I have a few British friends on ANOTHER FORA, so we tend to tease one another. I remind one that, once again, the Scottish have conquered his country!Oddly enough, i think the 'cream of nothing' sentiment is perhaps a strength as well as a weakness, though I am a bucktoothed limey so what do I know about US politics?
Long Boring Political Pontification:I got the impression that after 8 years of Bush and all the division and hate that went with it, . . .
Frankly, I do not care what Europeans think. This oddly enough does not piss off all of my European friends since they still harbor resentment over the hypocrisy of allowing genocide in their own continent for years, supporting homicidal dictators, yet pointing the finger at everyone else--and, really, have the Belgians apologized enough for being Belgian?Also it means foreigners don;t hate the US quite so much perhaps, my american friends who live over here in Europe have commented on that a lot since the election.
There is a racial aspect, but in a good way. This is a country that, in the life time of many, still made it illegal to be black. Whatever one thinks of racial relations now, less-than-fifty years ago, you could not sit in the front of the bus, go to that restaurant and, obviously, worse.After the election result even the Republicans I saw on TV seemed genuinely moved by the sea change in US society that Obama seems to represent for now.
It might be, but to be frank if McCain was President and--here, you need to take a hit off this bong I got from Michael Phelps to follow this idea--if the Republicans took the House and Senate . . . no seriously . . . do you have any thing to eat?--they would be running around in circles as the Democrats are. They would be throwing money at THEIR pet projects, THEIR social agenda. It is all politics.(but I would certainly be a democrat if I was American, so that's probably a pinko liberal point of view).
Absolutely. We on this side saw him as your answer to Clinton. Young, lots of slogans, did not really do a whole hell of a lot. The difference is Clinton rode a great economy and his term ended as it started to crest. Blair hung around a bit longer. Probably saw himself as a moderating force to "that Texan." I really think Blair [CENSORED--Ed.] Brown the way Clinton [CENSORED--Ed.] Gore--left him with a mess. In Gore's case thing were slowing down and people were getting sick of the Clintons. Brown will probably be a "one term Prime Minister" . . . unless the Tories do their usual!I've heard a lot of Brits saying they wish they had an Obama as a leader too, though scarily enough I think Blair was our Obama, of a sort anyway. Young, dynamic, but no experience in power and in the end as much a media figure as a politician.
That is an argument for another thread. I have rehashed the Middle East so many times I look forward to a PC versus Mac debate. Heck, I would prefer to engage a Scientologist and ask him "what about those clams?" However, the "civil liberties" is intriguing since many wrang their hands HERE . . . only to not be able to point to any real lost liberties . . . but on YOUR END? I think, frankly, you guys were going in that direction BEFORE 9/11. But that is another topic.. . .but the honeymoon wore off after 9/11 and our involvement in a bloody war began, taking with it many lives and more and more of our civil liberties.
Here as well.Politics seems to be an extension of PR so much these days, it depresses us and drives the political apathy we all talk about over here in Blighty.
Such thinking makes you the Second Group Executed After the Revolution.A friend and I came up with the idea of the 'Beliefs' party - the only litmus test for inclusion is that you have to have strongly held views and beliefs but have to be prepared to enter into genuine discussion about them, and listen to people who disagree with you.
That was a lot to get through! However, interesting all the same.I have a few British friends on ANOTHER FORA, so we tend to tease one another. I remind one that, once again, the Scottish have conquered his country!
Long Boring Political Pontification: ........
His actions have demonstrated otherwise.Obama beleives in fighting corruption and greed and I wish him well.
Bush did not create a mess--the economy is largely independent of presidents--nor did he bring "instability"--if anything things are more stable from a "will this country invade that other country" standpoint. Similarly, I doubt Obama can make the world more or less unstable depending on circumstances. If he appeases the likes of Iran and North Korea that will decrease stability. If he guts the military like Clinton did, that will decrease stability.The real litmus test is whether he can get the right people on board his battleship to sort out Dubya's mess and bring some stability to the world.
All of them?His actions have demonstrated otherwise. Apparently all of his appointees have "issues" with paying their taxes.
No, he wasn't responsible for individual banking CEO's greed, but he further widened the gap between rich and poor in the US through his policies.Bush did not create a mess.
Bush and his cronies made one almighty mess of Iraq. I personally think invasion was inevitable (albeit it happened before all final options were exhausted), but there was no plan for Day Two. The arrogance and incompetence shown by Bush's war cabinet beggared belief.....nor did he bring "instability"--if anything things are more stable from a "will this country invade that other country" standpoint.
Who says he will appease them?Similarly, I doubt Obama can make the world more or less unstable depending on circumstances. If he appeases the likes of Iran and North Korea that will decrease stability.
The US needs a well-armed defence force. However, along with the loony gun lobby, it seems the military gets away with too much.If he guts the military like Clinton did, that will decrease stability.
Rather more than "a few."All of them?
How did he do that? What about the Democrats in charge of writing finance laws that created the problem?No, he wasn't responsible for individual banking CEO's greed, but he further widened the gap between rich and poor in the US through his policies.
No they did not. You are merely tossing out a slogan like "cronies." Are the generals "cronies?"Bush and his cronies made one almighty mess of Iraq.
There was, it just did not work fully. Rumsfeld wanted, like many, too much for a "clean" war where one can get in quickly and leave quickly. He then dug in his heals against suggestions otherwise.. . . but there was no plan for Day Two.
you need to imagine the Democrats since they advocated the same failed strategy in a different direction. One significant part of this "war cabinet" eventually argued for the correct strategy. However, sometimes he correct strategy takes time to be recognized.The arrogance and incompetence shown by Bush's war cabinet beggared belief.
Quite a few do. The question, as I noted, is will he.Who says he will appease them?
You do not know anything about the American military then: it is not all about "guns." It is about training, it is about compensation to retain competent members, it is about functional equipment and numbers, et cetera.The US needs a well-armed defence force. However, along with the loony gun lobby, it seems the military gets away with too much.
Really?I don't take a reductionist view of Bush.
Such are not things you can put on scales.He had his successes. He also had his failures. The question is whether his successes outweighed his failures or his failures outweighed his successes. I lean towards the latter.