A Troll said:
N_R, just give up. He doesn't listen to logic, he has zero compassion or empathy for other people, and he's an all-around loon. Arguing with him does nothing. Just sit back and watch him spin and spit, for entertainment's sake.
Click to expand...
Well, I thought I just said I can't take him seriously anymore.

"In America."


#99

GasBandit

GasBandit

tegid said:
I don't care if it's an attack on my moral character or not from your point of view. It's just untrue. Maybe Europeans are delusional but we don't want a weakened US, and the report you brought doesn't show that.

We're natural competitors? Fine. The United States have a much better grasp on that and want the other countries to be weak because that means they'll be better off? Fine. Do European citizens want that? No. :)
Click to expand...
Poll results show otherwise, even if those who are polled don't understand the ramifications of their desires.

makare1 said:
Hey not all people in the US are like Gas.
Click to expand...
Yeah, most of them are a lot dumber.

North_Ranger said:
Wow... after reading some of GB's responses here, I now hear him as Bandit Keith from Yu-Gi-Oh the Abridged Series: "In America."

Dude, I'm sorry but until you stop smoking whatever crazy weed you have there, I can't take you seriously anymore. "In America."
Click to expand...
I haven't seen the work you reference, so I'm afraid the comparison is lost on me. You'll also pardon me if I'm not particularly concerned that you "can't take me seriously"/"are done with me"/"etc" for what, the 8th time?


#100

North_Ranger

North_Ranger

GasBandit;325889][QUOTE=North_Ranger said:
Wow... after reading some of GB's responses here, I now hear him as Bandit Keith from Yu-Gi-Oh the Abridged Series: "In America."

Dude, I'm sorry but until you stop smoking whatever crazy weed you have there, I can't take you seriously anymore. "In America."
Click to expand...
I haven't seen the work you reference, so I'm afraid the comparison is lost on me. You'll also pardon me if I'm not particularly concerned that you "can't take me seriously"/"are done with me"/"etc" for what, the 8th time?[/QUOTE]

Don't flatter yourself, bub. Second time, at best. And if you can't see what I'm referring to in the same thread, you might want to check your reading comprehension "in America".


#101



WolfOfOdin

Bandit Keith's an over the top parody of how Japan views the stereotypical American, a blustering loudmouthed idiot who believes in his country's superiority no matter what truth is staring him in the face.

Anywho, having been to France and spent some time in Lyons, I can say that France generally isn't full of anti-american lunatics. That would be Paris, which a great many people in France view as a festering hole full of the most smug, self-obsessed asses on the face of the planet. The reason Europeans in general took a dim view of America during the Bush years wasn't, as you proclaim, because America was strong, but because of a distaste with Bush more or less throwing political temper tantrums whenever the world didn't coalesce exactly with his view of things.

Politically that's idiotic, and one must learn to play to the crowd instead of shrieking that everyone is your enemy if they don't agree with you 100%.


#102

tegid

tegid

Gas, for God's sake: DO EUROPEANS AS A WHOLE DESIRE A WEAKENED US? No. Do some of them desire something that may, without them realizing it, have that as a consequence? Maybe. I don't care.

An over the top example: you want this nice new car model, and you are going to buy it next week. What you don't know is that thay make the tires with bones of these kids they kill to make them. Do you want the car? Sure! Do you want them to kill kids? NO (Maybe you do, but for the sake of the parallel, we'll say you don't :p)


#103

Silver Jelly

Silver Jelly

EDIT: oops, frustration induced words. I don't want to start a flamewar. Just flames that will burn the US to the ground. Because I'm a SOCIALIST.


#104

TommiR

TommiR

The EU beefing up their military capabilities and co-operating more in the military sphere would restrict the US room to maneuver in Europe through making the EU states that are a part of NATO (and EU states in general) less reliant on US and NATO support for their defensive needs, which might lead to them taking more independent actions vis a vis the US position on any particular issue. As a result, the US influence in europe would be curtailed somewhat, leading to a loss of options there which is generally considered to be a bad thing in foreign policy. Am I getting close to what you mean by your relative weakening of US power, GasBandit?

If so, then it seems to me that in essence you are saying you want the US to be the only nation that has a gun in a knife fight, to remain a military hegemon. Historically speaking, that has never been possible in the long run. Regardless of your views on the Balance of Power theory, a unipolar world has been an unstable arrangement as smaller powers begin to arm themselves and ally with one another to balance the strength of the hegemon, out of fear of otherwise being dominated by it. Now the hegemon can do things to forestall this development such as adopt a conciliatory diplomatic tone to allay their fears and through international institutional arrangements designed to limit the returns to power (in essence convincing others that it's more advantageous for them to work together with the hegemon rather than set up a competing system), or hasten it by beginning to throw it's weight around. But the period of military ascendancy has not lasted forever. Or at least that's the theory as far as I know.

So, if your view on the foreign policy goals of the US is that you should limit everyone else into having knives, I'm afraid you're fighting an ultimately loosing battle.

Just my unqualified two cents.

EDIT: Spelling check ;)


#105

tegid

tegid

Some interesting two cents you got there!


#106

GasBandit

GasBandit

You're getting closer, yes, but using it to extrapolate a point I was not making. I wasn't arguing how the US stays hegemon, I was saying that those not living in the nation that is currently hegemon are pleased by perceived weakening of that hegemon, even if they don't realize that is what is pleasing them - they may just see it as a strengthening of their own position.

I am not saying I want the US to be the only gun in a knife fight, I'm saying that it is natural for everybody else to want to have a gun too, and getting that gun would make them feel good while weakening the position of the previously sole gunman. Previously the "gunman" wanted to upgrade from a gun to a bazooka... and now the gunman wants to chuck his gun in favor of a knife, which also makes the other knife-cum-gunmen happy.


#107

tegid

tegid

Hm... I like this comparison. Now, let's see if you can understand our point: it's not that we (I, at the very least) like Obama best because we think he wants to downgrade from gun to knife. It's fine if he wants to keep the gun, I'm sure he will and I don't have any problem with that. It's just that he doesn't go flailing it around and shouting 'I GOT A PISTOL!'


#108

North_Ranger

North_Ranger

TommiR said:
The EU beefing up their military capabilities and co-operating more in the military sphere would restrict the US room to maneuver in Europe through making the EU states that are a part of NATO (and EU states in general) less reliant on US and NATO support for their defensive needs, which might lead to them taking more independent actions vis a vis the US position on any particular issue. As a result, the US influence in europe would be curtailed somewhat, leading to a loss of options there which is generally considered to be a bad thing in foreign policy. Am I getting close to what you mean by your relative weakening of US power, GasBandit?

If so, then it seems to me that in essence you are saying you want the US to be the only nation that has a gun in a knife fight, to remain a military hegemon. Historically speaking, that has never been possible in the long run. Regardless of your views on the Balance of Power theory, a unipolar world has been an unstable arrangement as smaller powers begin to arm themselves and ally with one another to balance the strength of the hegemon, out of fear of otherwise being dominated by it. Now the hegemon can do things to forestall this development such as adopt a conciliatory diplomatic tone to allay their fears and through international institutional arrangements designed to limit the returns to power (in essence convincing others that it's more advantageous for them to work together with the hegemon rather than set up a competing system), or hasten it by beginning to throw it's weight around. But the period of military ascendancy has not lasted forever. Or at least that's the theory as far as I know.

So, if your view on the foreign policy goals of the US is that you should limit everyone else into having knives, I'm afraid you're fighting an ultimately loosing battle.

Just my unqualified two cents.

EDIT: Spelling check ;)
Click to expand...
Lemme guess, Political History at UTA? ;) Very impressive.

Ihan vaan varoitukseksi, tämä "kaasuryöväri" on täys sekopää. Kannattaa varoa...


#109



zero

GasBandit said:
Much as you would like to think otherwise, the earth is a closed system and its nations and peoples are, for want of ability to escape to other planets, locked in competition for finite resources. In a competition, say, a race, it is only natural to want to win. Thus, it is not an attack on your morality or your character when I say you want to comparatively weaken the united states by comparatively strengthening yourself. It's an acknowledgment of human nature, natural law, physics and fact. We cooperate and ally for common interests, defense, that sort of thing... but if you believe we are not economic and political competitors, you have lulled yourself into a fantasy world.
Click to expand...
Much as YOU would like to think otherwise (although why somebody would LIKE to think otherwise is completely beyond me), it has been well known since at least the Ricardian theory of comparative advantage (but in fact much earlier than that) that mankind is NOT playing a zero-sum game, where one's losses is other's earnings. Heck Gas. as an advocate of free-market, I expected you to be a little bit more educated on classical economic theory...

Admit it Gas, deep inside you're a Marxist, and next week you will be pulling out some theory on class struggle, and how the proletariat should strengthen themselves in order to weaken the capitalists...


#110

TommiR

TommiR

GasBandit said:
You're getting closer, yes, but using it to extrapolate a point I was not making. I wasn't arguing how the US stays hegemon, I was saying that those not living in the nation that is currently hegemon are pleased by perceived weakening of that hegemon, even if they don't realize that is what is pleasing them - they may just see it as a strengthening of their own position.

I am not saying I want the US to be the only gun in a knife fight, I'm saying that it is natural for everybody else to want to have a gun too, and getting that gun would make them feel good while weakening the position of the previously sole gunman. Previously the "gunman" wanted to upgrade from a gun to a bazooka... and now the gunman wants to chuck his gun in favor of a knife, which also makes the other knife-cum-gunmen happy.
Click to expand...
Ah, okay, sorry. So if I got that right, one of the problems you have with Obama is that you believe he is compromising too much on US security, and you interpret the results of the 2004 poll as showing that a reduction in US capabilities is a significant factor in his general popularity amongst europeans (whom you perceive to see a US weakening as a relative uplift for european influence in the world). But that other nations or groups of nations potentially beginning to balance the US and threatening it's hegemon status is not a problem per se, more akin to something of a matter of course. Hopefully I got it right, I'm honestly not trying to make any strawmen here :)

Personally, I think tegid put it pretty well. I can second his views on why many people like Obama and his approach to foreign policy issues, particularly when it is contrasted with that of his predecessor.
North_Ranger said:
Lemme guess, Political History at UTA? ;) Very impressive.

Ihan vaan varoitukseksi, tämä "kaasuryöväri" on täys sekopää. Kannattaa varoa...
Click to expand...
Thanks, a good guess but not quite, it's my sister who studies the stuff there :)
But I've read a couple of her course books, as I have something of an interest in these matters.

Kiitti, pidetään varoitus mielessä. Ainahan niitä kaiken näköisiä jokunen löytyy, kattoo nyt ja etenee varoen...


#111

North_Ranger

North_Ranger

Jep jep. Mitä helkkaria sä muuten teet hereillä näin myöhään? XD


#112

TommiR

TommiR

:lol:Lomaa vielä huominen. Mutta kyllä tästä tarttee nukkumaan jo kohta lähteä...


#113

North_Ranger

North_Ranger

Samat sanat. Etenkin kun pitäs toi perkeleen gradu saada vielä valmiiksi... Hyvät yöt, tamperelainen, ja näyttäydypä vähän useammin. Heitäpä vaikka kuva itsestäsi päälaudalle :p


#114

strawman

strawman

GasBandit said:
Much as you would like to think otherwise, the earth is a closed system and its nations and peoples are, for want of ability to escape to other planets, locked in competition for finite resources.
Click to expand...
I was wondering if you really were riding the zero sum game horse, and this is proof enough.

I don't believe it, but I'm an optimist.


#115

@Li3n

@Li3n

"GasBandit said:
@Li3n said:
You forgot the part where his statement is stupid because no one wants to be weak... so by his logic everyone wants to weaken the US, whether or not the actions undertaken benefit the US in other areas besides the global hegemony thing too.
Click to expand...
You're starting to catch on. Everyone *does* want to weaken the US, even if only to make themselves comparatively stronger.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's almost capitalistic even. Good thing you're not for breaking up monopolies in order to make for a better playing field that would benefit everyone (you where against the government breaking up AT&T right?). :rolleyes:

But i forget, you're just scared your future european overlords will force you to have affordable health care and environmentally friendly cars, those dictatorial bastards.

GasBandit said:
@Li3n said:
Yeah Gas, by becoming someone's equal that someone is no longer the strongest... and next week we'll be learning about algebra.
Click to expand...
So you agree with me. Glad we had this little chat. The reasons why Europeans (and Chinese and Russians and Iranians and North Koreans) like Obama is the same reason why foxes like old, blind, deaf dogs to guard henhouses.
Click to expand...
Team America, guardians of the worlds resources... because everyone else would just be using them.

But i forget, you're a firm believer that competition is bad for everyone and the only good arangement is for one entity to hold all the power.


Much as you would like to think otherwise, the earth is a closed system and its nations and peoples are, for want of ability to escape to other planets, locked in competition for finite resources.
Click to expand...
Oh man, and i was afraid you might comment about how my previous moking arguments had more to do with economic theory then military power... thanks for the reasurance (also, having the gun doesn't make you better off overall, unless you think Oliver Twist had a great childhood).

But if we're gonna run with all it, fun fact, the EU has been the worlds biggest economy for a while now, so it's you americans that want to weaken us... so natch.



Now for some boring seriousness now: you're original statement pretty much said that the europeans want the US to become weaker by actually doing badly, which isn't supported by the fact that europeans want to be strong. Military strenght and a strong middle class aren't correlated.

Your next stand has logic behind it, but it's based on the premise that it's better to be a bully then an equal, which only works when you bring in the whole Evil Empire stuff, which is why you felt like mentioning, and i quote: " (and Chinese and Russians and Iranians and North Koreans) "


#116

@Li3n

@Li3n

Oh, and here are some terrorists for you:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/West/04/12/airport.shooting/

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/998468231.html?dids=998468231:998468231&FMT=ABS


#117

Covar

Covar

@Li3n;326098][QUOTE=GasBandit;325821][QUOTE=@Li3n said:
You forgot the part where his statement is stupid because no one wants to be weak... so by his logic everyone wants to weaken the US, whether or not the actions undertaken benefit the US in other areas besides the global hegemony thing too.
Click to expand...
You're starting to catch on. Everyone *does* want to weaken the US, even if only to make themselves comparatively stronger. [/QUOTE]


Yes, it's almost capitalistic even. Good thing you're not for breaking up monopolies in order to make for a better playing field that would benefit everyone (you where against the government breaking up AT&T right?). :rolleyes:[/quote]
I wasn't. I tried to make an opinion, but the matter was long settled before I reached a conclusion.


#118

GasBandit

GasBandit

Actually (I feel like I'm having to say this over and over again) I *was* for the breakup of AT&T. A lot of people seem to forget I'm not an anarchist... I guess maybe it's just easier to remember me as the guy who hates all government or something. I do believe that government has a responsibility, within the nation, to ensure competition. But an important distinction here is that to assure the continuance of competition does not require continued control. The breakup of AT&T is a good example - rather than nationalize AT&T to assure "universal, affordable telephone service" they simply broke it up. Fast forward a few decades, and we have a highly competitive array of consumer choices for telephony - along with the best prices and level of service... all provided by the private sector.

@lien is also correct when he says that Americans want to weaken the EU - a lot of our relative economic weakness comes from the weakness of our currency. Strengthening our currency would have the side effect of comparatively weakening the EU's share of the pie. QED. What many of you also don't seem to grasp (except TommiR does) is that I am not implying that anybody is just sitting around saying "We gotta think of ways to weaken the other guys," I'm saying that all our desires to be strong as a nation (and not just militarily, I'm also saying economically and politically) have the effect of comparatively weakening the other nations. Also, while the planet itself is finite, capital isn't necessarily so. That's the beauty of capitalism over socialism.

For those of you who don't believe the earth's resources are finite, why all the fuss about recycling? About deforestation? Do you believe the earth is regenerating resources on its own faster than we can use them?

Scarcity is what drives value. If something is not scarce, it is cheap (or free). If something is scarce (but useful), it has value commensurate with supply vs demand.

Ironically enough, this means the one thing truly worthless is people. :twisted:


#119



zero

GasBandit said:
Actually (I feel like I'm having to say this over and over again) I *was* for the breakup of AT&T.
Click to expand...
Well, that I can confirm. I distinctly remember you defending the breakup of AT&T more than once
GasBandit said:
For those of you who don't believe the earth's resources are finite, why all the fuss about recycling? About deforestation? Do you believe the earth is regenerating resources on its own faster than we can use them?
Click to expand...
Well, well, GasBandit, a Malthusianist... I take back all I said about GB being a Marxist...

But seriously, Malthusianism grossly underestimate the human ingenuity that has been constantly succeeding in creating more wealth using less resources (Using, for instance, recycling! Got it now?)

GasBandit said:
Scarcity is what drives value. If something is not scarce, it is cheap (or free). If something is scarce (but useful), it has value commensurate with supply vs demand.
Ironically enough, this means the one thing truly worthless is people. :twisted:
Click to expand...
I know this is tongue-in-cheek, but always keep in mind that production comes from Capital and Labor, in addition to natural resources. And again, don't forget that it is people's ingenuity that allows the production of more using progressively less natural resources.


#120

tegid

tegid

GasBandit said:
What many of you also don't seem to grasp (except TommiR does) is that I am not implying that anybody is just sitting around saying "We gotta think of ways to weaken the other guys," I'm saying that all our desires to be strong as a nation (and not just militarily, I'm also saying economically and politically) have the effect of comparatively weakening the other nations.
Click to expand...
GasBandit said:
On another note, I find it very telling that so many of the "I like obama" posts are coming from Europeans. Polls of Europeans have shown they overwhelmingly desire america weakened on the international stage.
Click to expand...
We were answering to this, where you did say that we want a less powerful US. I'm saying we don't want that explicitly, you are saying it's a natural consequence of what we want. I say I don't care. This discussion makes no sense.

The point we are really arguing over is that you say we like Obama because he makes you weaker. You have been told we don't. Even if you show europeans want a weaker US, however you want to do that, it doesn't prove your point. The explanation you've been given is that we like him better because he makes less of an absurd show of your strength regardless of wether it is there or not. What reason do you have to dispute this?


#121

@Li3n

@Li3n

Sarcasm, not something that goes over well in this thread... dully noted.



Also, having a bazooka vs others having guns has little to do with the economic concept of scarcity... military power is relative while limited resources are absolute.

For example if resources are limited to 100 units if the US has 55 and the EU 45 then the only way for the EU to get to 50 is to take 5 from the US, bringing the Us down to 50 too. While for military power there's no fixed upper limit, if the US had power level 55 and the EU 45, the n the EU could go to 50 while the US could stay at 55, with no loss of any real resources/capabilities or whatnot, the "weakening" you're talking about would be because instead of 10 power units in front it would only have 5.



What many of you also don't seem to grasp (except TommiR does) is that I am not implying that anybody is just sitting around saying \"We gotta think of ways to weaken the other guys,\" I'm saying that all our desires to be strong as a nation (and not just militarily, I'm also saying economically and politically) have the effect of comparatively weakening the other nations.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what your post was implying in the beginning and you know it... "we like Obama because he's making you weaker, which makes us relatively stronger without doing anything, let's have some more socialism " !

But let's say you didn't do that... what you where actually saying is that we like Obama because he's not keeping us weak so that the US will be comparatively strong! Sure, i'm fine with that, we like people that aren't bullies.* :cool:


*not that i don't find the idea that Bush made the US stronger in any way laughable...


#122



Kitty Sinatra

@Li3n said:
Sarcasm, not something that goes over well in this thread... dully noted.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

By the way, was that a typo, or some more sarcasm? "dully" means "in a dull manner." ;)


("duly" - one L - is the proper word )


#123

@Li3n

@Li3n

That was me relying to much on the spell checker... best way to ruin your knowledge of a 2nd language. That and not getting enough sleep... did get the Tank Burger achievement though... good night.


#124

@Li3n

@Li3n

Oh, and here's a terrorist that did the exact same thing during Bush's time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe_bomb


Top