Frasier Online
home About The Show Episode Guide Merchandise Forum Reviews Gallery Contact

Is America The Greatest Nation In The History Of The Planet?

A forum for any Off Topic Games / Polls / Quizzes. All registered members are able to start their own polls in this forum

Is America the greatest nation in the history of the planet?

Yes
15
29%
No
37
71%
 
Total votes : 52

Postby Hans the German Butler » Fri Feb 29, 2008 7:21 pm

JT wrote:
Rodge wrote:
JT wrote:But it was only a matter of time before the son matured from an impetuous youth into the bigger, smarter offspring and overtook the father. Rise again new World!


Maybe that "Son" is rising from the East?? I see India, China & Japan as the next "new World"


True, except that I don't think the East will replace the West. The globe is, well, becoming more global all the time. The world will continue to march toward more homogeneity and more even development.


It's certainly shaping up to be an interesting situation with, potentially, a new 'financial' cold war developing between China and the US. They should arrange a fight between Martin Crane's dancing Santa and a cymbal-playing panda to decide who will be the dominant financial hegemon :)

I would suggest that the development may well be even between the gigantic economies, especially since China continue to successfully splice domestic communism and repression with the Hong Kong economic model. The G8 level economies will probably remain pretty even too. It's difficult to envisage much of Africa or Latin America catching up any time soon though.
ROZ: It's not like she worships the Devil
FRASIER: She doesn't need to, he worships her!
Hans the German Butler
 
Posts: 1299
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 4:54 pm
Location: Liverpool

Postby Rodge » Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:27 pm

Hans the German Butler wrote: It's difficult to envisage much of Africa or Latin America catching up any time soon though.


Well if China & the US carry on the way they are going then Africa & Latin America really will struggle once all the extreme weather comes their way!
My fine is over £700 !! (",)
Rodge
 
Posts: 5484
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:00 am

Postby JT » Sat Mar 01, 2008 6:59 pm

Rodge wrote:
Hans the German Butler wrote: It's difficult to envisage much of Africa or Latin America catching up any time soon though.


Well if China & the US carry on the way they are going then Africa & Latin America really will struggle once all the extreme weather comes their way!


Oh yea, lest I forget, 'global warming' or its more recent incarnation 'climate change' - the latest evil the U.S is foisting on the rest of the world. :roll:
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby Rodge » Sat Mar 01, 2008 7:14 pm

JT wrote:
Rodge wrote:
Hans the German Butler wrote: It's difficult to envisage much of Africa or Latin America catching up any time soon though.


Well if China & the US carry on the way they are going then Africa & Latin America really will struggle once all the extreme weather comes their way!


Oh yea, lest I forget, 'global warming' or its more recent incarnation 'climate change' - the latest evil the U.S is foisting on the rest of the world. :roll:


No, no, no; you don't get to be the best at that. China beats you on that score. America comes in a close second. Having said that if you measure it per capita, then I think the US is still on top :wink:
My fine is over £700 !! (",)
Rodge
 
Posts: 5484
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:00 am

Postby Moon-Crane » Sat Mar 01, 2008 8:39 pm

You're certainly showing an over-sensitive side to these things, JT. Nobody that I know blames the US for 'climate change'. I think anyone with a brain can concede to the pollutant power of such a large consumerist society, though, and do wonder why the nation rejects any policy to attempt to reduce pollution rates.

Global warming is an irrelevant sideline for me in this. I'd just like to see the place tidied up, wasting less resources, rather than filling up the land with plastics and other non degradable items.

As the leading nation in the world, the US should be leading by example and educating the lesser nations that make up the rest of the globe. I don't think the argument can be made for the US looking after themselves and sod the rest, here, as pollution affects the whole planet.

We should all be hammering China a lot more, too. They're getting away with murder in their economic growth.
''Fire in the hole, Bitch!'' Jesse Pinkman - Breaking Bad

My Top TV
User avatar
Moon-Crane
 
Posts: 20753
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 12:19 pm
Location: Bucks, UK

Postby Rodge » Sat Mar 01, 2008 11:16 pm

Moon-Crane wrote:We should all be hammering China a lot more, too. They're getting away with murder in their economic growth.


Only as much as we did during our industrial growth - flippant I know, but true.
My fine is over £700 !! (",)
Rodge
 
Posts: 5484
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:00 am

Postby Moon-Crane » Sat Mar 01, 2008 11:44 pm

Rodge wrote:
Moon-Crane wrote:We should all be hammering China a lot more, too. They're getting away with murder in their economic growth.


Only as much as we did during our industrial growth - flippant I know, but true.


Very true. But that was then and this is now.
''Fire in the hole, Bitch!'' Jesse Pinkman - Breaking Bad

My Top TV
User avatar
Moon-Crane
 
Posts: 20753
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 12:19 pm
Location: Bucks, UK

Postby Hans the German Butler » Sun Mar 02, 2008 12:33 am

Moon-Crane wrote:
Rodge wrote:
Moon-Crane wrote:We should all be hammering China a lot more, too. They're getting away with murder in their economic growth.


Only as much as we did during our industrial growth - flippant I know, but true.


Very true. But that was then and this is now.


Indeed, if that bastard Newton hadn't wasted so much time with that gravity nonsense we'd still be having summer in the summer and winter in the winter :wink:
ROZ: It's not like she worships the Devil
FRASIER: She doesn't need to, he worships her!
Hans the German Butler
 
Posts: 1299
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 4:54 pm
Location: Liverpool

Postby JT » Sun Mar 02, 2008 5:20 am

Moon-Crane wrote:You're certainly showing an over-sensitive side to these things, JT. Nobody that I know blames the US for 'climate change'. I think anyone with a brain can concede to the pollutant power of such a large consumerist society, though, and do wonder why the nation rejects any policy to attempt to reduce pollution rates.

Global warming is an irrelevant sideline for me in this. I'd just like to see the place tidied up, wasting less resources, rather than filling up the land with plastics and other non degradable items.

As the leading nation in the world, the US should be leading by example and educating the lesser nations that make up the rest of the globe. I don't think the argument can be made for the US looking after themselves and sod the rest, here, as pollution affects the whole planet.

We should all be hammering China a lot more, too. They're getting away with murder in their economic growth.


Over-sensitive? Maybe, but I think the 'Global Warming' industry are all about over-sensitivity, over-hype, over-exaggeration. Industry isn't the right word but it is something in it's own right. People ask me if i believe in 'global warming'. Whataya mean by 'global warming' i ask. 'Do you think the earth is heating up?' they ask. The statistics seem to show that it is, i reply. And you think we are to blame?, they ask. Evidently the evidence from the bulk of the climate science community does, to some degree, implicate us. Then you agree with the 'global warming' people? Which
'global warming' people, i ask, the ones like me or the nut-job tree huggers who think that, despite all the climate change throughout geologic (or is that climatological?) history, the flora and fauna is doomed within 50 years because of Haliburton? There is global warming and then there is 'Global Warming'.

As a side note, I think maybe I should do this kind of soliloquy with myself more often. Its kind of cathartic. I tingle all over.

Oh, and I have heard the U.S blamed for global warming. And we don't have to join the flawed Kyoto agreement to 'be doing something' about pollutants.
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby JT » Sun Mar 02, 2008 5:21 am

Hans the German Butler wrote:
Moon-Crane wrote:
Rodge wrote:
Moon-Crane wrote:We should all be hammering China a lot more, too. They're getting away with murder in their economic growth.


Only as much as we did during our industrial growth - flippant I know, but true.


Very true. But that was then and this is now.


Indeed, if that bastard Newton hadn't wasted so much time with that gravity nonsense we'd still be having summer in the summer and winter in the winter :wink:


Yes, all this scientific and technological progress is downright regressive. :wink:
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby JT » Sun Mar 02, 2008 5:27 am

Moon-Crane wrote:
As the leading nation in the world, the US should be leading by example and educating the lesser nations that make up the rest of the globe. I don't think the argument can be made for the US looking after themselves and sod the rest, here, as pollution affects the whole planet.

We should all be hammering China a lot more, too. They're getting away with murder in their economic growth.


Oh, and the ultra-Left does indeed use the 'global warming' and pollution thing as a weapon in hopes of throwing a wrench in the works of that imperialistic, technologically aggressive, oppressive, earth-raping culture, the United States of America.

There is a balance. But I think the green machine may be more out of kilter than that of the U.S
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby Rodge » Sun Mar 02, 2008 2:55 pm

JT wrote:
Hans the German Butler wrote:
Moon-Crane wrote:
Rodge wrote:
Moon-Crane wrote:We should all be hammering China a lot more, too. They're getting away with murder in their economic growth.


Only as much as we did during our industrial growth - flippant I know, but true.


Very true. But that was then and this is now.


Indeed, if that bastard Newton hadn't wasted so much time with that gravity nonsense we'd still be having summer in the summer and winter in the winter :wink:


Yes, all this scientific and technological progress is downright regressive. :wink:


As I said, a somewhat flippant comment. I think JT used the analogy of countries being father & son. So in the case of China's industrial revolution; lets regard them as the rebellious son at the moment. So how about the father (USA) & the Grandfather (UK) setting a bloody good example and then steering our wayward child in the right direction. Just because China is not acting accordingly, doesn't mean we should give up on the idea of cleaner air.
My fine is over £700 !! (",)
Rodge
 
Posts: 5484
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:00 am

Postby Hans the German Butler » Sun Mar 02, 2008 7:44 pm

Rodge wrote:
JT wrote:
Hans the German Butler wrote:
Moon-Crane wrote:
Rodge wrote:
Moon-Crane wrote:We should all be hammering China a lot more, too. They're getting away with murder in their economic growth.


Only as much as we did during our industrial growth - flippant I know, but true.


Very true. But that was then and this is now.


Indeed, if that bastard Newton hadn't wasted so much time with that gravity nonsense we'd still be having summer in the summer and winter in the winter :wink:


Yes, all this scientific and technological progress is downright regressive. :wink:


As I said, a somewhat flippant comment. I think JT used the analogy of countries being father & son. So in the case of China's industrial revolution; lets regard them as the rebellious son at the moment. So how about the father (USA) & the Grandfather (UK) setting a bloody good example and then steering our wayward child in the right direction. Just because China is not acting accordingly, doesn't mean we should give up on the idea of cleaner air.


I know what my dad's response would have been if a single scrap of litter had left my hand and hit the floor - let alone if I'd created enough carbon emissions so that if the UK became carbon neutral it would only take me three weeks to make up the deficit! As it was methane and not carbon was often the problem :oops:
ROZ: It's not like she worships the Devil
FRASIER: She doesn't need to, he worships her!
Hans the German Butler
 
Posts: 1299
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 4:54 pm
Location: Liverpool

Postby Moon-Crane » Mon Mar 03, 2008 12:42 am

JT wrote:
Moon-Crane wrote:You're certainly showing an over-sensitive side to these things, JT. Nobody that I know blames the US for 'climate change'. I think anyone with a brain can concede to the pollutant power of such a large consumerist society, though, and do wonder why the nation rejects any policy to attempt to reduce pollution rates.

Global warming is an irrelevant sideline for me in this. I'd just like to see the place tidied up, wasting less resources, rather than filling up the land with plastics and other non degradable items.

As the leading nation in the world, the US should be leading by example and educating the lesser nations that make up the rest of the globe. I don't think the argument can be made for the US looking after themselves and sod the rest, here, as pollution affects the whole planet.

We should all be hammering China a lot more, too. They're getting away with murder in their economic growth.


Over-sensitive? Maybe, but I think the 'Global Warming' industry are all about over-sensitivity, over-hype, over-exaggeration. Industry isn't the right word but it is something in it's own right. People ask me if i believe in 'global warming'. Whataya mean by 'global warming' i ask. 'Do you think the earth is heating up?' they ask. The statistics seem to show that it is, i reply. And you think we are to blame?, they ask. Evidently the evidence from the bulk of the climate science community does, to some degree, implicate us. Then you agree with the 'global warming' people? Which
'global warming' people, i ask, the ones like me or the nut-job tree huggers who think that, despite all the climate change throughout geologic (or is that climatological?) history, the flora and fauna is doomed within 50 years because of Haliburton? There is global warming and then there is 'Global Warming'.

As a side note, I think maybe I should do this kind of soliloquy with myself more often. Its kind of cathartic. I tingle all over.

Oh, and I have heard the U.S blamed for global warming. And we don't have to join the flawed Kyoto agreement to 'be doing something' about pollutants.


I'm in the camp that believes climate change is a pretty natural Earthly phenomenon, and i'm not particularly a fan of the Kyoto treaty, so i'll take the above as a general spouting rather than a specific response.

I think there's a difference between polluting the world and creating/causing global warming. If a factory allows toxic waste to be dumped into the nearest river to float off into the sea they should be fucked for it, end of. Nothing to do with the potential of causing the atmosphere to blow away in a hundred years - simply the want for clean water to be flowing around here and now and in the future.

Nothing to get defensive about. i'll repeat, if the US is a world leader it should be the shining example of how to look after the place. They should be doing more than any scientific minimum, as a symbol of doing something positive as much as anything else.
''Fire in the hole, Bitch!'' Jesse Pinkman - Breaking Bad

My Top TV
User avatar
Moon-Crane
 
Posts: 20753
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 12:19 pm
Location: Bucks, UK

Postby Moon-Crane » Mon Mar 03, 2008 12:53 am

JT wrote:
Moon-Crane wrote:
As the leading nation in the world, the US should be leading by example and educating the lesser nations that make up the rest of the globe. I don't think the argument can be made for the US looking after themselves and sod the rest, here, as pollution affects the whole planet.

We should all be hammering China a lot more, too. They're getting away with murder in their economic growth.


Oh, and the ultra-Left does indeed use the 'global warming' and pollution thing as a weapon in hopes of throwing a wrench in the works of that imperialistic, technologically aggressive, oppressive, earth-raping culture, the United States of America.

There is a balance. But I think the green machine may be more out of kilter than that of the U.S


Well, that's probably as truthful as the ultra-Right being happy to ignore any environmental damage and 'rape the Earth', exploiting all of its resources for personal short-term profit over long-term sustainability - so it balances itself out :D

Seriously though, I agree we have to be as wary of the agendas of any 'Green' groups as much as any other, but i personally think we need a mind shift away from being such a cheap, disposable society.
''Fire in the hole, Bitch!'' Jesse Pinkman - Breaking Bad

My Top TV
User avatar
Moon-Crane
 
Posts: 20753
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 12:19 pm
Location: Bucks, UK

Postby JT » Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:29 am

Moon-Crane wrote:
JT wrote:
Moon-Crane wrote:You're certainly showing an over-sensitive side to these things, JT. Nobody that I know blames the US for 'climate change'. I think anyone with a brain can concede to the pollutant power of such a large consumerist society, though, and do wonder why the nation rejects any policy to attempt to reduce pollution rates.

Global warming is an irrelevant sideline for me in this. I'd just like to see the place tidied up, wasting less resources, rather than filling up the land with plastics and other non degradable items.

As the leading nation in the world, the US should be leading by example and educating the lesser nations that make up the rest of the globe. I don't think the argument can be made for the US looking after themselves and sod the rest, here, as pollution affects the whole planet.

We should all be hammering China a lot more, too. They're getting away with murder in their economic growth.


Over-sensitive? Maybe, but I think the 'Global Warming' industry are all about over-sensitivity, over-hype, over-exaggeration. Industry isn't the right word but it is something in it's own right. People ask me if i believe in 'global warming'. Whataya mean by 'global warming' i ask. 'Do you think the earth is heating up?' they ask. The statistics seem to show that it is, i reply. And you think we are to blame?, they ask. Evidently the evidence from the bulk of the climate science community does, to some degree, implicate us. Then you agree with the 'global warming' people? Which
'global warming' people, i ask, the ones like me or the nut-job tree huggers who think that, despite all the climate change throughout geologic (or is that climatological?) history, the flora and fauna is doomed within 50 years because of Haliburton? There is global warming and then there is 'Global Warming'.

As a side note, I think maybe I should do this kind of soliloquy with myself more often. Its kind of cathartic. I tingle all over.

Oh, and I have heard the U.S blamed for global warming. And we don't have to join the flawed Kyoto agreement to 'be doing something' about pollutants.


I'm in the camp that believes climate change is a pretty natural Earthly phenomenon, and i'm not particularly a fan of the Kyoto treaty, so i'll take the above as a general spouting rather than a specific response.

I think there's a difference between polluting the world and creating/causing global warming. If a factory allows toxic waste to be dumped into the nearest river to float off into the sea they should be fucked for it, end of. Nothing to do with the potential of causing the atmosphere to blow away in a hundred years - simply the want for clean water to be flowing around here and now and in the future.

Nothing to get defensive about. i'll repeat, if the US is a world leader it should be the shining example of how to look after the place. They should be doing more than any scientific minimum, as a symbol of doing something positive as much as anything else.


All i'm saying man is that there is a difference of opinion on what a 'shining' example would or should be. And that criticism against us on that issue is, like most others, to a great extent just another club with which to bash over our heads. There is some to criticize us for but I would say there is probably more to criticize the Kyoto green weenies for that us industrialist pigs. Balance.
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby JT » Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:40 am

Moon-Crane wrote:
JT wrote:
Moon-Crane wrote:
As the leading nation in the world, the US should be leading by example and educating the lesser nations that make up the rest of the globe. I don't think the argument can be made for the US looking after themselves and sod the rest, here, as pollution affects the whole planet.

We should all be hammering China a lot more, too. They're getting away with murder in their economic growth.


Oh, and the ultra-Left does indeed use the 'global warming' and pollution thing as a weapon in hopes of throwing a wrench in the works of that imperialistic, technologically aggressive, oppressive, earth-raping culture, the United States of America.

There is a balance. But I think the green machine may be more out of kilter than that of the U.S


Well, that's probably as truthful as the ultra-Right being happy to ignore any environmental damage and 'rape the Earth', exploiting all of its resources for personal short-term profit over long-term sustainability - so it balances itself out :D

Seriously though, I agree we have to be as wary of the agendas of any 'Green' groups as much as any other, but i personally think we need a mind shift away from being such a cheap, disposable society.


Whataya mean by 'a cheap, disposable society'? That we are too much beholden to consumerism at the expense of the greater good? If so, then maybe to some degree, but I think we are more beholden to politically correct 'environmentalism' at the expense of commonsense pursuits. For example when development is abandoned at the expense of some obscure species of Schystosomaisycantum.

BTW, I know your analogy above was made in jest, but just to be sure, there is a big difference in validity between Environmentalism being over-the-top and the 'ultra-Right being happy to ignore any environmental damage and 'rape the Earth''. Maybe not the really 'ultra' Right. But the main thing is main-stream environmentalism is just that - mainstream (despite being over-the-top in many instances). Ultra-Right disregard for the environmental consequences is not mainstream.

BTW, anyone hear about the latest ELF arson attach here in the U.S?
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby Moon-Crane » Tue Mar 04, 2008 2:39 pm

JT wrote:
Moon-Crane wrote:
JT wrote:
Moon-Crane wrote:You're certainly showing an over-sensitive side to these things, JT. Nobody that I know blames the US for 'climate change'. I think anyone with a brain can concede to the pollutant power of such a large consumerist society, though, and do wonder why the nation rejects any policy to attempt to reduce pollution rates.

Global warming is an irrelevant sideline for me in this. I'd just like to see the place tidied up, wasting less resources, rather than filling up the land with plastics and other non degradable items.

As the leading nation in the world, the US should be leading by example and educating the lesser nations that make up the rest of the globe. I don't think the argument can be made for the US looking after themselves and sod the rest, here, as pollution affects the whole planet.

We should all be hammering China a lot more, too. They're getting away with murder in their economic growth.


Over-sensitive? Maybe, but I think the 'Global Warming' industry are all about over-sensitivity, over-hype, over-exaggeration. Industry isn't the right word but it is something in it's own right. People ask me if i believe in 'global warming'. Whataya mean by 'global warming' i ask. 'Do you think the earth is heating up?' they ask. The statistics seem to show that it is, i reply. And you think we are to blame?, they ask. Evidently the evidence from the bulk of the climate science community does, to some degree, implicate us. Then you agree with the 'global warming' people? Which
'global warming' people, i ask, the ones like me or the nut-job tree huggers who think that, despite all the climate change throughout geologic (or is that climatological?) history, the flora and fauna is doomed within 50 years because of Haliburton? There is global warming and then there is 'Global Warming'.

As a side note, I think maybe I should do this kind of soliloquy with myself more often. Its kind of cathartic. I tingle all over.

Oh, and I have heard the U.S blamed for global warming. And we don't have to join the flawed Kyoto agreement to 'be doing something' about pollutants.


I'm in the camp that believes climate change is a pretty natural Earthly phenomenon, and i'm not particularly a fan of the Kyoto treaty, so i'll take the above as a general spouting rather than a specific response.

I think there's a difference between polluting the world and creating/causing global warming. If a factory allows toxic waste to be dumped into the nearest river to float off into the sea they should be fucked for it, end of. Nothing to do with the potential of causing the atmosphere to blow away in a hundred years - simply the want for clean water to be flowing around here and now and in the future.

Nothing to get defensive about. i'll repeat, if the US is a world leader it should be the shining example of how to look after the place. They should be doing more than any scientific minimum, as a symbol of doing something positive as much as anything else.


All i'm saying man is that there is a difference of opinion on what a 'shining' example would or should be. And that criticism against us on that issue is, like most others, to a great extent just another club with which to bash over our heads. There is some to criticize us for but I would say there is probably more to criticize the Kyoto green weenies for that us industrialist pigs. Balance.


All countries have a poor record on environmental damage, especially the UK. Unfortunately, the USA is a massive land/polulation, so is an easy target to bash with figures that are out of context to a great extent.

Speaking as someone who lives outside the USA, we do hear a lot about what nations like Japan and South Korea are investing in, with regards to toxic emission-free vehicles, for example.

I've no doubt there are many groups/companies involved in similar development, and more, Stateside, but we need the work to be trumpeted for all to hear. There would be nothing better than hearing some 'environmentally friendly' technology being highlighted - just so the USA 'sneerers' can be told to shove that where the sun don't shine :D
''Fire in the hole, Bitch!'' Jesse Pinkman - Breaking Bad

My Top TV
User avatar
Moon-Crane
 
Posts: 20753
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 12:19 pm
Location: Bucks, UK

Postby JT » Sat Mar 22, 2008 8:14 am

Now that I've carved out a minute or two and this thread went dormant, I thought I would continue responding to Moon-Crane's comments he made on or about page 11 or so of this subject.

Moon-Crane wrote:In a system where we're arguably living by a mix of the two best approaches from a bad bunch, then i find it inconceivable that you would really believe all liberal policy is useless and all conservative policy is superior in every way - i'd have to lose all respect for your objective integrity towards avoiding political party rigmarole and getting to the important issues.


I don't think that at all. Its just that so much of liberal ideology is pure bunk in my opinion. Not all of it. Much of it at the very- and i mean very - root of it is admirable. Integration of races, concept of tolerance, other means before fighting, etc. I think it is not necessarily the ideals of liberalism that crawl up my ass, but rather the perversion and distortion of them with regards to the truth, accuracy, common sense, practicality, balance, and perspective. That over-reaching distortion is two generations worth over-ripe and is so destructive that we're nearly at a crises point.

Moon-Crane wrote:And that's not being wishy-washy, it being realistic enough to know that the world simply can't be black and white and neatly packaged.


I'll trust my inclination to see and appreciate shades of gray. I'll also trust my inclination to call a spade a spade.

Moon-Crane wrote:Again, i'll come back to the point that whether they're in a Right or Left wing party, they'll close ranks to defend each other at the expense of the general population should the status quo be challenged. You don't bite the hand that feeds you.


Its ideology that defines me much more than political parties. I'm not a registered Republican. We are pretty pissed at the Republican's (at least some of them) for a number of reasons.


"Crazy Left, indeed. Liberalism: symbolism over substance."

"What about the problems of lack of governmental experience and being liberal?"

"The demoncats best hope would be the incompetent (due to inexperience (not to mention liberalism))Barrack Obama."

"I'm afraid in this day and age of threats to America - including liberalism itself"

"Liberal politics, among other dysfunctionalities, is all about symbolism over substance."

"I have my issues with elements of Southern/midwestern culture, including their near-bigotry against certain religions. But its nothing like the dysfunction of modern liberalism, with its anti-American base..."

"I'll say this, though - at least the Republican landscape is a rich, ideological one. With the demoncrats its all about symbolism and 'style' - hence the obama-RaMa carnival."

"No, liberals are always fed up with [b]sensible right-wing things,..."



Moon-Crane wrote:All these can quite easily be reversed, hence you get upset when anything you see as ill-informed right-bashing is on the cards but are happy to keep putting in the digs against the left. I'm sure you must really like the back and forth, rather than being annoyed by what you see as repetition of so-called old fashioned myths about the right, seeing as you continue to do exactly the same in reverse to keep the flames fanned.


Those things can only be reversed in words. Not in truth. Right wingers are not nearly as guilty of 'symbolism over substance'. Look at Obamarama/Hillary vs. McCain. Two liberal symbols and a 71 year old man of substance. So what if Obama has precious little experience. We NEED to have a first black President. And how is conservatism as dysfunctional as liberalism today? Maybe in 1945 in some important ways, but not now.

Moon-Crane wrote:I'd say all political parties are more style over substance now - they all hire PR companies and marketing for heaven's sake.


Yes but I'm referring to ideology, not political parties. Political parties are the imperfect, grotesque attempt at an outer shell for ideological movements.

Just imagine - a nuclear bomb is about to go off and Joe Liberal won't let us pour some water up Ahmed's nose to try to prevent it. The ultimate expression of liberal destructiveness and insanity.


Moon-Crane wrote:This sort of emotive comment is just as unproductive as me saying that a liberal approach probably wouldn't have caused any anger and resentment towards your nation, from certain factions, in the first place - the Nuke wouldn't be a problem without interfering Conservative agendas towards the rest of the self-proclaimed 'uncivilised' world?


Oh, its not just an empty, emotive comment. It's an extreme scenario that well illustrates the true destructiveness of so much of liberal ideology today. What kind of world view would find something wrong in doing what it takes to get information from people that would bring down 3 jet liners, two sky scrapers and 3000 people?

Moon-Crane wrote:Why give a shit about what the rest of the world is up to, if they're so inferior that they offer nothing to better your nation. If you leave others' alone they pretty much ignore you too. That horse has bolted, but a policy of interference was never going to lead to fun and happiness. Nobody in the world gives a fuck, in a negative way, about Sweden or South Korea or a number of nations with stable economies and high standards of living.


Seems like just another attempt at the 'blame America' or 'The chickens coming home to roost' view, I'm afraid. I would love nothing more than to leave these inferior, backward, dangerous, America-hating nut jobs alone to wallow in their own pre-medieval existence without encroachment from the West. And I'm not talking about those elements who are Westernized and see the West and America in the proper perspective. Who are actually part of us. But is this sort of isolationism realistic, especially in an increasingly global world? Any 'interference' is going to be resisted by someone , somewhere. And power abhors a vacuum. Pernicious elements love the freedom to act.

Moon-Crane wrote:As an aside, you'll probably also write this off as sounding like one of those scaredy-cat liberals, but why call your example Ahmed? Why not Timothy, for example, if we're looking at the types of people who've caused major internal destruction within your nation? After all Conservatives just point out the facts, rather than content themselves with style and emotiveness over substance, right?


Because Ahmed is much more of a threat. This is an example of the dysfunction that I talk about. It's like the movie plots about Islamic terrorists being changed to white racist terrorists to avoid being guilty of insensitivity to foreign cultures and people of color. No worry that it amounts to a lack of accuracy or perspective on the nature or degree of threat. And its like the law brought up at the 9/11 commission hearings that fined airlines for taking more than two Arab-looking passengers per flight into secondary security questioning.



A Liberal is someone who is so broadminded, they can't even take their own side in a fight....


Moon-Crane wrote::) Not bad. How about: "A Conservative is so narrow-minded that they'd rather die in a fight that killed the other person than avoid the fight in the first place" I don't believe it, in general, but hey, if we're spouting these things...


But that is not nearly as applicable as the liberal/fight line. I don't know many right wingers who would not rather avoid a fight in the first place - as long as the consequences are not too severe. But I know many liberals who constantly put us in more danger because of their supposed 'broad-minded' thinking. Interrogations, CIA operations, Guantanamo, surveillance, getting fined for questioning 3 Arab-looking men before a flight.....


Moon-Crane wrote:I mentioned it somewhere else, but i wouldn't really care who was voted in, if they didn't symbolise so much power on the global front. I wish the US could withdraw from their perceived position of World Police. I actually think it may happen in the not to distant future, during global economic shifts. I think we're definitely on the path to further wars, though. But that's by the by.


'Symbolise' so much power? If we don't' 'police' someone else will look to do so. Power abhors a vacuum. But I do wish we would look after our own interests more. Let the jealous, losing cultures sulk on their own, and only intervene to help in disasters if they let us, and kill them when they threaten us.

Moon-Crane wrote:And, finally, to lighten the load and end on a bit of fun:
I'd love the soccer, hate the liberal world view, have mixed feelings toward the weather, hate the food, love it that I wouldn't have to pay for basic health care (at least not directly), but move back to the good ole US of A when they tell me I couldn't be screened for prostate cancer because it "is not cost effective".

I still don't understand the bashing of the quality of UK food from a nation that gave us McDs, Fatty Arbuckles, TGI Friday, etc, etc. :lol:

And, you can pay for that prostate cancer to be screened and treated if you wish, it just happens you don't have to pay thousands to get it diagnosed in the first place. I'm pretty sure that's not so different from the US, if you can afford it, i just think you're more likely to get some 'free' treatment for it over here if you don't have health insurance? We'll promise to warm that saw and give you a tasty bit of stick to bite on before cutting into you ;)


But why pay out the ass in taxes and also have to pay for the prostate exam? Why not pay quite a bit less in taxes, pursue training and education, get a good job that will provide adequate health care coverage?

Oh yea, and I never said American food was healthy. It just tastes a hell of a lot better!
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby Mr Blue Sky » Fri Mar 28, 2008 9:34 am

JT, how do you feel about the prospect of a 72 year old President? Reagan was three years younger than John McCain when he was elected, but by the end of his term he had the beginnings of alzheimer's.

Trying to stay away from party policital prejudices for a moment, is this something that bothers you?

Sir Menzies Campbell was a mere 64 when he took charge of the UK's Liberal Democrat party, yet he was mercilessly portrayed in the British press as a 'doddering old man'.

Some attempt to argue that descrimination along those lines is just as bad as descriminating against a person because they happen to be black or female, but I'd say that's a false comparison as being black or female isn't an enfeebling experience like aging is.

What are your thoughts on this issue?
"You don't turn the other cheek, you slice it."
User avatar
Mr Blue Sky
 
Posts: 21732
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 1:00 am

Postby JT » Sat Mar 29, 2008 3:13 am

Mr Blue Sky wrote:JT, how do you feel about the prospect of a 72 year old President? Reagan was three years younger than John McCain when he was elected, but by the end of his term he had the beginnings of alzheimer's.

Trying to stay away from party policital prejudices for a moment, is this something that bothers you?

Sir Menzies Campbell was a mere 64 when he took charge of the UK's Liberal Democrat party, yet he was mercilessly portrayed in the British press as a 'doddering old man'.

Some attempt to argue that descrimination along those lines is just as bad as descriminating against a person because they happen to be black or female, but I'd say that's a false comparison as being black or female isn't an enfeebling experience like aging is.

What are your thoughts on this issue?


Its an issue. But by the same token Barrack's relative youth is an issue as well. Even more so is his inexperience. McCain seems spry enough at this point. We're living longer and healthier too. Not everyone gets Alzheimer's or dementia. I don't generally think race/gender vs. age discrimination is a good comparison.
And really, I'd rather have a more right-wing 150 year old than a most-liberal-senator 46 year old. One could do a lot more damage than the other. I'm sure you agree in the opposite.
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby Mr Blue Sky » Wed Apr 02, 2008 4:46 am

JT wrote:Its an issue. But by the same token Barrack's relative youth is an issue as well. Even more so is his inexperience. McCain seems spry enough at this point. We're living longer and healthier too. Not everyone gets Alzheimer's or dementia. I don't generally think race/gender vs. age discrimination is a good comparison.
And really, I'd rather have a more right-wing 150 year old than a most-liberal-senator 46 year old. One could do a lot more damage than the other. I'm sure you agree in the opposite.


When you reach your late 70s the ratio is about 1 in 3 I'm afraid. Ronald Reagan hid it quite well from the public until he was out of office, but he was three years younger than McCain when he took up the reigns.

It's a genuine concern for me. In this country (not sure about the US) you have to re-take your driving test every year once you reach 75 to make sure your reflexes, eyesight, decision making, etc. still make you a safe driver. We could be in a position where President McCain is deemed unsuitable to drive a motor vehicle but quite capable of running the free world!
"You don't turn the other cheek, you slice it."
User avatar
Mr Blue Sky
 
Posts: 21732
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 1:00 am

Postby JT » Wed Apr 02, 2008 3:06 pm

Mr Blue Sky wrote:
JT wrote:Its an issue. But by the same token Barrack's relative youth is an issue as well. Even more so is his inexperience. McCain seems spry enough at this point. We're living longer and healthier too. Not everyone gets Alzheimer's or dementia. I don't generally think race/gender vs. age discrimination is a good comparison.
And really, I'd rather have a more right-wing 150 year old than a most-liberal-senator 46 year old. One could do a lot more damage than the other. I'm sure you agree in the opposite.


When you reach your late 70s the ratio is about 1 in 3 I'm afraid. Ronald Reagan hid it quite well from the public until he was out of office, but he was three years younger than McCain when he took up the reigns.

It's a genuine concern for me. In this country (not sure about the US) you have to re-take your driving test every year once you reach 75 to make sure your reflexes, eyesight, decision making, etc. still make you a safe driver. We could be in a position where President McCain is deemed unsuitable to drive a motor vehicle but quite capable of running the free world!


Ted Kennedy is four years older than McCain and nobody seems to be concerned about that. He's in an important, influential position too. He has way too much influence in the senate. And driving test, he couldn't drive in 1969! Ask anyone who's ever heard of the Chappaquiddick driving test!
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby JT » Wed Apr 02, 2008 3:14 pm

But what about Obama's lack of experience? Are you concerned about the leader of the free world with such little experience? Or is it a simple matter of ideology?

I brought up Obama's church a while ago and the fact that no one - most notably the mainstream media - was investigating that. It took the American alternative media to do that. This guy has belonged to an ultra-liberal, afro-centric extremist 'church' for 20 years, with an angry, liberal, racist, whack-job as his 'mentor' and 'close advisor' for many years. And his short record in the Senate has him ranked as the most liberal Senator in the country. That, again, is E-X-T-R-E-E-M by definition. Is anyone concerned about that? Seems to me that he is nothing more than a shinier more articulate Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.
What fresh hell is this?
JT
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:15 am
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Postby Mr Blue Sky » Wed Apr 02, 2008 7:19 pm

JT wrote:But what about Obama's lack of experience? Are you concerned about the leader of the free world with such little experience? Or is it a simple matter of ideology?

I brought up Obama's church a while ago and the fact that no one - most notably the mainstream media - was investigating that. It took the American alternative media to do that. This guy has belonged to an ultra-liberal, afro-centric extremist 'church' for 20 years, with an angry, liberal, racist, whack-job as his 'mentor' and 'close advisor' for many years. And his short record in the Senate has him ranked as the most liberal Senator in the country. That, again, is E-X-T-R-E-E-M by definition. Is anyone concerned about that? Seems to me that he is nothing more than a shinier more articulate Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.


That sounds like something Ann Coulter might say. :roll:

And no I'm not too concerned about Obama's perceived lack of experience. Clinton was a similar age (a bit younger I think) when he took up the Presidency and look what a great job he did - 8 years of consistent economic growth. Show me a Rupublican in recent memory who can boast a record like that.
"You don't turn the other cheek, you slice it."
User avatar
Mr Blue Sky
 
Posts: 21732
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 1:00 am

PreviousNext

Return to Off Topic Games / Polls / Quizzes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron

© Site contents are copyright Stuart Lee 1999 - 2020. This is a Frasier fan site and is not affiliated in any way with the program, Grub St Productions, Paramount or NBC.