Guns, Guns Guns

I must confess that I was being mischievous when I mentioned Palin in order to fire up her number one fan. Being an outsider I don't have much of substance to contribute regarding the relative worth of alternative US presidents, past, current, or potential, so I'll just mention some external impressions.
Obama is more acceptable to the developed world because he appears to share some common values with us, but being a politician that may all be for show anyway. GWB was generally feared because the international media was always publishing some footage that appeared to show him being limited intellectually, and we expected him to do something that was so dumb it would affect us. There was a general belief that Rumsfeld and Cheney were the puppet masters, and they did not have any redeeming values.
We generally liked Clinton, and were puzzled by all the criticism of his infidelities. As they saying went, he betrayed his wife not his country, so it was no one else's business, ditto for Kennedy. A few of our PMs have strayed and each time their ratings rose.
Reagan was well liked but there were similar fears about his capacity to avoid disaster as with GBW, turned out he was successful in a number of ways.

Thank You for the Thoughtful post.

G W Bush was easily portrayed as stupid by the media because of his mild Texas accent. However; G W Bush had a degree in economics and an Masters of Business from Harvard.
While in the Texas Air National Guard he was a certified fighter pilot. I can't recall exactly which fighter G W flew but it was one of those nasty little bitches in the century series that often killed pilots. Meanwhile; Obama was a pot head member of the Ghanja Gang at the Punahoe School.

Ronald Reagan also had a degree in economics. Reagan slew the inflation dragon and also threw the Soviet Empire on the ash heap of history. Hardly stupid.

Palin has degrees in journalism and political science from a college that admittedly was not top tier. However; unlike Obama whose mom was a Vice President of the Bank of Hawaii and got all types of race based scholarships after graduating from the prestigious Punaho School, she had to work to put herself through college.
One valid criticism of Palin is that her voice sounds a bit like fingernails on a chalk board.

I disliked Clinton because his chronic mendacity went far beyond sex, but compared to Obama, he was a competent President. Rather than impeach him, I would have just published the Paula Jones affidavit concerning the distinguishing characteristic.

I guess what bothers me is foreigners presuming that they are entitled to levy so much criticism of the US President, especially if they are conservative. How many Americans critized Girard? (I confess that I did not notice much about her except that she had a nice rack.) You are not citizens, so your opinion is irrelevant.

Daryl wrote:I must confess that I was being mischievous when I mentioned Palin in order to fire up her number one fan. Being an outsider I don't have much of substance to contribute regarding the relative worth of alternative US presidents, past, current, or potential, so I'll just mention some external impressions.
Obama is more acceptable to the developed world because he appears to share some common values with us, but being a politician that may all be for show anyway. GWB was generally feared because the international media was always publishing some footage that appeared to show him being limited intellectually, and we expected him to do something that was so dumb it would affect us. There was a general belief that Rumsfeld and Cheney were the puppet masters, and they did not have any redeeming values.
We generally liked Clinton, and were puzzled by all the criticism of his infidelities. As they saying went, he betrayed his wife not his country, so it was no one else's business, ditto for Kennedy. A few of our PMs have strayed and each time their ratings rose.
Reagan was well liked but there were similar fears about his capacity to avoid disaster as with GBW, turned out he was successful in a number of ways.

This is a discussion forum focusing on politics. I expect opinions on Presidents and many other topics. Those opinions might by irrelevant in US elections but are hardly irrelevant in this forum. They might be mistaken or misguided but are relevant to this forum.

namelessfly wrote:Thank You for the Thoughtful post.

G W Bush was easily portrayed as stupid by the media because of his mild Texas accent. However; G W Bush had a degree in economics and an Masters of Business from Harvard.
While in the Texas Air National Guard he was a certified fighter pilot. I can't recall exactly which fighter G W flew but it was one of those nasty little bitches in the century series that often killed pilots. Meanwhile; Obama was a pot head member of the Ghanja Gang at the Punahoe School.

Ronald Reagan also had a degree in economics. Reagan slew the inflation dragon and also threw the Soviet Empire on the ash heap of history. Hardly stupid.

Palin has degrees in journalism and political science from a college that admittedly was not top tier. However; unlike Obama whose mom was a Vice President of the Bank of Hawaii and got all types of race based scholarships after graduating from the prestigious Punaho School, she had to work to put herself through college.
One valid criticism of Palin is that her voice sounds a bit like fingernails on a chalk board.

I disliked Clinton because his chronic mendacity went far beyond sex, but compared to Obama, he was a competent President. Rather than impeach him, I would have just published the Paula Jones affidavit concerning the distinguishing characteristic.

I guess what bothers me is foreigners presuming that they are entitled to levy so much criticism of the US President, especially if they are conservative. How many Americans critized Girard? (I confess that I did not notice much about her except that she had a nice rack.) You are not citizens, so your opinion is irrelevant.

Your point is well taken.

The presumption of intellectual and moral superiority still amazes me.

Half a century ago the similar behavior some Americans' inspired the phrase "THE UGLY AMERICA. We had to learn that differences do not necessarily imply inferiority.

It also offends me that foreigners base their opinions on a caricature of Americans, particularly conservative Americans, that is based on the reporting of our incredibly biased, mainstream media.

PeterZ wrote:This is a discussion forum focusing on politics. I expect opinions on Presidents and many other topics. Those opinions might by irrelevant in US elections but are hardly irrelevant in this forum. They might be mistaken or misguided but are relevant to this forum.

namelessfly wrote:Thank You for the Thoughtful post.

G W Bush was easily portrayed as stupid by the media because of his mild Texas accent. However; G W Bush had a degree in economics and an Masters of Business from Harvard.
While in the Texas Air National Guard he was a certified fighter pilot. I can't recall exactly which fighter G W flew but it was one of those nasty little bitches in the century series that often killed pilots. Meanwhile; Obama was a pot head member of the Ghanja Gang at the Punahoe School.

Ronald Reagan also had a degree in economics. Reagan slew the inflation dragon and also threw the Soviet Empire on the ash heap of history. Hardly stupid.

Palin has degrees in journalism and political science from a college that admittedly was not top tier. However; unlike Obama whose mom was a Vice President of the Bank of Hawaii and got all types of race based scholarships after graduating from the prestigious Punaho School, she had to work to put herself through college.
One valid criticism of Palin is that her voice sounds a bit like fingernails on a chalk board.

I disliked Clinton because his chronic mendacity went far beyond sex, but compared to Obama, he was a competent President. Rather than impeach him, I would have just published the Paula Jones affidavit concerning the distinguishing characteristic.

I guess what bothers me is foreigners presuming that they are entitled to levy so much criticism of the US President, especially if they are conservative. How many Americans critized Girard? (I confess that I did not notice much about her except that she had a nice rack.) You are not citizens, so your opinion is irrelevant.

Both sides have our presumptions and biases. I consider that smug self satisfied assumption of moral superiority quite funny. Most Europeans look down their noses at us and our system and wonder how we got lucky enough to slip and fall into our preeminence. They forget that our antiquated system has advantages as well as disadvantages. That the faith most Americans still embrace allows for a moral code that transcends the soup du jour social fads that litter secular thought. That liberty allows individuals to act and experiment in many ways that end up better than the perceived wisdom of that time. Edison comes to mind. He exhibited both an ingenuity and ruthlessness that reside at the core of the American character.

What our foreign friends sometimes forget if they ever realized it is that our religion and our Constitution keeps our potential excesses in check. If the American Federal government were unhindered by the Constitutional limits most conservatives try so hard to keep in place and American society for the most part discards the moral limits of a Judeo/Christian ethos, the rest of the world would be treated to a truly ruthless, powerful and amoral political appetite. Not a nation but an appetite that would make the old Soviet Union look peaceful and laisez faire.

Think Chicago writ large. Better yet, think the People's Republic of Haven. RFC extrapolated what the US without any Constitutional limits would look like and wound up with the People's Republic of Haven.

Heck, the Solarian League has its capital in Old Chicago just to emphasize my point. His story uses the US unhindered by our Constitution to illustrate what true corruption means. Haven discarded its Constitution flat out. The Solarian League adopted a policy of interpreting their Constitution to mean whatever they wanted it to mean. Both approaches resulted in what the US might look like if our progressives get their way.

namelessfly wrote:Your point is well taken.

The presumption of intellectual and moral superiority still amazes me.

Half a century ago the similar behavior some Americans' inspired the phrase "THE UGLY AMERICA. We had to learn that differences do not necessarily imply inferiority.

It also offends me that foreigners base their opinions on a caricature of Americans, particularly conservative Americans, that is based on the reporting of our incredibly biased, mainstream media.

Hate to say it but the main trouble with the US political system is that it's become us and them and no real compromise. Any compromise that happens seems to be individual, and bought at huge cost.

As for Shrub, his main problem was he couldn't do any comments off the cuff without sounding like an idiot. (As opposed to Prime Mininster Abbot who can't make any without offending someone)

I do find the assumption that "the moral limits of a Judeo/Christian ethos" is a unique and good thing, to be typical of what many outside the US look askance at.
Lots of good people both inside and outside the church, and it is somewhat offensive to believe in an absolute moral superiority held only by christians. Like a great many others I'm somewhat biased because of nasty things done to me in my defenceless youth by religious people in authority. In this country we are currently in the process of a major investigation regarding sexual abuse to children by all organisations which is exposing a massive cess pool of evil. While organisations like the Scouts and such are coming in for some criticism, the bulk of the crimes are by churches.

By all means find those people who abuse their positions to harm children. Charge them as appropriate after their trial.

That's not what I am talking about. I am talking about a moral code not an organization of fallible people. I make the distinction between secular thought, because secular thought is by definition relative. Nothing is absolute. Without absolute constraints American tend take advantage and get away with as much as possible. American politicians are especially bad.

In large part those constraints are found in our faith. We use use our Constitution to limit our pol's. American secular statists are looking to remove both these limits. That is not a good idea at all.

Daryl wrote:I do find the assumption that "the moral limits of a Judeo/Christian ethos" is a unique and good thing, to be typical of what many outside the US look askance at.
Lots of good people both inside and outside the church, and it is somewhat offensive to believe in an absolute moral superiority held only by christians. Like a great many others I'm somewhat biased because of nasty things done to me in my defenceless youth by religious people in authority. In this country we are currently in the process of a major investigation regarding sexual abuse to children by all organisations which is exposing a massive cess pool of evil. While organisations like the Scouts and such are coming in for some criticism, the bulk of the crimes are by churches.

Daryl wrote:I do find the assumption that "the moral limits of a Judeo/Christian ethos" is a unique and good thing, to be typical of what many outside the US look askance at.
Lots of good people both inside and outside the church, and it is somewhat offensive to believe in an absolute moral superiority held only by christians. Like a great many others I'm somewhat biased because of nasty things done to me in my defenceless youth by religious people in authority. In this country we are currently in the process of a major investigation regarding sexual abuse to children by all organisations which is exposing a massive cess pool of evil. While organisations like the Scouts and such are coming in for some criticism, the bulk of the crimes are by churches.

While I am a believer in a monotheistic faith, I concede that the Judeo/Christian faith does not have a monopoly on morality. Most faiths around the world share a consensus with the Judeo/Christain faith on many moral issues. To be blunt, I have theological differences with many Christains yet share their opinions on moral issues. I consider this consensus among many faiths including non judeo christains, to be a validation of my belief that morality is divinely inspired. I also understand that there are atheists who share my views on morality yet few can articulate a rationale for their moral code. (Logic and socio-biology can actually validate morality)

One thing is certain is that membership in a religious organization that exposes a certain morality does not guarantee that a person will abide by that morality. The idea that ALL humans are fallible is a major tenant of my religion. We are dependant on God's grace for forgiveness. Because humans are fallible, religious groups are also fallible. The Catholic church in America has been guilty of some rather grevious sins as have various Protrstant denominations. The new Pope (I am Baptist, not Catholic) should be commended for reprimanding Catholic leaders in the US who have allowed their desire to protect the church to take precedence over their moral obligations to the victims of abuse.

Annachie wrote:Hate to say it but the main trouble with the US political system is that it's become us and them and no real compromise. Any compromise that happens seems to be individual, and bought at huge cost.

As for Shrub, his main problem was he couldn't do any comments off the cuff without sounding like an idiot. (As opposed to Prime Mininster Abbot who can't make any without offending someone)

G W Bush was renown for his verbal gaffs. However; I think his comment that he has been "MISUNDERESTIMATED" to be both an amusing gaff and an accurate assertion that he is far, far from stupid.

If there was one thing Bush was renown for was his willingness to compromise both as Governor of Texas and as POTUS. I vividly recall being very ambivalent about Bush's prescription drug benefit program. It was one of the few social programs that came in on budget. I was hopeful that it might ge a compromise that would avoid nationalized healthcare.

Contrary to the demonization of Gov Palin since the 2008 election, she was renown for her ability to compromise as Governor of Alaska. While she is a very devout Christain, she never, ever pushed any legislation that would impose those beliefs on others. Palin has a track record for being a libertarian. She actually oppossed the police chief of Wassilla who wanted to restrict the hours that bars could be open to control drunk driving.

The bottom line is that you have to be cautious to not presume that people are stupid or intolerant simply because they embrace religious beliefs that you do not. You should also be careful to not presume that the caricature of their beliefs that you embrace is accurate.