iain_inkster@hotmail.com (Iain) wrote in
news:6feb9a89.0411090408.5474794c@posting.google.com:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:<1099947003.GFXLJ9QQ+ruubyls0fEVhg@bubbanews>...

iain_inkster@hotmail.com (Iain) wrote in
news:6feb9a89.0411080545.46ea7ad9@posting.google.com:

"John P. Boatwright" <name@For-God.net> wrote in message
news:<418F141B.4239@For-God.net>...

Matty wrote:

Why on earth would I be jealous of the US, the epicentre of
everything plastic, anti-intellectual and uncultured?

You wish.

God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.

The impression Europeans get is that the United States is like Iraq
Mark II -- militaristic, overly religious, uneducated,
overreactionary, civilly dangerous, charmless, and gun obsessed, with
poor diplomacy, blinkered foreign policy and rudimentary form of
democracy.

Considering that the United States is the world's oldest democracy
(well, republic actually), it seems that it is the Europeans who are
uneducated.

It's not the oldest and not the first.

Old existing democracies:

- The British parliament was unified in 1707 (the U.S. constitution
aimed to emulate it so far as was desirable).

- The English parliament incorporated into the above was founded in
1265.

When the US Constitution was ratified, England was still ruled by a king.

- Iceland's parliament was established in 930 A.D.

Iceland's parliment was disbanded in 1800 (although it was reestablished 43
years later). Iceland only became independent in 1918 and the current
government was only established in 1944.

- The Manx parliament is over 1000 years old.

Former republics: England, Rome(federal republic), Holy Roman
Empire(lacked an propor monarch)

I was referring to those governments that still exist today.

The United States were founded 1776 as a "democracy", although no
women could vote, nor could slaves and other such characters.

The United States was founded as a republic. It never has been a democracy.

The impression Europeans get is that the United States is like Iraq

Mark II -- militaristic, overly religious, uneducated,

overreactionary, civilly dangerous, charmless, and gun obsessed, with

poor diplomacy, blinkered foreign policy and rudimentary form of
democracy.

On 2004-11-08 05:15:03 +1100, GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> said:

Matty wrote:

On 2004-11-07 15:31:00 +1100, GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> said:

Snit wrote:

"GreyCloud" <mist@cumulus.com> wrote in post
isadnVIfM4uyvhHcRVn-qA@bresnan.com on 11/5/04 6:07 PM:

And how many people think that Bush's attacks on his "Axis of
Evil" will not
lead to even more attacks on American soil?

My guess: within 10 years or so there will be another terrorist
attack on US
soil - one bigger than 9/11. I hope not... but Bush's policies
make it more
and more likely. One cannot run around the world killing
hundreds of
thousands of innocent people without their being some
repercussions.

No, no, you don't understand, according to the average American,
he is
appointed by god, and doing gods work! praise the lard!

One only needs to look at the ignorance of Americans in regards
to Islam
and the middle east - heck, the average American thinks that an
Iranian
is an Arab! I ***** you not. Joe Average in America is ignorance,
insulated and arrogant.

One thing I can say, atleast when the other empires existed, the
people
in side Britain, France and so forth weren't so ignorant not to know
that countries outside their borders exist.

What are you, some kind of retard?
You sound more like a dumb kiwi than anything else.

What part of the comments do you disagree with?

I've heard these same remarks from other foreign nationals. And I
always disagree with their snide remarks.

Because they're true, and you can't handle the reality?

Maybe it's because you are just jealous. It usually boils down to it.

Jealous of what? please, want to know where I would love to move to? to
the coast of Spain, a nice little villa on the coast, sunshine, the warm
salty air, the vast assortment of food, the culture and people in the area.

Why on earth would I be jealous of the US, the epicentre of everything
plastic, anti-intellectual and uncultured?

Matty wrote:

On 2004-11-04 16:39:45 +1100, Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> said:

"Matty" <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote in post

On 2004-11-04 15:44:16 +1100, Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> said:

"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in post
TJSdnfg889DwLxTcRVn-qg@comcast.com on 11/3/04 9:41 PM:

And I remember saying several months ago, Bush wouldn't lose based on the
fact
that American's will not change horses midstream.

What is scary is that Bush has overthrown two governments in 4 years... and
that was with an election he knew would come up. What will he do in the
next four?

Syria, North Korea and Iran are next on the target radar.

And how many people think that Bush's attacks on his "Axis of Evil" will not
lead to even more attacks on American soil?

My guess: within 10 years or so there will be another terrorist attack on US
soil - one bigger than 9/11. I hope not... but Bush's policies make it more
and more likely. One cannot run around the world killing hundreds of
thousands of innocent people without their being some repercussions.

No, no, you don't understand, according to the average American, he is
appointed by god, and doing gods work! praise the lard!

One only needs to look at the ignorance of Americans in regards to
Islam and the middle east - heck, the average American thinks that an
Iranian is an Arab! I ***** you not. Joe Average in America is
ignorance, insulated and arrogant.

One thing I can say, atleast when the other empires existed, the people
in side Britain, France and so forth weren't so ignorant not to know
that countries outside their borders exist.

What are you, some kind of retard?
You sound more like a dumb kiwi than anything else.

"Matty" <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au>

Syria, North Korea and Iran are next on the target radar.

And how many people think that Bush's attacks on his "Axis of Evil" will not
lead to even more attacks on American soil?

My guess: within 10 years or so there will be another terrorist attack on US
soil - one bigger than 9/11.

"Matty" <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote in post

On 2004-11-04 15:44:16 +1100, Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> said:

"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in post
TJSdnfg889DwLxTcRVn-qg@comcast.com on 11/3/04 9:41 PM:

And I remember saying several months ago, Bush wouldn't lose based on the
fact
that American's will not change horses midstream.

What is scary is that Bush has overthrown two governments in 4 years... and
that was with an election he knew would come up. What will he do in the
next four?

Syria, North Korea and Iran are next on the target radar.

And how many people think that Bush's attacks on his "Axis of Evil" will not
lead to even more attacks on American soil?

My guess: within 10 years or so there will be another terrorist attack on US
soil - one bigger than 9/11.

I hope not... but Bush's policies make it more
and more likely. One cannot run around the world killing hundreds of
thousands of innocent people without their being some repercussions.

Too bad he doesn't do everyone a favour and sort Saudi Arabia out once
and for all.

"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in post
TJSdnfg889DwLxTcRVn-qg@comcast.com on 11/3/04 9:41 PM:

Gore, made the mistake of trying to speak too intelligently. Giving
American's the perception that he was looking down on people. I do think that
Kerry made this mistake as well.

Nobody every blamed Bush for making that mistake. :)

"Snit" <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote in message
news:BDAEFE95.EC64%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID...

"Matty" <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote in post

On 2004-11-04 01:25:04 +1100, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> said:

Once again Democratic Voters have to ask themselves, "Was Bill Clinton
the kiss of death again?" If you are a hardcore political watcher like
myself then you would agree that coming out of the debates and the
media hyped weapons story, should have given John Kerry an edge, but in
the last days of the election, Kerry chose to campaign with Bill
Clinton in must win states and, except for Pennsylavia, Kerry lost
states that Bill Clinton campaigned in for him. Will hardcore Democrats
ever get the message that the Clinton Era is over and it is time to
move on to something else?

Well, there were a couple of good points raised by some politics
related reporters; the biggest one was how little one saw of Edwards -
had Edwards been allowed to do his magic with his sweet southern
accent, it would have bought in voters from all ends of the spectrum.

Edwards should have worked the conservative southern states, and John
working the more liberal northern.

The second problem, which I agree with, is that there is *very* little
that seperated Kerry and Bush in the end in regards to tbe big issues.
You could say that Kerry is a "Bush Light", without the religious
rhetoric.

As for Clinton, when you start wheeling out past politicians, you know
you're in trouble; if you can't stand on your own two feet and thus
require former politicians to come back from retirement, then you might
as well throw in the towel.

Another commentary that I heard, that makes a lot of sense, is that Bush
speaks to the emotional side of people, Kerry to the intellectual side, and
it is the emotional side that people are often most persuaded by.

This is what made Ronald Reagan so popular. Not only was he able to speak
on the intellectual side, he was able to use emotions as well. He made
people feel good
when he talked, people listened to Ronald Reagan. Whether you liked
him or not,
he was able to make people in this country feel good to be American's.

Gore, made the mistake of trying to speak too intelligently. Giving
American's the
perception that he was looking down on people. I do think that Kerry made
this mistake as well.

Before the right wingers jump in here and suggest I am saying that there was
no logic to Bush's goals, or no emotion to Kerry's speeches, that is not at
all what I am suggesting.

Maybe the first thing we need to do is drop the right winger, left
winger crap and lets
just stick with the issues. This campaign has been exhausing, ugly,
and divided this country.
It is time to mend the wounds, come together, and focus on the
issues..regardless of whether we
agree or not.

Kerry could have stated the same things he did, had the same positions, but
worded things differently. Talk about his passion for making the US a
better place, his burning desire to reduce the gross inequality of the rich
and the poor, etc... he may very well have won.

I would have preferred to have Kerry win, but Kerry is a very left brained
thinker... he does not express his emotions well. Bush does not share that
weakness.

There are a few factors that everyone needs to remember.

Now, before people stepped into the booth...I am sure many said who
they were going to vote for.
But once they stepped into that booth, things change. People think
differently, and they think
about just how serious their vote is.
Never in America's history has American's voted OUT a war time
president. This has never happened, and most likely never will.
American's are very reluctant to change horses midstream. So in a
sense, Kerry was defeated from the beginning, as any other challenger
probably was as well.

Another issue that has hurt the Democrats is the gay marriage issue.
Americans just are not ready to give up on the idea of marriage being
between a man and a woman. And I doubt we will see that change any
time soon.

The war and the gay marriage issue is what hurt John Kerry. That is my
opinion.

And I remember saying several months ago, Bush wouldn't lose based on
the fact that American's will not change horses midstream.