Chef Jim Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 We contribute more money, aid and resources to third world countries than any other, and it's not even close. Who funds the World Bank or IMF more than any other country? Who is the largest contributor of resources to NATO? The list goes on and on. Too many people take for granted of the little things we do. But what have we done laaaaaately. Wah, wah, wah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 I am the one that mentioned Iran, but didn't mention it in any way that compared our country to it. You tried to make that the point to deflect all the heat you were getting. If you think that you refuted my points then you are delusional. We are an exceptional country, just a little under duress right now due to our unexceptional leadership and its Party's many poor decisions. You're right, we are an exceptional country. But we're not the exception which is the implication of American Exceptionalism. But, please show me where I'm delusion in my refutation of your points. Keep in mind you made them with the purpose of pointing out our exceptionalism, so in all of your counter-arguments be sure that what you're referring to refers to the US and the US alone. Also, please be sure to revisit each of your points with the assumption that each of the points implied outright success in each of their respective areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 But what have we done laaaaaately. Wah, wah, wah. Here I thought you hated the idea of the government reallocating your tax dollars! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 Is that what I said? Is it too late to sign up for Mrs. Carpenter's reading comprehension class in your fifth grade? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 Here I thought you hated the idea of the government reallocating your tax dollars! I do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 The rest of the world is laughing at this empty suit. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/...,662822,00.html When he entered office, US President Barack Obama promised to inject US foreign policy with a new tone of respect and diplomacy. His recent trip to Asia, however, showed that it's not working. A shift to Bush-style bluntness may be coming. There were only a few hours left before Air Force One was scheduled to depart for the flight home. US President Barack Obama trip through Asia had already seen him travel 24,000 kilometers, sit through a dozen state banquets, climb the Great Wall of China and shake hands with Korean children. It was high time to take stock of the trip. <script type=text/javascript> <script type=text/javascript> Barack Obama looked tired on Thursday, as he stood in the Blue House in Seoul, the official residence of the South Korean president. He also seemed irritable and even slightly forlorn. The CNN cameras had already been set up. But then Obama decided not to play along, and not to answer the question he had already been asked several times on his trip: what did he plan to take home with him? Instead, he simply said "thank you, guys," and disappeared. David Axelrod, senior advisor to the president, fielded the journalists' questions in the hallway of the Blue House instead, telling them that the public's expectations had been "too high." The mood in Obama's foreign policy team is tense following an extended Asia trip that produced no palpable results. The "first Pacific president," as Obama called himself, came as a friend and returned as a stranger. The Asians smiled but made no concessions. Lost Some Stature Upon taking office, Obama said that he wanted to listen to the world, promising respect instead of arrogance. But Obama's currency isn't as strong as he had believed. Everyone wants respect, but hardly anyone is willing to pay for it. Interests, not emotions, dominate the world of realpolitik. The Asia trip revealed the limits of Washington's new foreign policy: Although Obama did not lose face in China and Japan, he did appear to have lost some of his initial stature. In Tokyo, the new center-left government even pulled out of its participation in a mission which saw the Japanese navy refueling US warships in the Indian Ocean as part of the Afghanistan campaign. In Beijing, Obama failed to achieve any important concessions whatsoever. There will be no binding commitments from China to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A revaluation of the Chinese currency, which is kept artificially weak, has been postponed. Sanctions against Iran? Not a chance. Nuclear disarmament? Not an issue for the Chinese. The White House did not even stand up for itself when it came to the question of human rights in China. The president, who had said only a few days earlier that freedom of expression is a universal right, was coerced into attending a joint press conference with Chinese President Hu Jintao, at which questions were forbidden. Former US President George W. Bush had always managed to avoid such press conferences. Relatively Unsuccessful A look back in time reveals the differences. When former President Bill Clinton went to China in June 1998, Beijing wanted to impress the Americans. A press conference in the Great Hall of the People, broadcast on television as a 70-minute live discussion, became a sensation the world over. Clinton mentioned the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, when the government used tanks against protestors. But then President Jiang Zemin defended the tough approach taken by the Chinese Communists. At the end of the exchange, the Chinese president praised the debate and said: "I believe this is democracy!" Obama visited a new China, an economic power that is now making its own demands. America should clean up its government finances, and the weak dollar is unacceptable, the head of the Chinese banking authority said, just as Obama's plane was about to land. Obama's new foreign policy has also been relatively unsuccessful elsewhere, with even friends like Israel leaving him high and dry. For the government of Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, peace is only conceivable under its terms. Netanyahu has rejected Obama's call for a complete moratorium on the construction of settlements. As a result, Obama has nothing to offer the Palestinians and the Syrians. "We thought we had some leverage," says Martin Indyk, a former ambassador to Israel under the Clinton administration and now an advisor to Obama. "But that proved to be an illusion." Even the president seems to have lost his faith in a genial foreign policy. The approach that was being used in Afghanistan this spring, with its strong emphasis on civilian reconstruction, is already being changed. "We're searching for an exit strategy," said a staff member with the National Security Council on the sidelines of the Asia trip. 'A Lot Like Jimmy Carter' An end to diplomacy is also taking shape in Washington's policy toward Tehran. It is now up to Iran, Obama said, to convince the world that its nuclear power is peaceful. While in Asia, Obama mentioned "consequences" unless it followed his advice. This puts the president, in his tenth month in office, where Bush began -- with threats. "Time is running out," Obama said in Korea. It was the same phrase Bush used against former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, shortly before he sent in the bombers. There are many indications that the man in charge at the White House will take a tougher stance in the future. Obama's advisors fear a comparison with former Democratic President Jimmy Carter, even more than with Bush. Prominent Republicans have already tried to liken Obama to the humanitarian from Georgia, who lost in his bid to win a second term, because voters felt that he was too soft. "Carter tried weakness and the world got tougher and tougher because the predators, the aggressors, the anti-Americans, the dictators, when they sense weakness, they all start pushing ahead," Newt Gingrich, the former Republican speaker in the House of Representatives, recently said. And then he added: "This does look a lot like Jimmy Carter." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 You're right, we are an exceptional country. But we're not the exception which is the implication of American Exceptionalism. But, please show me where I'm delusion in my refutation of your points. Keep in mind you made them with the purpose of pointing out our exceptionalism, so in all of your counter-arguments be sure that what you're referring to refers to the US and the US alone. Also, please be sure to revisit each of your points with the assumption that each of the points implied outright success in each of their respective areas. So now you are setting conditions for my response? Have we eradicated AIDS? Of course not, but who is leading the way? Are we done in Iraq? No, but it appears that we are in the redzone. Afganistan? No, quite a ways to go as our unexeptional leader dithers. How can you quantify our medical and other technological advances? BTW, Norway is a better country? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 So now you are setting conditions for my response? Have we eradicated AIDS? Of course not, but who is leading the way? Are we done in Iraq? No, but it appears that we are in the redzone. Afganistan? No, quite a ways to go as our unexeptional leader dithers. How can you quantify our medical and other technological advances? BTW, Norway is a better country? Oooooood fjords. Hell, Slartibartfast won an award for those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 Oooooood fjords. Hell, Slartibartfast won an award for those. I prefer my Chevy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 So now you are setting conditions for my response? Have we eradicated AIDS? Of course not, but who is leading the way? Are we done in Iraq? No, but it appears that we are in the redzone. Afganistan? No, quite a ways to go as our unexeptional leader dithers. How can you quantify our medical and other technological advances? BTW, Norway is a better country? Hey man, you don't have to take my word for it. The Human Development Index - going beyond income Each year since 1990 the Human Development Report has published the human development index (HDI) which looks beyond GDP to a broader definition of well-being. The HDI provides a composite measure of three dimensions of human development: living a long and healthy life (measured by life expectancy), being educated (measured by adult literacy and gross enrolment in education) and having a decent standard of living (measured by purchasing power parity, PPP, income). The index is not in any sense a comprehensive measure of human development. It does not, for example, include important indicators such as gender or income inequality nor more difficult to measure concepts like respect for human rights and political freedoms. What it does provide is a broadened prism for viewing human progress and the complex relationship between income and well-being. Here's their most recent ranking in this category. Norway's just one of 12 countries that come in ahead of us. Here are the rest: # Australia # Iceland # Canada # Ireland # Netherlands # Sweden # France # Switzerland # Japan # Luxembourg # Finland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted November 24, 2009 Author Share Posted November 24, 2009 The rest of the world is laughing at this empty suit. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/...,662822,00.html David Axelrod, senior advisor to the president, fielded the journalists' questions in the hallway of the Blue House instead, telling them that the public's expectations had been "too high." In other words, we accomplished virtually nothing Obama's new foreign policy has also been relatively unsuccessful elsewhere, with even friends like Israel leaving him high and dry. For the government of Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, peace is only conceivable under its terms. Netanyahu has rejected Obama's call for a complete moratorium on the construction of settlements. As a result, Obama has nothing to offer the Palestinians and the Syrians. "We thought we had some leverage," says Martin Indyk, a former ambassador to Israel under the Clinton administration and now an advisor to Obama. "But that proved to be an illusion." The Israel strategy has been horrendous. BO has definitely been the unfriendliest US president to Israel in a long while. Great, alienate our biggest ally in the middle east. 'A Lot Like Jimmy Carter' There are many indications that the man in charge at the White House will take a tougher stance in the future. Obama's advisors fear a comparison with former Democratic President Jimmy Carter, even more than with Bush. Prominent Republicans have already tried to liken Obama to the humanitarian from Georgia, who lost in his bid to win a second term, because voters felt that he was too soft. "Carter tried weakness and the world got tougher and tougher because the predators, the aggressors, the anti-Americans, the dictators, when they sense weakness, they all start pushing ahead," Newt Gingrich, the former Republican speaker in the House of Representatives, recently said. And then he added: "This does look a lot like Jimmy Carter." Hopefully these comparisons to Jimmy Carter will change the dynamics of the way he has been leading, in regards to foreign affairs. Great find Erin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted November 24, 2009 Author Share Posted November 24, 2009 Hey man, you don't have to take my word for it. Here's their most recent ranking in this category. Norway's just one of 12 countries that come in ahead of us. Here are the rest: # Australia # Iceland # Canada # Ireland # Netherlands # Sweden # France # Switzerland # Japan # Luxembourg # Finland ALRIGHTY THEN This proves it, Canada is the place to be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 Hey man, you don't have to take my word for it. Here's their most recent ranking in this category. Norway's just one of 12 countries that come in ahead of us. Here are the rest: # Australia # Iceland # Canada # Ireland # Netherlands # Sweden # France # Switzerland # Japan # Luxembourg # Finland Here, I'll get you started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted November 24, 2009 Author Share Posted November 24, 2009 Here, I'll get you started. although you do have it as round trip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 although you do have it as round trip No, I'm pretty sure I selected one way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 Hey man, you don't have to take my word for it. Here's their most recent ranking in this category. Norway's just one of 12 countries that come in ahead of us. Here are the rest: # Australia # Iceland # Canada # Ireland # Netherlands # Sweden # France # Switzerland # Japan # Luxembourg # Finland It does not however measure gender or income inequality or respect for human rights and political freedoms. Who cares about those things anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted November 24, 2009 Author Share Posted November 24, 2009 It does not however measure gender or income inequality or respect for human rights and political freedoms. Who cares about those things anyway? What makes that even funnier is that he is a liberal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 What makes that even funnier is that he is a liberal. No, it makes perfect sense. I haven't experienced much clarity of thought coming from most liberals. He/she fits right in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 It does not however measure gender or income inequality or respect for human rights and political freedoms. Who cares about those things anyway? Yeah, because everyone knows what oppressive places those top 12 countries are. Give me a break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 Actually !@#$ this whole discussion, it's a complete waste of my time. You guys will go on waving your dicks around chanting we're number one until it's time to criticize the leadership you didn't vote for, then it's back to "he's running this country into the ground, our nation as we know it is falling apart, and holy **** the sky is falling." Not one of you dickheads has demonstrated one shred of statistical evidence to suggest we're number at ANYTHING worth being best at, but it hasn't stopped you from fellating eachother with all the passion and zeal of Glenn Beck tripping X. I've never encountered a group of individuals less capable of self-reflection than you blowhards. You're so confoundedly blinded by what you've decided to be true that when someone challenges your way of thinking you resort to insults, name calling, and overall dumbassitude. It's sad really. Enjoy the circle jerks, ladies. When you're ready to open your eyes to something new, let me know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts