On May 11 2012 14:03 TheToast wrote: You called all republicans "hateful" and you're going to accuse me of making generalizations? I never said the rest of the world was all dictators. But you said compared to the rest of the world republicans are all hateful people, the world is a pretty big place there buddy. And there are some awfully hateful governments in the world.
Most of those hateful governments aren't first-world nations though, and that's the point.
On a comparative basis with the rest of the world, we're pretty awesome across the board. Compared with the other major developed economies, though, we're rather behind in a number of areas, like civil rights, health care, and education.
Well, it depends on how you measure those things. In terms of access to healthcare, we are certainly behind Canada and a number of European nations. In terms of quality of healthcare, we're just about number one in the world for a number of metrics. Things like average wait time to secure an appointment to a doctor, number of pioneering medical treatments, etc. It really depends on what aspects you term more important.
Same with education. Our university systems are some of the best in the world. There's a reason why people come from literally all over to attend college here; many top schools in some cases have upwards of 10% asian nationals enrolled as students. The number of new technology patents that come out of US universities far outpaces just about any other country in the world. In terms of cost to attend school and the ease of access to attend a university, we've got major problems.
Civil rights is the same. While we don't have universal same sex marriage, we have just about the most robust freedom of speech anywhere in the world; even compared to Europe. In Germany and Austria you can be jailed for displaying a swastika in public or voicing support for the Nazi party, earlier this year in the UK a man was jailed for tweeting a racist comment. While I don't support those actions, I personally believe that's infriging an individual's right to free speech. The US is one of the few countries in the world where you can say literally whatever the fuck you want. IMO that's a pretty damn important civil right.
So really, where the US stands compared to the rest of the world is really a matter of one's perspective, and what aspects of these issues you consider more important.
On May 11 2012 14:11 oldgregg wrote:
On May 11 2012 14:03 TheToast wrote:
On May 11 2012 14:00 Zooper31 wrote:
On May 11 2012 13:26 Zooper31 wrote:
On May 11 2012 12:36 TheToast wrote:
On May 11 2012 12:27 D10 wrote:
On May 11 2012 12:24 GwSC wrote: Wow, that poll in OP. I really didn't know people outside the US liked Obama that much. Or at least, had that strong of a preference for him over Romney.
the republicans are a hateful lot, it makes noise everywhere
No, that's just how Republicans are portrayed abroad.
Compared to the rest of the world, thats simply what they are.
Compared to the rest of the world? Like the Chinese communist party, who execute people for having an opinion? Or the Iranian government who, by the way, keeps calling for the extermination of the Jews? Get some perspective. If you have a problem with the US government, that's fine; but don't make absurd straw man arguments like this.
So to you the rest of the world are just crazy dictators? Good comparison. I don't have a problem with the US government, I will happily live here over all other places in the world, maybe move to Japan idk yet. Just comparing the US to other somewhat similiar countries and how different the political parties are, don't need get all defensive.
You called all republicans "hateful" and you're going to accuse me of making generalizations? I never said the rest of the world was all dictators. But you said compared to the rest of the world republicans are all hateful people, the world is a pretty big place there buddy. And there are some awfully hateful governments in the world.
Republicans are up there though come on admit it
This is like saying all Democrats are weed smoking hippies. Blanket generalizations are stupid, ignorant, and most importantly--pointless.
One of my friends who live in USA and has kids told me that when his daughter was making an anti-war campaign in school, publically and the police contacted her and told her to stop doing it because it's offensive to others. Can't know if it's true ofcourse, but I believe my friend.
lol the police? i seriously doubt that is true. sounds like anti us bullshit. you sure your friend doesnt live in china?
On May 11 2012 14:03 TheToast wrote: You called all republicans "hateful" and you're going to accuse me of making generalizations? I never said the rest of the world was all dictators. But you said compared to the rest of the world republicans are all hateful people, the world is a pretty big place there buddy. And there are some awfully hateful governments in the world.
Most of those hateful governments aren't first-world nations though, and that's the point.
On a comparative basis with the rest of the world, we're pretty awesome across the board. Compared with the other major developed economies, though, we're rather behind in a number of areas, like civil rights, health care, and education.
Well, it depends on how you measure those things. In terms of access to healthcare, we are certainly behind Canada and a number of European nations. In terms of quality of healthcare, we're just about number one in the world for a number of metrics. Things like average wait time to secure an appointment to a doctor, number of pioneering medical treatments, etc. It really depends on what aspects you term more important.
Same with education. Our university systems are some of the best in the world. There's a reason why people come from literally all over to attend college here; many top schools in some cases have upwards of 10% asian nationals enrolled as students. The number of new technology patents that come out of US universities far outpaces just about any other country in the world. In terms of cost to attend school and the ease of access to attend a university, we've got major problems.
Civil rights is the same. While we don't have universal same sex marriage, we have just about the most robust freedom of speech anywhere in the world; even compared to Europe. In Germany and Austria you can be jailed for displaying a swastika in public or voicing support for the Nazi party, earlier this year in the UK a man was jailed for tweeting a racist comment. While I don't support those actions, I personally believe that's infriging an individual's right to free speech. The US is one of the few countries in the world where you can say literally whatever the fuck you want. IMO that's a pretty damn important civil right.
So really, where the US stands compared to the rest of the world is really a matter of one's perspective, and what aspects of these issues you consider more important.
On May 11 2012 14:11 oldgregg wrote:
On May 11 2012 14:03 TheToast wrote:
On May 11 2012 14:00 Zooper31 wrote:
On May 11 2012 13:26 Zooper31 wrote:
On May 11 2012 12:36 TheToast wrote:
On May 11 2012 12:27 D10 wrote:
On May 11 2012 12:24 GwSC wrote: Wow, that poll in OP. I really didn't know people outside the US liked Obama that much. Or at least, had that strong of a preference for him over Romney.
the republicans are a hateful lot, it makes noise everywhere
No, that's just how Republicans are portrayed abroad.
Compared to the rest of the world, thats simply what they are.
Compared to the rest of the world? Like the Chinese communist party, who execute people for having an opinion? Or the Iranian government who, by the way, keeps calling for the extermination of the Jews? Get some perspective. If you have a problem with the US government, that's fine; but don't make absurd straw man arguments like this.
So to you the rest of the world are just crazy dictators? Good comparison. I don't have a problem with the US government, I will happily live here over all other places in the world, maybe move to Japan idk yet. Just comparing the US to other somewhat similiar countries and how different the political parties are, don't need get all defensive.
You called all republicans "hateful" and you're going to accuse me of making generalizations? I never said the rest of the world was all dictators. But you said compared to the rest of the world republicans are all hateful people, the world is a pretty big place there buddy. And there are some awfully hateful governments in the world.
Republicans are up there though come on admit it
This is like saying all Democrats are weed smoking hippies. Blanket generalizations are stupid, ignorant, and most importantly--pointless.
One of my friends who live in USA and has kids told me that when his daughter was making an anti-war campaign in school, publically and the police contacted her and told her to stop doing it because it's offensive to others. Can't know if it's true ofcourse, but I believe my friend.
In other words the police were getting annoyed by people constantly calling them about it. I doubt/know they were not going to press charges or forcibly stop her from continuing the campaign. They just wanted her to end it because they were being harassed by members of the community. That's what it sounds like to me anyway.
Interestingly, I wrote a term paper on this for my comparative political culture course in college.
If the term "right wing" is what's throwing the Europeans and other off, allow me to explain. Outside of the US and the UK, "right wing" usually refers to nationalists or sometimes ultra nationalists. In Japan, an individual arguing for the rearming of the Japanese state might be considered right wing. The subway sarin gas attack in Tokyo was said to have been carried out by right wing nationalists, for example. In central Europe the term sometimes refers to individuates who oppose immigration and are against what they perceive as the homogenization of the continent. I've even seem the Norwegian bomber referred to as an extreme right winger.
But here in the US (and to a lesser extent in the UK) "right wing" usually refers to libertarian principles, sometimes bordering on social Darwinism amongst the most extreme. Often, traditional "family values" are included in this as well. A typical "right-wing" conservative in the US believes in lower government spending; lower taxation; smaller government with less regulation of businesses, corporations, and individuals; and are most often support a pro-life stance on abortion. "Reagan conservatives", which most modern right wing conservatives would probably identify themselves as, also tend to support a strong US military; often this includes a belief in a robust nuclear deterrent as well.
It is true that "right wing" in central and northern Europe is to some extent associated with nationalism, hostility towards immigration and increased military spending. But belonging to the political right in Europe primarily means you are in favour of less state-owned companies, private interests making a profit in areas like health care and education, smaller general coverage of things like health care and education and in return lower taxes, you favour austerity and governement spending cuts in response to bad ecconomic times. Often but not always there is an element of social conservatism as well. In short, for the most part "right wing" in Europe really does mean the same thing as in the US. And yes by european standard Obama and the democrats are very right wing on all these issues and the republicans are somewhere so far out on the fringe that they almost fall of the edge.To examplify: When Bush talks about people being "with us or against us" that is an extreme right wing position to me. When Obama orders bomb strike in Pakistan and Jemen that is also right wing (In the nationalism, gogo military, every foreigner is a potential enemy sense). On the domestic front, Obamas medical bill would be considered right wing policy here - Universal or close to universal coverage but paid for through insurance rather than taxes and the actual care being provided by private companies. The republican idea that not everyone needs to be covered at all is again off the charts. And while the European right wing social conservatives oppose things like gay couples adopting children their american equivalents want to out law abortion and let people on an individual basis decide whether they want to sell their wares to black people. On the issue on immigration we have democratic politicians arguing for amnesty for people currently working illegally in the US while their republican equivalents want the police to perform ID checks on hispanic looking people in arizona to ensure they arent mexicans. So yeah I think people are largly correct when they describe democrats as right wing by european standards and this is largely why many Europeans find it so difficult to relate to republicans - and by extension - americans.
On May 11 2012 14:03 TheToast wrote: You called all republicans "hateful" and you're going to accuse me of making generalizations? I never said the rest of the world was all dictators. But you said compared to the rest of the world republicans are all hateful people, the world is a pretty big place there buddy. And there are some awfully hateful governments in the world.
Most of those hateful governments aren't first-world nations though, and that's the point.
On a comparative basis with the rest of the world, we're pretty awesome across the board. Compared with the other major developed economies, though, we're rather behind in a number of areas, like civil rights, health care, and education.
Well, it depends on how you measure those things. In terms of access to healthcare, we are certainly behind Canada and a number of European nations. In terms of quality of healthcare, we're just about number one in the world for a number of metrics. Things like average wait time to secure an appointment to a doctor, number of pioneering medical treatments, etc. It really depends on what aspects you term more important.
Same with education. Our university systems are some of the best in the world. There's a reason why people come from literally all over to attend college here; many top schools in some cases have upwards of 10% asian nationals enrolled as students. The number of new technology patents that come out of US universities far outpaces just about any other country in the world. In terms of cost to attend school and the ease of access to attend a university, we've got major problems.
Civil rights is the same. While we don't have universal same sex marriage, we have just about the most robust freedom of speech anywhere in the world; even compared to Europe. In Germany and Austria you can be jailed for displaying a swastika in public or voicing support for the Nazi party, earlier this year in the UK a man was jailed for tweeting a racist comment. While I don't support those actions, I personally believe that's infriging an individual's right to free speech. The US is one of the few countries in the world where you can say literally whatever the fuck you want. IMO that's a pretty damn important civil right.
So really, where the US stands compared to the rest of the world is really a matter of one's perspective, and what aspects of these issues you consider more important.
On May 11 2012 14:11 oldgregg wrote:
On May 11 2012 14:03 TheToast wrote:
On May 11 2012 14:00 Zooper31 wrote:
On May 11 2012 13:26 Zooper31 wrote:
On May 11 2012 12:36 TheToast wrote:
On May 11 2012 12:27 D10 wrote: [quote]
the republicans are a hateful lot, it makes noise everywhere
No, that's just how Republicans are portrayed abroad.
Compared to the rest of the world, thats simply what they are.
Compared to the rest of the world? Like the Chinese communist party, who execute people for having an opinion? Or the Iranian government who, by the way, keeps calling for the extermination of the Jews? Get some perspective. If you have a problem with the US government, that's fine; but don't make absurd straw man arguments like this.
So to you the rest of the world are just crazy dictators? Good comparison. I don't have a problem with the US government, I will happily live here over all other places in the world, maybe move to Japan idk yet. Just comparing the US to other somewhat similiar countries and how different the political parties are, don't need get all defensive.
You called all republicans "hateful" and you're going to accuse me of making generalizations? I never said the rest of the world was all dictators. But you said compared to the rest of the world republicans are all hateful people, the world is a pretty big place there buddy. And there are some awfully hateful governments in the world.
Republicans are up there though come on admit it
This is like saying all Democrats are weed smoking hippies. Blanket generalizations are stupid, ignorant, and most importantly--pointless.
One of my friends who live in USA and has kids told me that when his daughter was making an anti-war campaign in school, publically and the police contacted her and told her to stop doing it because it's offensive to others. Can't know if it's true ofcourse, but I believe my friend.
lol the police? i seriously doubt that is true. sounds like anti us bullshit. you sure your friend doesnt live in china?
edit; on second thought maybe she lives in AZ.xD
He lives in USA yes, can't remember where in USA; though. and it was his daughter who got fucked for doing the anti-war thing.
On May 11 2012 12:24 GwSC wrote: Wow, that poll in OP. I really didn't know people outside the US liked Obama that much. Or at least, had that strong of a preference for him over Romney.
the republicans are a hateful lot, it makes noise everywhere
No, that's just how Republicans are portrayed abroad.
Naw, it just represents a difference between the American political spectrum and others. By European standards, Democrats are right wing and Republicans and crazy fringe right. Not that it matters since Americans determine American politics but it is silly to imply that its largely based on misinformation.
Interestingly, I wrote a term paper on this for my comparative political culture course in college.
If the term "right wing" is what's throwing the Europeans and other off, allow me to explain. Outside of the US and the UK, "right wing" usually refers to nationalists or sometimes ultra nationalists. In Japan, an individual arguing for the rearming of the Japanese state might be considered right wing. The subway sarin gas attack in Tokyo was said to have been carried out by right wing nationalists, for example. In central Europe the term sometimes refers to individuates who oppose immigration and are against what they perceive as the homogenization of the continent. I've even seem the Norwegian bomber referred to as an extreme right winger.
But here in the US (and to a lesser extent in the UK) "right wing" usually refers to libertarian principles, sometimes bordering on social Darwinism amongst the most extreme. Often, traditional "family values" are included in this as well. A typical "right-wing" conservative in the US believes in lower government spending; lower taxation; smaller government with less regulation of businesses, corporations, and individuals; and are most often support a pro-life stance on abortion. "Reagan conservatives", which most modern right wing conservatives would probably identify themselves as, also tend to support a strong US military; often this includes a belief in a robust nuclear deterrent as well.
On May 11 2012 12:24 GwSC wrote: Wow, that poll in OP. I really didn't know people outside the US liked Obama that much. Or at least, had that strong of a preference for him over Romney.
the republicans are a hateful lot, it makes noise everywhere
No, that's just how Republicans are portrayed abroad.
Compared to the rest of the world, thats simply what they are.
Compared to the rest of the world? Like the Chinese communist party, who execute people for having an opinion? Or the Iranian government who, by the way, keeps calling for the extermination of the Jews? Get some perspective. If you have a problem with the US government, that's fine; but don't make absurd straw man arguments like this.
On May 11 2012 09:54 BioNova wrote: Romney's boy gets busted. The Maine fake-slate gentleman is identified, and surprise, he's on Romney's payroll.
Democrats might enjoy this, but GOP party unity people will not. Well, unless you like some drama. Gotta love Charlie's little grin! Must be those Romney checks.
Don't get me wrong, obviously there was some shady stuff going on in Maine but seriously why does this matter? Why would Romney even try this, he doesn't need Maine. Ron Paul has no chance of catching him nor does Ron Paul have any chance of even denying him the outright nomination. Romney now has enough or is very close to enough hard delegates--delegates who are legally bound to vote for him in tMicheal Steele-open conventionhe first round--that this literally does not matter at all. This isn't even drama relating to the national republican party; this video is about the Maine state republican convention to nominate candidates for the national convention. So in effect, it matters even less.
He is correct about the RNC rules. But it is the state rules that actually matter here, and most states have bound delegates, so it doesn't really matter. Rule 38 that he is talking about is why each state has at least one unbound delegate, even if the rest are bound.
Either way it doesn't matter. Romney will be the republican candidate no matter how much noise Ron Paul supporters make or how many conspiracies they dream up.
Good morning, Toast. Let me say without pause, any convention with Robert Rules of order requires a 2/3 majority vote to take a shit.
Furthermore..
In January 2011, Steele, the first African American chair of the Republican National Committee, was unceremoniously denied a second term by the party's governing council, after a tumultuous two-year stint marked by the historic GOP takeover of the House but also multiple gaffes (Steele called Afghanistan "a war of Obama's choosing"), blunders (spending $2000 in party funds at a West Hollywood bondage-themed nightclub), and charges of profound financial mismanagement. But during his rocky tenure at RNC HQ, Steele pushed for and won significant changes in the rules for the party's presidential nomination process and shaped this year's turbulent race.
"I wanted a brokered convention," Steele says. "That was one of my goals."
These reforms are now bedeviling front-runner Mitt Romney and the Republican establishment by preventing Romney from wrapping up the nomination and keeping him mired in a nasty fight for the support of the party's hardcore base voters, an ugly and grinding tussle that is defining Romney (and the party) in a manner that's not bolstering his fall prospects (or the GOP's). Moreover, the rules Steele bequeathed the party could yield an outcome in which Romney finishes with the most delegates, but not an outright majority, necessitating a brokered convention.
and to the conspiracy comment, it's exatly the response I enjoy. I'm following the race, you're following assumptions in your head. I may be delusional, but your in denial.
I'm not your run of the mill conspiracy nutjob. I am a exceptional one. The conspiracy aspect woul be the rumors of Henry Kissenger telling the Chinese that Jeb would be president. You can find your own links on that one, as I cannot vouch for such rabble.
On May 11 2012 12:24 GwSC wrote: Wow, that poll in OP. I really didn't know people outside the US liked Obama that much. Or at least, had that strong of a preference for him over Romney.
the republicans are a hateful lot, it makes noise everywhere
No, that's just how Republicans are portrayed abroad.
Naw, it just represents a difference between the American political spectrum and others. By European standards, Democrats are right wing and Republicans and crazy fringe right. Not that it matters since Americans determine American politics but it is silly to imply that its largely based on misinformation.
Interestingly, I wrote a term paper on this for my comparative political culture course in college.
If the term "right wing" is what's throwing the Europeans and other off, allow me to explain. Outside of the US and the UK, "right wing" usually refers to nationalists or sometimes ultra nationalists. In Japan, an individual arguing for the rearming of the Japanese state might be considered right wing. The subway sarin gas attack in Tokyo was said to have been carried out by right wing nationalists, for example. In central Europe the term sometimes refers to individuates who oppose immigration and are against what they perceive as the homogenization of the continent. I've even seem the Norwegian bomber referred to as an extreme right winger.
But here in the US (and to a lesser extent in the UK) "right wing" usually refers to libertarian principles, sometimes bordering on social Darwinism amongst the most extreme. Often, traditional "family values" are included in this as well. A typical "right-wing" conservative in the US believes in lower government spending; lower taxation; smaller government with less regulation of businesses, corporations, and individuals; and are most often support a pro-life stance on abortion. "Reagan conservatives", which most modern right wing conservatives would probably identify themselves as, also tend to support a strong US military; often this includes a belief in a robust nuclear deterrent as well.
-edit:
On May 11 2012 13:26 Zooper31 wrote:
On May 11 2012 12:36 TheToast wrote:
On May 11 2012 12:27 D10 wrote:
On May 11 2012 12:24 GwSC wrote: Wow, that poll in OP. I really didn't know people outside the US liked Obama that much. Or at least, had that strong of a preference for him over Romney.
the republicans are a hateful lot, it makes noise everywhere
No, that's just how Republicans are portrayed abroad.
Compared to the rest of the world, thats simply what they are.
Compared to the rest of the world? Like the Chinese communist party, who execute people for having an opinion? Or the Iranian government who, by the way, keeps calling for the extermination of the Jews? Get some perspective. If you have a problem with the US government, that's fine; but don't make absurd straw man arguments like this.
On May 11 2012 13:20 BioNova wrote:
On May 11 2012 10:05 TheToast wrote:
On May 11 2012 09:54 BioNova wrote: Romney's boy gets busted. The Maine fake-slate gentleman is identified, and surprise, he's on Romney's payroll.
Democrats might enjoy this, but GOP party unity people will not. Well, unless you like some drama. Gotta love Charlie's little grin! Must be those Romney checks.
Don't get me wrong, obviously there was some shady stuff going on in Maine but seriously why does this matter? Why would Romney even try this, he doesn't need Maine. Ron Paul has no chance of catching him nor does Ron Paul have any chance of even denying him the outright nomination. Romney now has enough or is very close to enough hard delegates--delegates who are legally bound to vote for him in tMicheal Steele-open conventionhe first round--that this literally does not matter at all. This isn't even drama relating to the national republican party; this video is about the Maine state republican convention to nominate candidates for the national convention. So in effect, it matters even less.
He is correct about the RNC rules. But it is the state rules that actually matter here, and most states have bound delegates, so it doesn't really matter. Rule 38 that he is talking about is why each state has at least one unbound delegate, even if the rest are bound.
Either way it doesn't matter. Romney will be the republican candidate no matter how much noise Ron Paul supporters make or how many conspiracies they dream up.
Good morning, Toast. Let me say without pause, any convention with Robert Rules of order requires a 2/3 majority vote to take a shit.
In January 2011, Steele, the first African American chair of the Republican National Committee, was unceremoniously denied a second term by the party's governing council, after a tumultuous two-year stint marked by the historic GOP takeover of the House but also multiple gaffes (Steele called Afghanistan "a war of Obama's choosing"), blunders (spending $2000 in party funds at a West Hollywood bondage-themed nightclub), and charges of profound financial mismanagement. But during his rocky tenure at RNC HQ, Steele pushed for and won significant changes in the rules for the party's presidential nomination process and shaped this year's turbulent race.
"I wanted a brokered convention," Steele says. "That was one of my goals."
These reforms are now bedeviling front-runner Mitt Romney and the Republican establishment by preventing Romney from wrapping up the nomination and keeping him mired in a nasty fight for the support of the party's hardcore base voters, an ugly and grinding tussle that is defining Romney (and the party) in a manner that's not bolstering his fall prospects (or the GOP's). Moreover, the rules Steele bequeathed the party could yield an outcome in which Romney finishes with the most delegates, but not an outright majority, necessitating a brokered convention.
and to the conspiracy comment, it's exatly the response I enjoy. I'm following the race, you're following assumptions in your head. I may be delusional, but your in denial.
I'm not your run of the mill conspiracy nutjob. I am a exceptional one. The conspiracy aspect woul be the rumors of Henry Kissenger telling the Chinese that Jeb would be president. You can find your own links on that one, as I cannot vouch for such rabble.
For starters, I own a copy of the 11th Edition of Robert's Rules of Order (for a while I owned two actually), and have actually trained others on it's uages, so don't try to school me in Parlimentary Proceedure. Second, each organization can set whatever rules they want, there's no one single standard for parlimentary rules. In the case of the Republican convention, a standard majority of 50%+1 is all that is required to secure the nomination
As to your conspiracy comment, I won't even respond to that.
Interestingly, I wrote a term paper on this for my comparative political culture course in college.
If the term "right wing" is what's throwing the Europeans and other off, allow me to explain. Outside of the US and the UK, "right wing" usually refers to nationalists or sometimes ultra nationalists. In Japan, an individual arguing for the rearming of the Japanese state might be considered right wing. The subway sarin gas attack in Tokyo was said to have been carried out by right wing nationalists, for example. In central Europe the term sometimes refers to individuates who oppose immigration and are against what they perceive as the homogenization of the continent. I've even seem the Norwegian bomber referred to as an extreme right winger.
But here in the US (and to a lesser extent in the UK) "right wing" usually refers to libertarian principles, sometimes bordering on social Darwinism amongst the most extreme. Often, traditional "family values" are included in this as well. A typical "right-wing" conservative in the US believes in lower government spending; lower taxation; smaller government with less regulation of businesses, corporations, and individuals; and are most often support a pro-life stance on abortion. "Reagan conservatives", which most modern right wing conservatives would probably identify themselves as, also tend to support a strong US military; often this includes a belief in a robust nuclear deterrent as well.
It is true that "right wing" in central and northern Europe is to some extent associated with nationalism, hostility towards immigration and increased military spending. But belonging to the political right in Europe primarily means you are in favour of less state-owned companies, private interests making a profit in areas like health care and education, smaller general coverage of things like health care and education and in return lower taxes, you favour austerity and governement spending cuts in response to bad ecconomic times. Often but not always there is an element of social conservatism as well. In short, for the most part "right wing" in Europe really does mean the same thing as in the US. And yes by european standard Obama and the democrats are very right wing on all these issues and the republicans are somewhere so far out on the fringe that they almost fall of the edge.To examplify: When Bush talks about people being "with us or against us" that is an extreme right wing position to me. When Obama orders bomb strike in Pakistan and Jemen that is also right wing (In the nationalism, gogo military, every foreigner is a potential enemy sense). On the domestic front, Obamas medical bill would be considered right wing policy here - Universal or close to universal coverage but paid for through insurance rather than taxes and the actual care being provided by private companies. The republican idea that not everyone needs to be covered at all is again off the charts. And while the European right wing social conservatives oppose things like gay couples adopting children their american equivalents want to out law abortion and let people on an individual basis decide whether they want to sell their wares to black people. On the issue on immigration we have democratic politicians arguing for amnesty for people currently working illegally in the US while their republican equivalents want the police to perform ID checks on hispanic looking people in arizona to ensure they arent mexicans. So yeah I think people are largly correct when they describe democrats as right wing by european standards and this is largely why many Europeans find it so difficult to relate to republicans - and by extension - americans.
That's an interesting perspective. One thing I noted when I was doing research for that paper (and don't get me wrong, I didn't spend all that long on it; I was a lazy student lol) is that the standard linear line political spectrum for Europe has begun to look more and more like the US, just shifted about 5 steps to the left. One of the examples I used was actually the UK conservative's platform for the 2010 election when they unseated the labor parliment. It was pretty amazing how much the two parties resembled democrats and republicans, again just shifted to the left.
Politics on the continent are still pretty dissimilar to the US though. In the French Presidential election, Sarkozy's center right party supporting Austerity while Hollande's socialist party supporting drastic expansions of government; did in many ways mirror the traditional US political spectrum. But then you have to consider Le Penn, who has been routinely described as far-right or extreme-right. Le Penn advocates economic protectionism and is very much against free trade. She's also against participation in Intnerational organizations such as NATO. There's really no analouge for these beliefs in American politics. Ron Paul does mirror some of them, but he is never considered far right, in some cases he's even considered progressive such as with his views on legalizing marijuana. Conservative republicans certainly don't consider him on the right, and certainly not the far right.
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America 's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America 's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, "the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.” ~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006
On May 12 2012 01:34 Iteachextra wrote: “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America 's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America 's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, "the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.” ~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006
On May 12 2012 01:34 Iteachextra wrote: “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America 's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America 's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, "the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.” ~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006
My favorite quote and one that I use frequently.
The response to it is defening silence.
Realise that the situation is everything.
Bush had a surplus from clinton and put America into dept.
The best way to combat a recession is to pump money into the economy which raises dept. You then pay back that dept when the econamy recovers and your able to run a surplus aswell.
On May 11 2012 14:03 TheToast wrote: You called all republicans "hateful" and you're going to accuse me of making generalizations? I never said the rest of the world was all dictators. But you said compared to the rest of the world republicans are all hateful people, the world is a pretty big place there buddy. And there are some awfully hateful governments in the world.
Most of those hateful governments aren't first-world nations though, and that's the point.
On a comparative basis with the rest of the world, we're pretty awesome across the board. Compared with the other major developed economies, though, we're rather behind in a number of areas, like civil rights, health care, and education.
Well, it depends on how you measure those things. In terms of access to healthcare, we are certainly behind Canada and a number of European nations. In terms of quality of healthcare, we're just about number one in the world for a number of metrics. Things like average wait time to secure an appointment to a doctor, number of pioneering medical treatments, etc. It really depends on what aspects you term more important.
Same with education. Our university systems are some of the best in the world. There's a reason why people come from literally all over to attend college here; many top schools in some cases have upwards of 10% asian nationals enrolled as students. The number of new technology patents that come out of US universities far outpaces just about any other country in the world. In terms of cost to attend school and the ease of access to attend a university, we've got major problems.
Civil rights is the same. While we don't have universal same sex marriage, we have just about the most robust freedom of speech anywhere in the world; even compared to Europe. In Germany and Austria you can be jailed for displaying a swastika in public or voicing support for the Nazi party, earlier this year in the UK a man was jailed for tweeting a racist comment. While I don't support those actions, I personally believe that's infriging an individual's right to free speech. The US is one of the few countries in the world where you can say literally whatever the fuck you want. IMO that's a pretty damn important civil right.
So really, where the US stands compared to the rest of the world is really a matter of one's perspective, and what aspects of these issues you consider more important.
On May 11 2012 12:24 GwSC wrote: Wow, that poll in OP. I really didn't know people outside the US liked Obama that much. Or at least, had that strong of a preference for him over Romney.
the republicans are a hateful lot, it makes noise everywhere
No, that's just how Republicans are portrayed abroad.
Compared to the rest of the world, thats simply what they are.
Compared to the rest of the world? Like the Chinese communist party, who execute people for having an opinion? Or the Iranian government who, by the way, keeps calling for the extermination of the Jews? Get some perspective. If you have a problem with the US government, that's fine; but don't make absurd straw man arguments like this.
So to you the rest of the world are just crazy dictators? Good comparison. I don't have a problem with the US government, I will happily live here over all other places in the world, maybe move to Japan idk yet. Just comparing the US to other somewhat similiar countries and how different the political parties are, don't need get all defensive.
You called all republicans "hateful" and you're going to accuse me of making generalizations? I never said the rest of the world was all dictators. But you said compared to the rest of the world republicans are all hateful people, the world is a pretty big place there buddy. And there are some awfully hateful governments in the world.
Republicans are up there though come on admit it
This is like saying all Democrats are weed smoking hippies. Blanket generalizations are stupid, ignorant, and most importantly--pointless.
This can all be well and good that the US is (for the most part) one of the best countries to live in. The problem was the original quote didn't decry the US but the Republican party, and for good reason. This reminded me about a great article I read a while back and I ended up posting it on another site I went to for a while. The original article seems to have been taken down and honestly I don't know how many of the links in the article itself are now dead but it's a good read, incredibly sourced and brutally honest.
It's really appauling that this kind of behaviour is even acceptable. The Republican party has been actively campaigning against the very things you use as examples of why your country is great. They vilified teachers and education, have been trying to gut medicare for decades and even calling their own mandate proposals unconstitutional, have been using "family values" as a smoke screen to justify bigotry, etc. It's all in the article quoted by Russel King. The sad thing is, you could probably write another article with everything that has transpired since this was published and it would still be the same length.
Pre-emptive edit - I know I will get "but the Democrats are just as bad or worse" comments. Take the time to read the article and if you still feel the same about the Democrats being as bad, feel free to make an exhaustive list as well.
On May 12 2012 01:34 Iteachextra wrote: “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America 's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America 's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, "the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.” ~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006
My favorite quote and one that I use frequently.
The response to it is defening silence.
Realise that the situation is everything.
Bush had a surplus from clinton and put America into dept.
The best way to combat a recession is to pump money into the economy which raises dept. You then pay back that dept when the econamy recovers and your able to run a surplus aswell.
Budget surplus doesn't mean the US wasn't in debt. While there was a budget surplus at the end of the Clinton Presidency, the US debt still shot up drastically during his administration. Take a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
let people on an individual basis decide whether they want to sell their wares to black people.
This is an excellent example of European ignorance and stereotypes of American politics. For someone to actually believe that this is the case is disappointing.
No mainstream right-wing politician in the US advocates anything like this. The people who do are comparable to the British National Party - and they occupy a similar place in the American political structure that the BNP does in Britain - ignored except when they say or do something particularly outrageous, then they are given the Two Minutes Hate they deserve in the media and after that are ignored again.
It's really appauling that this kind of behaviour is even acceptable. The Republican party has been actively campaigning against the very things you use as examples of why your country is great. They vilified teachers and education, have been trying to gut medicare for decades and even calling their own mandate proposals unconstitutional, have been using "family values" as a smoke screen to justify bigotry, etc. It's all in the article quoted by Russel King. The sad thing is, you could probably write another article with everything that has transpired since this was published and it would still be the same length.
Pre-emptive edit - I know I will get "but the Democrats are just as bad or worse" comments. Take the time to read the article and if you still feel the same about the Democrats being as bad, feel free to make an exhaustive list as well.
That link comes from Talking Points Memo, e.g. a left-wing propaganda site. That letter is bullshit. I don't need to make an exhaustive list of why Democrats are just as bad as that because the Republicans aren't as bad as that, that letter exaggerates, extrapolates without cause, makes use of half-truths, and generally lies. It's classic agitprop.
On May 12 2012 01:34 Iteachextra wrote: “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America 's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America 's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, "the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.” ~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006
My favorite quote and one that I use frequently.
The response to it is defening silence.
Realise that the situation is everything.
Bush had a surplus from clinton and put America into dept.
The best way to combat a recession is to pump money into the economy which raises dept. You then pay back that dept when the econamy recovers and your able to run a surplus aswell.
The best way to "combat" a "recession" (which is the natural removal of the inefficient portions of the economy) is not the pump more money into it (debt no less) which will cause more inefficiency, which will then "recess" more dramatically at a later time.
Regardless of the terrible notion you have proposed, read the quote and tell me what about it is only applicable to 2006 and not applicable today.
let people on an individual basis decide whether they want to sell their wares to black people.
This is an excellent example of European ignorance and stereotypes of American politics. For someone to actually believe that this is the case is disappointing.
No mainstream right-wing politician in the US advocates anything like this. The people who do are comparable to the British National Party - and they occupy a similar place in the American political structure that the BNP does in Britain - ignored except when they say or do something particularly outrageous, then they are given the Two Minutes Hate they deserve in the media and after that are ignored again.
It's really appauling that this kind of behaviour is even acceptable. The Republican party has been actively campaigning against the very things you use as examples of why your country is great. They vilified teachers and education, have been trying to gut medicare for decades and even calling their own mandate proposals unconstitutional, have been using "family values" as a smoke screen to justify bigotry, etc. It's all in the article quoted by Russel King. The sad thing is, you could probably write another article with everything that has transpired since this was published and it would still be the same length.
Pre-emptive edit - I know I will get "but the Democrats are just as bad or worse" comments. Take the time to read the article and if you still feel the same about the Democrats being as bad, feel free to make an exhaustive list as well.
That link comes from Talking Points Memo, e.g. a left-wing propaganda site. That letter is bullshit. I don't need to make an exhaustive list of why Democrats are just as bad as that because the Republicans aren't as bad as that, that letter exaggerates, extrapolates without cause, makes use of half-truths, and generally lies.
Congratulations... It was written by Russell King, a conservative blogger using sourced articles and was hosted on TMP (not written by). You can read all of the sources (that still have working links) and judge for yourself. Way to dismiss the source without actually reading it or knowing who wrote it. Your comment actually didn't really add anything other than using half-truths and generally lies as to the validity of the article or it's claims...
Take this for what it's worth. I personally can see the account being true given how arrogant Bill Clinton is and the lingering bitterness of the 2008 primary, but I'm curious as to who the source is.
Bill Clinton thought so little of President Obama — mocking him as an “amateur” — that he pressed his wife last summer to quit her job as secretary of state and challenge him in the primaries, a new book claims,
“The country needs you!” the former president told Hillary Clinton, urging her to run this year, according to accounts of the conversation included in Edward Klein’s new biography of Obama.
“Barack Obama,” Bill Clinton said, according to book excerpts, “is an amateur.”
The withering criticism is incredible, given the fact that Bill Clinton is actively campaigning for Obama’s re-election.
But according to the book, Bill Clinton unloaded on Obama and pressed Hillary to run against her boss during a gathering in the ex-president’s home office in Chappaqua last August that included longtime friends, Klein said.
“The economy’s a mess, it’s dead flat. America has lost its Triple-A rating . . . You know better than Obama does,” Bill said.
Bill Clinton insisted he had “no relationship” with Obama and had been consulted more frequently by his presidential successor, George W. Bush.
Obama, Bill Clinton said, “doesn’t know how to be president” and is “incompetent.”
Congratulations... It was written by Russell King, a conservative blogger using sourced articles and was hosted on TMP (not written by). You can read all of the sources (that still have working links) and judge for yourself. Way to dismiss the source without actually reading it or knowing who wrote it. Your comment actually didn't really add anything other than using half-truths and generally lies as to the validity of the article or it's claims...
I did read it, it's bullshit. It's basic premise is that it uses political disagreements as a basis for making moral and intellectual judgments, and inflates meaningless political tit-for-tat into significant travesties. And Russell King isn't a conservative blogger.
What is a conservative who uses liberal arguments, disseminates his arguments through liberal outlets, and does it all in the tiresome woe-is-me I'm-so-reasonable tone? A liberal. Russell King is as conservative as Rachel Maddow.
On May 12 2012 02:12 DeepElemBlues wrote: What is a conservative who uses liberal arguments, disseminates his arguments through liberal outlets, and does it all in the tiresome woe-is-me I'm-so-reasonable tone? A liberal. Russell King is as conservative as Rachel Maddow.
EPT
