Thread: An article about China’s development on TIME magazine

Originally Posted by gunnut

Not everyone hates the US.

lol, you're both saying the same thing...

gunnut,

several things.

He'll go whichever way the political wind blows. Do you really want a friend like that?

have you ever seen pictures of clinton when he's out traveling (especially his post-presidential years)? he is given the rock-star treatment. and the locals mean it, too.

i think the distinct problem with bush (especially during his first administration) was that he tried very hard to be solely the leader of america. he did not try- and nor did he want to try, given as you say his distaste for int'l opinion- to lead the world. yet this was almost an abrogation of responsibility, because america's power is such that it almost has no choice. when it comes down to a war against global islamic fundamentalism, too, the deficiencies in such a method really show.

clinton's problems, on the other hand, was that he was so be-deviled with domestic issues (ranging from early hillary-care to congressional paralysis to finally the lewinsky scandal) that he ceased to be a truly effective leader of america. he turned his attention on the world. that, too, was an abrogation of responsibility. but i would have imagined a libertarian like you to be a-okay without the gov't intervening in domestic affairs, no? kidding.

half the world's media is driven by the west. Half the west's media is driven by the US. Over 90% of the US media, especially the NY Times, LA Times, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and especially Comedy Central are firmly in the anti-Bush camp. You think that doesn't have any effect at all on the perception of the world? I can bet that if our media supported the war and broadcast to the world the good things we're doing in Iraq and how Bush didn't lie, we wouldn't have half the problems we have right now.

well, we've gone over this issue in the past. here's something new, though: in the beginning of the war, the media was most certainly rah-rah for it. remember the embedded reporters? half of them were dizzy with excitement that they were participating in it. reporting neutrality went out the window- suddenly they were OUR boys, and the local news media from LA to DC were showing spots on how americans were whole-heartedly for the troops, donating money, spending time with the families back home, et al.

well, i don't need to tell you that despite all this, the war was never popular overseas, either with the people there or the foreign media.

Now he can because we have bigger fish to fry.

actually the US has taken quite some effort to reduce his influence, both in venezuela and in the surrounding countries. every time the US has done so, the results have backfired. every time the US shut up, chavez and his policies were repudiated. this shows that both perceptions of bush and america in the region are, shall we say, not very high.

But the "peace dividend" kicked in and all the hippies wanted to axe the military and spend that money on welfare. So there you have it. A reduced military without a focus for 10 years, now spread thin because we're facing a decentralized threat.

hippies like bush I, eh?

all in all, i think you're assigning far too much power to the hippies and the liberals when it comes down to screwing up america , considering that most of america considers herself conservative in nature. even clinton was a reflection of this, given how his policies would have been considered die-hard conservative by the democratic party of the, oh, 30s-80s.

Originally Posted by astralis

all in all, i think you're assigning far too much power to the hippies and the liberals when it comes down to screwing up america

Impossible!!! Hippies and liberals can't begin to get enough blame.

Originally Posted by astralis

considering that most of america considers herself conservative in nature. even clinton was a reflection of this, given how his policies would have been considered die-hard conservative by the democratic party of the, oh, 30s-80s.

I wouldn't say from the 30s to the early 60s. America was quite conservative back then. Far more than today. Remember the McCarthy witch hunt? We couldn't show Lucy and Desy sharing the same bed in their own bedroom? Reporters voluntarily refrained from showing FDR as a cripple?

Hippie movement in the 60s changed all that.

gunnut,

I wouldn't say from the 30s to the early 60s. America was quite conservative back then. Far more than today. Remember the McCarthy witch hunt? We couldn't show Lucy and Desy sharing the same bed in their own bedroom? Reporters voluntarily refrained from showing FDR as a cripple?

Hippie movement in the 60s changed all that.

oh, i was referring more to the economics side of the equation, not so much the social side (besides, i wouldn't have exactly used pres. clinton as an example of social conservatism, given his, ah, hobbies at the white house ).

given that the power of the labor unions was far stronger back in the day, the policies which the democrats proposed (and more than a few republicans went along with) would be considered socialist today. but that was the times- for better or worse, people trusted the government a lot, lot more back then.