BF2S Forums If the American Election was global

CameronPoe wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

lol. You are hilarious.

and yet....

Your response?

My response is that his claim is ridiculous. The entire world is facing global meltdown primarily down to excessively right-wing irresponsible fiscal and regulatory policy on Wall Street. Global terrorism has skyrocketed under Republican administrations. The rest of the world sells America their shit: America plummeting headlong into further disarray and alienating more and more pivotal nations worldwide benefits no-one. Ergo we want a non-Republican seemingly sensible, fiscally responsible, conciliatory and constructive person in the white house to bring America out of the shit and reintegrate it into the international community. Obama is the lesser of two evils - he is the only possibility of achieving this.

Not to mention that if McCain carks it America would be led by a dumb evangelical hick who would probably seek to expedite 'the Rapture'.

Translation: you want someone in the white house who will break his back leaning over to kiss your ass.

12/f/taiwan wrote:

imortal wrote:

God Save the Queen wrote:

you admit you like recieving your information skewed to one side?

it is going to be skewed one way or the other.  Noone is neutral.  No one.  It is just that Fox is the only one that leans even a little bit right.

Al Jazeera.

Cute, but not even in the same league.  I refuse to compare any american news media source the way I would Al Jazeera or any of the state-run 'news' organizations in the Middle East.

CameronPoe wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

lol. You are hilarious.

and yet....

Your response?

My response is that his claim is ridiculous. The entire world is facing global meltdown primarily down to excessively right-wing irresponsible fiscal and regulatory policy on Wall Street. Global terrorism has skyrocketed under Republican administrations. The rest of the world sells America their shit: America plummeting headlong into further disarray and alienating more and more pivotal nations worldwide benefits no-one. Ergo we want a non-Republican seemingly sensible, fiscally responsible, conciliatory and constructive person in the white house to bring America out of the shit and reintegrate it into the international community. Obama is the lesser of two evils - he is the only possibility of achieving this.

Not to mention that if McCain carks it America would be led by a dumb evangelical hick who would probably seek to expedite 'the Rapture'.

So, you want the US to elect Obama, to help make your life in Ireland better.  This is why I do not care who non-americans want for President; they look at how it will affect their lives outside the US.  Go find an honest UN leader if you want international security.  It is the President of the United States, not the world.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

1) Obviously I don't understand something about this, because it says Obama has a 81% percent of the votes in the U.S.

2) I don't understand how someone can take this seriously from the perspective of an American voter. I don't really understand how you could possibly have a greater conflict of interest. You want what's best for your country, not ours.

I want a president that looks out for my interests and the interests of my country. I swear, if I have to hear any more crap about who the rest of the world wants us to elect I might just have to go mail copies of the U.S. Constitution and Dec. of Independence to you foreigners with all the parts about sovereignty and "do ordain this Constitution for the United States of America" highlighted.

flaming cree, you should really calm down. getting worked up like this on a daily basis isnt good for your blood pressure.

CameronPoe wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

lol. You are hilarious.

and yet....

Your response?

My response is that his claim is ridiculous. The entire world is facing global meltdown primarily down to excessively right-wing irresponsible fiscal and regulatory policy on Wall Street. Global terrorism has skyrocketed under Republican administrations. The rest of the world sells America their shit: America plummeting headlong into further disarray and alienating more and more pivotal nations worldwide benefits no-one. Ergo we want a non-Republican seemingly sensible, fiscally responsible, conciliatory and constructive person in the white house to bring America out of the shit and reintegrate it into the international community. Obama is the lesser of two evils - he is the only possibility of achieving this.

Not to mention that if McCain carks it America would be led by a dumb evangelical hick who would probably seek to expedite 'the Rapture'.

Your blaming the economic troubles of the US on only the republicans...lmao...  I guess you think the Democrats tried to stop the evil Bush...lol?
Check out Barney Frank/Nancy Pelosi.... etc on the Democratic side... they are as guilty as anyone...if not more... I don't agree with you much but i know you are smart enough to see things for what they are really...

imortal wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

and yet....

Your response?

My response is that his claim is ridiculous. The entire world is facing global meltdown primarily down to excessively right-wing irresponsible fiscal and regulatory policy on Wall Street. Global terrorism has skyrocketed under Republican administrations. The rest of the world sells America their shit: America plummeting headlong into further disarray and alienating more and more pivotal nations worldwide benefits no-one. Ergo we want a non-Republican seemingly sensible, fiscally responsible, conciliatory and constructive person in the white house to bring America out of the shit and reintegrate it into the international community. Obama is the lesser of two evils - he is the only possibility of achieving this.

Not to mention that if McCain carks it America would be led by a dumb evangelical hick who would probably seek to expedite 'the Rapture'.

So, you want the US to elect Obama, to help make your life in Ireland better.  This is why I do not care who non-americans want for President; they look at how it will affect their lives outside the US.  Go find an honest UN leader if you want international security.  It is the President of the United States, not the world.

Well, given our interventionist foreign policy (from both Republicans AND Democrats), Cam makes a valid argument.

If we'd just stop fucking with so much of the world, the rest of the world would be a lot less concerned about who we elect.

I think Cam is trying to come up with a way of saying, "Whoever you elect is going to affect my life almost as much as yours due to the power and influence of the American economy and military."

Simply put, America is too powerful for its own good, but hopefully...  that will be remedied shortly after our economy collapses from ridiculous amounts of debt.

The biggest problem with America is that we get involved in so much of the world's affairs, but then we wonder why the rest of the world cares about who we put into power.  Think about how much we turned the global energy market upside down with the Iraq War?  Everytime we stir things up in the Middle East, oil speculation goes through the roof.  It's these kinds of things that make the world worry about our sanity when it comes to foreign policy.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

That response makes you look more ignorant than lowing ever has imo.

Has Republican domination of US politics prevented the global banking situation teetering on the brink of utter collapse, with the most right wing country on earth nationalising banks and building societies? No.
Has Republican domination of US politics stabilised the global political situation? No. America is interfering with the sovereignty of Iraq, Afghanistan and now Pakistan. Thousands have died as a direct or indirect consequence of US interference in the affairs of others. The US 'Middle East Roadmap' for the Palestine conflict was simply a soundbite. The US contravened NPT provisions to provide India, a non-signatory and holder of nuclear warheads, with civilian nuclear technology. Hypocritically it constantly ratchets up tension with another sovereign oil-rich distant nation, Iran, precisely on the issue of nuclear technology. This of course has a knock-on effect on the price of oil, which affects not only Americans but the entire world - damaging all of our economies.
Has Republican domination of US politics brought the world together? No. Nations allied with the US now question their human rights record and relationships have never been frostier with European leaders and Russia.
Has Republican fiscal policy kept the value of the dollar stable? No. It has allowed the value to plummet leading to a massive jump in oil prices. The price has only receded because their handling of the economy has plunged America, and the world, into a recession - strengthening the dollar slightly and reducing demand for oil as belts tighten.

Kmarion wrote:

It's silly to try and pin this on one party.

Of course it ain't solely the fault of one party. I just think a laissez faire attitude to economics and an unflinching belief in 'free markets' is one of the core elements of the current problems being experienced. And of the two parties, the Republicans hold those views more strongly than the Democrats. Everybody seems to have passed the buck on this one. The ethos of the Republican party embodies the problem however. When I hear the term 'innovative financial instruments' being mouthed by the likes of Alan Greenspan as if it's a good thing I gag.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-10-23 10:15:05)

12/f/taiwan wrote:

imortal wrote:

12/f/taiwan wrote:

Al Jazeera.

Cute, but not even in the same league.  I refuse to compare any american news media source the way I would Al Jazeera or any of the state-run 'news' organizations in the Middle East.

Have you ever watched Al Jazeera?

Al Jazeera=best current news source out there.

No.  Just... no.

Turquoise wrote:

imortal wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

My response is that his claim is ridiculous. The entire world is facing global meltdown primarily down to excessively right-wing irresponsible fiscal and regulatory policy on Wall Street. Global terrorism has skyrocketed under Republican administrations. The rest of the world sells America their shit: America plummeting headlong into further disarray and alienating more and more pivotal nations worldwide benefits no-one. Ergo we want a non-Republican seemingly sensible, fiscally responsible, conciliatory and constructive person in the white house to bring America out of the shit and reintegrate it into the international community. Obama is the lesser of two evils - he is the only possibility of achieving this.

Not to mention that if McCain carks it America would be led by a dumb evangelical hick who would probably seek to expedite 'the Rapture'.

So, you want the US to elect Obama, to help make your life in Ireland better.  This is why I do not care who non-americans want for President; they look at how it will affect their lives outside the US.  Go find an honest UN leader if you want international security.  It is the President of the United States, not the world.

Well, given our interventionist foreign policy (from both Republicans AND Democrats), Cam makes a valid argument.

If we'd just stop fucking with so much of the world, the rest of the world would be a lot less concerned about who we elect.

I think Cam is trying to come up with a way of saying, "Whoever you elect is going to affect my life almost as much as yours due to the power and influence of the American economy and military."

Simply put, America is too powerful for its own good, but hopefully...  that will be remedied shortly after our economy collapses from ridiculous amounts of debt.

The biggest problem with America is that we get involved in so much of the world's affairs, but then we wonder why the rest of the world cares about who we put into power.  Think about how much we turned the global energy market upside down with the Iraq War?  Everytime we stir things up in the Middle East, oil speculation goes through the roof.  It's these kinds of things that make the world worry about our sanity when it comes to foreign policy.

I am self-centered.  I admit it.  I only care about things, people, events, or policies as they affect my life, or those I care about.  I think this is true for a lot of people in here, but I freely admit it.   I am looking for a president that will make changes in my nation I agree with, and use the power of my nation to bring changes in the world that positively affect my life.  If it does not affect me one way or the other, I really don't care.  If something has the possibility to affect me negatively, it better have a payoff for me or my loved ones in the long run, or I am against it.  I do not run out and chant "Save Darfur!" just so I can feel good about myself 'for making a difference.'  That too is a self-centered activity, but for accounting for a moral and psycho-social need rather than a physical one.

I am for isolationalism, so long as it benifits me.  That beign said, the US has not been an isolationist nation since Wilson decided to butt into WW1 and provide aid and munitions to England.  We are out in the world now, and we should seek to control our enviroment or it will try to control us.

Hey turq, did that sound angry enough?

God Save the Queen wrote:

imortal wrote:

God Save the Queen wrote:

you admit you like recieving your information skewed to one side?

it is going to be skewed one way or the other.  Noone is neutral.  No one.  It is just that Fox is the only one that leans even a little bit right.

so taking in all of your informations from one source is a good thing?

Never said that.  Never even hinted it. 

But look at the various news agencies on a scale:

left ---------------------------|||--------------------------------right

CNN                                                                             FOX
MSNBC
ABCnews
CBS

....so, you want to talk about only receiving your info from one side?  If all you look at are left leaning news agencies, you are just as guilty as those who only watch FOX NEWS.  Fox is just  a juicy target for the left because it is the only one out there, TV-wise.  It is all on its own; different.  Oh, and it doesn't say stuff they like.

imortal wrote:

God Save the Queen wrote:

imortal wrote:

it is going to be skewed one way or the other.  Noone is neutral.  No one.  It is just that Fox is the only one that leans even a little bit right.

so taking in all of your informations from one source is a good thing?

Never said that.  Never even hinted it. 

But look at the various news agencies on a scale:

left ---------------------------|||--------------------------------right

CNN                                                                             FOX
MSNBC
ABCnews
CBS

....so, you want to talk about only receiving your info from one side?  If all you look at are left leaning news agencies, you are just as guilty as those who only watch FOX NEWS.  Fox is just  a juicy target for the left because it is the only one out there, TV-wise.  It is all on its own; different.  Oh, and it doesn't say stuff they like.

Because everything that isn't Fox is left-leaning.