PDA

View Full Version : Don't hate Americans, hate their government!



Poika
10-11-2003, 13:33
Turn your speakers on!

http://www.ericblumrich.com/idiot.html

DJ Biscuit
10-11-2003, 14:34
Excellent!

Just one comment, 'don't hate us hate our government'? Didn't someone once say the people get the government they deserve? :D

polly
12-11-2003, 02:20
Originally posted by DJ Biscuit
Excellent!

Just one comment, 'don't hate us hate our government'? Didn't someone once say the people get the government they deserve? :D

um helloooooo mr biscuit. 50% of Americans did *not* vote for monkey boy or his evil minions.

Missionary
12-11-2003, 11:34
But we are a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. So, technically if you hate the American government, you do hate the American people.

Missionary
12-11-2003, 11:38
Secondarily, just because he didn't win the popular vote doesn't mean that he shouldn't be president. You don't have to fix an election to become president when you don't win the popular vote. There is a little something in America called the electoral college. He didn't set it up, he just profited from it.

DJ Biscuit
12-11-2003, 14:41
Polly, the quote about people getting the president they deserve does not depend on them voting for him, just on deserving such a president. :D :)

sfjohns67
12-11-2003, 15:03
Originally posted by DJ Biscuit
Polly, the quote about people getting the president they deserve does not depend on them voting for him, just on deserving such a president. :D :)

C'mon, no fair making generalizations DJ!!! I am a US citizen, served my country in its military for 13 years in various worldwide sh.tholes, payed a ton of taxes along the way then and now, keep myself informed on a large array of national issues germane to my country's domestic and foreign roles, research my potential governmental candidates before I cast my vote each election, and most certainly did NOT vote for Bush.

I don't for one f..king second think I "deserve" the type of president my country has at the helm right now, and it pains me to know that you and apparently most of the world freely lump all Americans into the same pile of ignoramusi (my opinion only) who voted for Bush.

I'm hurt, man, I'm really hurt.

DJ Biscuit
12-11-2003, 15:12
Ah soz.

Maybe nobody deserves a Bush, but two?

:D

Nobody is gloating, don't forget we Brits had Thatcher, did we really deserve that?

sfjohns67
12-11-2003, 15:20
Agreed....but when you strip this thread down to its roots, I think the debate at stake might be more along the lines of "just what kind of pathological personality will subject themselves to what it takes to hold public office?" Think about it, a person who will open their private lives and that of their family to such public scrutiny possesses, in my opinion, a diabolical thirst for power.

Yes, there are plenty of exceptions to this rule, the ubiquitous "idealistic freshman US Senator" comes to mind, but I think that even they must suffer from some strange thirst for the public eye in order to make it to even that first term. Then, of course, they are introduced to the real meaning of political compromise, and the rest is nothing but an ever-growing snowball.

No thanks, I'll continue to vote my conscience to the best of my ability and retain my right bitch about the rest, in the case of such imbeciles as Boosh making it in the door.

Limp Bizkit
12-11-2003, 16:22
Originally posted by polly
50% of Americans did *not* vote for monkey boy or his evil minions.

What about Russians? Who the f*ck vote for that monkies in Duma?

Do Russians deserve thier government?

machine
12-11-2003, 16:26
Originally posted by Limp Bizkit
What about Russians? Who the f*ck vote for that monkies in Duma?

Do Russians deserve thier government?

Absolutely!

kniga
12-11-2003, 17:19
sfjohns67,

"If you don't vote, don't bitch" is my motto. I think the idea that we (Americans, who do have the right to vote) deserve the government we get makes the point that if you don't get out and vote, or if you do and just vote like your buddies at the local slop chute do, then you deserve the government you get. In my small town in the South where military service is still considered an honor and voting used to be a proud privilege, only 17% of the registered voters turned out for the last election. This means that Americans in that probably representative little town are too fat, dumb and happy to get up off the couch and go out and vote. This trend, like the erosion of public school education, is a sign of the times and the fact that Americans live such a rich and easy life (compared with most countries) that we have gotten too complacent to safeguard our great privileges. The price to pay is yet to come.

sfjohns67
12-11-2003, 17:30
I agree with everything you say, kniga, I just bristle when somebody lumps me into the same category as those by saying "Americans get what they deserve" and making other similar generalizations.

Just pressing the cause for eloquence and accuracy when people make posts, especially since I consider most of the posters here to be very educated and well-spoken folks most of the time.

polly
12-11-2003, 21:20
Originally posted by sfjohns67
I agree with everything you say, kniga, I just bristle when somebody lumps me into the same category as those by saying "Americans get what they deserve" and making other similar generalizations.


word.

I "deserve" hot water all year-round, better living conditions than Russians and certainly protection of my civil rights, but Russians don't. Is that how we want to play this game, or shall we stop with the generalizations?

Because either way you spin it, it's complete and utter BS.

Sadie
12-11-2003, 21:58
Originally posted by Missionary
But we are a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. So, technically if you hate the American government, you do hate the American people.
that's not true indeed, what have normal ppl to do with the government, i thin it's more the product of time, country needs, culture... but not people themselves... But I like these empty useless phrases like "people deserve their government" etc. You just though such a phrase in and there are so many smartasses ready to comment on it with the most serious expressions of their faces:p.

I've got a joke about Bush here, just love it..

Bush and Powell are sitting in a pub having a few beers when a yobbo walks in and asks the barman .... "Isn't that Bush and Powell over there?" The barman replies ..... "Yep, thats them."
So the bloke walks over and says .... "Hello, what are you fellows doing?"
Bush says ... "We're planning world war 3".
Our yobbo is amazed .... "Fair dinkem ? What's going to happen?"
Bush explains ..... "Well, we're going to kill 40 million Afghans this time and one bicycle repairman.">
"A bicycle repairman? the yobbo replies in disbelief .... !!!
And Bush turns to Powell and says, " See, I told you - no one would worry about the 40 million Afghans!"

kniga
12-11-2003, 23:17
Polly and Sadie,

How fascinating that you ladies, one apparently American, the other apparently Russian, find the commentaries here about government to be "complete and utter BS" and "empty useless phrases". Perhaps you would care to enlighten us smartasses as to how the Americans came to have their form of government and how the Russians came to have their form of government.

machine
12-11-2003, 23:40
This is the worst song I heard this year.

Missionary
13-11-2003, 02:06
I agree Kniga. They tell us we are wrong and offer us not explanations, but jokes.

MDW
13-11-2003, 02:27
An American is asking his fellow citizen: How to you spell correctly, IraQ or IraN?

Sadie
13-11-2003, 07:22
Missionary, Knizhechka,
who said you were wrong???The only thing I personally don't like is these general phrases like the one i took as an example, that after all are meaningless (in my opinion). Instead of arguing how bad it is you could suggest what the hell to do with it if it's so bad..for change...

I adore smarasses, somebody should be smart in the end, so that we, nonsmartasses could be enlightened from time to time.

Kniga, I could enlighten you, swear, but I find these issues a little boring (perhaps for my limited woman's mind :)). Maybe one day if you ask...;):)

Missionary, that's the way I treat life: it's too hard and complicated to take it close and serious. That's why I apply this approach to it, if you do not like my jokes, well.. I think I can't be good for everybody :)

MDW: I appreciate you devoted the joke to me, but i personally didn't like it. Like I said, I have nothing against americans, i have a lot of friends and acquaintances among them, so i think the joke was not really... hmm.. good.

Missionary
13-11-2003, 08:04
Sadie,

I do not dislike your joke, although I am pro-Bush. Further, I apologize profusely if I personally offended you. That was not my intention at all. I guess I myself was making a generalization. I do apologize. Please forgive me.

Sadie
13-11-2003, 08:24
no prob, it's men's habbit to kick women's asses when the coversation comes to serious issues like that
stereotypes still exist and will always be
it's women's business - to take care about family, house, husband, men fulfil the most important mission on the Earth: they argue how the world should be constructed, who should become the next president, what political regime, state form the country should have... blah, blah, blah..:)
no offence taken though..
still you can't survive without us ;):)

Missionary
13-11-2003, 18:30
A bit of a generalization there from you, isn't it?

kniga
13-11-2003, 21:14
:-)

Sadie
13-11-2003, 21:22
Men, U ARE UNBEARABLE!!:p :p :p
Bookie, nice to see you smiling..
Missionary, every phrase is more or less general. BASTA!:rolleyes::D

polly
14-11-2003, 00:52
Originally posted by kniga
Polly and Sadie,

How fascinating that you ladies, one apparently American, the other apparently Russian, find the commentaries here about government to be "complete and utter BS" and "empty useless phrases". Perhaps you would care to enlighten us smartasses as to how the Americans came to have their form of government and how the Russians came to have their form of government.

i think you misinterpreted my comment, mr hater of smartasses. i don't mean to say that talking about government or debating or anything like that is BS at all, I thought I made it clear that I was referring the BS-nish of making broad generalizations every which way. Did you not see the word "generalization" in my post? And the word order in which it was placed? Were the semantics of the surrounding words overly vague? If so, then I apologize. Vaguely.

I enjoy a good debate. But I do not enjoy being subjected to ridiculous stereotypes and generalizations by the McD-burger-snarfing Russians. Or anyone else for that matter.

Have a lovely day

yours,

resident overworked, underpaid and misunderstood "smartass"

kniga
14-11-2003, 12:21
Polly,

Well, well, well! You DO seem to be "overworked, underpaid and misunderstood"! :-) Tell your boss to ease up a bit because you're getting stressed out.

All right, let's review a bit and see if we can sort this all out. You said:

'word. [must just be a fragment accidently included here.]

I "deserve" hot water all year-round, better living conditions than Russians and certainly protection of my civil rights, but Russians don't. Is that how we want to play this game, or shall we stop with the generalizations?

Because either way you spin it, it's complete and utter BS.'

To start, it's hard to see where you fast forwarded in a mighty leap to the conclusion that anyone in this series of posts made such an inference. In the first place, no one in America "deserves" hot water or anything else they do not earn and pay for (although this is refuted daily by the growing welfare class that thinks getting something for nothing is great), and certainly there is no sense in the suggestion that Americans "deserve" more than the Russians. As to your semantics, characterizing them as "vague" is as much as an understatement as saying Bodin's sourdough bread tastes "good". :-)

So, if I understand your intent:

1. You don't like generalizations
2. You don't like stereotypes
3. You don't like 'McD-burger-snarfing Russians' (BTW, the correct slang is "scarfing"; "snarfing" connotes absorbing, processing, or understanding.)
4. You like debate, but participants must be willing to wade through your baffling semantics and inexplicable word order.

You, lady, are quite a challenge! :-)

hakan
14-11-2003, 12:56
I say learn to stop worrying and love the bomb...

The next election will be a triumph for the supply-siders and rein in another era of Republican supremacy.

Bush will take his place right next to Ronald Reagan in the republican pantheon.

Intourist
14-11-2003, 13:21
Originally posted by hakan
Bush will take his place right next to Ronald Reagan in the republican pantheon.

As two of the dumbest men ever to lead the US.

sfjohns67
14-11-2003, 14:38
Hear hear, couldn't have been more eloquently succinct myself!

Is it just me, or does the phrase "republican pantheon" give you the creepies?!

kniga
14-11-2003, 14:55
Hakan,

Ah, yes, another voice of derision from the Turkish contingent, those folks who refused to allow U.S. forces to stage and invade Iraq from the north because they were afraid we'd grab the oil you covet from the Kurds. A pretty sound policy for the national interests of Turkey, no doubt, but unfortunately never stated honestly.

Intourist
14-11-2003, 15:00
Originally posted by sfjohns67
Is it just me, or does the phrase "republican pantheon" give you the creepies?!

Downright spooky.

polly
14-11-2003, 23:43
Originally posted by kniga


You, lady, are quite a challenge! :-)



You sir, are pompous!
Even so, you still failed to understand the point. Congratulations.
Where are you from again? How does one come to be so self-important?
And I meant "snarf." Not "scarf." Scarf involves a tricky little ambiguity. Had I used scarf, you still would have nitted and picked, asking have I truly seen Russians put hamburgers around their necks.

Missionary
15-11-2003, 03:16
In the halls of dumb people that have ever led the US, I think you do injustice to Jimmy Carter by trying to replace him as #1.

twaj
15-11-2003, 06:52
Originally posted by MDW
An American is asking his fellow citizen: How to you spell correctly, IraQ or IraN?


A Russian is about to ask an American: 'How to you phrase a question properly,' and thinks better of it. :p

liuboi
15-11-2003, 08:26
55% of Americans voted against this insane freak of nature.

But the US political system which is not truly democratic (the majority can still lose an election as it happened with Bush)

So Hate the Americans in power, 55% of the AMericans hate them too.

Missionary
15-11-2003, 09:10
liuboi,

The electoral college was created as a fair and balanced way to represent all Americans, not just Americans in the most populous states. Without the electoral college, the only Americans that would be represented in a presidential election would be in California, New York, and Texas. Everyone else would be put into a second class citizen position.

I believe everyone has the right to an opinion, and even if your opinion is different than mine, I will fight for your right to have that opinion.

It is my opinion that if you don't even really understand your own political system or bother to try to understand the why behind the what that you really shouldn't bash it. Learn a little more about your country and your government before you pass that kind of judgement.

J.D.
15-11-2003, 09:38
Missionary, what you say is effectively true, that smaill states would not be represented, but that is not the reason that the electrol process was created. It was created as a defence against foreign influence. Should a foreign government unduly influence the election, in the opinion of the electrol system, then they simply would not vote for that canidate. The electrol system can place their votes for ANYBODY they want, well any native born American over 35 anyway.

kniga
16-11-2003, 14:26
Liuboi,

You have already firmly established that you're a blithering idiot. To say that 55% of Americans (those who voted for Al Gore) HATE the duly elected (whether you understand the system or not) national leaders is another indication that you must spend so much time with the "rather tedious drag keeping up with all your investment accounts" that whatever intellect (naw, you must be a rich man's son) you ever had has drained away along with your dissipated lifestyle. Most Americans, even when upset with the outcome of an election, bide their time and rectify the situation with the next election. They don't waste as much time hating the winners as you spend looking in mirrors.

Sadie
16-11-2003, 14:31
Originally posted by kniga
Liuboi,
again..............??? Bookie, what's going on with you???;) :D :D :D

kniga
16-11-2003, 14:39
Sadie,

Obviously, I was in a fog thinking about you...

ПРИЗРАЧНЫЙ ТУМАН

Я смотрю через призрачный туман,
твоё лицо возникает перед моими глазами.

Я кушаю выражение лица как гурман,
твой маленький нос целую моими губами.

Я плаваю к тебе как устойчивый штурман,
терпеливо ожидаешь меня открытыми руками.

Я перепрыгиваю между нами широкий океан,
приземляю перед тобой моими нежными словами.

Я кружу тебя сильно как духовный ураган,
твои ноги подходят ко мне гигантскими шагами.

Я слышу твой голос и сердце стучит как барабан,
ты не держишь от меня ласковые слова за зубами.

Я бесконечно ищу тебя везде как наркоман,
ты же смотришь на меня с тайными улыбками.

Я наконец вижу ясно через призрачный туман,
мы с тобой всегда будем вместе да и Бог с нами.

Sadie
16-11-2003, 14:50
Originally posted by kniga
Sadie,

Obviously, I was in a fog thinking about you...



OOhh, Bookie, you are so.. so.. sweet:)

kniga
16-11-2003, 15:07
Sadie,

Life is but a dream... and I'm living it. Hope you are, too. :-)

Jet
16-11-2003, 15:16
Kniga, u sound like u are married to a Russian woman.

kniga
16-11-2003, 15:29
Polly,

You said:

"You sir, are pompous!
Even so, you still failed to understand the point. Congratulations.
Where are you from again? How does one come to be so self-important?
And I meant "snarf." Not "scarf." Scarf involves a tricky little ambiguity. Had I used scarf, you still would have nitted and picked, asking have I truly seen Russians put hamburgers around their necks."

I say:

No, not pompous, I hope, but I admit to being more than a little mischievous. And Polly, you are not the first woman I have failed to understand, nor, undoubtedly the last...sigh. I liked the image of the hamburger around the neck for a scarf! Nit-picking? No, again, more pedantic caused by my love of words and their usage, but I see I have managed to irritate instead of elucidate.

Your friend, Sadie, says that I am sweet. If I write you a poem in Russian will you give me another chance? :-)

kniga
16-11-2003, 16:00
Jet Li,

:-)

enrico palazzo
16-11-2003, 17:56
re-elect GORE!!!

Sadie
16-11-2003, 18:51
Gore is very handsome… we, Russian women, have nothing against electing him the next President of the US.;)

Bookie,
Life is but a dream, but I personally am living my life standing both feet on the ground, and honestly envy (in a good sense of the word) all those who leave their dreams.

Ну и what is going on again? Now you are in a frog thinking about Polly?? Sniff..
See? Life is being so cruel to me..:mad: :(

Yet I would refrain from calling me and Polly friends. It has nothing to do with you of course. ;)

kniga
16-11-2003, 20:10
Sadie, dear Sadie,

Half the women in America agree with you about Al Gore and voted for him because he was handsome. Half the women in America forgave Bill Clinton's behavior in the White House because he was sexy. It is an axiom that if you want to get elected in America, bring a lot of money, but come across well on television first and foremost.

You have both feet on the ground but envy people who live their dreams? Well, how are you going to live your dreams if you are so sensible? :-)

As to Polly, I'm not sure that she is ever going to reply to me again, but I am not in a fog over her. I was in a fog over you, remember? I did not know that you two were not friends, I just saw that the two of you took the same position on one of the issues in this long thread.

But, I surely don't want you to think life is being cruel to you, so I have written another poem for you to cheer you up!


МОСКОВСКОЕ МЕТРО


Тесно.

Вся Москва здесь с нами.

Втиснуть больше ни одного пассажира невозможно.

Я стою а ты сидишь напротив меня.

Тебе в глаза смотрю с улыбкой.

Побагровевшая бабушка смотрет на меня.

Неодобрительно.

Мне трудно сдерживать себя.

Улыбка моя растёт.

Бабушка фыркает.

Ты хихикаешь.

Я смеюсь.

Бабушка идёт в холодную кваритру.

Я иду домой с тобою.

Метро тесное.

Как моё сердце.

Sadie
16-11-2003, 20:27
Bookie,

Слова, слова... Опять слова, одни слова
Только слова...
Красивых слов, счастливых снов прошла пора
Прошла пора

Взгляни вокруг
Всё изменилось
И в повседневной суете
мы уже не те..

:( ;) :)

Nope, Bookie, those American women who consider Blin Clinton to be hot are very wrong..:rolleyes:

Jet
16-11-2003, 20:34
OK, iz moih poslednih...

"za kogo ne golosuy
vse ravno poluchush x**!"

kniga
16-11-2003, 20:45
Sadie,

I am glad to see that is your opinion of Bill Clinton...and that is why I prefer слова, слова, красивые слова! :-)

Sadie
16-11-2003, 20:57
Слова пусты.. слова просты, как дважды два..
Как дважды два..

Bookie, wish I could live in your reality..;)

Jet Li, you are close to my point;) :)

Jet
16-11-2003, 21:16
Ok, Sadie, iz moih rannih

"no more rifles, no more guns,
no more Afghanistan"

August 1987

Sadie
16-11-2003, 21:17
have u been there?

Jet
16-11-2003, 21:24
Ay-ay, its classified, but I can tel you - I am not that old! i am just pointing to the time period and that not much has changed..... ufff, its deep!

kniga
16-11-2003, 21:35
Sadie,

You could, you would...but you won't! :-)

kniga
16-11-2003, 22:04
Sadie,

Пустили козла в огород! :-)

Sadie
16-11-2003, 22:39
Originally posted by kniga
Пустили козла в огород! :-)
Oi, knizhka, I think your investment in the thread is very valuable:D especially the poetry part;)

kniga
16-11-2003, 22:55
Sadi,

Women love flowers and sweet words. Flowery poetry provides both...

And so you, with your words of approval, have earned one more poem before night steals away the remains of the day.


ВЗГЛЯД

Снег падает медленно большими снежинками.

Холодно.

Не замечаю я, ни то, ни се.

Поскользнуться легко, ненадежный лёд лежит в засаде.

Так ты смотришь не на меня, но на поверхность тротуара.

А я смотрю хитрим разведчиком только на тебя.

Ходишь под руку со мной.

Успокаиваешься -- я твой сиамский слон.

Вдруг ты бросишь робкий взгляд на меня.

Я споткнулся не о лёд, но о твои глаза...

lizfishwick
17-11-2003, 12:24
I would suggest that everyone study world history. It has always been and it will always be that the rich and powerfull screw over the weaker and poorer people. It does not matter if it is the USA or Russia or Iraq etc. The reason most people do not vote is that it makes so little difference to the little people who is in power. Their lives are just about the same. Only the well connected gain by the "right" party winning elections. Personally I think that most Americans suck and that the American political system sucks. However, it is probably better than most of the rest of the world. How about Russia? Putin has taken over all the TV stations and the newspapers fear him. He has just about taken over Yukos and put its leaders in jail without even a trial, Soros' ( who donated over 1 billion $ to Russia ) office was taken over by the mob and the police did nothing about it, and Putin is doing evrything to make sure he wins the next election. The bottom line for me is that the rich and powerful are always corrupt. It is just easier in some countries but not really any different.

sfjohns67
17-11-2003, 12:43
Originally posted by lizfishwick
Personally I think that most Americans suck and that the American political system sucks. However, it is probably better than most of the rest of the world.
Wow, pretty strong indictment. What experience do you have with American(s) to give you such a conviction that most of us suck? I ask not to start some bs flame war, but because I am genuinely interested in hearing what colored your opinion so drastically.

I happen to agree with the stereotype of the "Ugly American" abroad. My own experience has shown me that an unfortunate number of my fellow countrymen do tend to lean toward being condescendingly arrogant. If this is your experience, then I can easily see why you think we suck, though I would ask that you not judge us all on the basis of a few assh*les. Not all of us are so arrogant...some of us move abroad permanently, marry foreign citizens, dive whole-heartedly into the local culture, and in general really buy into that whole world community thing.

Stella
17-11-2003, 12:56
Which whole world community thing is that? Not in Russia! I have to agree with liz that democracy in America is really a joke. The rich get richer and all that. Russians are the most nationalistic people I know. Well, somedays I feel like my husband holds me personally responsible for the fall of communism. .. and he's not a communist.

nsuprun
17-11-2003, 13:36
The post by lizfishwick ( for some reason when I post it often comes out under the name of Liz ) was written by an American citizen who spent the 1st 50 years of his life in the USA. He had a business for over 25 years and was regularily screwed over by the government and the better connected businessmen. And one of the main reasons I do not like a lot of the Americans is that they seem to think that The American way is the only way and that the whole world should think like them and thank them for all their
"help". sfjohns67 you seem like a objective type of person. Nice to hear from you. I too have married a foreign woman and have made my life here in Russia where I am much happier than I was in the USA. At least here if you mind your own business you are left alone whereas in the USA the government and the do gooders have to have their hands in everything.

kniga
17-11-2003, 13:36
lizfishwick,

As an American, I join sfjohns67 in wondering what has produced such a blanket condemnation of 300 million people. One of the reasons I and many other Americans jumped on the incredibly arrogant postings of liuboi is that he is an embarrassment to us because he is the antithesis of most Americans, though obviously not a lone case of incipient narciccism to be found in such a large population.

It is true that history is replete with the sound of silk slippered feet gliding down the stairs to meet the noisy clomping of dissatisfied peasantry coming up the stairs to pull the aristocrats from their lofty perches. "Might makes right" is a more accurate aphorism than "The meek shall inherit the earth," but at least in America, a "peasant" can aspire to the castle on the hill and actually one day live there if he has the guts, brains and drive to earn his new place in our society. Corruption is the way of the world, but your concession that "However, it [the U.S. government] is probably better than most of the rest of the world." is true in many measures. To escape the GAI, offer him 300 rubles and be on your way. Offer a bribe to the cop who pulls you over in the U.S. and you will find yourself arrested instead of just getting a speeding ticket. The Silent Majority in America probably should speak up more than they do, but in the main they are honest, hardworking citizens probably pretty much as you imagine yourself to be based on the tone of your submission to this thread. Maybe you should meet some more Americans and broaden your sampling before condemning us all.

geofizz56
17-11-2003, 14:26
Kniga makes good points. True story - on my last visit home, the local paper profiled a guy who had immigrated from Mexico 6 years before and started mowing lawns to make a living. He got legal, saved his money, and took English and accounting courses at night. He got a bank loan to open a landscaping business, and now owns a huge house in the same neighborhood where he used to mow lawns. Is that cool or what?

That sort of thing really happens in the US. Undoubtedly, this guy had incredible ambition and very good luck, but it would be difficult to duplicate in most other countries.

kniga
17-11-2003, 15:05
Geofizz56,

Not only is it undoubtably a true story, but one that is repeated endlessly, and much to the shame of too many Americans, who are often in their ignorance great complainers about how hard life is in America, a story of success produced most frequently by newcomers to America. Immigrants come to America, take one look around and say, "Wow, you can work anywhere you want to and can do any work you can find!" They work like slaves, send money home and slowly build up their resources until they have joined the mainstream. Their children do even better because they have the local language and a better education. It takes a 5th generation American to whine about how tough life is as he heads for the free clinic and the welfare office for his check...

sfjohns67
17-11-2003, 15:57
Originally posted by Stella
Which whole world community thing is that? Not in Russia! I have to agree with liz that democracy in America is really a joke. The rich get richer and all that. Russians are the most nationalistic people I know. Well, somedays I feel like my husband holds me personally responsible for the fall of communism. .. and he's not a communist.
1. "Which whole word community thing is that?"
Why, the one in which I surround myself with different cultures and languages, and constantly thrive on that exhilarating feeling of being "ne na svoei tarelke."

2. "Democracy in America is really a joke."
Really? What's so funny about it? Is it the fact that you can vote for whomever you want or even not vote at all, but either way you won't be getting a visit from the ubiquitous (damn I love that word!) "jack-booted thugs" in the middle of the night? Or hahahaha...I know, it's the idea that even a dorky Austrian bodybuilder with whispers of a Nazi past can be elected to what is, on the surface, the most liberal state in the union. I don't get the joke, though - choice is a pretty serious thing to me, and I believe my country and its political system do an awful lot to see that I keep the right to exercise it.

3. "The rich get richer..." Well of course they do, that's how interest accumulation works whenever money is invested properly! You're right, the rich are getting richer in the US, but the poor ain't doing so goddamned bad either. Know of any other country where the "poor" drive their Cadillac to the welfare office to pick up their check? Maybe that's a bit of an exaggeration, but even the bottom level of society in my country is afforded, one way or another, "three hots and a cot" if they so choose, so I guess our poor keep getting richer too.

kniga
17-11-2003, 16:31
sfjohns67,

Don't hold back there, boy! Tell us what you REALLY think! :-)

sfjohns67
17-11-2003, 16:48
As always, got my game on 'cuz of another generalization and let myself go off a tad bit more bombastically than I prefer to. Stella, hope you aren't offended, the point I was trying to make was/is that despite the usual statements about "the rich jamming the poor", the standard of living in the US is pretty damned high even at its society's lowest socioeconomic level, so somebody's doing something right.

And don't even think about waggling some "you're just a smug, rich American" finger at me - I come from a long and pedigreed line of the finest in Southern United States White Trailer Trash.

kniga
17-11-2003, 17:06
Stella,

And take it from me, another Southerner, there ain't no trash like trailer trash! :-) Good on you and yorn for making it out of the trailer park, Johnny Reb!

sfjohns67
17-11-2003, 17:28
...and just to show my heart and sense of humor are in the right place, here's a slice of American pie for ya'...

kniga
17-11-2003, 18:15
fsjohns67,

Gotta love it! Only in America! :-0

J.D.
18-11-2003, 08:09
I've been following this thread and I bet that everyone here would define democracy differently.

I would also be willing to bet that everyone here thinks that the U.S. was founded as a democracy.

geofizz56
18-11-2003, 08:23
Nope - if it were, the famous adage would be true - "51% could decide to boil the other 49% in oil." Good thing we have a Constitution.

J.D.
18-11-2003, 08:28
I can only infer your definition of democracy from that but it would seem to be significantly different from mine.

But I agree with and understand what you said.
Another example of democracy is 3 wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch.
Not my definition.

Sadie
18-11-2003, 09:34
the title of the thread sounds like a bad joke
why would we hate either Americans or their government at all?
why would we have any emotions towards the Am goverment? we can agree or disagree, support or not.. but to hate?.. weird

sfjohns67
18-11-2003, 09:41
Originally posted by J.D.
Another example of democracy is 3 wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch.
Not my definition.
Great example, point well taken. Just remember, though, the version of democracy currently in place in the US affords the sheep entire volumes of legislature protecting his status as a minority, affirmative action to ensure that he gets a good running start ahead of the wolves, and since sheep do not normally eat wolf, public welfare will step in to supplement his diet with basic foodstuffs such as cheese, butter, and rice. :D

geofizz56
18-11-2003, 09:49
Probably the "truest" democracy in the US is California, where practically anything can be put to a vote, and the result is binding. This is a large factor explaining why their economy and whole political structure is in chaos.

Another odd state is New Hampshire, which explicitly REQUIRES civil disobedience if a citizen perceives an injustice in the law. Of course, this is the state with "Live Free or Die" on their license plates. Funny people up there.

natalia_apple
18-11-2003, 13:33
Originally posted by Sadie
the title of the thread sounds like a bad joke
why would we hate either Americans or their government at all?
why would we have any emotions towards the Am goverment? we can agree or disagree, support or not.. but to hate?.. weird

I only hate one feature
..that they're so suspicious when deciding to give or not to give a visa....

sfjohns67
18-11-2003, 14:39
Egads, dear lady, I'm with you on that one! Trust me, being an American offers little advantage whatsoever - I've been waiting since mid-July to just get an interview appointment for my wife's Permanent Resident Status visa. I call their so-called help line, and all I get is some semblance of "the check is in the mail."

dacha_culture
18-11-2003, 15:49
Originally posted by natalia_apple
they're so suspicious when deciding to give or not to give a visa....

Yes, the system seems a little flawed. First of all, the US has a "guilty untill proven innocent" philosophy. Understandable, since there would be no shortage of people that would lie to get into the US, if all they had to do was swear they would not immigrate. Unfortunately, the jury is apparently a one-man show, which means you don't really get a fair trial. If the "jury" is having a bad day, then you might be guilty before you walk in the door. By the way, where is appeals system at?

dacha_culture
18-11-2003, 15:59
Originally posted by sfjohns67
Egads, dear lady, I'm with you on that one! Trust me, being an American offers little advantage whatsoever - I've been waiting since mid-July to just get an interview appointment for my wife's Permanent Resident Status visa. I call their so-called help line, and all I get is some semblance of "the check is in the mail."

Yes, but if you could marry a foreigner and expect an immediate visa for your spouse, this would leave another option for people looking to abuse the system. I can see it now, people auctioning themselves on E-bay for marriage to the foreigner who will give the most money for a US visa.

With people marrying just to stay in the US past their visas (I personally know one friend who did this) and others who simply stay here stay after their visas expire (know at least two in this category), it has been left to the consulates to keep things honest, though such a task is impossible. The alternative would be for America to do a better job of policing itself internally, but this would be inneffective without police on every corner checking people's passports (oops, Americans aren't required to carry such things). So the choice is between restricting the rights of Americans, or continuing to be unfair to foreigners (which is, by the way, also much cheaper), so I think we know who wins this battle...

sfjohns67
18-11-2003, 16:30
Can't argue with you there, though the idea of e-bay marriage auctions is not as far from the truth as you or I might think, even if the timing is a stretch further than it normally takes to conclude an auction transaction.

As usual, simple and honest folk like us are caught in the middle. The funny thing is that I've had to argue with my wife to get her to agree to accept the Permanent Resident Card and then process for US citizenship - she didn't want all the hassle, and says she isn't really gaining anything by getting a US passport other than more freedom to travel there to visit my parents with me.

Missionary
18-11-2003, 17:23
You know, it isn't even so much that they are so suspicious, which they are, or that it is a one man jury, which it is. What really gets me is how long it takes them to even get to the interview. I turned in my wife's I130 (Petition for Alien Relative) in July. This is the first step to get a Permanent Resident Visa. I then turned in a I129F (Petition for Fiance Visa - also used for Spouse to get K3 visa) in August. It only took them 3 days to process this application ... although it took them 3 MONTHS just to get to it. I think that is the problem. They are so backed up that it is ridiculous. The only reason that the US government created the K visa (to allow someone to wait in the country until their Permanent Resident Visa comes through) is because they are so backed up that people were having to wait YEARS. Even now, they say that it is taking them between 400 and 450 days to process them. Now that our I129F is approved, it will be sent to the National Visa Center and then to the Embassy. Somewhere along the line, there has to be some more administrative processing and then they mail us a packet with all the required documents and an interview date (usually 1 month later).

Flawed process, maybe, frustrating ... KONYESHNA!

twaj
19-11-2003, 14:18
America's immigration policies are confusing because all immigration policies are motivated by fear. Fear of losing a job, fear of your kid having to go to private school so as not to be surrounded by dirty Mexicans.... The Economist said it best when it said that immigration restrictions shouldn't exist between first world countries. I personally like Japan's policy: flat out racist. This is because I am a capricious, cynical anti-humanist. Liberalism is a crowd-pleasing cliche. I would let all the Russian, Ukrainian and Romanian women in on the condition that they tested negative for HIV and started shaving their pits. Everyone else I would let in if they were above a certain economic bar or demonstrated some skillz, like .net, java, or juggling discarded busts of soviet leaders. I want an e-bay bride from Switzerland.


Originally posted by dacha_culture
Yes, but if you could marry a foreigner and expect an immediate visa for your spouse, this would leave another option for people looking to abuse the system. I can see it now, people auctioning themselves on E-bay for marriage to the foreigner who will give the most money for a US visa.

kniga
19-11-2003, 14:40
Twaj,

You are definitely at the top of the list for Ambassador of Goodwill for America.

grandman
20-11-2003, 01:18
How can you tell the difference?

kniga
20-11-2003, 09:22
Grandman,

Between?

earl
20-11-2003, 12:20
Originally posted by sfjohns67
Egads, dear lady, I'm with you on that one! Trust me, being an American offers little advantage whatsoever - I've been waiting since mid-July to just get an interview appointment for my wife's Permanent Resident Status visa. I call their so-called help line, and all I get is some semblance of "the check is in the mail."
Assuming you no longer live in the states, have your parents call their congressperson. A friend of mine was having trouble getting someone in from Hungary; having a congressman phone INS was remarkably effective.

-earl-

earl
20-11-2003, 12:23
Originally posted by twaj
[B]America's immigration policies are confusing because all immigration policies are motivated by fear.
They're not run by fear; they're simply run for the benefit of Americans. Open immigration would be nice for many folks in the world (at least in the beginning), but it wouldn't be so nice for Americans.

As it stands, America absolutely depends on immigration; natural Americans hit NPG a decade or so ago IIRC.

-earl-

grandman
21-11-2003, 02:12
Originally posted by kniga
Grandman,

Between?

The people and the Government, one elects the other, and then does what they are told to. Like us with our number ten, the man who would be president! even if he has to give away all that he can't control.

kniga
21-11-2003, 10:21
grandman,

The horrifying truth is that every nation in the world is controlled by only a dozen people at the top of the political power pyramid, and the fate of these nations depends on how smart, benevolent or stupid and evil these leaders, chosen or not, are.

grandman
21-11-2003, 23:10
Originally posted by kniga
grandman,

The horrifying truth is that every nation in the world is controlled by only a dozen people at the top of the political power pyramid, and the fate of these nations depends on how smart, benevolent or stupid and evil these leaders, chosen or not, are.

At the moment in the UK we have the Kennedy era, now he was a great man, and many have struggled since to measure up, but none have succeeded. I am one who constantly questions your countries reasons behind its actions, I just wish another Kennedy would come: SOON!

kniga
22-11-2003, 08:43
grandman,

Part of the problem with judging men and events in history is that unless you were there you are dependent on what others write and say about them. Like your effort to write a novel about a country and time where you never were, your perceptions about John F. Kennedy are shrouded in the popular myths about a remarkable man, an undeniably brave man, but one who has been transferred from the wonderfully mythic "Camelot" of peoples' desire to see him as some sort of reborn King Arthur into a legend writ larger than life. JFK was a war hero, had an attractive wife from the same side of the supposedly nonexistent American aristocracy, and he was the first American politician to benefit from being extremely telegenic at a time when television began to make or break political candidates. But what you don't know and can't know about him was what those of us who lived during the Kennedy Era do: even in this earlier time when the press generally had the Unwritten Rule of do not report, print or provide photos of anything unsavory about the president, the leaks coming out of the White House, Kennebunkport and other presidential locales, and especially from within the Beltway in Washington, D.C., JFK was a philanderer who publicly humiliated his wife with his adultery, the fling with Marilyn Monroe, another American icon transmogrified from the whole cloth of the silver screen into the sex goddess idol of the masses, being the most famous. John F. Kennedy had an unremarkable presidency, save for the Cubal Missile Crisis forced on him by Nikita Khruschev. His political legacy, along with that of his brother, Bobby Kennedy, was the martydom of his tragic assassination. That you of your new generation are awaiting the arrival of another John F. Kennedy to save the UK is proof enough that JFK has passed successfully from a man with feet of clay to a man with feet of steel standing on the pedestal of a myth grown larger in death than ever was the case while he lived.

If you do your research for your novel as inadequately as you have done your search for the next leader of your nation, don't plan on retiring on the proceeds from the sale of your book.

grandman
22-11-2003, 21:42
Originally posted by kniga
grandman,

Part of the problem with judging men and events in history is that unless you were there you are dependent on what others write and say about them. Like your effort to write a novel about a country and time where you never were, your perceptions about John F. Kennedy are shrouded in the popular myths about a remarkable man, an undeniably brave man, but one who has been transferred from the wonderfully mythic "Camelot" of peoples' desire to see him as some sort of reborn King Arthur into a legend writ larger than life. JFK was a war hero, had an attractive wife from the same side of the supposedly nonexistent American aristocracy, and he was the first American politician to benefit from being extremely telegenic at a time when television began to make or break political candidates. But what you don't know and can't know about him was what those of us who lived during the Kennedy Era do: even in this earlier time when the press generally had the Unwritten Rule of do not report, print or provide photos of anything unsavory about the president, the leaks coming out of the White House, Kennebunkport and other presidential locales, and especially from within the Beltway in Washington, D.C., JFK was a philanderer who publicly humiliated his wife with his adultery, the fling with Marilyn Monroe, another American icon transmogrified from the whole cloth of the silver screen into the sex goddess idol of the masses, being the most famous. John F. Kennedy had an unremarkable presidency, save for the Cubal Missile Crisis forced on him by Nikita Khruschev. His political legacy, along with that of his brother, Bobby Kennedy, was the martydom of his tragic assassination. That you of your new generation are awaiting the arrival of another John F. Kennedy to save the UK is proof enough that JFK has passed successfully from a man with feet of clay to a man with feet of steel standing on the pedestal of a myth grown larger in death than ever was the case while he lived.

If you do your research for your novel as inadequately as you have done your search for the next leader of your nation, don't plan on retiring on the proceeds from the sale of your book.

I think I will be able to retire, the points you miss are very relevant:


A. I am aware of JFK shortcomings
B. They had no effect upon his judgment as a leader, who governed his Country for his country, and not for the benefit of others!
C. He never sold his country short and made people proud to be Americans.
D. Many good men have died for this Country, and all they died for has been made a mockery of, by Prime ministers who have then gone on to sell the damned country, never mind selling the people short.

So please don’t knock the guy for his personal failings, he was human, and that’s nice to know anyway? And a hell of lot better than one who sells his country out so he can try and emulate others, who he couldn't match to save his life, even if its not worth saving.

NEWS FLASH

Blair found answer to NI problem. Blair has offered to surrender all of the UK’s arms to G. Adams. A source close to Adams stated that:

Adams had been warned by a certain French Military aid to be wary of the phrase put beyond use. The same source reported Adams stating that only a fool would fall for that one, then hesitating continued and of course the British Government under pressure from their Masters...

This may well be headline news someday....

So don’t knock Kennedy.... He is One American I can relate to, and there haven’t been that many, Clinton was another and he had problems with the fairer sex? SO WHAT!

Missionary
22-11-2003, 21:59
earl,

I tried that, with my senator, and was told that INS (USCIS) no longer accepts calls from government offices to speed processing on immigration cases. Pre 9/11 there was more that could be done, but as it stands now, there is little that can be done short of "an extreme emergency situation". Maybe each state or congressional district is different, but this came directly from my US Senator.

DaveUKagain
22-11-2003, 22:08
Grandman, a pretty interesting answer.

Kennedy`s personal failings were probably what you regard as strengths- his strident nationalistic tone. This came within an ace of me (and quite a few others) nearly getting thermonuclearly fried just before I was a twinkle in my Dad`s eye. ;-)))

Kennedy also failed to push through health reforms - LBJ did but was mainly forgotten. LBJ wasn`t very photogenic. The point was that Kennedy (who had hardly ever spoken publicly since becoming a Senator) suddenly decided to run for President and - lo behold - got in. Yes, he photographed well and yes, he spoke well, but he inherited a pretty tied political situation and wasn`t able to achieve very much.

It`s "cult of personality" again, and whilst I`m not comparing JFK with Stalin or Mao (obviously) I think it`s fair to say that Kennedy`s heavy handed and vociferous politics lead to very little happening other than the world coming to near - nuclear blows over an incident which could have been quietly diplomatically settled. As for JFK (and Kryuschev) - the two men who "nearly fried the planet" - it`s hardly the making of a good presidency to step up a situation to near catastrophic levels for the sake of political point scoring against "the Red Horde".

Can you name me anything else Kennedy did ? Apart from failing to push through health reforms and to massively increase US involvement in Vietnam ?

Oh yes, and waste enough money to solve world poverty on the Apollo program all because the Soviet Union had embarassed the US by beating them by a month in the "space race" ????

Or if not "world poverty" then the money could have been used to give complete free health care to every US citizen. If we`re keeping this within US borders.

Hype. And a loud noise.

DaveUKagain
22-11-2003, 22:37
As a PS - "Don`t hate Americans, hate their Government" -

Yep, obviously. ;-)))))))))

Take people from 10 different nationalities, put `em in a bar with a beer. There`ll be squabbles. There`ll be differences in points of view, there`ll be arguments but everyone`ll go home drunk and happy at the end of the day. ;-))))

The concept of NATIONALISM ("the last bastion of the rogue and scoundrel") didn`t really start until the beginning of the 19th century in historical terms. A lot of "isms" started at that time. Before that point, it was a simple case of some ruler commanding what you were going to do and who you were going to fight today. Nationalism shaped a lot of the structure of early 19th century politics - the "age of empires" - and still continues today.

If you read Eric Hobsbawn or A J P Taylor, historical thinking states that the concept of nationalism begins in the early 19th century and by 1848, it`s set Europe ablaze with nations being toppled, thrones being burnt...... in 1789, Louis XVI - Emperor of France - is guillotined. In - was it 1810 ? Charles XVIII returns as "King of the French". The old order changes from "sovereign states" to "nation states".

With the advent of Nationalism, there comes the idea that a PEOPLE have a will and that will is expressed via a Government. Hogwash. It`s a lie - governments have little or no connection to the people they supposedly represent and merely stand behind an unfurled Stars and Stripes or Union Jack and pretend to represent "the nations` interests".

This fraud has been perpetrated ever since - "I stand here as spokesman for the American / British / Russian people and I say *this*...... " - and this gets labelled "democracy". A con. There is NO such thing as democracy as the "people" never rule directly - only via proxy - it`s a very poor situation when you elect someone for a four year term - and leave them to it. Carte blanche.

"Democracy" hasn`t existed since Democritus gave his name to it. He was an Ancient Greek, by the way. ;-)))) Russian readers of a certain age may like to answer a question I have - that being, the USSR appeared to me to be perpetuating a lie of democracy - rule by the people - to it`s population. Am I correct, there ? The Party ruled on behalf of the people, whose will shaped the politics of the nation. So the theory went. Hm. What DO I see elsewhere ? In Europe and America ???

Antonio Gramsci came up with some very interesting ideas on hegemony which - I think - a lot of people should read sometime. ;-) Mussolini did and had him locked up, of course.;-)))

Americans are fine people. I have lots of good American friends. And Russian. And English. But. Speaking as a bit of a revolutionary here, I`d be quite happy to line up all the politicians in a football stadium and machine gun `em if they didn`t do as they were TOLD - by the ELECTORATE. ;-)))

Now. Is that fascism ? Revolutionary socialism ? Dictatorship ? Demagogery ? Common sense ? The common people of any country are NOT the problem. The few who wield power - and usually wield it badly - are.

grandman
22-11-2003, 23:06
Originally posted by DaveUKagain
Grandman, a pretty interesting answer.

Kennedy`s personal failings were probably what you regard as strengths- his strident nationalistic tone. This came within an ace of me (and quite a few others) nearly getting thermonuclearly fried just before I was a twinkle in my Dad`s eye. ;-)))

Kennedy also failed to push through health reforms - LBJ did but was mainly forgotten. LBJ wasn`t very photogenic. The point was that Kennedy (who had hardly ever spoken publicly since becoming a Senator) suddenly decided to run for President and - lo behold - got in. Yes, he photographed well and yes, he spoke well, but he inherited a pretty tied political situation and wasn`t able to achieve very much.

It`s "cult of personality" again, and whilst I`m not comparing JFK with Stalin or Mao (obviously) I think it`s fair to say that Kennedy`s heavy handed and vociferous politics lead to very little happening other than the world coming to near - nuclear blows over an incident which could have been quietly diplomatically settled. As for JFK (and Kryuschev) - the two men who "nearly fried the planet" - it`s hardly the making of a good presidency to step up a situation to near catastrophic levels for the sake of political point scoring against "the Red Horde".

Can you name me anything else Kennedy did ? Apart from failing to push through health reforms and to massively increase US involvement in Vietnam ?

Oh yes, and waste enough money to solve world poverty on the Apollo program all because the Soviet Union had embarassed the US by beating them by a month in the "space race" ????

Or if not "world poverty" then the money could have been used to give complete free health care to every US citizen. If we`re keeping this within US borders.

Hype. And a loud noise.


I suppose if he had sat back and done nothing then a nuclear first strike capability so close that at that time, no early warning system would have been any use in its proposed defensive role. Remember who made the first move, or perhaps the un-official meeting between the two leaders where Kryuschev, made it clear what his intentions were could have been a launch pad for Kennedy's threats!

Oh yes what did he do, he pushed forward a racial reform bill that allowed the coulored people to have a life! but of course thats means nothing!

He damn well made Americans proud to be Americans, who was the last leader in Britain to make us proud, I have difficulty in answering that.

Not this pr**k currently in number ten, who has made us the laughing stock of Europe!

I have friends in Holland who think we are actually little America?

What's wrong with being photogenic, this seems to be your problem and kniga's with JFK as you have both raised the same point, not mine, the man was, a mans man, and loved his country, thats enough for me, I would have followed him to hell and back.

At least with him you knew it was your Country you would be fighting for, and not someone elses......

geneven
22-11-2003, 23:29
Originally posted by kniga


The horrifying truth is that every nation in the world is controlled by only a dozen people at the top of the political power pyramid, and the fate of these nations depends on how smart, benevolent or stupid and evil these leaders, chosen or not, are. [/B]

Interesting. I wonder why those dozen people decided to have the tech crash, or the 1929 crash, for that matter, or Japan's economic decline, or the problems we have in Iraq. If they controlled things, in the latter case,wouldn't they have decided that the Iraqis wouldn't fight back??

The scary fact is that the world is out of control, rather like a vehicle with various people fighting over the steering wheel. Forces such as the rise of the Internet or, these days, the increased ease of causing portable huge explosions and other technological disasters, have a huge effect on the world and the people who "control things" can't stop them, they can just react to them. One of those people, Bill Gates, for example, was not interested in the Internet to start with. When he decided to turn Windows into an Internet-friendly program, he was deciding that he couldn't fight the tide and should join it.

It would probably be a calmer and possibly even a more pleasant world if there were a dozen people in each country who truly had control.

Anyone who understands sociology and psychology knows that people are largely controlled by their environment and by people around them. The books don't say "except for the top dozen people in each country". Why would they be exempt from the same laws of interpersonal dynamics that control everyone else.

Take Bush, for example. It is transparently obvious that he is refllecting the values of his group, not inventing whatever values he pleases, as a truly powerful man would do.

DaveUKagain
22-11-2003, 23:41
[QUOTE]Originally posted by grandman

"Remember who made the first move "

Kennedy moved missiles into Turkey the year before and then invaded Cuba in the Bay of Pigs fiasco as he couldn`t stand the idea of a "Com`nist" state on his doorstep. You don`t seem to know about the history of the Cuban Missile Crisis, Grandman.

"Oh yes what did he do, he pushed forward a racial reform bill that allowed the coulored people to have a life! but of course thats means nothing! "

Effectively, it DID mean nothing as LBJ had to get the National Guard to bus black schoolkids into Alabama a few years later. Kennedy had been elected with a high black vote and HAD to cater for them to get re-elected: as it is, his policies never got anywhere - fur coat, no knickers.

" He damn well made Americans proud to be Americans, "

As did FDR, Andrew Jackson, Lincoln, Washington....

" who was the last leader in Britain to make us proud, I have difficulty in answering that. "

Churchill ?

" What's wrong with being photogenic, this seems to be your problem and kniga's with JFK as you have both raised the same point, not mine, the man was, a mans man, and loved his country, thats enough for me, I would have followed him to hell and back. "

Kennedy talked up the Cuban Missile Crisis as part of a huge anti- Communist rhetoric and he and Kryuschev took the world right to the brink. You would have followed him to hell ? He nearly took you there. Kryuschev COMPLAINED about US missiles in Turkey. He didn`t make it into a dangerous holy war with a blockade and headline news - "first man to blink" politics with fingers on nuclear triggers.

Lunacy.

As for photogenic - OK, let`s replace Phoney Toney with Melinda Messenger or Samantha Fox. ;-)))))) Or La Cicciolina in Italy.

Has it not occurred to you that on ONE hand you`re praising a "strong voiced US leader who speaks with authority for his countrymen" and on the OTHER hand, condemning Bush, whose foreign policy (such as it is) is based on a similar vociferious and confrontational style ?????????

DaveUKagain
22-11-2003, 23:58
Geneven, heard of the Politburo ? Or Mao Zhedong ? ;-)))) Pol Pot ? Hitler ? :-))))))

Yes, I agree with a lot of your points, but.... the problem with the world seems to be that whilst NORMAL people everywhere will get on - by and large with no arguments - disagreements perhaps, but no arguments - when "nation states" and "national interests" emerge..... and a few people are put in power to govern..... that`s when the trouble begins.

The concept of "nations". I think it`d be a better world if all national borders were dissembled and a few people were put in charge of EVERYTHING.

However, fancy distributing your wealth amongst the poor of Africa and India for the sake of fairness ? Me neither. ;-))))

Missionary
23-11-2003, 00:19
Kennedy's big accomplishment ... turning politics into a popularity contest. It is because of Kennedy that men like Clinton can win an election and turn our country to hell for years.

Someone said earlier that affairs and whatever in someone's personal life doesn't affect their ability to govern. BULL. Unless of course you want the leader of your country to cheat and lie, not just to his family, but to the whole country, to congress, in court, under oath. That is a guy I want in office. That is a guy I want leading my country. Whatever.

Politics is an ugly business, this I know, but whatever the business, honesty and integrity SHOULD be premium, not good looks and popularity. This isn't high school student council.

grandman
23-11-2003, 00:37
Originally posted by DaveUKagain
[QUOTE]Originally posted by grandman

"Remember who made the first move "

Kennedy moved missiles into Turkey the year before and then invaded Cuba in the Bay of Pigs fiasco as he couldn`t stand the idea of a "Com`nist" state on his doorstep. You don`t seem to know about the history of the Cuban Missile Crisis, Grandman.

"Oh yes what did he do, he pushed forward a racial reform bill that allowed the coulored people to have a life! but of course thats means nothing! "

Effectively, it DID mean nothing as LBJ had to get the National Guard to bus black schoolkids into Alabama a few years later. Kennedy had been elected with a high black vote and HAD to cater for them to get re-elected: as it is, his policies never got anywhere - fur coat, no knickers.

" He damn well made Americans proud to be Americans, "

As did FDR, Andrew Jackson, Lincoln, Washington....

" who was the last leader in Britain to make us proud, I have difficulty in answering that. "

Churchill ?

" What's wrong with being photogenic, this seems to be your problem and kniga's with JFK as you have both raised the same point, not mine, the man was, a mans man, and loved his country, thats enough for me, I would have followed him to hell and back. "

Kennedy talked up the Cuban Missile Crisis as part of a huge anti- Communist rhetoric and he and Kryuschev took the world right to the brink. You would have followed him to hell ? He nearly took you there. Kryuschev COMPLAINED about US missiles in Turkey. He didn`t make it into a dangerous holy war with a blockade and headline news - "first man to blink" politics with fingers on nuclear triggers.

Lunacy.

As for photogenic - OK, let`s replace Phoney Toney with Melinda Messenger or Samantha Fox. ;-)))))) Or La Cicciolina in Italy.

Has it not occurred to you that on ONE hand you`re praising a "strong voiced US leader who speaks with authority for his countrymen" and on the OTHER hand, condemning Bush, whose foreign policy (such as it is) is based on a similar vociferious and confrontational style ?????????


I find your comparison between Kennedy and Bush rediculas to say the least. If your in Manchester and have been watching BBC you will see that Kennedy ignored all his personal advisors, especially military who wanted to go, to war and sought peace... Please - Please lets get the facts staight...

And at the risk of repeating myself he was a great leader for America granted, I just want one like him for us, one who will rule Britain for the British and not every a** Ho** who tells him to bend over, because, when he asumes the position, so do we, like it or not!

Another possibly news flash:

America will invade the earth, just as, soon as Bush discovers:

A. Where it is
B. Who owns it
C. how to spell the names of them who own it and the names of the places themselves...

The latter is said to hold great importance as he has just discovered he has many troops in a place called Iraq when he thought he had sent them to Afganistan..

This may also be a headline some day.....
PS not sure if Afganistan is spelt correctly?

DaveUKagain
23-11-2003, 01:04
Up here in Manchester I have a history degree. And one in English.

Grandman, I`d be happy to argue the point with you if you were qualified to argue it. You don`t appear to know the history of the Cuban Missile Crisis. That`ll make for an interesting debate... let`s indeed get the facts straight.

Kennedy ignores advisors and places missiles in Turkey.
Kennedy ignores advisors and sanctions the Bay of Pigs fiasco.
Kryuschev moves missiles to Cuba (rather stupidly)
US hypes up the pressure ignoring the fact that they`re doing the same thing on Russia`s doorstep - they then form an illegal blockade of Cuba and ramp the odds up and up and up in a brash display of showmanship - not politics - which nearly gets the world fried.

This idiotically hamfisted mismanagement of foreign policy goes far beyond anything Dubya ever did and in an age where the media is less.... charitable to presidents, if it was done today would result in him being removed from office afterwards.

Kennedy was NOT a great leader: he was pretty much the ne plus ultra of baaaaad foreign policy management - and GW Bush is pretty much following in his footsteps. Grandman, you`ve got a little humorous interjection there about Dubya preparing to invade the earth: can you NOT see that Kennedy nearly turned the cold war hot - totally unnecessarily - because he was an inept mishandler of foreign policy ? Dubya wouldn`t have had anything to invade but ashes had Kryuschev not woke up one day and realised what utter MADNESS was going on.

Had that not have happened, you wouldn`t be a JFK fan today as it`s a bit hard to be so after you`ve been vapourised. Along with him as well. Politics is about avoiding irritating little incidents like that.

A madman who raised and raised and raised the odds - for political expediency - and dogma - playing games with his finger on the nuclear button. That is not *strong* - it is *idiotic*.

The man threw billions into "opposing Communism" in Vietnam, space, and in his own back yard. Domino theory. Reds in Space. "Are you now or have you ever been a Communist ? " Kennedy and McCarthy were the same ideological bedfellows.

Grandman, Kennedy was another Ronnie Reagan. And GW Bush is from the self same stable. You actually DO just like him because he spoke well and had a nice suit, y`know - if you understood his politics then I guarantee you you`d have voted Nixon in 1960.

Another point made at the time was that Kennedy came across as less slimy than Tricky Dicky during the televised debates of 1960. Don`t make the mistake of thinking JFK was a great president - he was not in the same mould as FDR - not by a long chalk.

DaveUKagain
23-11-2003, 01:16
A little aside about JFK.

I smoke cigars. Cubans. So did Kennedy.

http://www.cigaraficionado.com/Cigar/CA_Archives/CA_Show_Article/0,2322,862,00.html

Briefly, before signing a trade embargo with Cuba, Kennedy asked Pierre Salinger to order 1000 plus Cuban cigars (Petit Upmann`s) - when they arrived, he took the proclamation of the embargo from the desk drawer and signed it with a smile. No more Com`nist stogies for US citizens. Presidents excepted. ;-)))))))

Kennedy apparently had to have sex twice a day or he got "headaches". His infidelity is well documented. The press at the time (as Kniga points out) belonged to a different generation and it was never reported)

"Well, he`s a man" is the argument against it. Wrong. He was the representative of America in the world. As we saw with Clinton - and Missionary points out - Clinton lied under oath about his tawdry goings on (incidentally with a cigar) in the Oval Office. And he lied - shamefacedly - right the way up to the top.

The duty of the worlds` most powerful man is to be above suspicion. What do you let off ? Watergate ? A minor little affair, really - had Nixon not tried to be above the law and fix it. The Profumo scandal here ? The point is that politics is not supposed to be show business. When it turns into showbiz, Arnie gets elected as Governor of California. And look at HIS past.

Can you honestly say that if Kennedy`s private goings on had been made public that he`d EVER been elected ? "Hail to the (adulterous) Chief - there`s your role model, kids."

Come to think of it, Slick Willy- Ol` William Jefferson Clinton himself - was occaisionally seen walking around a golf course with an (unlit) Bolivar Number 2 Cuban cigar in his mouth...... presumably his cigars are more difficult to light. ;-)))))

The moral of the story is that the President of the USA can do whatever he likes. Which is, of course, much the same as anywhere else.

God only knows why some people believe otherwise.....

andylip
23-11-2003, 02:52
It is because of Kennedy that men like Clinton can win an election and turn our country to hell for years.

Clinton presided over the largest sustained period of economic expansion in U.S. history. Clinton brought the country from a record $290 billion budget deficit in '92 to a surplus of over $160 billion in '00. Clinton presided over the largest drop in violent crime in U.S. history. Ever.

What hell, exactly, are you talking about?

A U.S. president -- and I'm sure you know which one -- once famously asked during his campaign, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" Ask yourself that question now. Are you better off? Is the country? Are the hundreds of thousands of kids sent off to Iraq? Are their parents? Are the 2.3 million additional Americans who are unemployed since the Nov. '00 election? How about our kids, who will ultimately have to deal with this year's $600 billion budget deficit?

Am I missing something here?

DaveUKagain
23-11-2003, 03:20
Originally posted by andylip
How about our kids, who will ultimately have to deal with this year's $600 billion budget deficit?

Am I missing something here?

Sure wish I wasn`t. US $600,000,000 overspent - employment freeze - IT industry in the doldrums and I`ve just decided I`ll never get an IT job again. In the interim, Dubya will fight anyone with a towel on his head and it all needs paying for.

And "When America sneezes, the UK catches a cold". Perhaps Grandman DOES have a point about the "special relationship" - but I seem to recall we don`t have an Empire here any longer and are culturally closer to the US than Europe..... god only knows what the point of us becoming more isolated would be.....

earl
23-11-2003, 03:26
Originally posted by andylip
Clinton presided over the largest sustained period of economic expansion in U.S. history. Clinton brought the country from a record $290 billion budget deficit in '92 to a surplus of over $160 billion in '00. Clinton presided over the largest drop in violent crime in U.S. history. Ever.
So what? He presided over perhaps the single largest mismanagement of the US economy ever, perhaps baring 1927. The dot com crash? The bubble? Enron? Tyco? Global Crossing? Adelphia? Merrill Lynch? All that occurred under Clinton's watch, under the SEC chairman appointed by Clinton, under the DOJ run by a Clinton appointee.

As for crime, whoop-de-do. Economists have known for at least 50 years that crime tracks prosperity.


Are the 2.3 million additional Americans who are unemployed since the Nov. '00 election? How about our kids, who will ultimately have to deal with this year's $600 billion budget deficit?
Look, I don't disagree that Bush has created some very bad economic policy. But attempting to lay the blame for the .com crash and the (almost)global recession at Bush's feet is to display a profound misunderstanding of economics and history.

You also have to understand that America enjoys a standard of living that is so disproportionate to the rest of the world that I don't see it being sustainable over the long term.

-earl-

grandman
23-11-2003, 03:33
Originally posted by DaveUKagain
A little aside about JFK.

I smoke cigars. Cubans. So did Kennedy.

http://www.cigaraficionado.com/Cigar/CA_Archives/CA_Show_Article/0,2322,862,00.html

Briefly, before signing a trade embargo with Cuba, Kennedy asked Pierre Salinger to order 1000 plus Cuban cigars (Petit Upmann`s) - when they arrived, he took the proclamation of the embargo from the desk drawer and signed it with a smile. No more Com`nist stogies for US citizens. Presidents excepted. ;-)))))))

Kennedy apparently had to have sex twice a day or he got "headaches". His infidelity is well documented. The press at the time (as Kniga points out) belonged to a different generation and it was never reported)

"Well, he`s a man" is the argument against it. Wrong. He was the representative of America in the world. As we saw with Clinton - and Missionary points out - Clinton lied under oath about his tawdry goings on (incidentally with a cigar) in the Oval Office. And he lied - shamefacedly - right the way up to the top.

The duty of the worlds` most powerful man is to be above suspicion. What do you let off ? Watergate ? A minor little affair, really - had Nixon not tried to be above the law and fix it. The Profumo scandal here ? The point is that politics is not supposed to be show business. When it turns into showbiz, Arnie gets elected as Governor of California. And look at HIS past.

Can you honestly say that if Kennedy`s private goings on had been made public that he`d EVER been elected ? "Hail to the (adulterous) Chief - there`s your role model, kids."

Come to think of it, Slick Willy- Ol` William Jefferson Clinton himself - was occaisionally seen walking around a golf course with an (unlit) Bolivar Number 2 Cuban cigar in his mouth...... presumably his cigars are more difficult to light. ;-)))))

The moral of the story is that the President of the USA can do whatever he likes. Which is, of course, much the same as anywhere else.

God only knows why some people believe otherwise.....

What I am seeking is pride in my Country again, and if that means making a pack with someone who falls a bit short in some un-important areas then so be it...

JFK was many things, good and bad, but he was all for America. Give me one man now who will be all for England, I dont want, nor like any special relationships, especially those that lead to a man who desires the total destruction of my country in order that he can gain total power over all.

The man in number ten at present is not only and idiot, but a dangerous idiot. He seeks not to govern but to control, even if he has to give away all that people, good people have died for. I would even go as far, as to say he verges on being a traitor to this country...

So give me an idiot as long as it's a patreotic one!

As for the moral high ground who amongst us can realy aford to take it these day's?

DaveUKagain
23-11-2003, 04:27
This kind of argument gets the wrong person in power every time. Hitler, Mussolini..... JFK....... ;-))))))

You can have all the pride you want in your own country without turning it over to a raving lunatic, Grandman.

Missionary
23-11-2003, 11:03
Andylip,

I believe that you are missing something. Most people assume that every economic or societal turn that occurs during a president's term is a direct result of some policy or some decision or mistake that that president makes. Can people not understand that the lasting effects of these things aren't really seen until a few years down the line? Some of the things that you are speaking about are just residual from ole Billy Boy. Some of the things that you attribute to ole Billy Boy are residual from papa Bush. Some of the things that will be credited to the next president, good or bad, will be residual from Dubbya. It has always been that way and it will always be that way.

As far as whether I am better off, I honestly believe that I am. It has something to do with the economy, it has something to do with national security, and it has something to do with having an honest man with some integrity in office.

Huge deficit, absolutely. Any different than most presidents, absolutely not. You cannot flaw him for racking up a deficit in a country where the system allows you, almost forces you, to do so. The national debt, the budget deficits, these are such jokes. There is not even enough cash in circulation to pay off the national debt. There will never be enough cash in circulation to pay off the national debt. So, who really cares if there is a budget deficit. It is no wonder that many Americans are in a credit card mess. We live in a society, under a government, that tells us it is ok to borrow money without any thought, and in many cases any hope, for ever paying it back. So, to fault President Bush for operating in such a fasion in the situation that he is in, IN MY OPINION, is foolish. Does that mean that I feel that this situation is right or not flawed? Absolutely not, but it is not like any American president can change it, so why not work with what you have been given.

kniga
23-11-2003, 13:05
grandman,

"What I am seeking is pride in my Country again, and if that means making a pack with someone who falls a bit short in some un-important areas then so be it..."

A pact [the word you are looking for] with the Devil is offered to every man. Too bad you are willing to sell your soul so easily, and at such a young age.

Bill Clinton dishonored the office of the President of the United States not because he "...fell a bit short in some un-important areas...," but because his personal behavior was a disgrace for the man who held the highest office in the land of the most powerful nation in the world, a nation that others should look up to with respect, not the derision that he earned his country. Anyone who accepts the responsibility of leadership needs to be like Caesar's wife, and this is especially so for a president.

No doubt you hold that anything goes as long as it gets you what you want. You probably think that stealing copyrighted music via Napster is all right "because the record companies charge too much for a CD," and that everything on the internet "ought to be free for the taking," because you do not recognize the value of intellectual property.

If you have no personal standards except that the end justifies the means, I can't imagine what kind of a "leader" you will be happy with for the UK. Be careful what you wish for...

grandman
23-11-2003, 20:15
Originally posted by kniga
grandman,

"What I am seeking is pride in my Country again, and if that means making a pack with someone who falls a bit short in some un-important areas then so be it..."

A pact [the word you are looking for] with the Devil is offered to every man. Too bad you are willing to sell your soul so easily, and at such a young age.

Bill Clinton dishonored the office of the President of the United States not because he "...fell a bit short in some un-important areas...," but because his personal behavior was a disgrace for the man who held the highest office in the land of the most powerful nation in the world, a nation that others should look up to with respect, not the derision that he earned his country. Anyone who accepts the responsibility of leadership needs to be like Caesar's wife, and this is especially so for a president.

No doubt you hold that anything goes as long as it gets you what you want. You probably think that stealing copyrighted music via Napster is all right "because the record companies charge too much for a CD," and that everything on the internet "ought to be free for the taking," because you do not recognize the value of intellectual property.

If you have no personal standards except that the end justifies the means, I can't imagine what kind of a "leader" you will be happy with for the UK. Be careful what you wish for...

Ah to so badly miss-judged, I seek nothing for myself only for my country.

If you imply I condone illegal actions you are much mistaken, though I understand why, as everything in the US is either balck or white, and has to have personal gain as an end result. It’s the majore reason for your countries inability to understand the rest of the world.

Though enough US presidents have engaged in just that to keep or in Bushes Case acquire power. Why does everyting in the US have to have a monetarily value? Thats what's wrong with the US, and what they have exported into my Country....

kniga
23-11-2003, 23:48
grandman (what a misnomer!),

Your innocence can be the only answer to what otherwise appears to be unbelievable ignorance. America exported nothing to Britain -- Britain imported what it wanted and took nothing from America at gunpoint.

By the way, where did you go to university? Your spelling is atrocious, or is it just that your typing is as sloppy as your thinking?

grandman
24-11-2003, 00:38
Originally posted by kniga
grandman (what a misnomer!),

Your innocence can be the only answer to what otherwise appears to be unbelievable ignorance. America exported nothing to Britain -- Britain imported what it wanted and took nothing from America at gunpoint.

By the way, where did you go to university? Your spelling is atrocious, or is it just that your typing is as sloppy as your thinking?

I went to Liverpool: then spent a year up in Cambridge

Tell me, is it me, or is this becoming personal and confrontational? If not me, then is it any wonder we have so many wars, when we, who have never even met find the need to take an open subjective discussion to the point of personal attacks.

You’re your response was predictable if somewhat belated, and I could so easily counter, but it now becomes boring. I have been misspelling many words simply through typing to quickly.

Tell me do you enjoy Chinese cooking? If so, here is a good recipe:

PORK CHOP SUEY

Ingredients
1. 100 g/ 4oz bamboo shoots cut into strips
2. 100 g/ 4oz water chestnuts thinly sliced
3. 60 ml/ 4tbsp groundnut (peanut) oil
4. 3 spring onions (scallions) chopped
5. 2 cloves garlic crushed
6. 1 slice root ginger, chopped
7. 225 g / 8 oz fresh lean pork cut into thin strips
8. 45 ml /3 tbsp soy sauce
9. 15 ml / 1 tbsp rice wine or dry sherry
10. 2.5ml / Ѕ tsp salt
11. 2.5 ml/ Ѕ tsp pepper
12. 15 ml / 1 tbsp brown sugar
13. 15 ml / 1 tbsp corn flour (cornstarch)

Method
Blanch bamboo shoots and water chestnuts in boiling water for 2 minutes, then drain and pat dry.
Heat 45 ml / 3tbsp oil in wok and fry spring onions, garlic and ginger until just browned, then add pork and fry for 4 minutes.
Remove from wok and, heat remaining oil, then add vegetables, stir fry for 3 minutes. Replace all ingredients removed earlier, with all remaining ingredients other than corn flour, stir fry for 4 minutes.
Mix the corn flour with a little water and add to pan, fry until sauce is thick and clear, you may add more water if required. Not making a sauce just a glaze to cover ingredients.

I am off to Cambridge at 06-42 so see you in a weeks time.

GM....

andylip
24-11-2003, 05:43
Look, I don't disagree that Bush has created some very bad economic policy. But attempting to lay the blame for the .com crash and the (almost)global recession at Bush's feet is to display a profound misunderstanding of economics and history.

Did you even read what I wrote before asserting that I display such a "profound misunderstanding"? Please tell me where in my message I blamed G.W. Bush for the .com crash, for instance. My point about the deficit has more to do with how Bush has dealt with the global economic crisis (too much spending on a war we didn't need, a cumbersome homeland security department, and an unnecessary tax cut) -- not that he caused it.

andylip
24-11-2003, 05:51
believe that you are missing something. Most people assume that every economic or societal turn that occurs during a president's term is a direct result of some policy or some decision or mistake that that president makes. Can people not understand that the lasting effects of these things aren't really seen until a few years down the line?

I'm not disagreeing with this, Missionary. But you have to remember the aggressive deficit-reduction stragegy Clinton implemented in '92 was considered novel and unconventional.
And while I don't discount a myriad of other factors, isn't it possible that Clinton's budget balancing early in his term helped, among other things, reduce the cost of borrowing, which helped fuel the boom?

As I stated in my previous post today, I don't blame Bush for the recession (if that's what we're calling it these days), any more than I blame him for 9/11. What I do blame him for is his reckless responses to these problems.

andylip
24-11-2003, 05:59
You cannot flaw him for racking up a deficit in a country where the system allows you, almost forces you, to do so. The national debt, the budget deficits, these are such jokes. . . . So, who really cares if there is a budget deficit.

This statement is ludicrous. We are all stupider people for having read it. I've heard more intelligent things at a Keyshawn Johnson press conference. I've gained more wisdom while perusing the men's room stall while wiping my ass. I should have known better than to try to address your points on the merits. I should have gone straight to the porn sites.

Missionary
24-11-2003, 09:26
I'm glad to see that we can have a discussion of our opinions without getting personal.

kniga
24-11-2003, 10:06
grandman,

"Tell me, is it me, or is this becoming personal and confrontational? If not me, then is it any wonder we have so many wars, when we, who have never even met find the need to take an open subjective discussion to the point of personal attacks."

Here, I must give the devil his due. You are right to call me on this one because my frustration at attempting to have a discussion with you has led me to ad hominem responses when they were not called for. It is a problem that is impossible for you to comprehend because you have not yet had to contend with a younger generation which, like all younger generations, is quite sure of itself and enthusiastically brings forth all sorts of ideas and theories based on their limited life experience and comprehension of the facts. The older generation has been down the road, has gotten many dents in its armor, and knows better what it knows and doesn't know. It is just the cycle of life and everyone experiences it. My particular frustration grows from reading some of the things you have written about times and events I lived through, witnessed up close and personal, and in some cases so close that it turned my hair prematurely gray. I also think I would have been less frustrated if it had been immediately clear that you were just an uneducated idiot, but it is evident from the way you write that you are a bright young man capable of better research and conclusions than you have evidenced so far.

"I have been misspelling many words simply through typing to[o!] quickly."

If that is the case, then may I suggest that you slow down because the number and types of mistakes, which I believe you are labeling 'typos,' distract the reader and diminish the impact of your writing. It is true that we judge others by how they speak and write, and to be a Cambridge man and write this way suggests that this great educational institution must have lowered its standards. This, please note, is just an observation plus some unasked for advice (true, seldom a good idea) and not an attack. The idea here is that perhaps you are smart enough to accept some useful advice (this is a small I.Q. test) that will actually benefit you. That is my gift to you as compensation for the ad hominem attacks.

As to the clever switch of topics to recipes, I love Chinese food, but lack the skill to prepare it myself. I will see that someone who is a good cook get this recipe.

Pax vobiscum.

cyclby
24-11-2003, 21:38
Kniga,
You are a voice of reason in a house of insanity. Great to see that you are still fighting the fight for the emotional and less articulate such as myself.

Great thread, I have not been on the site in a spell and printed this thing out, all 30+ pages. You guys wore me out.

Does anyone really care what we think? Not really. We live in Moscow because we do not function properly in the real world, wherever that is. I did not need a therapist for that observation. I had a moment of clarity a few years ago.

Polly,
At the risk of earning your wrath and a former voter in the sunshine state myself I like the idea of Arnold at the helm. He arrived in the states with nothing and became gov. of CA. That is what America is about. Give the guy a chance. As for groping women, we were all young once let he among us who is pure of heart and a monumental liar cast the 1st stone.


Bush or Gore, just another political hack who's Daddy gave him a life of privilege. "Here's the new boss, same as the old boss" When we end the 2 party system we will really get the government we deserve.
Regards to all,
C

DaveUKagain
24-11-2003, 21:51
"Here's the new boss, same as the old boss"

...... dunno about "we won`t get fooled again", though. ;-))))

Ahh, let`s bring back the sixties. I had a great time, then. Mainly through being five when they finished. ;)

Responsibility shmeshponsibility. Tim Leary for President ! ;-))))

Dave :D

DaveUKagain
24-11-2003, 22:19
To continue........ ;-)

The thread question really is "IS the US Government accountable to the views of its`citizens ? " - which is pretty much necessary if we`re going to call America a democracy......

Answer, nope.

But then again, has ANY government in modern times ever been responsible to the will of its` electorate ? Equally no. If I`m wrong here, do excuse me, but I`m straining to think of an example. I think the only way that a Government can be described as under the command of the electorate is that the electorate gets a chance to change the government every four years or so. ;-)))))

I think an interesting point here is that a lot of American voters will tell you in one breath that the US is a democracy - rule of the people - and that the old USSR - wasn`t. Now, this is pretty interesting, because from what I remember about Russian politics, the Soviet Union was supposed to be run (supposed to be run) according to the will of the people, and the political system was supposed to reflect that will and be servile to it.

(Something went a little wrong there, folks...... ) - point was that the Soviet system was "democracy in theory" - rule by the will of the people - they just happened to elect someone so *great* (sarcasm) that he stayed around for 30 years or so.

Point is - democracy in theory - not in practice - is not democracy. True, the US never went down the road that the USSR did (thank GOD) - but- well. Neither are what good old Democritus would call a "democracy". In fact, the idea (which was originally applied to Greek City States) is just impossible to apply to a system with hundreds of millions of people in it. "Democracy" is a buzz word.

UK. Political stalemate, petty political points - scoring, four year political cycles then the opposition gets in and dogmatically reverses any positive change that might have been made. Whoopee. Where`s the exit ? ;-)))))

Why bring this all up ? Because - well. "Democracy" is held up as being the shining torch for Russia to aspire to. It`s also lauded as being the system under which the US is supposed to operate - here, too..... I don`t see much responsibility or accountability to an electorate beyond the concession of allowing them to vote a government out every four years. Actually, I can agree with Grandman`s point about a strong leader..... and there is probably a lot to be said for a "benign dictatorship" to get things done. ;-)))) Before anyone stops me here, the whole Roman empire used to work on this principle before Julius Caesar abused it and made himself dictator for life - before that, it was a four year term. ;-)) (Pretty amusing thought) - but.......... the words "benign" and "dictatorship" don`t really go together. Not for long, anyhow.

Therefore, my solution really is - put all the politicians in a football stadium and machine gun` em. ;-)))) I know, I know, but it`d be great fun and you could do it all again next week. ;-))))))

kniga
24-11-2003, 22:57
cyclby,

Thought you'd been mugged in the underpass outside the Boar House! :-) Yes, I try to be the voice of reason, but am always embarrassed to realize that I have to start with myself. All of these subjects are worthy of discussion whether or not anything gets solved because they force the participants to think instead of just drink, and that's got to be good for all of us. They also tend to bring up the blood because we all seem capable of responding to issues that generally are controversial.

Are those of us in Moscow such misfits or are we adventurers? I suppose it depends on how and why we got here. One thing is for sure, though, this is a pretty small club of people who have made their way to this exotic land and its exciting capital. While others are sitting in their rocking chairs waiting for their next government pension/Social Security check and telling the same fishing stories over and over, we will have countless unique stories to tell about our time in Moscow.

Ah-nold! When he said, "I'll be back," he wasn't kidding. I lived too many years in California not to enjoy the irony of having The Terminator as governor. After Gray Davis, who could do worse? Maybe it only happens in America, but what a show!

Two party system. Well, it works as designed, and as born-again Dave so rightly points out, democracy in America works inside the American culture, but it is hardly an export product. Democracy by whatever label people choose to call it works in America because its citizens are satisfied with it. It works better on the grass roots level than on the national level, but true democracy will always be an illusion as well as an impractical political mechanism for nearly 300 million people. That's why the U.S. has representational government, and the problems start with the mechanism for electing those representatives and then their behavior while in office.

With all this heavy-duty palaver, what we need here is a ROAD TRIP!!!

DaveUKagain
24-11-2003, 23:11
He`s right, folks. ;-))))

Another point that was made earlier and I totally forgot to respond to was that the standard of living in the US was so high that it was (in all probability) not possible to permanently maintain.

Reason why the standard of living in first world countries is high is - very simply- because the standard of living in emerging nations is low. There`s only so much of the pie to share out - so first world countries reserve themselves the biggest slice and set up systems which mean that developing nations will always be "trading partners" but never "equal partners". ;-)

So - the artificially low oil prices in the US drive US foreign policy - whereby the US HAS to protect its` interest in the Gulf States. Low shop prices are the result of goods being produced overseas for lower rates of pay than if they were produced at home - and this production is usually done in protected environments.

Essentially, the first world is rich because the second and third worlds are poor. And the first world has the clout to keep the status quo. All we`re seeing now is an administration which has quite forgotten this fact and is going off target by a long way. Soon as GW stops wasting money on bullets fired off at anyone, the better. I find it very sad when the US President meets his "closest ally" by arriving here in a limo with 5 inch armour plating and spends his time pointedly avoiding normal people. It honestly reminded me of the good old bad days of the USSR - as if Brezhnev had come to tea.

America`s gone off into self - induced isolationism, which happened a few times in the past before... mainly for trade reasons. Fine. That worked. This "War on Terror" will never work as long as one gentleman with a tea towel and 50lb of Semtex is walking around Tel Aviv. But it theoretically makes great political capital to be seen to oppose it - and from Dubya`s point, what can he do ? But. Having one war run away from you is almost excusable - having a Holy War and a whole set of campaigns do the same is ...... incredible. Really, it`s like Napoleon..... but without any tactical or strategic sense.

Bringing matters over to Russia..... Russia has got GIGANTIC potential to be a manufacturing giant. Skilled workforce, low wages - the only thing is missing is capital investment, transport infrastructure and trust - especially after a lot of foreign firms got frazzled in the 98 crisis. Russia is - to my inexpert eyes - still under the illusion it could go it alone without Western influence or help. However, I think that as soon as the Russian people get a government that they deserve (which is perhaps never, unfortunately) - the long term future for a Russia totally integrated with the West and acting as a manufacturing powerhouse - looks pretty good indeed. ;-)))))

Mind you, this was all said of Africa in the 70`s and China "not so long ago". ;-)))) Don`t hold your breath, folks.

Synopsis - the US standard of living CREATES US foreign policy. It`s just "protectionism". I wish Dubya would realise that - someone tell him, folks, I`d like my old job back after he stops cluster bombing Arabs - the new "Reds under the bed"......

kniga
24-11-2003, 23:23
Dave,

Well said, but there is this: I remember after 9/11 all my Russian friends said that they thought it was the end of the world because America would unleash A-bombs on every Muslim capital in the world. It was W who held everyone back and kept a cool head. Too bad he seems to have lost that restraint in Iraq, but hastening to hand Iraq over to the Iraqis is a better exit strategy than we had in Vietnam. And yeah, the U.S. is like Bill Gates, who is so rich and powerful that he keeps everyone else in the computer business toeing the line or sitting out in the cold. "Might makes right" may be ugly, but it still prevails.

DaveUKagain
25-11-2003, 00:01
Must admit I thought the same thing too, Kniga. ;-)))) "Well, I can see the tac nukes flying after this" is what I thought at the time.

Trouble is, there was no specific state to nuke..... ;-))))

America learning to live with terrorism.

In 1996, I was standing in the garden with my Dad engaged in some kind of semi-important debate about who was going to mow his lawn and exactly whose turn it was to make a coffee when (with a loud bang you could hear from 5 miles away) those dashing gentlemen of the IRA decided (in not quite so gentlemanly a fashion) to blow Manchester city centre to pieces. Admittedly they didn`t fly a passenger jet into it, but - a few thousand kilos of fertiliser bomb in a lorry certainly did dent the paintwork. There were a few other disgusting attempts by the IRA to blow up a few more women and kids for some long forgotten cause - and then - peace came along.

I`ve walked past ten terrorist bombs in my life. In fact, I walked down the main street in Warrington the day before the bomb went off there. I have plenty of friends who were caught up in explosions - none dead - but for the first 30 years of my life you could NOT sit down and put the news on at night without hearing "A British Soldier was today killed in Northern Ireland....... "

I`m not going to mention NORAID here. But the point was that over in the UK, we either became inured to terrorism or - after 30 years of being bombed to hell - realised that it was simply a no-win situation.

You may remember some big Chechen bombs in Volgodonsk not so long ago. I rang my "fiancee" up in Volgograd after Moscow got hit and was AMAZED that she was actually scared to leave the house as someone had exploded a bomb 200 miles away.

America is, at the moment, learning to live with terrorism. 9/11 was horrific indeed. Terrible. But. The concept GW seems to have - that he can win a guerilla war (and the American people demand it, so it seems) - is utterly flawed and says VIETNAM all over again to me. Righteous indignation, I`m sure. But the "war against terror" is unwinnable, and not being prosecuted with restraint. And the nightmare is that it may take as long as Vietnam for a withdrawal strategy (from the entire situation) to be formulated - which will probably include the anathema of constructive intermediary dialogue between Israel and Palestine - the fulcrum of the problem.

Until then, I honestly reckon that money which should be poured into minimising the US National debt will go on bullets. Unfortunately, the US has to learn to live with terrorism - and - more unfortunately - the wars which result from the new wave of US foreign policy seem to be something that the US electorate have to have to maintain the illusion that terrorism can be defeated by the bullet - and not hearts and minds and a balanced US foreign policy.

I reckon I`ll be without an IT job for the rest of the Bush administration, Kniga. ;-)))))) And probably the one after that. ;-))) You can`t have a war - or wars - during an economic recession and expect recovery (I know, war is good for the economy, but.. ) - but - something is dreadfully, dreadfully wrong in the way that the US is prosecuting its` foreign policy at the moment. No matter what the provocation, there IS a diplomatic solution and whilst a reader may say "don`t bargain with terrorists" - experience shows that guerillas will always win a guerilla war.

Might ain`t always right. And. It don`t always prevail. ;-)))))

grandman
29-11-2003, 00:32
Originally posted by kniga
grandman,

"Tell me, is it me, or is this becoming personal and confrontational? If not me, then is it any wonder we have so many wars, when we, who have never even met find the need to take an open subjective discussion to the point of personal attacks."

Here, I must give the devil his due. You are right to call me on this one because my frustration at attempting to have a discussion with you has led me to ad hominem responses when they were not called for. It is a problem that is impossible for you to comprehend because you have not yet had to contend with a younger generation which, like all younger generations, is quite sure of itself and enthusiastically brings forth all sorts of ideas and theories based on their limited life experience and comprehension of the facts. The older generation has been down the road, has gotten many dents in its armor, and knows better what it knows and doesn't know. It is just the cycle of life and everyone experiences it. My particular frustration grows from reading some of the things you have written about times and events I lived through, witnessed up close and personal, and in some cases so close that it turned my hair prematurely gray. I also think I would have been less frustrated if it had been immediately clear that you were just an uneducated idiot, but it is evident from the way you write that you are a bright young man capable of better research and conclusions than you have evidenced so far.

"I have been misspelling many words simply through typing to[o!] quickly."

If that is the case, then may I suggest that you slow down because the number and types of mistakes, which I believe you are labeling 'typos,' distract the reader and diminish the impact of your writing. It is true that we judge others by how they speak and write, and to be a Cambridge man and write this way suggests that this great educational institution must have lowered its standards. This, please note, is just an observation plus some unasked for advice (true, seldom a good idea) and not an attack. The idea here is that perhaps you are smart enough to accept some useful advice (this is a small I.Q. test) that will actually benefit you. That is my gift to you as compensation for the ad hominem attacks.

As to the clever switch of topics to recipes, I love Chinese food, but lack the skill to prepare it myself. I will see that someone who is a good cook get this recipe.

Pax vobiscum.

Hi all of you merry people have just returned from Cambridge, a wonderful place of peace and merry making. It’s nice to see that naught hath changed during my absence, and, the same topics prevail.

Question – How did this subject start, and WHY?

I note the comment, we can hope to change nothing, yet all will change, because that is what happens. The greatest civilizations have changed, and nothing is either sacred or constant.

Just a thought, when we attack the young generation we attack the future, and that will prevail, right or wrong?

With regards to Iraq, that is just George W Bush’s backers gaining a return on their investment. The multi billion dollar arms industry sells more arms, and many American companies gain access to the petrol dollars under the guise of redeveloping the country’s infrastructure. Not that difficult to work out, or am I wrong?

The alternatives are that we must now remove every dictator who mistreats his people, who does not comply with any UN directives within the specified time period or COULD pose a threat, whether they have oil or not.

DaveUKagain
29-11-2003, 00:38
"The alternatives are that we must now remove every dictator who mistreats his people,"

Hehee - Bush included ? ;-)

Hi Grandman - nice to see you had a great time in Cambridge- really nice place. ;-))

Dave ;-))))

grandman
29-11-2003, 01:00
Hi Dave

You look like the cat that just got the cream. So what has changed? Not a lot from what I have read so far.

What are so many none Russian Citizens doing in dear old Mother Russia? I always thought we made our money in the ME?

Eh, can’t comment on Bush, will be accused of showing my (ignorance = stupidity), no more war peace at any price, and we all go to the dogs – or, cats whichever it is.

Still haven’t found the answer though, have we?
GM

grandman
29-11-2003, 01:54
I keep going back to Cambridge, to remind myself what it is, that I am suppose to be doing and why.

It’s a very different world there, the people are different, there more interested in learning why we get it wrong and how we can correct our mistakes, which is a good way to use the past. Yes? “Learning is in the air”, someone once said to me, that short statement describes Cambridge, for me.

grandman
29-11-2003, 02:00
Can you tell me where I can acquire maps of the Russian Sewage systems?

cyclby
29-11-2003, 21:32
Originally posted by grandman
Can you tell me where I can acquire maps of the Russian Sewage systems?


FSB!

Tell em' Dubya sent ya!