Basically --- if you bash Bush, you're correct. If you praise Bush, you're wrong! ;-)

---

> Basically --- if you bash Bush, you're correct. If you praise Bush, you're
> wrong! ;-)
>

I'm glad you started off by saying "basically". You're getting moderate in you old age.

---

> I'm glad you started off by saying "basically". You're getting moderate in
> you old age.

No, I just realize right-wingers need very simple instructions & "soundbites!" ;-)

---

> > How is it possible that Bush have won this elections!!!!!????? He´s an
> idiot!
> > He doesn´t know where he is!. Americans vote him for his moral
> values...he
> > kills people!!!!!!!! HE IS NOT MORAL!!!!!!
> > AWAKE!!!!!! PLEASE!!!!
> >
>
> I'm sorry you are so angry, Luca. I am an American (there are more than 250
> million of us and we are all unique individuals), and I don't think I fit your
> description.
>
> All countries make mistakes, for example, when the military dictator of
> Argentina attacked the Falkland Islands because the Argentine economy was so
> bad that the attack seemed like a nice patriotic distraction from the
> country's economic woes. But I don't hold you responsible for that.
>

@Tom
Well said Tom! i second that! I will be the first to admit there are some very stupid people in American they try and kill me on the highway everyday. Others like to congregate around Universities and really believe Marxist Socialism would work.

@Carl
Why do you care about what goes on in the country you abandoned? You have no voice in America any longer. So drink your tea and eat your fish & chips and shut up.

@Others
I have been all over Europe and parts of the Middle East and I know where the Pacific Ocean is. I have also encountered Americans in my many travels to Europe and generally they are as described in this thread. However I have never been ashamed of them or that I am an American like them. Fact is from the Europeans I have spoken too and the observations I have made in various parts. I find Europeans in general some of the most disconnected from reality(seen the movie THX1138?) and vastly ignorant of what America is all about. Something I think they would educate themselves on before criticizing to the degree they do. In regards to war on terror the first thing out of a typical Europeans mouth(including my family there) is “it’s about oil” something they hear on TV everyday and repeat like the mindless automatons they are. These are the most educated people in the world? Logic, common sense and critical thinking skills evidentially are not something they teach in European schools. They are more prone to believe some made up conspiracy theory (like a lot of idiot Americans) then to believe that we would actually re-elect a decent president because we think he is doing his job properly.

I am a firm believer in pulling all our troop commitments all around the world back home. Call for all the debts other countries owe us to be paid in full immediately. Halt the exportation of American grain to every single third world shithole in the world. Double our tariffs on imported consumer goods, seal up our borders and let Europe and the rest of the world deal with world issues like hunger, Civil Wars, Disaster relief, Aids research, Energy and the plethora of other things that wouldn’t exist if Americans didn’t take interest in it.

For all those Americans that feel they need to leave America because of the recent election all I can say is bye! You won’t be missed. Besides we don’t need anyone here that’s not in it for the long haul anyway, I am sure you will be happier wherever you go.

---

"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men."

Willy Wonka

Hmm... My assumption is wrong.

You share most of my sentiment. Out of curiosity, what is the image of the American abroad? A New Yorker? A Texan? An Alaskan? Alabaman?

Call for all the debts other countries owe us to be paid in full immediately.
Ah, but will other nations do the same for us? If both sides are willing, then progress can be made.

> Basically --- if you bash Bush, you're correct. If you praise Bush, you're
> wrong! ;-)
>
In America we call the right of free speech! You have your opinion and others have theirs! Which is correct depends on who the opinion belongs too.

---

Has anyone ever considered that maybe someday we may need Europes help?
Does doing what is right and noble always require payback?

Hmmm...

---

Account frozen...

> You share most of my sentiment. Out of curiosity, what is the image of the
> American abroad? A New Yorker? A Texan? An Alaskan? Alabaman?

The image is multiple: from our ignorance, I see two "basic Americans".
One, kerry´s voter: californian, new yorker, bostonian, etc. Educated, liberals, tolerants, etc.
Another, bush´s voter: texan, alabaman, georgian. Ignorant, conservador, intolerant, etc.
The second sub-specie is the one I was referring to when I described Americans.

---

"Raggio spezza, amista lunga"

> The image is multiple: from our ignorance, I see two "basic Americans".
> One, kerry´s voter: californian, new yorker, bostonian, etc. Educated,
> liberals, tolerants, etc.
> Another, bush´s voter: texan, alabaman, georgian. Ignorant, conservador,
> intolerant, etc.
> The second sub-specie is the one I was referring to when I described
> Americans.

That is unfair and somewhat bigoted. Whether you group Kerry voters with one set of characteristics and Bush voters with another, you are simply exposing your prejudicial belief in a stereotype. Can Argentinians be described so simply? Do you all fit one description? Aren't all groups as complex as the number of individuals?

If you had simply said you see Americans as falling into two groups (one educated, liberal and tolerant, the other ignorant, conservative, intolerant) and not labeled them by political party or the State they live in, then I would not be bothered. But it is wrong to describe a group with a single description: it is like saying all blacks, or all jews are alike. And it is certainly insulting to Bush voters, Texans and others from the Southern States.

---

---

> I am a firm believer in pulling all our troop commitments all around the world
> back home. Call for all the debts other countries owe us to be paid in full
> immediately. Halt the exportation of American grain to every single third
> world shithole in the world. Double our tariffs on imported consumer goods,
> seal up our borders and let Europe and the rest of the world deal with world
> issues like hunger, Civil Wars, Disaster relief, Aids research, Energy and the
> plethora of other things that wouldn’t exist if Americans didn’t take interest
> in it.

Good idea ! But before doing so, start by paying your own country debts, wich
is superior then all "shithole" countries in the world united.
Make also sure that all the foreign investors get out of the country too.
especialy the saudis who own about 15% of it. knowing that more foreign
companys gives jobs to Americans than the oposites (France company alone
employ 700 thousands americans) I bet it would not be good for economy...
Build a huge great wall arround the US and completely isolate yourself
from any outside contact. You should also build a complete sphere protecting
USA from missiles that would also protect the rest of the world from your
polutions. Bring all US troops back and everything else american that
basicaly are useless to the world. Mcdonalds, Michael Jackson CD's and mickey
mouse. I mean a real ISOLATION from the rest of the world. Why not ?
I'd be currious to see the results in just a decade and wich side suffers
the most...The world did not start with the creation of the USA and honestly,
it could do without. lolololololol

OH BTW I've just reread your post. Aids being discovered in France, France
gives more aids to "shithole" country. Many civil wars were due to dictators
put in power by the CIA, as for energy You will have to learn how to retreat
you nuclear waste yourself, because now there is only one country that manage
to do it and it does it for you, guess wich one ? France.

Now if you don't believe that, make your homework and get the facts before
replying, It would not be good for you to look even more studid then you did
in your original post.

> That is unfair and somewhat bigoted. Whether you group Kerry voters with one
> set of characteristics and Bush voters with another, you are simply exposing
> your prejudicial belief in a stereotype. Can Argentinians be described so
> simply? Do you all fit one description? Aren't all groups as complex as the
> number of individuals?
>
> If you had simply said you see Americans as falling into two groups (one
> educated, liberal and tolerant, the other ignorant, conservative, intolerant)
> and not labeled them by political party or the State they live in, then I
> would not be bothered. But it is wrong to describe a group with a single
> description: it is like saying all blacks, or all jews are alike. And it is
> certainly insulting to Bush voters, Texans and others from the Southern
> States.

About the first thing you mentioned: as I have said before, that´s a natural characteristic of agregates. But knowing it´s limitations doesn´t necessarily have to make them disappear: we can use them as long as our conclusions are referred to the range we knew. Every time we theorizise we loss precision to gain generalization.
Regarding american voter´s characteristics, I have read about them in the major newspaper of our country (I have added "educated" and "ignorant"): http://old.clarin.com/diario/2004/11/04/elmundo/index.html
Besides, Neo have asked how Americans are seen from abroad. I gave my opinion. In a special way of looking at it, it´s a "fact" (the fact that it´s my opinion in this moment with the information I have and my limited capacity).
I have seen the characteristics of the southern states in this forum: somebody have posted a link where two maps are compared: one of the 2004 elections and another of the civil war...

---

"Raggio spezza, amista lunga"

Oh, I have forgotten another clasification: SETI users who voted for Bush, have the same characteristics of Kerry´s voters.

Petit Soleil: you are a "grand" soleil for us here in the forum: your last post is very good. I began to write a response to that economic ignorant of Smartpatrol but I desisted: my english is very bad and it was taking me a lot of time to explain the neoliberal economic theory. But I suscribe your arguments: isolation would only mean destruction to US economy: having no one to spoil they would begin to fight between each other.

Vive la France!

---

"Raggio spezza, amista lunga"

> Petit Soleil: you are a "grand" soleil for us here in the forum: your last
> post is very good. I began to write a response to that economic ignorant of
> Smartpatrol but I desisted: my english is very bad and it was taking me a lot
> of time to explain the neoliberal economic theory. But I suscribe your
> arguments: isolation would only mean destruction to US economy: having no one
> to spoil they would begin to fight between each other.
>
> Vive la France!
>

Smartpatrol wasn't being serious, he was venting at the hateful anti-American sentiments that so many of you have put on this board. It's stereotype, pure and simple, even if it is an opinion, and even if it is being asked for by people here. You may have an excuse for your bad opinion of us, because you do not have all the facts (Smartpatrol listed some of those facts while ranting in his post) about so much that the US does around the world. But I just don't understand the blindness of Americans, even those who live abroad, who refuse to acknowlege the good that the US does and only see what they do not like.

And Marc, I know France and Canada participate in international aid and commerce, but you can't seriously believe that all of Europe combined contributes what America does. Being a "Superpower" is not just military. For at least half a century, America has been the greatest contributor to needy countries and the dominant economic power in the world.

---

And Marc, I know France and Canada participate in international aid and commerce, but you can't seriously believe that all of Europe combined contributes what America does. Being a "Superpower" is not just military. For at least half a century, America has been the greatest contributor to needy countries and the dominant economic power in the world.

---

Well bring me facts please. I do have facts here about world aid to
shithole country. The US do not comes first. Do some real search and
then we will compare are books.

> Well bring me facts please. I do have facts here about world aid to
> shithole country. The US do not comes first. Do some real search and
> then we will compare are books.
>

This was from a quick Google search. I highlighted the part about actual dollar amounts.

How do U.S. aid levels compare with those of other countries?
The U.S. foreign-aid budget as a percentage of gross national product (GNP) ranks last among the world’s wealthiest countries (at about 0.1 percent). In raw dollars, however, the United States is now the world’s top donor of economic aid, although for more than a decade it was second to Japan, which is far smaller and has been beset by economic woes. In 2001, the United States gave $10.9 billion, Japan $9.7 billion, Germany $4.9 billion, the United Kingdom $4.7 billion, and France $4.3 billion. As a percentage of GNP, however, the top donors were Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Sweden. The tiny Netherlands (pop. 16.3 million) gave $3.2 billion in 2001—almost a third of what America contributed.

[Edit]: I was wrong about the combined European aid being less than America, Europe combined gives more.

---

> This was from a quick Google search. I highlighted the part about actual
> dollar amounts.
>
> How do U.S. aid levels compare with those of other countries?
> The U.S. foreign-aid budget as a percentage of gross national product (GNP)
> ranks last among the world’s wealthiest countries (at about 0.1 percent).
> In raw dollars, however, the United States is now the world’s top donor of
> economic aid, although for more than a decade it was second to Japan,
> which is far smaller and has been beset by economic woes. In 2001, the United
> States gave $10.9 billion, Japan $9.7 billion, Germany $4.9 billion, the
> United Kingdom $4.7 billion, and France $4.3 billion. As a percentage of GNP,
> however, the top donors were Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and
> Sweden. The tiny Netherlands (pop. 16.3 million) gave $3.2 billion in
> 2001—almost a third of what America contributed.
>

OK now we can discuss. In raw dollars I had Japan First, Now it seems it had
change since compare to the document I have here. Nevertheless, if you look
at GNP chart, The US doesn't seem to bother much about shithole countries...

---

<img src="http://boinc.mundayweb.com/one/stats.php?userID=2384&amp;trans=off"><img src="http://img98.exs.cx/img98/1999/hamradio.gif"><img src="http://img54.exs.cx/img54/3872/cqkey.gif">

In the chart you see that Denmark is giving SIX times more aid
Then the US. Why ? Because they are SIX time richer. I have been
to Denmark, Sweden, Norway and the Netherland many many times,
and belive me, they have a standard of life that Americans can
ouly dream of. Well, thet don't invest 500 billion dollars in
military and mind their own business, that surelly helps...

Edit...Not six times but ELEVEN !!!

I´m copying the conclusions of my "opus magnum in this forum" (hope American´s answers):

4.- The conclusions of my theory:
4.1.- US has one objetive: to be the world´s leader.
4.2.- In order to reach that, it would lie or tell the truth; bribe or not; make alliances with dictators or kill them arguing "democracy"; etc.
4.2.1.- What I would like to prove is that US uses coyuntural arguments to justify it´s acts to it´s blind population.
4.2.2.- So, when they need Saddam they pay him to help him reach the power. When Saddam kills kurds they support him (because they still need him). Suddenly, they didn´t need Saddam any longer: the New York Times publish "Saddam is an assassin: he have killed (example) 2 kurds". The next day Bush makes a press conferences and declares that US will destroy Iraq in order to pursuit a bigger objective: kill Saddam...in order to pursuit the last objective: bring democracy to the kurds!?!
4.2.3.- The assasination of the kurds (in the example) is true: Saddam have killed them (in the example). But, is this the real objective of Bush? The same reason he has been "tolerating" for decades is now something that can´t wait a minute?
4.2.4.- why iraq´s population needs democracy suddenly?
4.2.5.- then, why US is still ally of Saudi Arabia or Pakistan?
4.3.- You were right Tom, if US has made a mistake supporting Saddam, it doesn´t means that it has to be a mistake ever. One mistake doesn´t justify another and I have no intention of arguing that.
4.4.- My argument is that US lies to all of us, hiding it´s real objectives: they would say anything to confuse.
4.5.- They lie and kill and pretend to be moral (Bush)

---

"Raggio spezza, amista lunga"