|
U-Know! Forum » International buzz about Obama |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
handofdave 3515 posts |
Jan 10, 2008, 11:45
|
||
|
You're right on the money with the education thing. Americans used to enjoy a fully funded public education system. Unfortunately, as the demographics of America have shifted towards an older population, the quality of public ed has suffered. There is a damnable mindset amongst too many of the 'angry white males' that all taxes are bad taxes, teachers are all coddled and overprivileged, unions should all be dissolved, etc. These Archie Bunker types don't agree that they should be responsible for anyone else's kids, even tho in their youth, they were the beneficiaries of this social contract. Thanks for adding perspective to the conversation... I know it's very easy to hate the USA, and for sure there's a lot to hate about it. But you're right... the history of the west is chock full of abuses by white Europeans against non-whites, AND each other... and not to let other nations off the hook, lots of examples of bloody land grabs, ethnic-on-ethnic violence, etc. almost anywhere you go. The USA just happens to attract the lion's share of criticism. The USA just happens to be the 'empire' of this time in world history. As empires go, there have been worse, much worse. And it just so happens that the USA's dominance is in steep decline... it's overextended itself, like Rome, the British Empire, etc. Let's not forget how much antipathy towards the USA is due to Bush- and remember, maybe a third of this nation is behind him- the other two-thirds think he's a royal asshole.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jan 10, 2008, 12:22
|
||
|
Let's not forget how much antipathy towards the USA is due to Bush ABSOLUTELY! Him and his core voters. Just post 9/11 the pro-American sentiment here was vast and there were stars and stripes flying everywhere. To have managed to expend that huge reservoir of goodwill in a few years is an unbelievable legacy for him to leave.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jan 10, 2008, 12:29
|
||
|
Anyway, let's lay off the Yanks, EVERYTHING is the fault of Britain - http://www.britishreparations.org/ ;)
|
|||
PMM 3155 posts |
Jan 10, 2008, 12:53
|
||
I find it a constant source of amazement and bemusement that the Republicans are even in the contest. Then I remember that New Labour are also in the same position, and that the alternative is even worse.
|
|||
Bonzo the Cat 138 posts |
Jan 10, 2008, 13:06
|
||
|
Indeed, just as 20th century, in particular its second half, belonged to a large degree to the US, and somewhere in the next century the staff will pass on to the Chinese, the 19th century saw Britain as a world empire, and the atrocities committed there in terms of international policy were no less than those of the US. In fact, much of the world's actual stucture is due to British colonialism. Point being - how far back should we reach? After all, following the sweep of Julius Ceasar in Gallia, an estimated 55% of the entire Gallic population was eradicated. The South American continent's ruin was started with the conquistadores. Should we march on Rome? On Madrid? Future ways should be mended, and lessons learnt from history. Le passé est passé, l'avenir à venir. At least the Brits had the decency to give the world something in return: the invention of self-deprecating humor.
|
|||
|
KARL MAX 71 posts |
Jan 10, 2008, 13:12
|
||
|
Yes, Bonzo and Hand (or is it Dave?) you are both right on target. I was mostly pissed because Yankee GIs killed a family member. Having an Iraqi wife puts the "Arche Bunker"-types that only complain and don't vote and who wonders why other countries hate their guts kinda in perspective. Of course there are tons of European injustices that still linger on (the mess of former India is a good current example). Though, as of today, the US is the main offender and has been since the end of WWII. All the shit happening in Latin and South America over the last 50 years is a direct result of US interventions, the Cambodian disaster, Indonesias atrocities, Nigeria, Vietnam, Laos, the list just goes on and on. Not to forget that the US have been at war since the Teddy Roosevelt administration. Not a single year of peace! At the moment USA is at war with several countries and have occupied territories in Granada, Panama, Kuwait, Antartica, several Polynesian islands, Afghanistan, Indonesia and the Philiphines. And lest we forget the strange status of US territories in Okinawa, Cuba, Virgin Islands, Hawai'i, Algeria, Thailand aso. And howzabout Porto Rico? Are the US going to give the Porto Ricans REAL citizenship or what? Also the question of a racist state like Israel (remeber that ethnic arabic israeli citizens actually have it worse than jews did in Nazi germany in 1938!) who wouldn't have lasted a day past 1950 without US support. (Yeah, bring it on pro-Israeli US lobby! Call me an anti-semite! The joke is on you since I my dad is a kike!) The 28% illiteracy rate was from BEFORE the 2000 elections and the cutbacks in infrastructure since then have been the largest since Reaganomics. The US is falling apart, robbed blind by their corporations. No wonder the FBI actually did keep an eye on Philip K Dick. We are now living his nightmare. That bs about bringing democracy to the world sounds kinda hollow when over 30 million Americans are not allowed to vote because they don't have an address, don't have a registred income with IRS or have been affiliated with leftist/pro-rights/terrorist groups. It is in my opinion that the next US election will be the most important in their history. Will the americans throw away the yoke of Ayn Rand-rob-them-blind-capitalism or will they go about bizniz as usual? Judging from both Obamas and Clintons agenda nothing will change. Nader was the one and he was considered a joke. And, don't forget to count the votes in Florida this time! Even if they are cast by latinos and afro-americans.....
|
|||
dodge one 1242 posts |
Jan 10, 2008, 13:46
|
||
Ya know it's hard to take a man serious, especially one such as yourself who has previously posted having "some academia under his belt" qouting grossly inaccurate literacy rates in the U.S. Pre or post He who's name we dare not mention. But to give you the benefit of the doubt Karl Marx, I didnt see the report of a school child being shot in the head by U.S. soldiers,walking home from school within the last week on any of several world media sources i've checked. Please send a link reporting such and i promise that i will personally BLITZ-KREIG Numerous senatorial and congressional websites here in the U.S. regarding my personal anger over the matter. Regards.
|
|||
postyesterdayman 931 posts |
Jan 10, 2008, 14:16
|
||
On this post I have read that some cannot see the difference between Clinton and Obama...wow, ok, I don't see how but let's go with it for a moment. Here is the real difference, when Mrs. Clinton speaks about issues and policies all I see is another politician trying to sell something, saying whatever it is her advisors have told her will please the largest amount of people and so get her elected. I see nothing real, I just see another puppet, another political machine. But when I see Obama and hear what he has to say I see someone who is actually genuine, who really wants to help this country. The jaded will say, "Oh, bullshit, he's just like all the rest." But are we so jaded that when the real deal comes, the thing we've all been lamenting the lack of, that we just let it go on by, all the while discounting and demonizing or otherwise pettily bitching and fault-finding? Yes, I guess. We need to be rallying around this man and giving everything we have and can do to help him get elected. It's that important, right? Because no matter what people might think about some of the things he has said (I am not inferring he is perfect, he isn't, he has said some half-baked things in the past) I see someone who is genuine. It has nothing to do with 'political strategies' or his 'agenda' and it has everything to do with the fact that I am a pretty good judge of character and I am exceptional at knowing the fakes and the phonies and the liars and the evil-hearted (God, we've had enough experience of late with them, haven't we?). Obama isn't one of them. He's a true-believer. The real thing. So even if you might think his healthcare ideas are full of shit or whatever else, don't you want a real person up there, someone with a heart and soul and, SHOCK, a conscience!!!??? We will see. We will see if we really want something better for us or if we feel so comfortable getting fucked in the ass with hot pokers everytime we turn our backs that we just go ahead and elect another lying, special-interest, war-mongering fuckhead (and trust me, Mrs. Clinton could be that fuckhead). We will see.
|
|||
|
Bonzo the Cat 138 posts |
Edited Jan 10, 2008, 14:33
Jan 10, 2008, 14:30
|
||
|
Hi my dear self-proclaimed "pretty good judge of character" - character of a man you've not met or aren't closely acquainted with at that ;-) I think you make a good point, like the left should quit bitchin for once and grab the opportunity now that it comes along. Sure he's not perfect but who is? As for the difference between Obama & Clinton based on judgement of character... I think no one can exactly know to what degree they're being fooled. The only thing here is, that Obama stands indeed for something new and thankfully you have elections every 4 years, so let him give it his best shot and if it turns out he sucks like the rest then so be it. On the other hand, Clinton has the smell of the past clinging to her. What I mean is: she's part of the system. Obama may also be that, but he's got the benefit of doubt. And benefit of doubt is enough if you want to replace Dubya by something really different. One remark though: Obama has to take caution as to not to put himself *too* much outside of the Bush-Clinton axis. What I mean is, his main job if he wants to win is to reconcile, not to polarize. Divide and rule is a cool principle, but it can backfire, when not only the candidates but also the electorate polarizes.
|
|||
|
dodge one 1242 posts |
Jan 10, 2008, 14:38
|
||
Just for the record i think Barak Obama seems to be a decent man as well as being well spoken on important issues. Unless we undergo a social upheaval{REVOLUTION!} in this country were still stuck with a 2 party system. Previous elections in my lifetime have proved that the other parties{Green/Independent...etc.} no matter how qualified there respective candidates are,won't make a difference other than swaying the vote towards 1 of the 2 entrenched parties.I'll go on record as a lifelong democrat, not because they are nessasarly the best choice, but from the standpoint of ideology they have been the lesser of 2 evils for me. I guess the real decide for me this election is gonna be who Barak or Hillary decide to run with. I wish they would combine resources and allow the public to vote for a TEAM, and not a talkin head.
|
| Pages: 8 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
