Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
@Sweden,
OK, so you've chosen not to explain your contention that Europeans have a more "nuanced view of the USA" than we do of Europe. You've also chosen not to explain why (in your previous posts) you speak for the entire world (minus the USA).
Finally, you refused to consider the idea that both sides of the Atlantic have an equally distorted view of one another. You're right, we can't agree to disagree because you refuse to even consider this compromise position put forward. Such nuance!
If the discussion was about our different points of views, then I would discuss it. I have tried before, and I have actually explained my takes on those subjects.
There is no longer a discussion going on here. It is all about trying to put the other poster down right now, and I feel no interest in engaging in such "discussions". If we could discuss the matters civil and without addressing each others as persons, but our opinions, then it would be another thing. There is too much fristration going on, based on the name calling etc, and I think it would be good if we took a time out from each others in order to calm down and start seeing the matters more clearly, instead of just as "I must find something to disagree with him/her".
Let's have a time out, and we can discuss the matters later on with fresh eyes.
During the 2004 election, I told my Bush-hating friends, "If he gets elected this time, we are screwed, because the rest of the world will never understand why we let it happen TWICE."
I just KNEW that the majority of Americans had figured out that he is bat**** insane.
Unfortunately, they needed about 6 more months to come to that conclusion. Too bad, that - had the 2004 election been held about 6 months later, Bush probably would have lost. Well, assuming his Repub cronies wouldn't have stepped in and stole the election for him like they did in 2000.
I didn't vote for him then, didn't vote for him in 2004, and am counting the minutes until we get rid of him. And speaking of that - fellow Americans, please do us all a giant favor and DO NOT vote for Rudy Guliani. He is just as bad as Bush.
This is an interesting topic to me, something I've thought about repeatedly. The short answer to the original question, IMO, is yes. Hopefully, we'll have a good outcome in 2008 and that can change.
Why should one care about generalizations that individuals living thousands of miles away think of you?
You should care more about the judgments that people form about you after you've engaged them in one-on-one conversation.
Unfortunately, politics spreding faster, than one can reach conversation tet-a-tet with somebody from another country.
I would say yes, President presents his country around the world, but it doesn't mean, that everybody are thinking, that Bush is bad. Some folks overseas really like him.
Me personaly - I like more democrats, but trying to stay out of politics at all.
I voted a very positive NO in the poll..I much prefer to base my opinion on someone like Alice Cooper..He`s been a bit of a boy in his time and he enjoys golf..What`s there to dislike about the guy!!!
I have to say yes. You voted him in -- twice. Rhetoric aside, actions speak louder than words. He's disregard for diversity and drive to "americanize" any country that is on his hit list has been part of his agenda since 2001. Why would we not form our opinions of the citizenry when he was re-elected!
I have two problems with people who base their opinions of an entire population on the elected head of government. One: just because a majority of voters voted him/her in, doesn't mean a majority of the population supports him. Many democracies have pathetic voter turnout. Two: leaders don't always act the way their supporters hoped when they voted.
Bush was elected by 25% of eligible voters. Hardly a majority of Americans I'd say. I was one of the 25%, but Bush has done things that make me think I should've thrown my vote away to the Libertarian party. At least Badnarik would've stuck to his supporters' requests. I voted for Bush in the hopes that he would do a better job in Iraq than Kerry's idea of cut and run. We already abandoned Iraq in 1991; I didn't want to abandon Iraq a second time just because things weren't going well a year into a war.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
