BF2S Forums Who is your favourite American President of the last 50 years?

Uzique wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

I knew you were going to bring 9/11 up. 9/11 wasn't a television event. It was an event that had far reaching consequences for everyone in the country. The two tallest buildings in NYC/the world came down. A cloud of smoke descended onto NYC. Billions of dollars in pure damage was done to local buildings and real estate. There was gaping hole where one of our economic centers were located. Etc.

It wasn't a television event as much as something that directly affected a lot of people.

When Reagan died what happened? Washington DC had bad traffic for a few days.

how was 9/11 anything other than a 'television event' to americans on the west-coast with no familial/emotional ties to the atrocity? it was an event that happened in a geographically-remote area, thousands of miles away, involving people they had never met or shared any interaction with. the response of most americans to 9/11 was, frankly, viewed from the outside world as a worryingly reactionary piece of conservatism. as shocking as it was, you didn't exactly have scottish people over here reacting to 7/7 in the same way as equally-distanced americans did to the events in new york that day. the TV almost entirely shaped most people's perceptions and impressions of the event: it was their only link to the disaster.

You think a nationalistic response to an attack is disturbing? When Pearl Harbor was bombed the rest of the country should've just told Hawaii to bugger off and deal with its problem itself? That's mek level lolzy.

presidentsheep wrote:

There's a difference between a nationalistic response and people hundreds of miles away screaming and crying like it had happened down the road from them.
I live 200 milesish away from London and I remember everyone thinking it was terrible and keeping up with the developments on the news, but none of the same response 9/11 elicited in America.

People cried when JFK was shot. They didn't know him personally but grieved anyway. Same goes for MJ.

It's like you ignored the first paragraph.

Billions of dollars in pure damage was done to local buildings and real estate. There was gaping hole where one of our economic centers were located. Etc.

What is arguably the economic center of the world was devastated. The U.S. government tightened restrictions on things like air travel and began to mobilize the military to respond to 'a new threat'. National politicians focus collectively shifted away from economic and social matters to focus on defense. It had a hell of an effect on the lives of everyone. It's not the same as some old recluse President dying.

frankly, viewed from the outside world

This reminds me of having to explain American Christianity to Finray. It's annoying when Euros make sweeping generalizations about American culture and conscience.

Not everyone went crazy for blood. Not everyone wanted to turn the middle east to glass or convert or kill all Muslims like some people assume we wanted to. Not everyone was in total panic.

It seems like European media is the problem.

Last edited by Macbeth (2011-02-12 14:27:13)

You Euros really need to stop thinking what you see on tv is representative of America or American views. If its on tv it is there because it is abnormal and therefor interesting. You won't ever see 'normal' America on the tv.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2011-02-12 14:27:15)

Macbeth wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

You Euros really need to stop thinking what you see on tv is representative of America or American views. If its on tv it is there because it is abnormal and therefor interesting.

presidentsheep wrote:

Yeah, I know the media loves to pick out the one guy in the crowd with the American flag shirt on, that's morbidly obese and is yelling about Muslims and communists. The crazies make it more interesting, however, I never see the same level of patriotic nut-case whenever we go to war or have a terrorist attack or anything.

Thats because the two world wars killed off all the masculine men in your gene pool and left you a nation of effete pansies. Don't feel bad though, look whats happened to Germans!

presidentsheep wrote:

Yeah, thankfully the Americans came in and won it single handedly and saved the day for all of Europe.

Thanks guys We wouldn't have beaten those commie pigs without you.

Bow down motherfucker!

JG, Macbeth Uzi, gtfo.

And Clinton was lulzy, but my favorite would have to be Kennedy.

i'm not talking about the representation of america in europe at all... so far off my point. i am merely discussing the important influence of the television and media in cultivating and galvanizing national identity/consciousness/culture. you're all saying that the television and news reporting around events like 9/11 (which is just an example of a nationwide television-event, im not talking in political or ideological terms here) was unimportant. i am saying the exact opposite. that is all. im discussing this from the philosophical point of view of 'hyper-reality', as put forward by the likes of marshall mcluhan and jean baudrillard. in recent political events and presidential campaigns, the distinction between real pragmatic politics and mindless media-drivel has been blurred.

newspapers don't have anywhere near the psychological or social influence of television... if you think that you're either naive or stupid.

could talk at length about the sociological and cultural effects of television as a media-source and institution... anything from foucault onwards.

go do some reading i say

television is the primary connecting device for the individual and the mass-populace with the state and the idea of 'nation'.

i think you're honestly understating how important the media is. you can never be too suspicious of institutions like this.

Uzique wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

I knew you were going to bring 9/11 up. 9/11 wasn't a television event. It was an event that had far reaching consequences for everyone in the country. The two tallest buildings in NYC/the world came down. A cloud of smoke descended onto NYC. Billions of dollars in pure damage was done to local buildings and real estate. There was gaping hole where one of our economic centers were located. Etc.

It wasn't a television event as much as something that directly affected a lot of people.

When Reagan died what happened? Washington DC had bad traffic for a few days.

how was 9/11 anything other than a 'television event' to americans on the west-coast with no familial/emotional ties to the atrocity? it was an event that happened in a geographically-remote area, thousands of miles away, involving people they had never met or shared any interaction with. the response of most americans to 9/11 was, frankly, viewed from the outside world as a worryingly reactionary piece of conservatism. as shocking as it was, you didn't exactly have scottish people over here reacting to 7/7 in the same way as equally-distanced americans did to the events in new york that day. the TV almost entirely shaped most people's perceptions and impressions of the event: it was their only link to the disaster.

A parallel is the US embassy bombings, they had next to no impact.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Clinton was the most effective IMO.

Yea.. I especially liked the part where he bombed Iraq, he asked the CIA to look into ways to destabilize the Serbian government, and left us in a recession.



Kennedy gets my vote.