International Reaction to US Election

[Gatekeeper]

Arrian:

I might go independent, since the Republican Party isn't very recognizable anymore and the Democrats aren't much better. Then again, I might remain an official Republican, simply because there *are* moderate GOP senators, and I'm banking on them to rein in the more reactionary elements of the party.

All people have good ideas, but it just seems anymore nowadays that one is forced to pick one side over the other, rather than combining the *best* of what both (or more) sides have to offer. Why is compromise such a bad thing anymore? God! It's how one governs diverse nations and planets!

Gatekeeper

[TheBirdMan]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
I didn't vote for Bush. I'm a bad Republican. I'm also a rare, dying breed of Republican — a social moderate and fiscal conservative. I despise what the Republican Party has become — socially reactionary and fiscally irresponsible to the nth degree.

That said, I also despise some of the crap I hear coming out Europe and other parts of the world. Hey, folks, I did my part and voted for the men and women who I thought would be the best for my nation. Some won, but most lost. That's goddamn life. Don't use it as an excuse to condemn every "Red State" American or every Republican because a good number of Democrats crossed the party line as well, and voted for Bush or some other reactionary-type Republican.

Insofar as I'm concerned, America isn't the only nation growing more reactionary. The nations of Europe and Latin America are following the same path, albeit with a different label. The Middle East? Hell, they've been reactionary ever since Genghis Khan ruined their golden age. And if nations growing more reactive isn't enough, then you've got a fair number of amoral trans-national corporations edging onto the playing field and doing their bit of schtick for a buck, a euro, a pound, a yen and so on, regardless of the long-term cost to humanity or the world upon which we live.

In other words, folks, the reactionaries are taking over the planet, not just America. Some of us just can't face that reality yet. The moderates like me? We're history. We're a dying breed. This world is no longer our world. Enjoy it, reactionaries. You earned it. I'm just hoping enough moderates survive the insanity to eventually rebuild what's left after the reactionaries are done bringing down everything that was good.

Heh. Yeah, I'm just a bit jaded about humanity right now. Just a teensy, tiny bit. It doesn't show, does it?

Gatekeeper

You have my respect!

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Kidicious
The problem with America is all the damn rednecks and Christians. America sucks ass!

USA was created by 3 kinds of people:

1) The ultra-religious lunatics who were expelled from Europe
2) The losers who could not make their fortune on the home front
3) The over-greedy people who thought being the richest in their town was not enough

All of those are still around

[imacowmoo 3-:-o]

I didn't vote for Bush. I'm a bad Republican. I'm also a rare, dying breed of Republican — a social moderate and fiscal conservative. I despise what the Republican Party has become — socially reactionary and fiscally irresponsible to the nth degree.

The party is better off without the spineless. You must be sure of your decisons when you make them and stick by them. There is no 20/20 hindsight. No monday morning Quarterbacking.

This is a new world. A new era. We are either with our leader or against him. There is no middle ground. If you take the middle ground and claim to be a 'victim of the times' you will be pelted and labeled what you are, a traitor.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
Arrian:

I might go independent, since the Republican Party isn't very recognizable anymore and the Democrats aren't much better. Then again, I might remain an official Republican, simply because there *are* moderate GOP senators, and I'm banking on them to rein in the more reactionary elements of the party.

All people have good ideas, but it just seems anymore nowadays that one is forced to pick one side over the other, rather than combining the *best* of what both (or more) sides have to offer. Why is compromise such a bad thing anymore? God! It's how one governs diverse nations and planets!

Gatekeeper

Compromise is regarded as the absence of conviction. I think that's bs too, but lots of people don't see it that way.

I guess working from within is one way... but then again perhaps it's those moderate GOPers that give the GOP its veneer of respectability.

I don't know.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Originally posted by imacowmoo 3-:-o


The party is better off without the spineless. You must be sure of your decisons when you make them and stick by them. There is no 20/20 hindsight. No monday morning Quarterbacking.

This is a new world. A new era. We are either with our leader or against him. There is no middle ground. If you take the middle ground and claim to be a 'victim of the times' you will be pelted and labeled what you are, a traitor.

You disgust me.

-Arrian

[WotanAnubis]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Its interesting (and typical) that you left off the first part of my statement. Perhaps if you read it again (a few times) you'll understand it (in context this time).

The first part being

"Most of the EU crowd whine about american intervention without UN (i.e. european) approval."

And then you go make the whole Nazi thing. Odd, really. I mean, of course you aided the British without UN approval. There was no UN! Now, granted, it was the American president of the time who pushed for the formation of an international body with any actual influence. But, then again, he also pushed for involvement in the war long before the rest of the populace really felt up for it.

Then again, Britain asked for aid from the US, because Hitler had already broken treaties left and right and was happily taking over Europe. Hitler was what one might call, the one to launch the pre-emptive war without a lot of people agreeing with him.
And now we're complaining about Bush launching a pre-emptive war when a lot of other countries wanted to wait until some actual factual results came in.
Oh blast, compared Bush to Hitler didn't I? Well, I lost that argument.

Moving on:

Based upon your statement of canadians jumping to the aid of the allies, you also seem to have no knowledges or understanding of Canadian history. As for canadians who have made statements similar to the one I made that you took out of context, I know a number of canadian WWII vets, including my step-father, who mentioned many times how the canadians saved the brits.

Quite right. I know nothing about Canadian history, other than it's been influenced a lot by both France and England. If it still acknowledges the English Queen as monarch, then you're quite right and Canada didn't selflessly jumped into the war, but out of a sense of duty towards their allies. And if Hitler declared war on them first he probably viewed Canada as the bigger threat.

As for the WWII vets making that kind of statements, well, they have a right. They actually fought and bled. But nobody who's been born afterwards is allowed to utter such ludicrousy.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by Arrian


You disgust me.

-Arrian

How the heck is that going to "bring us together?"



Militant Partisian!!

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie


USA was created by 3 kinds of people:

1) The ultra-religious lunatics who were expelled from Europe
2) The losers who could not make their fortune on the home front
3) The over-greedy people who thought being the richest in their town was not enough

All of those are still around

Yes! We need to EMBRACE our heritage, yea lets us even wallow around in it for awhile......

[Arrian]

@ Farb.

Brought to us by the Truth-O-Meter (tm), no doubt.



-Arrian

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Treasure Bath! I'm going to take a Treasure Bath!

EDIT: I really do need to dust off the TruthOmeter, I could most likely have a field day with that thing around here.

[imacowmoo 3-:-o]

Originally posted by Arrian


You disgust me.

-Arrian

\


tr.v. vic·tim·ized, vic·tim·iz·ing, vic·tim·iz·es

1. To subject to swindle or fraud.
2. To make a victim of.

victim·i·zation (-t-m-zshn) n.
victim·izer n..

Victimization

n 1: adversity resulting from being made a victim; "his victimization infuriated him" 2: an act that exploits or victimizes someone (treats them unfairly); "capitalistic exploitation of the working class"; "paying Blacks less and charging them more is a form of victimization" [syn: exploitation, victimisation, using]

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by Oerdin


He's not a foreigner? When was Canada annexed?

Didn't you get the memo?

[Arrian]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
Treasure Bath! I'm going to take a Treasure Bath!

WASH THIS!

-Arrian

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by imacowmoo 3-:-o


The party is better off without the spineless. You must be sure of your decisons when you make them and stick by them. There is no 20/20 hindsight. No monday morning Quarterbacking.

This is a new world. A new era. We are either with our leader or against him. There is no middle ground. If you take the middle ground and claim to be a 'victim of the times' you will be pelted and labeled what you are, a traitor.

Four words: Go to HELL, newbie.

[alva]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie


USA was created by 3 kinds of people:

1) The ultra-religious lunatics who were expelled from Europe
2) The losers who could not make their fortune on the home front
3) The over-greedy people who thought being the richest in their town was not enough

All of those are still around

You forgot about the criminals, the real ones, not the innocents they shipped to paradise Australia. :consipire: