³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

William, another "subtle" attempt to equate voting for John McCain with racism.

For the vast majority of people who will not vote for Obama, race has nothing to do with it. They will vote against him because he is the most extreme pro-abortionist ever to stand for the presidency, or because he befriends people who hate America, or because he has no leadership experience, or because he has Joe Biden as his running mate (a good way to ensure no one assassinates him cos who would want Joe) or because the Clinton democrats caused the economic collapse with their support for sub-prime mortgages, or because he thinks religious people are all rednecks and hill billies.

There is a long list of reasons for voting against Obama before racism appears.

By the way, William, was watching a repeat of an interview you did with someone - do you have a tiny head and a normal body, or a huge body and a normal head?

Is there any call for that?

I agree that there are many issues other than race, but the race issue is still there...perhaps us Europeans are too prompt to introduce it, but there's no point pretending it doesn't exist either

The nice thing about anti-Americanism is that we will feel far less guilty in the future when people around the world need our help desparetely and we don't give it to them anymore. There will be a certain sense of smug satisfaction in that. I'll bet there is hardly an American who cares that Europe is caught up in the economic disaster which was born in the USA and has made in America stamped all over it. Americans are not beyond schadenfreude.

Anti-Americanism among foreigners and especially among Europeans dates back to the beginning of the Republic. It's nothing new. It's just that we hear about it more and there is going to be a strong backlash against it by Americans. For some in foreign countries, there may be hell to pay when America's ire is aroused instead of its sympathy.

Cal Thomas is right about Sarah Palin. This investigation means nothing. It will not affect a single vote one way or the other IMO.

meh, people like yourself, Marcus, are quite happy with international anti-americanism, i'd warrant, as it lends fuel to your constant jingoism and isolationism.

Personally, I'm quite a fan of all things American. Motown springs to mind. But then, you probably didn't like that at the time.

:)

SL
Calm down. Your getting a little hysterical over the US election. I don't think we get to decide the outcome, so maybe we should be a little Stoical?
Unless your an American postal voter I suppose. But that doesn't really put you in a swing constituency.
Maybe you should consider Buddhism until the whole thing blows over?

GV

Bernards_Insight

It never surprises me that foreigners focus on the most superficial aspects of America such as our pop culture of the moment. How about being admiring or jealous of something really valuable such as our Constitution. This is one important factor that separates the USA from the rest of the world. Compared to America's Constitution, the EU's is a joke. Like someone who saw a 747 and copied it by carving it out of stone and then expecting it to fly. I have yet to see someone born outside the US who actually had a grasp of what it is about, even so called professionals and scholars. Certainly not the average European. I'm sure we know more about you than you know about us. Perhaps that explains our disinterest in Europe.

Yes, very good.

I love loads of american things. Mostly soul music. And it's not really "of the moment", like.

There are things to be said for not having a constitution too, of course, but you're probably not interested. the EU's constitution is probably a joke because the populations of a lot of its member states dont want there to be a constitution at all.
And of course, it doesn't have one. Perhaps that also defies your arrogance, maybe not.

:)

smasher where is race even mentioned in this post? You are delusional. I also see that your much vaunted religion hasn't done much to make you a nicer person given the nastiness of your personal attacks. You're an argument for humanism. And that's saying something!

Ha, to turn that round and play Devil's advocate, Augustine, where is religion even mentioned in this post?

:)

Not having a written down constitution that can be argued, amended, used to test what is legal and what is not by an independent court allows Gordon Brown to sign away more of Britain's sovereignty with the stroke of a pen on the Lisbon treaty without even so much as putting it to a vote of his rubber stamp parliament. There's one advantage for you Bernards_Insight, having a dictatorship and pretending it is a democracy.

I wasn't responding to the post Bernard ... I was responding to smashers comment. ha ha

Cue Brian McClinton's hackneyed views on why America really DOES deserve its anti- sentiment. Cue more offputting arrogance from Marcus. Cue my wishing more people could be honest about what America is and is not, and my patriotism and love for a country I've only lived in for 4 years for the very reasons that make it 'American.'

I don't know, guys, the 'debate' continues and yet I think you either 'get' American culture or you don't. If you don't, there's not much chance you and I would get along very well.

"Cue more offputting arrogance from Marcus."

I have to maintain the stereotype. It's my patriotic duty. It's a tough job but someone has to do it.

Funny how Europeans are cozying up to the US now that they suddenly have the Russian bear to worry about again. He's out of hibernation and hunting for raw meat to devour. Today Abkhazia and South Ossetia, tomorrow the Crimea, and who knows maybe one day half of Poland or Latvia. Now would be a perfect time for the US to tell they Europeans that they either start pulling their fair share of the weight in Afghanistan or we pull out of NATO. Europeans don't like it when Americans become anti-European, do they Mr. Wright? We know they're to blame, Well ain't that a shame, Bill Bailey your chickens have all come home to roost.

Mark- You know I agree with you on that. Europeans who display anti-American attitudes do so because of cultural snobbery, classic envy, national pride and - on a small minority of occasions - a serious critique of U.S. foreign policy or capitalism. (And it's worthwhile pointing out that Americans debate US foreign policy more than Europeans do.)

Europeans have been angry since the colonists rebelled, that Americans had the audacity to think they could survive on their own without Europe's guidance and help. And they've been telling Americans how to run their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor ever since. And Americans have been ignoring them ever since. And America will continue to ignore Europe forever. This only makes Europeans angrier...except when they want something and come knocking on America's door.

Let's not forget that the ancestors of most Americans were the dregs of the societies they left, whether in Europe, in Latin America, in the orient, or as slaves brought over from Africa. The first colonists were often intentured servants, criminals, people in debtor's prisons. We are the fruit of bad seed. How sweet it is. The children and grandchildren of the Mexican peasants and stowaways from China who come to pick fruit or work in sweat shops will be the PHDs, the industrial leaders, the scientists, engineers, doctors, of tomorrow in America. These are what the rest of the world has rejected. How fitting that America should leave the rest of the world in the dust and I'm not just talking economically. Don't think so? Just look at last week's Have Your Say threads about the Roma. We used to talk about African Americans like Europeans talk about Roma today only a few generations ago. When will the EU or any of its member nations have a Roma as its leader? The very thought of it would be unacceptable and unthinkable to most Europeans I'll bet. And the Roma are hardly alone in that.

Smasher

Post 2 was out of line.


Marcus

Maybe the reason so many Irish Europeans are anti-America is that we have achieved so much here; I mean, Ireland is so wonderful none of us have ever wanted to go Stateside...

Trouble is, sometimes I have a hard time remembering just what it is we have achieved.

Oh, I know, we're friendly... then again... maybe not!

Oh yes, we have the largest giant made causeway in the world... wonderful feat of engineering, beats the Hover Dam, hands down.

And we have a lot of grass too.

Impressed? No, thought not.

BTW the best Northern Ireland put down from an American I have ever read... oh yes, I know where you live, "a regionally autonomous fraction of a European island ruled by a former empire with a population comparable to West Virginia and a land area on a par with Hawaii."

The republicans will bullshit there way out of trooper gate affair.

Also notice that no one now is talking about the lies that Sarah Palin uttered about the Bridge to nowhere?


Ahh the world waits with baited breath come the election.

Hey Graham and the other theologically minded I have a little blog post you might be interested in.

Remember our little scrap over Dawkins and God a while back? Accusing us good and innocent atheists of moral relativism well I have tackled the issue



Hey it’s a shameless plug but what the hell I’m looking for critics if anyone wants to have a slash at it your more than welcome.

Best.

Mike

In post 11 Marcus calls the UK parliament a rubber stamp for Gordon Brown. Does he have any clue how difficult Gordon Brown finds it to get anything passed these days?

petermorrow; one wonderful thing Ireland created...a potato famine. That's why millions of Irish left Ireland for the US. How lucky we were. Many of our best police are of Irish decent...and many of our crookedest politicians too. I think about 40 million Americans have at least some Irish bloodlines in their past.

PeterKlaver; the way I understand it, if Parliament does not vote for an important law the PM wants, the government falls and new elections have to be held. Did I miss something about Parliamentary systems, no separation of power between the Executive and Legislative branches of government?

Graham - we are discussing the US election - that's what the post is about.

Augustine - the second paragraph is about race - can you not read.

And what nasty personal things am I being accused of? You don't mean the questions about William's tiny head? I think he can cope with it.

Marcus - PM would really have to lose a vote of confidence for it to be automatic and no necessity for an election. Remember - British PM is appointed by the monarch - with no vote, even of nomination, by parliament. And in fact Sir Alec Douglas Home became PM while in the Lords and for two weeks after he renounced his peerage was a member neither of the Lords or Commons.

Marcus,

"PeterKlaver; the way I understand it, if Parliament does not vote for an important law the PM wants, the government falls and new elections have to be held."

Yes you did miss something. If the PM can't get laws passed, the government doesn't fall automatically. Especially if the party in power is unpopular and backbenchers are worried they would lose their seats in an election. Governments a la John Majors in the 90s just stumble on until their period in office is up and the rules say there has to be an election.

Marcus: "The nice thing about anti-Americanism is that we will feel far less guilty in the future when people around the world need our help desparetely and we
don't give it to them anymore."
The tone of your comments suggests to me that you're not the sort of person to give anyone any help anyway. Luckily you don't seem to be representative of your nation.

john_Wright: "And it's worthwhile pointing out that Americans debate US foreign policy more than Europeans do" - are you sure of that? seems to me that the recent outstanding success of US foreign policy would suggest more internal debate would be a good thing.

Marcus: "the way I understand it...." seems like you dont understand it. of course I wouldn't be so arrogant as to state that I'm yet to see a single non-British person who understands our political system.

Peterklaver: "Governments a la John Majors in the 90s just stumble on until their period in office is up " or like Bush now? In fact stumbling would be rather too kind....

to go back to the original blog.....there is a lot of anti-US feeling in Europe (and other parts of the world) some justified, some not.
A lot of people just like to have someone else to blame and the US is an obvious target, and these feelings are made a whole lot easier when there's someone like the current President in charge.
We also tend to forget much of the good that the US has done in the last 100 years.

Regarding the Palin issue, it seems to be part of a much wider global trend where people are much less interested in the facts and policies regarding politicians and tend to focus on their 'character'. Watching the recent US political debates I couldn't believe that various commentators thought the results to be generally even, citing the strong characters of Palin/McCain, as counterbalancing the intelligence and policies of Obama.

What policies of Obama would they be? Announcing withdrawal dates from Iraq; meeting any foreign despot without preconditions; abortion and gay marriage.

Seems to me I understand enough about the British political system to know that when the PM is forced to go or even face re-election, he decides on when. Shall I step down this year or next? What month? Why day? Which would be best for my party? You don't even vote for a PM, you vote for a Party and they decide who the PM will be. Then the Queens rubber stamps him (or her) if she knows what's good for her and that's it. Don't give me a lot of nonsense about how in the US we don't vote for President we vote for committed electors to the electoral college, that's not the same as in Britain.

The US remains the world's only super power. I always felt the US should use it's economic power as a weapon to punish its enemies and it does to a degree in places like Cuba and North Korea but I felt it could and should do much more. It could easily have pressured any vote it wanted in the UN Security Council for example with threats of economic sanctions even against France, Germany, Russia and China had it wanted to. The usual problem was not that it couldn't bankrupt any country it chose deliberately, it was that it might do it inadvertently. And that seems to be exactly what it has done in the current financial crisis, bankrupted the entire world including itself without even realizing it.

For decades, the US taxpayer has spent trillions to defend Europe in two hot World Wars and in a cold world war. Not only doesn't Europe acknowledge the decisive role the US played in all three of them, it sneers at the US for not being able to afford the social safety nets including univeral health insurance its own one sided favorable relationship with the US has allowed it the luxury of and takes for granted. Personally, I'd like to see the US government tell the EU either it starts pulling its weight in places like Afghanistan and Iraq or the US pulls out of NATO and brings all troops back from Europe, closing all its military bases. Europe no longer faces the threat of international communism whose ideology gave false hope to billions willing to fight but a nationistic Russia bent on a Eurasian empire. Let Europe fight this battle itself with its own money and then we'll see how smug it is. Perhaps that and some trade protectionism will be Obama's policy if he becomes President. It seems to be his rhetoric whether anyone is listening and paying attention to what he says or not.

"The US remains the world's only super power"

Er, China....Russia....

Looks increasingly like the US Government is going to have to bend the knee to China, given that they're already well in hock to them, and need even more of a bail out. China is the biggest buyer of US government stocks at the minute, and it is now, beyond doubt, a super power.

I reckon we're likely to see a massive shift in global power, very soon, and it won't be in favour of the US.

Marcus,

"Seems to me I understand enough about the British political system to know that when the PM is forced to go or even face re-election, he decides on when. Shall I step down this year or next? What month? Why day? Which would be best for my party? You don't even vote for a PM, you vote for a Party and they decide who the PM will be."

Now there's one grand diversion from the point you were called out over (you saying Parliament is the PMs rubber stamp). Not answering the original criticism, going into other issues instead.

Congrats Marcus, it's a diversion that would even make PB proud.

Bernards_Insight

Yes the US is the only one. Always was since 1945. Russia still has the power to blow up the world and can freeze Europe out by cutting off its gas aind oil. Always could. That doesn't make it a superpower. For example, its consumer goods production during the cold war was about equal to Singapore's.

The US government owes China around a trillion dollars. That's equal to about three weeks of its GDP. Compared to the proportions of the current financial crisis, that's not so large. Also repatriation of profits by American owned businesses from China shown in GNP but not GDP is of a similar order of magnitude. It's not the huge problem it first appears to be. China is not a superpower either.

Peterklaver: "Not answering the original criticism, going into other issues instead." - I'm campaigning to have this tactic recognised as the MarcusManoeuvre, he uses it often. I'd get ready for a rant about bullfighting or the Age of Empire series.

Smasher-lagru "Announcing withdrawal dates from Iraq; meeting any foreign despot without preconditions; abortion and gay marriage." Yep, these would be some of the policies, though with the exception of talking to the Iranians, all relatively minor issues. All i heard from the other side were scare stories.

Marcus, "For example, its consumer goods production during the cold war was about equal to Singapore's." You rather missed the point about the old USSR it seems. Now I'm not saying it was a success, but at the time I don't recall anyone saying they weren't a superpower just because they weren't producing dishwashers at the same rate as the US. It was more to do with global influence and the ability to destroy the world with nuclear weapons.

It is true that the USSR had in some ways comparable military capabilities to the US but in many other very important ways they were not even remotely in the same league. For entirely different reasons, it was in both the Soviet's and America's interest to pretend that the gap between them was much narrower than it actually was. Just as one example, in the 74 years of its existance the Soviet Union did not produce even one signifigant scientific or technological breakthrough in any important field of human endeavor while America produced countless thousands of them.

Marcus, I'm no fan of the USSR and take the point that at least by the end of the Cold War they were way behind the US in the fields you mention.

Of course the USSR produced scientific and technological breakthroughs, so why insist on using this kind of crass, oversimplified language? I used to think it was to provoke a repsonse, I'm fast learning that it might be all that you understand.

This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain.

PeterKlaver, re PB, Oh dear, Marcus really will have to try harder if he's to compete with this guy. His offensive rants are at least sometimes amusing and occasionally make sense.

paulcrossleyii

Can you name even one invention or breakthrough the USSR innovated? One drug or medical procedure? One electronic device or system? Before you say Sputnik, first of all it was said at one point by the Soviet's I think when America finally landed on the moon that the US had better German rocket scientists than they had. Also we now know that on specific orders of President Eisenhower, the US was not to launch the first satellite into orbit because the legality of flying over someone else's territory had not been established. Once Sputnik was up, it was clear that outer space would be open to everyone. This allowed Eisenhower to do what he wanted to all along, launch spy satellites over the USSR with impunity because their legality would not be challenged. This was his response to the U-2 fiasco having undergone development for years.

Virtually every technology the Soviets had was either stolen from someone else, usually the US or an embellishment of what had been stolen. Their best technologies were in military hardware. When American generals and admiral complained about their military hardware in the 80s, the Reagan? administration asked them which competitive Soviet hardware or system they'd trade for. They couldn't think of one. When a Mig 29 Foxbat was finally captured from a defector pilot who landed it in Japan and was examined by American experts, what had been thought to be a super fighter turned out to be a piece of junk, mostly a gas tank and engines. They never had the sophisticated avionics American fighter jets had. They were decades behind in every way. This was just one measure of their inferiority as a viable competitor to the US. Had the US admitted this, the effort needed to challenge and defeat them might never have been made.

Flipping heck Marcus, your "My country is better than your country" spiel gets very tiresome very quickly.

I can only hope you personally have made a massive contribution to all of these great American innovations, otherwise you're just riding on the back of great men by virtue of sharing a federal government with them.

I.E. what exactly do all these achievements have to do with YOU?

What have YOU got to be proud of?>

:)

Actually, don't answer that, it's tongue in cheek, I'm sure you have lots to be proud of. Maybe you make fighter jets...

I never thought I'd use the term "lol", but seriously, LOL. :) :)

Marcus, since essentially I actually agree with you - the Communist sysem stifled invention and kept it within it's own borders - this is somewhat pointless, but ok, one word:

Termenvox.

There now, I answered a question, not hard was it?

Bernards_Insight;

Actually I have one United States Patent and I'm working on four others. The right to profit from one's own enterprise, sacrifice of time effort and money, and the exclusive right for a time to the profits from one's inventive ingenuity is one of the reasons capitalism succeeds and socialism fails.

paulcrossleyii, where would the world be without the theremin. Why no home should be without one.

Marcus;

I agree with you. And well done on the patent (whatever it's for).

I'm just trying to tell you that jingoism is very un-edifying. There are good and bad in all countries and systems of government.

I'm not for Stalinist Socialism either. But then, I'm quite happy to be Irish and not American.

This is a silly discussion. But carry on.

Bernarnds_Insight;

"I'm not for Stalinist Socialism either. But then, I'm quite happy to be Irish and not American."

You and me both.