President Obama

[Dante]

Dealt with already. Bored now. Maybe we should let Andrew get back to his Obama-bashing.

[Andrew]

Dealt with already. Bored now. Maybe we should let Andrew get back to his Obama-bashing.

Thank you for your support.

White House denies Obama bowed to the king

Even thought there is video proof that he did.

For Easter worship, Obama picks Episcopal church

They have chosen the nearby church that other presidents have used. They are still looking for a church to make sure it has no negative political implications. So Obama is more worried about political implications of choosing a church, than worshipping? Fundies shouldn't like this.

Obama Website Slams Secrecy Claim That Obama Now Invokes

On Election campaign: State Secrets suck.

After getting elected: We invoke state secrets privilege.

Obama has short memory

Well, as we all know for the last four years he was six blocks away in the U.S. Senate and he voted for most of the monetary policies that he is now complaining about.

The constant complaint about Bush spending or the deficit is rather astounding as he voted to increase every budget that the Bush administration submitted.

Damn, I thought having Obama as president would make the government bashing difficult. Seems it's just as easy with Obama as Bush.

[Wolf]

And you wonder that I'm venomous? That I'm angry? How many Americans have been driven away from this forum by just this attitude? Gunwounds, emprworm--both denounced as idiots. I love how you even attempt to claim a sense of "tolerance" on the one hand, and immediately follow it up as something that you don't "have to do" when it comes to Americans. You acknowledge that not all of us are "dumb," enquoting the term as if to make it something special--something different from the colloquial use of the word--so as to better ignore the shakiness of your position, as if that is supposed to appease those of us who think as highly of ourselves as you do. I don't care if you're not necessarily taking aim at me, or even at most Americans--though that has a lot to do with the fact that I feel personally affronted--it has to do with the fact that you think you can claim an air of tolerance and intellectual superiority on the one hand, and then follow it up with--and let's admit it--barely-justified "studies" that seem to "validate" your position that one culture is fundamentally superior than another on the other! This is exactly the kind of garbage that went on attempting to claim, interestingly enough, the astonishingly similar point a hundred years ago that, you know, since Europeans have heads shaped like this, so of course they ought to own black people. Naturally, you aren't utilizing this sort of twisted logic for as nearly as nefarious an aim as they were, but it is just as backwards and infuriating now as it was then. Even the article Dante posted admits that the only reason you all think of us as "dumb" is because you share wildly different intellectual values than we do--travel and cultural immersion as opposed to business and finance. And you can't leave it alone? Worse, you're actually shocked and affronted that I've dared to be shocked and affronted? Let's be clear--I have the right to be offended right now, as I did above. I feel you've acted inappropriately, and your last post, which was nothing more than a rejection and denunciation of the notion that I have any right to be offended compounds rather than forgives your sin. I've fully read your posts--making the mistake of assuming I havn't is just the thing to infuriate me further--and am sitting here wondering why can't you see the inherent inconsistencies of the very words you penned! Perhaps we are wildly misunderstanding each other, but when you've decided to take aim at my culture and nation of birth in a way that I feel is truly offensive, have the common human courtesy to back off when I tell you that it's offensive, eh? This isn't a disagreement over politics or policy, this is beyond that, and I am just as dismayed by your behavior and your views as I'm sure you are whenever you see a "dumb" American. But I'd take that dumb American over the person classless enough to harp on it any day.

[Dante]

Gunwounds and emprworm, though you and I both disagreed with them, were not idiots. They were wrong in just about every concievable way, but they were not stupid. My treatment of both of them was very different to that of, for example, KGA or Reactor, who are idiots. And off the top of my head, are South African and Hungarian respectively.

You can be offended if you like Wolf, that's your perogative. We've probably given you enough reason, though it wasn't my purpose to insult anyone personally. Your ire, though, isn't sticking, because I'm afraid I really don't care about this argument. *shrug*

As for Obama's bow, it's disconcerting to see press sources... blatantly lying. Unsurprising, but disconcerting.

[Wolf]

Fair enough.

@Dragoon: And, really, upon further reflection--you, spefically, aren't exactly the kind of person I'm railing against. You're articulating a view that, lately, I've come to find more and more offensive--but you're doing it in cold blood. As you've said, it's just something you happen to believe given the data, and in my better moods I not only admit that the data is compelling, but, lamentably, I agree with you. I hate to think that it's true, though; worse, I hate to go about the world and have to constantly apologize or be apologized to for being an American. I've become so defensive, lately, and I've dealt with so many people, primarily of European descent, that have behaved so condescendingly, largely, due to this very issue. I'm insecure, I'm doubtful, quite frankly, I'm not pleased. But, just so that you know--there are those of us over here, in the United States, that I like to think are doing their damndest to make this situation better (and looking at the IQ chart, it's really not that bad, we're far less behind you than I suspected we were). I like to think that some of us are working to hold the rest to a higher standard. Lately, though, whenever I think we've taken a step forward, I come back and find intelligent, articulate, generally well-meaning individuals such as yourself trying to prove that we've actually taken two steps back all over again. I think, Dragoon, that what bothers me isn't that I misunderstood your words as fiery vitriol--it's that I understood them perfectly as the cold statements of fact that I fear they truly were. Maybe, next time this issue comes up, don't be so quick to condemn the culture--some of us are trying our best here--and it might be best just to let it go. To phrase it better: sometimes it is both polite and just simply to let what you believe to be an obvious truth go unsaid. That's really all I ask, and that's what I'm trying to do, too.

[Caid Ivik]

Finally, Caid, the last thing that really, good and truly irritates me, is that you've missed my point for probably the fifth time: I don't care who builds the missile shield. Do you not see how this means that I do not agree with "him" (I can only assume you mean Bush, gee, great job expressing yourself) in a very important sense, i.e., that the United States should build the shield? Or, are you good and truly a hypocrite of the first class, and are guilty of exactly what you accused me of?

Well, you know I accept this point. I was adding a doubt that the missile shield is needed...implied from a doubt about aggresivity of Russia, Iran etc towards Europe. I know my English isn't like that of a native speaker, but I guess I've expressed it clearly enough (we can turn to German, the most people know the language here; it would be also neutral). Please forgive me for ignoring your additional flame. I accept arguments for your opinion and offer you mine. Actually, I've noticed the US flag by your avatar after a couple of posts...

And now turn back to the topic.

[Dragoon Knight]

Wolf, your second post seems to indicate that you get where I'm coming from, which I'm happy about.  Now, without backpedaling, let me try and elucidate further what my opinion is.

When I said I don't "have to" tolerate Americans, the tone of what I said was meant to indicate that it's not something that's necessary, not a statement of un-deservedness.  I treat individual Americans with probably more respect than I would most Scots, since a large proportion of my country is filled with drunken, obnoxious, trouble-making "youths".  I don't have to "tolerate" Americans because they give me no cause to.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that you apologise for being American, no more than I would apologise for being Scottish.  To do so is to admit that you're part of the problem, which from your posts on the forum, I can see you're not.  I know that I'm not one of the drunken yobs that give Scotland a bad image, and I'm doing my best with how I present myself and act to try and re-affirm that Scotland is a proud country with a lot of intelligent people in it.  What I'm doing - as you've pointed out - is simply stating my views as to what is causing America to be behind Europe in terms of average intelligence.

It's not meant as an attack on any individual on this forum, but it seems to have been taken as such.  At the risk of being sterotypical, you Americans are very defensive. :P  It's enough for me that you accept the reality - regardless of whether or not you agree with my reasoning - and that you understand that I'm not trying to say that one culture is superior to another.  It's no different than my admission that a lot of Brits are fat, teen pregnant, drunk or all three - just know that you're above all that, and keep doing what you're doing. :)

[chatfsh]

If you want a more objective point of view, then take a look at this picture - just one of many sources that give the broadest of outlines as to how the world's IQ looks when divided by country.  Again, please note that I believe a multitude of reasons contribute to the differences shown, but in the case of the US, it's your media, healthcare system, education system and government (aspects of all of them) that cause the difference.

As I examined the IQ map that Dragoon posted, in addition to a few other sources for confirmation, a few questions came to mind.  One would assume that the country with the highest IQ and the most cultured civilization would be the one ruling and leading the rest of the world.  Yet we find that this is not the case as evidenced by the fact that the U.S. is the dominate world power, having the greatest individual impact and influence on the rest of the world.

As Wolf pointed out, the IQ difference between the UK and U.S. is marginal - UK avg. 100 and  U.S. avg. 98

[Dante]

Maybe we let you win?  ::) 

[Dunenewt]

Or does winning wars boil down to something as random and capricious as blind luck? 

Well just have a look at history, I'm not sure if that's a mandatory subject in American education, but we get taught a lot of it over here.  Over in Europe, before the Second World War we'd been fighting with each other for hundreds of years, invading each other, killing each others populations, wiping out each others industries, whilst over on the other side of the pond, you'd had it relatively peaceful, when you weren't persecuting Mexicans or Hawaiians, or your own people (First Nations).

Socio-economic, historical, geographic and political factors relating to the whole of the Second World War are mistaken for what you see as the 'amazing genius and brilliance' of the American people.  I assume you're on about the Second World War, not the Vietnam War, or the current war against terror?  I know a contemporary war would be one sided, but the last time the UK and USA went to war, the White House was burned down, so I guess winning wars was something the Americans were good at in...umm...the first half of the 20th Century only.

[exatreide]

We did manage to kick Mexico's ass, who Europe had heavily favored to kick our ass.

We managed to kick the Ottoman Empire's ass in the Barbary states war, (With a little help from sweeden)

You may have burned down the white house, but it was only in reply to us burning Toronto and sacking the Canadian parliament building.

We kicked those upstart southern's ass (Europe favored a split United States)

We kicked Spains ass in the Spanish American war.

While England may have been a military superpower until America and the Soviets defeated the Germans and Italians, they can chalk up their highest military achievement since then as beating a bunch of Argentinians off of the turtle infested Falklands

[Tatar Khan]

I know a contemporary war would be one sided, but the last time the UK and USA went to war, the White House was burned down, so I guess winning wars was something the Americans were good at in...umm...the first half of the 20th Century only.

Yes the War of 1812. Well don't forget the government building of town York (currently Toronto) were also burned down. In the end Canada lost the control of areas of Ohio and Michigan. Well officially lost them Americans were settling them for years before that time.

[Dunenewt]

We did manage to kick Mexico's ass, who Europe had heavily favored to kick our ass.

We managed to kick the Ottoman Empire's ass in the Barbary states war, (With a little help from sweeden)

You may have burned down the white house, but it was only in reply to us burning Toronto and sacking the Canadian parliament building.

We kicked those upstart southern's ass (Europe favored a split United States)

We kicked Spains ass in the Spanish American war.

While England may have been a military superpower until America and the Soviets defeated the Germans and Italians, they can chalk up their highest military achievement since then as beating a bunch of Argentinians off of the turtle infested Falklands

In the First Barbary States War, it was mainly mercenaries that were fighting, not Americans.

The USSR did not defeat Italy in WW2, that was the US, UK and the Commonwealth.

You're mocking our invasion of the Falklands...I'll trump you on that...the US invasion of Grenada?

Don't get me wrong though, I'm not anti-American, and those of you who've been here a while will know I'm one of the most pro-Americans on here, I just think that sometimes the USA's ego needs keeping in check :)

[exatreide]

Actually it was the United States, the United States Navy and Marine corps.

That why its in the Marine Corps hymn "From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli." 

And yes the Soviets did help defeat the Italians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_war_in_Soviet_Union,_1941-1943

Not saying your are good sir, just as a member of the United States Military, I'm a bit defensive about it  :P

[Caid Ivik]

Don't get me wrong though, I'm not anti-American, and those of you who've been here a while will know I'm one of the most pro-Americans on here, I just think that sometimes the USA's ego needs keeping in check :)

The best way to prevent any nation from getting too much ego is to not to classify people to "friends" and "enemies" of it.

[Andrew]

Obama Releases Interrogation Memos, Says C.I.A. Operatives Won’t Be Prosecuted

Why does Obama hate America?

Obama Admin Asked School to Cover Up Christian Symbols

USA is a Christian nation. Why is everyone oppressing Christians? More proof he is Muslim?

(sarcasm)

EDIT:

On a serious note:

"No family making less than $250,000 will see "any form of tax increase."

Obama campaign promise.

But now Congress is wanting to tax internet purchases

Tax-free Internet shopping may be at an end

If this is true and Obama does not veto it, then he lied.

[Sneakgab]

Does anyone still take Obama's campaign promises and current word seriously?

[Edric O]

As the resident Marxist, allow me to point out that talking about a nation as if it were a single giant interest group is romanticized bullsh*t. What's all this talk of America this and America that? Who is this person called "America" that you're talking about? Like all capitalist societies, American society is divided between a working class and a bourgeois class, each of whom is in turn composed of numerous different interest groups that dislike or even hate each other. A gain for one section of "America" can be - and often is - a loss for another section of "America." "America" has no interests, no allies, no enemies, and no power. The various classes and interest groups in America have interests. The American government has allies and enemies. American corporations (and the government, of course) have power.

The ability of the American government and big business to defeat, kill, exploit or otherwise do nasty stuff to foreigners has absolutely nothing to do with the interests of the majority of the American population. After all, once upon a time, the Sun never set on the British Empire, and the workers of Manchester lived packed like cattle in rat-infested, smog-filled hellholes. Once upon a time, glorious pyramids were built on the banks of the Nile to stand as monuments to the might of "Egypt," while most Egyptians could hope for nothing more than avoiding death by starvation or malaria and living to the ripe old age of 40.

[Sneakgab]

Dang, couldn't agree with you more. I never understood this nationalistic almost Borg kind of attitude. As I have said many times before, a country is just a piece of land with lines around it that has some agreements attached to it.

What the hell do you care if your team wins? how does that affect you? Who cares if your country is now ''powerful'' if your still in hovel.

The last point is very relevant now, because countries have become ''big'' and ''rich'' but since the majority of this new wealth was taken by the already rich, living standards have not rised to match.

Countries are only an abstract concept, there is no reason to be concerned about ''America's success''. There is also no reason to be concerned about the success of ''America's people''. The only thing we should be concerned about is the people themselves.

In truth, ''countries'' never ''win'' or improve, because they are only abstract concepts. It is people who ''win'' and become ''better off''.

I kind of hinted at this when remarking on the goverment's duties to other humans. The only human's condition that an American should have a special reason to be concerned over is HIMSELF. Obviously, if another human's condition directly affects his own (family) then there is that. Other than that though, there is no reason for him to care more about Americans than anybody else. To use Tatar's saying, it is true that your own shirt is the closest, but almost all others are equally distant, with American shirts being only negligibly closer to your own than non-American shirts (if your American and depending on the person [better for you if the president of France dies than the president of America, maybe], obviously)

If you tell me you're going to kill 100 innocent people (say, sweatshop workers or some others easily replaced), then I don't care if they're South Africans or whatever nationality.

Other than the practical and selfish reasons, there is no reason to be interested in your own nation more, nationalism is nonsense.

Well, I guess it is possible to create artificial concerns through psychological manipulation though. You could probably make almost anything ''matter'' this way to a person even though it did not before he was given ideas of nationliasm... for example, some people are clearly ''pained'' when their country's team loses in sports, even though if they had never learnt anything about countries they would be indifferent. I wonder how difficult it would be to remove this artificial and arbitrary concern through education devised to do just that (as opposed to the education to create the concerns in the first place that is stuffed down almost everybody's throats throughout their entire lives).

Of course, this education would never take place, because most likely nationalism is in the interests of the ruling bourgeois class while internationalism is said to be in the interests of the Marxists (well, with certain things, overly vague comments like that are doomed to incorrectness if they are not elaborated upon or if the reader does not assume their true intent).

[chatfsh]

What I find to be a load of nonsensical bullshit is anyone singularly pointing out Americans as being unduly nationalistic or for taking too much pride in being an American.  All the other nations worth their salt are just as guilty of national pride and of having a collective identity amongst a diverse population.  If one hasn

[Dragoon Knight]

I sense a bit of national pride there. :P

Honestly, Hwi, I think Sneakgab was just using the USA as an example.  You could have substituted the UK or almost any other developed EU country in there and it would have meant the same thing.  It doesn't make him prejudiced or ignorant, but it does make you look a little silly, flaring up over an imagined slight against not you, but your country.  Proving Edric and Sneakgab's point, really. :P

I don't agree that national pride is completely useless or moot, however.  I believe that it unites us when it matters; take Scotland as an example I can relate to.  We operate in a very different way to England in both our laws and government, and one of the root causes of the devolution was a "national pride" in being Scottish and doing things differently.  Yet we still have it within us to call ourselves British when something affects us as a whole, and gets us to stand up and be counted as it were.

It's not just a tool used by leaders or governments - it can be a force for change and (for want of a better term) good.  Mostly, however, I agree that it's just an excuse to shout at other people. :D

[chatfsh]

First of all, my comment was not provoked by Sneakgab

[Sneakgab]

Dragoon knight was exactly right: I only used America as an example. You can put ''insert random country'' here everywhere where you saw America in my post. It is that simple. As one who just stated that countries are nothing but abstract concepts, why would I care in particular about America? Maybe I would say that they have a higher percentage of people who are nationalist, but I certainly wouldn't say all American are (IF I thought that to begin with).

I am quite certain that Edric O also only used America as an example.

Me and Edric O (probably) don't see things in terms of countries, it''s almost like it's impossible for us to insult ''America'' because for us there is hardly such a thing. Personally, I tend to be more specific unless my meaning is very obvious: I would say a country's rulership is bad, or it has a high % of bad people or some such.

What was basically pointed out was that it is nonsense, for example, to say that ''America'' decided to invade Vietnam and did invade Vietnam. The truth is SOME (a very very small %) decided and some (a bigger % supported it) supported it.

Dragoon Knight, I completely agree that nationalism can be used for good. It is a tool like propoganda and whatnot that can be used for good or evil. It is however, arbitrary to decide to be nationalistic oneself.

It is perhaps worth considering that if it is required that you use nationalism to unite people for good that this means that the populace could not be motivated by the good in it self.

[Edric O]

Sneakgab got it right in his post above. In addition:

It would have been fine if Sneakgab and Edric had said,

[Wolf]

I mean, I agree with a lot of the above, but... Edric, the repetition of the evils of the "capitalist/ruling" class just isn't something that I can take seriously as it is. If all the problems of the world are the direct result of the activities of this cabal of individuals, let's stop giving them such a... buzzwordy name. In fact, let's give them some real names. If these are the people making bad decisions, ruining the world, let's know who they are. Name some names (please ignore the kitschy irony of that phrase that arises as a result of your general political beliefs). Because, as I suspect, the "evil of the world" isn't something that can be so easily explained by railing--purely in theoretical and philosophical terms--against some vague "capitalist/ruling class." Further, I also suspect that once we start putting names, faces, biographies and historiographies of these supposedly-Very Bad individuals together, I think we'll find that this extremely, I assume, personally satisfying explanation of the world that you've provided will fall apart. Not that you'll be completely wrong, of course--more so that you won't be nearly completely right.