A few papers from Europe on the Rep presidential candidates debate:

http://niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=00178

I would call it an objective view, since they don't have an interest either way....

Der Spiegel:"It was a pathetic assemblage: Ten old white men exhausting themselves with slogans and platitudes in the first televised Republican debate. Most importantly, frontrunners McCain, Giuliani and Romney all delivered a lousy picture. "

Because we should care what aged and dieing Europe thinks of us... or our cantidates.

~String

Yeh, Euros would love that we follow their wonderful example.

Because we should care what aged and dieing Europe thinks of us... or our cantidates.

~StringAt least they can spell.:rolleyes:

Because we should care...


...and again, you were surprized when they treated you like dirt.

I personally would be interested of people's opinion whom don't have any special interest, bias or agenda on the matter at hand. That is also called OBJECTIVITY.

So yes, in short, you SHOULD care.....

At least they can spell.:rolleyes:

Wow... I see your point Genji. As always, you are there with a sound and intellectual point that is totally germain to the discussion at hand.

...and again, you were surprized when they treated you like dirt.

I personally would be interested of people's opinion whom don't have any special interest, bias or agenda on the matter at hand. That is also called OBJECTIVITY.

So yes, in short, you SHOULD care.....

Syz... yer making it personal again! Which is fine, if that's the direction you want to take the conversation.

On the personal point: Honestly, you know me from less than 300 posts. The ONLY place that I have had ANY trouble with, in all of my travels on this warm wet ball, was England [and here's me making it personal right back], were you able to read and fully comprehend my statements, you probably would have absorbed that fact. I lived in Spain and France and never once ran into anything but some heated (and enjoyable) debates. Beyond that, without uttering a word to the British, an American can be treated pretty nasty... such a move is the apotheosis of hypocracy since the British scoff at the notion that they should care what the rest of Europe or America thinks about them.

Anyhoo, the issue here is: Sure, I guess I have a passing interest in current events and consider myself well informed as to the ongoings of the rest of the world. So, in the sense of "hey... what's going on...?" I care. But in the, "Oh my GOD, they don't like us, whatever will we do?" sense, well, honestly, screw'em. I don't cast my vote based upon what some tulip-planting Dutchman thinks anymore than that tulip-planting Dutchman cares what I think about his leadership choices.

And what's with that rant about "objectivity"? Are you trying to tell me that I should care about what other people think because THEY are objective... about America? Honestly, really? No one on this planet is objective... some come close, but the last continent I'd find an objective person regarding my country is Europe.

~String

Yeah, what's wrong with objectivity? Read my thread A logical Republican, NOBODY like it, because I told it as it is, objectively... :)

The Democrats didn't like it because I told the truth. And the Reps didn't like it either, well, because I told the truth...

Objectively... I don't see why politics can not be discussed (just like religion) objectively...

A few papers from Europe on the Rep presidential candidates debate:

http://niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=00178

I would call it an objective view, since they don't have an interest either way....
They published their opinion. That's subjective, not objective -- no matter what you call it.

Folks forget that our founding fathers (and mothers) were Europeans, too: Ex-Euros who chose to evolve beyond their inbred roots.

Folks forget that we will continually be called to task by those who have benefited far less by their family's centuries-old decision not get on a boat and book out of Europe for the US.

An intellectually unnecessary embarrassment of symmetry.

Not our problem.

Europe should be more than enough for itself, if we are to believe its claims to cultural superiority.

What does it need the US for if we're all only just a bunch of buffoons?

Only the buffoons amongst us need Europe as much as Europe needs our buffoons.

Edited to embrace the need for simplicity.

Syz... THAT was objective... THAT website? Are you serious? I'm totally deflated... really. I cannot get how someone who--no matter how differing from my own oppinions--obviously has an intellect that is a notch-or-two above the bell curve, would conclude that, THAT website was "objective"? How?

Oy-veh.

~String

String, that's because you fail to understand that for most people "objectivity" usually includes something that reinforces their own personal bias...

Syz... THAT was objective... THAT website?

What website? I think you mixed up the threads. If you mean the quoted papers/magazines, yes, they were objective....

They objectively pointed out that all Rep candidate were white, older men... Wasn't it the fact? No diversity whatsoever...

Anyway, this thread is going nowhere. Enjoy the opinion of other countries if you want a better picture of yourself.... ;0

Unless those paper/magazines were owned by Rupert Murdoch then it wasnt objective. Try reading the UKs' Sun for the real stuff.

They objectively pointed out that all Rep candidate were white, older men...

Oh what a surprise.

Unless those paper/magazines were owned by Rupert Murdoch then it wasnt objective. Try reading the UKs' Sun for the real stuff.

Negative. ALL news is subjective (as per my previous statements)-- even [especially] NEWS Corp. Moreover, stating an obvious fact does not make one objective. There are SOME facts that cannot be avoided, and thus, even the most subjective oppinions usually have to acknowledge them. Yes, the presidential cantidates are white men. Wow. Why not point out the fact that all have to obey the law of gravity? That's a fact too. Does stating the OBVIOUS make one objective? No.

IT was the "finer" political commentary that clarely pointed to the UNobjectivity of the writer(s). And THAT is my point.

~String

Negative? Did you read my post?

Anyway, everyone obeys the law of gravity, not everyones white or male.

Considering how the Republicans on these boards are reacting to a black or woman candidate for the Democrats......

Did you read my post?

Do I have to?

Considering how the Republicans on these boards are reacting to a black or woman candidate for the Democrats......

That's true (but on these boards?). Honestly, I see a world of hurt in the future for Republicans if they don't start acting a teensy bit more diversified. I'm not talking about politically-- fine, stick to yer guns. But, I'm sure there are pleanty of women and minorities out there of political value who can be running mates or (gasp) actual cantidates for Prez. Only when Republicans start walking the talk with they begin to REALLY attract the diverse audience that they hope for.

~String

Does stating the OBVIOUS make one objective? No.

Actually, yes. being FACTUAL is being objective and if stating facts means being obvious, then it also means being objective.... :)

There you have your little logic lesson.

You started to remind me of Baron. Not a very good thing. Never learns anything and on my shitlist. Try to improve please!

Soon Blair will be gone and then all the lap dogs of the USA in Europe are gone. Moreover, Europe has turned into an economic power to be reckoned with thanks to the EU. Who has ever stood up to the might of Microsoft? The EU.

I'm not surprised by the attitude of politically one dimensional people like superstring99. People like that live in their own little world. I wouldn't be surprised if he can't find Iraq on the map like his other American buddies.

Dominating the world with terror will only get you so far. Not knowing who you are dealing with in the world will come back and bite your ass. While Europe is already analyzing a possible future situation the US is still dealing with the past.

Silence you tulip-planting Dutchman.

The Euros wanted us to elect John Kerry, big help.

I heard three of the candidates don't even believe in evolution, what a bunch of 'tards.

They believe in evolution per se, anyone who believes in Darwinian evolution is the "tard."

Soon Blair will be gone and then all the lap dogs of the USA in Europe are gone.

The spineless dog we have elected as PM here in little old DK is still supporting uncle sam

"Europe" opinion matters to Americans more than Americans' opinions matter to, say, tulip planting Dutchmen, because Europeans pay attention to America. We're the big dog.

They - the Europeans who show up in these editorials and informed sources - pay attention, and they draw from wider sources of info and more diverse political philosophies than most Americans. And they know more history, on average, even about America, than Americans know.

Their general take on Gore and Kerry vs W was far more accurate than the American take, for example. The only people surprised by W's flailing in office were Americans, many of whom still can't admit to the reality of what they voted for - or against.

It's fine to note that we are on top, now. But a wise top guy listens to the underlings.

It's fine to note that we are on top, now. But a wise top guy listens to the underlings.
A top guy who wants to stay top guy, anyway.

Soon Blair will be gone and then all the lap dogs of the USA in Europe are gone.
Sarkozy?

I think it is just GENERALLY a good idea to try to listen to opinions of those who are not interested in the subject matter in any way. That way there is a better chance of getting an opinion without bias. it doesn't mean one has to agree with it, but at least have a fucking intellectual interest!!!

Whenever I hear Euro-pee-ons commenting on US politics, I'm reminded of that old movie "The Mouse That Roared"......:D

Rowr.

Whenever I hear Euro-pee-ons commenting on US politics, I'm reminded of that old movie "The Mouse That Roared"......:D

i was in the stage version of it in highschool.
:)

You were a thespian?

Why are people upset about a European saying what we already know and say?

Europeans suck.

Whenever I hear Euro-pee-ons commenting on US politics,

Whenever I read the Eurpeans' view on the US, I realize it is pretty much the same as the rest of the world's....

You were a thespian?

It's a perfectly acceptable lifestyle choice these days.

Why are people upset about a European saying what we already know and say?
Because by their buying into your rhetoric, Europeans must be actually stupider than they already appear?

I heard three of the candidates don't even believe in evolution, what a bunch of 'tards.ROTFLMAO :D

Out of 300 million people these fat old millionaire good old boy white guys are the best that the Republican Party can produce?

Well, they did elect Junior so we mustn't ask for too much.

MII

I think it is just GENERALLY a good idea to try to listen to opinions of those who are not interested in the subject matter in any way. That way there is a better chance of getting an opinion without bias. it doesn't mean one has to agree with it, but at least have a fucking intellectual interest!!!I wouldn't say that Europeans are disinterested. They are very interested in American politics. And each news paper will have it's slant. That said, I think the article summed it up as I would have. The Republican hopefuls are a pathetic bunch. Even Republicans will tell you that they are not happy with this years crop. The fact is, Republicans, perhaps for the first time since Nixon, are serisouly thinking about who they elect.

They elected Reagan The Actor, Bush The Next-in-line and Junior The Moron. They have a dream like remembrance of The Actor. But as for Dumb and Dumber?!?! - getouttahere... :) Why do you think they keep going back to The Actor.



I think the Europeans are on side with the way the majority of Americans feel about these pathetic Rep canditwits :p

Michael

Whenever I hear Euro-pee-ons commenting on US politics, I'm reminded of that old movie "The Mouse That Roared"......:D

Funny whenever I hear a american (talk) abouth foreign politics I can already smell the gunpowder.

A lot can be said abouth americans and there voting habits like they voted for Bush a second time... A second time no seriosly if you go into detail they only voted for him ones because he didn't got elected the first time...

bloody hell if you cant take your nations politicans being lampooned then you really need checky0self.
I dont care where youre from, politicans are uniformly awful creatures.
If someone started throwing eggs at new labour or the lib dems i certainly wouldnt take it as an attack on my own personal character. It would take far more than that to get me riled.

Having said that - anyone say a word against david attenborough and i'll bite your knees off.

Funny whenever I hear a american (talk) abouth foreign politics I can already smell the gunpowder.
You're actually smelling Testosterone.

An obviously unpleasant fragrance for you and your fellow hunks of male pulchritude.

I hear your mommie commanding your presence.

You're actually smelling Testosterone.

An obviously unpleasant fragrance for you and your fellow hunks of male pulchritude.

I hear your mommie commanding your presence.

Ah a can't compete to the largest porn produces of the world on testosterone level.
Then again you also have a lot of verry conservative people what basicly means that america is a land of extremes... This causses some problems offcourse like the fact that you can't the american victory's religious what is it now 3000 4000 if really don't have a clue and I'm only mildly interested in it. However howmany Iraqies died or mercenaries 500 000 750 000 it doesn't really matter to me but it does make the US somewhat hypocrite on the matter.
Same can be said over the US policy on nuclear arms, trying to stop a other countries development while further developing the same technology is also quit hypocrite and starting wars all over the place... It's hypocrite and perhaps naive independed of the quistion if the cause is yust.
You're (true) internationall coorperation is also somewhat of a joke depending more on personal projects mostly comming from american people who where foreign in the first place (I'm mostly thinking abouth NASA coorperations with other space programs/global warming).


I'm agreeing that European vision on the world is different then the american vision but ask yourself this did the world become a better place these last years because of the US interventions or became it far worse?

Ah a can't compete to the largest porn produces of the world on testosterone level.
Then again you also have a lot of verry conservative people what basicly means that america is a land of extremes... This causses some problems offcourse like the fact that you can't the american victory's religious what is it now 3000 4000 if really don't have a clue and I'm only mildly interested in it. However howmany Iraqies died or mercenaries 500 000 750 000 it doesn't really matter to me but it does make the US somewhat hypocrite on the matter.
Same can be said over the US policy on nuclear arms, trying to stop a other countries development while further developing the same technology is also quit hypocrite and starting wars all over the place... It's hypocrite and perhaps naive independed of the quistion if the cause is yust.
You're (true) internationall coorperation is also somewhat of a joke depending more on personal projects mostly comming from american people who where foreign in the first place (I'm mostly thinking abouth NASA coorperations with other space programs/global warming).


I'm agreeing that European vision on the world is different then the american vision but ask yourself this did the world become a better place these last years because of the US interventions or became it far worse?Your superior European grasp of spelling, grammar, syntax and spell checker tool usage aside, I presume you're areligious.

Me, too.

I presume you're a Darwinian evolutionist.

Me, too.

The primary difference between you and me is that I live in a culture where for half of our evolutionist half (the non- Euro leaning 1/4) Darwinian is spelled with a capital D.

Sorry, but you Euros have had your extended time and finally screwed it all up all by yourselves.

It's America's time now. Afford us the same freedom to discover the unrewarding aspects of masturbation that you folks already know.

:)

Your superior European grasp of spelling, grammar, syntax and spell checker tool usage aside, I presume you're areligious.

I like to see you live in a country the size of maine that has 3 official languages (dutch french german) that also unofficial uses english while spending most of your summers in spain, people get screwed up for far less.

And I'm not going to comment on your own spelling. Annyway Europe maybe a little bid slow the last couple of decades but the average european knows more abouth it's surrounding nations then the average american what makes it somewhat harder for politicians to manauvre because they'l be far easier punishid by the people.

I like to see you live in a country the size of maine that has 3 official languages (dutch french german) that also unofficial uses english while spending most of your summers in spain, people get screwed up for far less.
I live in the US. Most all languages of the world are spoken here.

We have one official language.

I don't see a problem. Our economy doesn't see a problem. Our place among nations isn't a problem to us.
And I'm not going to comment on your own spelling.
Please, do. Instruct.
Annyway Europe maybe a little bid slow the last couple of decades but the average european knows more abouth it's surrounding nations then the average american what makes it somewhat harder for politicians to manauvre because they'l be far easier punishid by the people.
You can't communicate with us in our language, but you're an expert on us?

The average European?

We can make this as personal as you need it to be. ;)

...the average european knows more abouth it's surrounding nations then the average american...
And can the average European tell us Americans the differences between each our our own fifty (50) states?

Last I checked, Europe isn't an association of fifty different legal entities.

Considering how the Republicans on these boards are reacting to a black or woman candidate for the Democrats......
That's total crap. We object to the democrat candidates because they are liberal, not because they are female or black. Obama is probably further to the left than any other serious candidate.

I'd have no problem with a conservative black candidate like Michael S. Steele, Alan Keyes, Thomas Sowell, or Walter E. Williams.

madanthonywayne, Agreed.

We object to the democrat candidates because they are liberal, not because they are female or black And you can tell they are "liberal" how, exactly?

Clinton is maybe a little to the right of Nixon, on a left/right scale, and Obama seems more or less standard issue centrist in his actual views. IIRC even John Kerry somehow became a "liberal" when he ran for Pres as a Dem.

Seems to me you simply label the Democratic candidates as "liberal" because they are Democratic candidates.

Which is OK, in a way, because the nonsensical use of the word by righty-ranters has long since deprived it of actual meaning in the US.

This may explain the disconnect between European views of American Pres candidates and American views: the vocabularies have diverged, and the political vocabulary in the US has been eroded, is threadbare.

madanthonywayne, Agreed.

I am deeply surprized and shocked!!! :eek: :D

This may explain the disconnect between European views of American Pres candidates and American views: the vocabularies have diverged, and the political vocabulary in the US has been eroded, is threadbare.

100% spot on, thats exactly it.

And you can tell they are "liberal" how, exactly?

Well, for one, according to the presidential selector thread, Obama and I agree on only 16% of the issues. He came in just ahead of Kucinich, who is about as far to the left as anyone in US politics.

Hillary is a big time liberal best known for her failed attempt to nationalize health care (my profession). She's been pretending to be a moderate since getting in the Senate, but that's bull.

...and again, you were surprized when they treated you like dirt.

I personally would be interested of people's opinion whom don't have any special interest, bias or agenda on the matter at hand. That is also called OBJECTIVITY.

So yes, in short, you SHOULD care.....

Dude. You are delusional. The Plresident of the United Sates is arguably the most powerful person in the entire world. The President of the United States effects people in Europe. Not to the same degree as Americans, but effects them none the less. To think that they are OBJECTIVE as you put it makes me question your intelligence. Mainly, I think you are very much blinded by you major issues with the United Sates.

Care to explain how you could possibly think that an editorial by Europeans on the GOP candidates is objective.

Care to explain how you could possibly think that an editorial by Europeans on the GOP candidates is objective.

I know, for an American growing up on American media it can be strange that a major media can be objective, and without bias, but lo and behold, it sometimes happens.

Care to show any of those analysis where they WEREN"T objective???

You started this thread with the comment:


I would call it an objective view, since they don't have an interest either way....


I challenged that assertion by pointing out they do have an interest in seeing who becomes the next president of the United States both as a citizen of the world and as journalists who report on what the President of the US says and does.

And you can tell they are "liberal" how, exactly?
They quack like a liberal. They make less sense to me than they can command.
Clinton is maybe a little to the right of Nixon, on a left/right scale,...
On planet Quack, but not here on Earth.

I'm to the left of Nixon. No way you can sell me on the intellect-suspending notion that Miss Hillary is to my right.
...and Obama seems more or less standard issue centrist in his actual views.
On planet Quack.

I'm a centrist. An Independent. Was a Dem, then a Repub. Hate inbreeders.

I'm a centrist by being stuck in the middle of a pool with no deep end.
Seems to me you simply label the Democratic candidates as "liberal" because they are Democratic candidates.
And what of Joe Lieberman?

Not liberal enough.

Too illiberal, but not Republican.

Thus are liberals easily recognized as liberals. Illiberals, even.
This may explain the disconnect between European views of American Pres candidates and American views: the vocabularies have diverged, and the political vocabulary in the US has been eroded, is threadbare.
No, the disconnect runs much deeper.

Euro's and American liberals know less than they imagine. Delusions of adequacy.

Clinton is maybe a little to the right of Nixon, on a left/right scale,... ”

On planet Quack, but not here on Earth.

I'm to the left of Nixon. No way you can sell me on the intellect-suspending notion that Miss Hillary is to my right. You are to the right of Nixon, and probably even somewhat to the right of Clinton, on planets that speak English with words of standard meaning.

You don't know what left/right means, on a political scale. Left is simply a pejorative, to you. You are right-wing authoritarian, and have confused the authoritarian part with right-wing ideology.
Hillary is a big time liberal best known for her failed attempt to nationalize health care (my profession). So it's interesting that what she is "best known for" is a misrepresentation, no? We are reminded of the fact that most of the people who voted for W against Kerry thought that W had Kerry's positions on most issues. Rove&Co are good at what they do.

Her health care plan was not an attempt at "nationalization" at all, as a quick read of it would show. The entire corporate, private, for profit organization of health care in the US was to remain in place - and receive government support.

It was a boondoggle, of course, but not a lefty one - a righty one.

Something similar to her health plan was recently proposed by W for Social Security - it was called "privatisation" until the marketing folks found out that word had acquired a bad smell. Another similar set up, not as overreaching, might be the current privatisation of the military.

"Liberal" has no meaning in the US, so Hilary might as well be called one. But "left" she is most definitely not.

You are to the right of Nixon, and probably even somewhat to the right of Clinton, on planets that speak English with words of standard meaning.
Funny standards you're whoring that place Miss Hillary to the right of Nixon. I think you're planet is in retrograde.
You don't know what left/right means, on a political scale. Left is simply a pejorative, to you. You are right-wing authoritarian, and have confused the authoritarian part with right-wing ideology.

Dude, everything is to the right of you. Even us atheist Independents.

Left is a perjorative meaning "delusions of adequacy".

"Liberal" has no meaning in the US, so Hilary might as well be called one. But "left" she is most definitely not.
OK. So who would you consider a leftist? Obama? Kucinich? Karl Marx? Engels? Lenin? Anyone?

OK. So who would you consider a leftist?
Someone who steps on a bear trap, chews off both arms and a leg, and discovers they're still trapped?