we will believe in the global warming theory just as soon as someone can prove there is a profit in it...until then it's nothing more than hogwash :lol: :lol:
Printable View
we will believe in the global warming theory just as soon as someone can prove there is a profit in it...until then it's nothing more than hogwash :lol: :lol:
There is a lot of criticism of american individuals too, and a lot of the things that are wrong witht the government are blamed on the people.Quote:
Originally posted by leftism@11 January 2004 - 00:03
Sometimes it seems like the Gvt and the people are synonomous in the USA.
so, in essence, you're superhuman?Quote:
Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC+12 January 2004 - 05:58--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3RA1N1AC @ 12 January 2004 - 05:58)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@11 January 2004 - 14:35
I never subscribe to an agenda and force the facts to support them.
you should hear how that sounds to another person, when you say something like "i never lie, i never twist the facts to suit my views, i never make the mistake of presenting the subjective as objective..." etc, etc. in the Star Trek tv shows, people who make such claims are often referred to as Vulcans. strangely enough, the Vulcans' claims that they are always like this and never like that come across as mere vanity, when always and never turn out to not quite be always and never.[/b][/quote]
Sorry, I didn't mean to come off as honest. What is the purpose of coming to a discussion board if you plan on lying?
I don't attempt to deceive, is that a problem? I make mistakes, and I admit to them when pointed out.
If you have a belief which is not supported by new data, why cling to it, what is the point?
In real life, people who refer to the star trek tv show are referred to as dorks. :lol:
Maybe that is the motivation for the criticism, but you have to admit that with our apathy and consequent (I think that is the reason for it) gulibility we make good targets. :unsure:Quote:
Originally posted by hobbes@11 January 2004 - 00:53
I am commenting on the fact that the people who tend to blast the US are more interested in their impotence than a unique agenda or quality of American politics.
If you understand yourself and your motivatins and pay attention you can keep the biases from having undue influence on your opinions and actions. anyone can do that if they think objectiity is important. no one is stuck being a slave to emoitons and untrue convictions. :huh:Quote:
Originally posted by Wizard_Mon1@11 January 2004 - 16:38
furry muff
but there might also be hidden biases in your subconcious that cause you to react to certain things in certain ways
but i guess they only matter if you want to truely know youre self blah blah blah i think im going off topic
This whole thread is wandering off topic, read the first remark. This thread is not about American citizens being blamed for the actions of their government, it's a defence of the US administration on the grounds that any other country would do the same, given the same power. This is, of course, rot! Australia was given as an example, but I can tell you right now, our government would not act in the same way, because the citizens of this country would not allow it. For one thing, we have the ability to completely change our political landscape, something the US, with it's Tweedledum\Tweedledee party politics can never achieve.Quote:
Originally posted by Billy_Dean+11 January 2004 - 23:48--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Billy_Dean @ 11 January 2004 - 23:48)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@11 January 2004 - 13:22
I really get so sick of USA bashing when it all comes down to impotent nations pretending that they are somehow different, when, in fact, they would be no different from the USA if they had the ability.
When an uncontested super power appears upon the Earth you will know it by this sign, the impotent will join in a confederacy against it.
Really, it is simple human psychology. All men/nations want autonomy over their lives, their destiny. When this is removed, it causes unrest, anger, and resentment.
Like all the low level workers who gather in the break room talking about how stupid their boss is, slapping each other on the back and laughing. They discredit any achievements of the boss as a ruse to mask their impotence. They demean the boss and his integrity. They wouldn't be caught dead being such an ass kissing low life as their boss who was obviously pandered to all his live.
The Boss acts without caring about others. Yeah, like any country, ever, has passed up something to strengthen itself because it wouldn't be "nice". Humans are humans.
So all I see is anger and specious moral high ground acting as a facade to mask fear and impotence.
That's all you see?Quote:
So all I see is anger and specious moral high ground acting as a facade to mask fear and impotence.
:) [/b][/quote]
I'm not saying the us is perfect at all , but don't you think that the need to feel superior in soem wya has something to do with all of the criticism?
How do you get money if you are not born into it?Quote:
Originally posted by Busyman+12 January 2004 - 10:27--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 12 January 2004 - 10:27)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Quote:
Originally posted by 4th gen@12 January 2004 - 17:13
<!--QuoteBegin-Busyman
Quote:
@12 January 2004 - 15:08
It takes intelligence to get nuclear weapons.
Whether procured or invented.
if money = intelligence then you're right
Or hit the lottery? :lol: [/b][/quote]
actuallyu i think it probably has more to do withthe way our government is set up. if people belive they are working for thtemselves and their own gain they will probably work harder than if they feel they are been controlled or that thye won't see any of the fruits of their labor. look at people who are paid by the hour.
Are you disallowing for the fact that people of different cultures may react differently to different situations?Quote:
Originally posted by alpha+12 January 2004 - 11:18--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (alpha @ 12 January 2004 - 11:18)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@11 January 2004 - 05:22
I really get so sick of USA bashing when it all comes down to impotent nations pretending that they are somehow different, when, in fact, they would be no different from the USA if they had the ability.
That's a rather narrow perspective. [/b][/quote]
That's true, but a lot of things includeing a list of basic emotions like happiness sadness disgust ect. and things like ethnocentricity are pretty universal. Not always , of course, but we are all humans.
wow, i had somwthig to say to everyone. Is that annoying?
Just wondering.
Right then.Quote:
Originally posted by Chame1eon@12 January 2004 - 14:13
if people belive they are working for thtemselves and their own gain they will probably work harder than if they feel they are been controlled or that thye won't see any of the fruits of their labor. look at people who are paid by the hour.
I've been looking at people who get paid by the hour.
According to your nebulous theory, exactly what is it that I'm supposed to be seeing?
A lot of people who get paid by the hour, especially in jobs like front counter person at mcdonalds, where they have little control and don't reap a lot of rewards, or get a lot of credit for what they are doing will not work as hard as people who have more rewarding , or goal oriented jobs. There is just not a lot of motivation do a good job if you are just being paid for how long you are there.
I just meant that in a place where you get to keep more of the money you make and you can choose to do pretty much whatever you want you will have more motivation.
In some places (china, i think, maybe japan) you take a test when you are really young (5? obviously i am not a detail person) that determines what you will do for the rest of your l8ife. if you get a low score you have to be a janitor or whatever. there is no choice.
In other places you pay really high taxes and the government takes care of a lot of things for you. so you have less to loose (health care) if you don't make a lot of money. in some cases, i think this is good, but in other i think it is pretty bad. Either way individuals are more motiavated to work hard.
http://www.mcbriens.net/liam/img/smi...dabumdeesh.gif- looks like I'm "tactics boy", now! But I have made my points to my satisfaction and I don't think additional posts will change anyones mind, at this point.Quote:
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@12 January 2004 - 06:48
This is, of course, rot!
Add 1 part: anger
Australia was given as an example, but I can tell you right now, our government would not act in the same way, because the citizens of this country would not allow it.
To an equal measure of specious moral high ground.
That's all you see?Quote:
So all I see is anger and specious moral high ground acting as a facade to mask fear and impotence.
I just saw it, again.
:) <_<
where the hell did u hear that? in all my years in asia, china, taiwan honghok never had this kind of crap and certainly not now. and certainly not Japan.Quote:
Originally posted by Chame1eon@12 January 2004 - 14:21
In some places (china, i think, maybe japan) you take a test when you are really young (5? obviously i am not a detail person) that determines what you will do for the rest of your l8ife. if you get a low score you have to be a janitor or whatever. there is no choice.
u choose what kind of professional or job you want to have, get the appropriate education and training and u'll be qualified for that position
what u said is plainly not true at all
yeah well, i've never actually watched it, honest. i just heard about it from some dorks. and i never miss the toilet when i urinate.Quote:
Originally posted by hobbes@12 January 2004 - 12:37
In real life, people who refer to the star trek tv show are referred to as dorks. :lol:
yeah well, i've never actually watched it, honest. i just heard about it from some dorks. and i never miss the toilet when i urinate.[/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC+13 January 2004 - 02:59--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3RA1N1AC @ 13 January 2004 - 02:59)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@12 January 2004 - 12:37
In real life, people who refer to the star trek tv show are referred to as dorks. :lol:
J'Pol and his ilk, perhaps? As for your second statement, such confidence in your hand, eye, toilet bowl coordination, comes off as a bit cocky. <_< (bigboab would be proud at that painful double entendre.)
http://yuchtar.users4.50megs.com/Gallery/klin.jpgQuote:
Originally posted by hobbes@12 January 2004 - 13:37
In real life, people who refer to the star trek tv show are referred to as dorks. :lol:
Hey!
Even dorks have dreams.
Well, set my taser to "stun". Those lady thingeys are foreheadily challenged but gorgeous.
Unfortunately Hobbes, I don't believe that either of them can cook. :(
http://toddlerstoday.com/graphics/tantrum.jpgQuote:
Originally posted by clocker@13 January 2004 - 03:39
Unfortunately Hobbes, I don't believe that either of them can cook. :(
Oh fuck it all, then!
Because that's what you want to see!Quote:
Originally posted by hobbes@13 January 2004 - 08:51
So all I see is anger and specious moral high ground acting as a facade to mask fear and impotence.
... a facade to mask fear and impotence.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Please God, let America save us from all the nasties in the world, just as they have done for thousands of years. :helpsmile:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
http://toddlerstoday.com/graphics/tantrum.jpgQuote:
Originally posted by hobbes+12 January 2004 - 22:46--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 12 January 2004 - 22:46)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-clocker@13 January 2004 - 03:39
Unfortunately Hobbes, I don't believe that either of them can cook. :(
Oh fuck it all, then! [/b][/quote]
So childish, Hobbes.
Here's a lolli-pop.
NOOOoooOO wrong one!!!!
*JBR zips up* :lol:
:blink:Quote:
Originally posted by james_bond_rulez@13 January 2004 - 02:34
NOOOoooOO wrong one!!!!
*JBR zips up* :lol:
That's true, but a lot of things includeing a list of basic emotions like happiness sadness disgust ect. and things like ethnocentricity are pretty universal. Not always , of course, but we are all humans. [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by Chame1eon+12 January 2004 - 22:21--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Chame1eon @ 12 January 2004 - 22:21)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Quote:
Originally posted by alpha@12 January 2004 - 11:18
<!--QuoteBegin-hobbes
Quote:
@11 January 2004 - 05:22
I really get so sick of USA bashing when it all comes down to impotent nations pretending that they are somehow different, when, in fact, they would be no different from the USA if they had the ability.
Are you disallowing for the fact that people of different cultures may react differently to different situations?
That's a rather narrow perspective.
the culture of a nation dictates, to an extent, its policies.
(for example, India's Non-Alliance policy)
Hobbes:
I'm surprised no one has taken issue with this horrendous statement :oQuote:
..they(other nations) would be no different from the USA if they had the ability..
Many countries do not spend 1/10th as much as the USA on developing "the ability" (i assume you mean militry strength) though they have more pressing issues than liberating people from dictators.
Again maybe the US overdoes the liberating but remember WWII.Quote:
Originally posted by alpha@13 January 2004 - 08:27
Many countries do not spend 1/10th as much as the USA on developing "the ability" (i assume you mean militry strength) though they have more pressing issues than liberating people from dictators.
Our "nonmeddling" nearly cost the world.
Now that is exactly what i see when i look at American policy.Quote:
a facade to mask fear and impotence.
One big facade, hidden agenda's and armsproducers, multinationals and oildiggers
as the true rulers!!
Yogi
Well, I guess I have learned what I had set out to. What is unique about American government.
We have leaders who lie, who have agendas they hide from the public, our media and elections are rigged and the rich here, attempt to get richer.
Thanks. Please return to your corruption free, altruistic societies with your full disclosure impartial media. BTW, you may want to crack a window, the vapors from the glue you are sniffing may be affecting your judgement ;) .
The only thing unique about the American government is this:
http://www.lifeisajoke.com/Bush/bush_chimp.JPG
try getting rid of it.
(Hes probably the least liked prez. in the world....and the most made fun of.)
LOL..... Now for my rant!
This topic is great I love bashing my own country. I was under the voting age when Bush was elected and while Gore wasnt exactly a golden goose we are living under a master and theif. In my opinion at least (for those who choose to post 20 things bickering over this by tomorrow) as I believe I am still entitled to that.
If you care to compare our country to others.
Yes We do use more petrolium by products.
Yes We do dominate the world as the largest superpower.
Yes We tend to go into countries and impose our will for them to be a free society as well.
Yes We waste billions on crap like tax refunds that (arguably of course) in my opinion dont work.
Yes We tend to lie and sometimes cheat other countries.
Yes We arent perfect!
However! You are reading a post of a citizen of the country previously described not in fact but in opinion! Meaning that while your countries were under dictators/facists/communists control my country was reshaping the way the world is! While you take for granted the fact that we can have these discussions in a place where million/billions can read them and comment I take notice of how many died for these privledges/rights!
If you lived in America and hated America you would have plenty of company. How many people in your country protest things your government does ""DAILY"" there are hundreds maybe thousands who do here!
If you think that just because America has an army that does whatever our little man in the white house wants makes us a superpower then my fellow forum member you are sadly mistaken!
America is a superpower because it pioneered the modern day government! Because it wasnt attacked by a land based army after WWII! Because the general American cares! If you think that another country could rise up like Germany did in WWII then look at what we did in Iraq (the first time - i dont know why we went back yet...) when a country invades another on the simple basis of hatred America steps in!
If you read all that then I am greatly suprised with your attention span as mine is supposedly only 15seconds (or thats what I am told by staticians) . Please note these words I typed are merely based on the few "facts" I hold true meaning they are my opinions.
Edit:
As for Prez. GWB - I do not wish death on anyone but to all those out there who kidnap we have an insane millionare that cant pronounce help running recklessly around the country. Plz just pick him up and keep him safe till 2006 when we will for sure have a new Prez who has shown us a new America. LOL :)
I'm sure some people disagree with the bit in boldQuote:
Yes We tend to go into countries and impose our will for them to be a free society as well.
What exactly did it pioneer and how did any of those things make it a superpower?Quote:
America is a superpower because it pioneered the modern day government!Because it wasnt attacked by a land based army after WWII! Because the general American cares!
:blink:Quote:
If you think that another country could rise up like Germany did in WWII then look at what we did in Iraq (the first time - i dont know why we went back yet...) when a country invades another on the simple basis of hatred America steps in!
My personal opinion of why western europeans in particular are getting uppity about the US is that the EU is coming together and its creating a stronger sense of community among nations which historically were bitter enemies. Imo we seem to be respecting each other as nations more, and our national decisions are becoming more and more influenced by the 'common good' as opposed to national self interest, as well as countires being more accountable to other nations.All this imo is a good thing, but a lot of people bang on about losing bits of our sovereignty. The US has been excluded from this cultural shift and imo the disparity is a source of annoyance, as well as a bit of instinctual dislike for those in power.
I was watching CNN a few months back, i can't remember exactly what they were doing interviews about, but it was interviewing americans (i think in California) and i got the distinct impression that there is a tendency to want to go against international pressure, ie if all of Europe condemns something, the last thing the public want to see is their government actually listening to that pressure and respecting European opinion. ie the us vs them is on both sides of the atlantic. I also got the impression that most americans think Europe is comparable to America, whereas Europeans generally consider their own country in comparison to America. ie if the european 'consensus' is against something Americans see it as a 1 vs 1 decision, ie the feeling is Europe disagree with us, whereas europeans see it as a 15:1 decision, ie all of us agree its just America that doesn't. (Obviously i'm simplifying things loads)
one thing i find ironic is that, while a lot of americans are highly interested in the condition of the u.s.'s sovereignty (objections to the influence of the u.n. for example), the u.s. seems generally oblivious to the sovereignty of other countries within our sphere of influence. we (americans) always act bewildered and offended when people in weaker countries try to assert their independence and reject our influence, or reject regimes that our government supports. for a country born from revolution, the u.s. has (generally) been terribly unfriendly toward other countries' revolutionary movements.Quote:
Originally posted by ilw@16 January 2004 - 06:20
All this imo is a good thing, but a lot of people bang on about losing bits of our sovereignty. The US has been excluded from this cultural shift and imo the disparity is a source of annoyance, as well as a bit of instinctual dislike for those in power.
i agree and is this a small token of proof?Quote:
one thing i find ironic is that, while a lot of americans are highly interested in the condition of the u.s.'s sovereignty (objections to the influence of the u.n. for example), the u.s. seems generally oblivious to the sovereignty of other countries within our sphere of influence. we (americans) always act bewildered and offended when people in weaker countries try to assert their independence and reject our influence, or reject regimes that our government supports. for a country born from revolution, the u.s. has (generally) been terribly unfriendly toward other countries' revolutionary movements.
American Airlines pilot Dale Robun Hirsch raises his middle finger while he was being photographed by Brazilian immigration officers
http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com...r834766954.jpg
LINK
Not every other country in the world was under dictator/fascist/communist control. Indeed, depending on what time era you're even looking at, the latter two didn't really exist.Quote:
Originally posted by jer2eydevil88@16 January 2004 - 12:19
...Meaning that while your countries were under dictators/facists/communists control my country was reshaping the way the world is!...
:ninja:
The UK shaped modern politics, not the US. One of the few ways the US has shaped modern politics is by brutally repressing democracy in South America. Organising violent coups against democratically elected govts and replacing them with dictators such as Pinochet. Once it got it's hand in, the US moved on to do the same worldwide.
How many here know of Uzbekistan?
I guess the question I am asking is: Does any government ever act altruistically? Does a leader of a nation tell his people that they are going to have to suffer this winter because all excess grains will be sent to help those starving, because "it is the right thing to do?" Will he remove all the cars and replace them with bikes, will he ask people to give up hot showers in the morning? Would such a fool, even see the revolution coming? You cannot succeed as a leader by stepping backwards.
I would venture that the goal of all elected officials is to elevate the standard of living in his country. How this has been performed throughout history is different. Before, people often attempted to conquer and occupy land, now we find it easier to exert control over regions through "friendly" governments to secure what we need.
I don't think the US is being globally influencial/imperialistic for the fun of it, it relies on so many different things from all over the world, and it is attempting to secure these items. The United States was awarded the Phillipines in the Spanish-American War, we let them choose independence. We have not captured Puerto Rico, Cuba or the Virgin Islands. If they had something we needed, consider them ours, otherwise we don't just pointlessly acquire countries.
So my point is that people are people and governments are governments (each one wanting to become more powerful or secure- how this plays out for the individual citizen varies greatly based on the type of governing body). I made no attempt to justify what my country does. I wanted to explain that it, like all it's powerful predecessors, is doing what it is able to do, to ensure the its future and make it stronger. This is a pattern repeated throughout history. We have control now. On day, when we stumble and fall, your country will take over, and you will strive to do what we are doing. Your methods may be different, but damn straight you will use whatever means necessary to secure what you need.
So, I have no problem with your anger at some of our policies, or how we attempt to secure our future. You are here to be our buddies as it benefits us (and the reciprocol is true), but we are not in a popularity contest. Given the same power, the same standard of living, and the same needs, your country would act no differently. Don't pretend to be somehow morally superior, it just doesn't wash.
good points hobbes
:lol:
so i guess IF say, China, is the super power in the future it would be the americans that's whining?
:lol: :lol: :lol:
China is gonna rule ;)
and believe me it wouldn't be pleasant if Chinese ruled they suck at it :lol:
I think your statement
is a bit too simplified, for starters the officials nearly always have vested interests and i'm sure that affects the decisions they make, (for example people have pointed to Bush and associates' oil connections especially considering the current government's policies re. the environment and Iraq). However, the elected officials also have a duty (or if duty doesn't persuade them, the incentive is being re-elected) to represent their populations wishes to a certain degree and public opinion generally does contain a good amount of altruism. Also there are obviously limits to how much you can exploit other countries in the goal of improving your own nations quality of life.Quote:
I would venture that the goal of all elected officials is to elevate the standard of living in his country.
I think someone else mentioned the fact that the world is getting smaller, so i think everyone had better get used to having people look over their shoulder and voice their opinions, especially when self interest is at the detriment to the rest of the world's population. Although America is obviously a sovereign nation I think we deserve some input when the outcome significantly affects us all.
Imo no 2 countries would act even remotely the same, I think geography and history have a massive impact on the way countries act and the cultural identity of the people. Overall some would be better, some worse, i don't think you can justify what you seem to see as a complete lack of altruism by saying that, hypothetically, everyone who had the oppurtunity would be as bad (or good) as you.Quote:
Given the same power, the same standard of living, and the same needs, your country would act no differently. Don't pretend to be somehow morally superior, it just doesn't wash.
ILW,
Of course it is simplified, I want people to read it for the concepts. Even though politicians do have personal agendas, they must overall impress upon the nation that they have made it stronger, that is priority number 1. If we are starving and he is making money for his oil buddies, he is gone.
Charity is not altruism, it is kindness. If I throw a bum a five dollar bill, I am nice, but my life is not encumbered. No leader, who had the power, would ever tell his people that the future of the country was uncertain, he could fix that, but it just wouldn't be "nice". Nobody has ever done that.
Can you show me a single act of altriusm, ever. When has one country ever given of itself for "good", at the expense of it's own citizens, without expecting a bigger payback in the end.
We are not "bad", we are selfish. Any ruler of any country who thinks that what is required to keep his people happy is in jeopardy, and has the power to do something about it, will.
People are people, governments are governments. I wanted to distill out that there is nothing unique to our government, we are just repeating what all those who have proceeded us have done as world powers. It is the nature of the beast. The moral highground taken by the outsiders looking in is simply a facade.
hobbes...in your arguement you have stated often that what the USA is doing is just what other countries would do given the opportunity. I couldn't argue for or against that as it's probably true, however in your arguement you have made me think that it's not the fact that we do try to look after our own interests, it's the fact that we try to pretend to the rest of the world that we are doing it for a moral reason.
After all we didn't really invade Iraq to help the people of that country, releasing them from oppression...we did it for oil. You yourself i believe kind of insinuated that point.
I wonder if Iraq had no oil would we have done the same ?