The Thumpin' Continues :-)

wrote:
On 1 Dec 2006 14:58:15 -0800, "rb608" wrote:


I
believe we were, prior to this administration's war, generally seen as
a positive actor more often than not.

You do? Really, seriously?

Isn't he silly?

So, come on, dicklet, tell us how it REALLY is. Seriously.

Wolfgang

rb608 wrote:

... I'm not so
naive as to think much or any of that was purely altruistic; but in
terms of how the rest of the world viewed our actions and motives; I
believe we were, prior to this administration's war, generally seen as
a positive actor more often than not.

Ronny Raygun was almost universally despised outside our borders
and for good reason. The Reagan administration set the gold standard
for American hubris, arrogance and ignorance. Until Shrub came along.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 23:44:12 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

rb608 wrote:

... I'm not so
naive as to think much or any of that was purely altruistic; but in
terms of how the rest of the world viewed our actions and motives; I
believe we were, prior to this administration's war, generally seen as
a positive actor more often than not.

Ronny Raygun was almost universally despised outside our borders
and for good reason. The Reagan administration set the gold standard
for American hubris, arrogance and ignorance. Until Shrub came along.

Yeah, and Ho Chi Minh went to his death but with one regret: that the
dratted war kept he and his missus from to continuing to summer with the
Kennedys on the Vineyard...rumor is his last words were "That Teddy...a
couple of drinks and he's such a card...I'll miss tha....ACK!"

And of course it's been revealed that what good ol' Nikita was REALLY
saying while banging his shoe was, "WE LOVE AMERICA!! WE LOVED HARRY!!
And those aren't missile silos, they're refinishing vats so we can help
you guys restore the shine to good ol' Lady Liberty!"...

And who can forget Hitler's rousing and touching, "Frankie D., my
bubalah! Can't we just become the 49th state?" speech at Nuremberg...

Did you guys, like, you know, study any history, at like, you know, a
school, or like, you know, something?

HTH,
R

wrote:

Well, holy ****...as far as I've seen, that's the first time the
question has actually been asked rather than the answer assumed...no,
I'm not, nor have I ever been.

Then are you an iguana?

Op

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
...
rb608 wrote:

... I'm not so
naive as to think much or any of that was purely altruistic; but in
terms of how the rest of the world viewed our actions and motives; I
believe we were, prior to this administration's war, generally seen as
a positive actor more often than not.

Ronny Raygun was almost universally despised outside our borders
and for good reason. The Reagan administration set the gold standard
for American hubris, arrogance and ignorance. Until Shrub came along.

Yes, and the world just loved Johnson and his little esculation in Vietnam,
right?

Op

Ken Fortenberry

On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 16:54:09 -0600, wrote:

On 1 Dec 2006 14:10:26 -0800, "rb608" wrote:


Erosion of the Constitution?

IMO, yes.

OK, how?

And as to "America's moral standing in the world," US-centricness aside,
the US has never had any "moral standing in the world" because that's
simply not something that one group's government and people could have
over another group.

Are you confusing "standing" with "superiority"?

No, and it wouldn't matter anyway - governments can have neither.

"The Dems?" Are you a Dem?

Are you a Republican?

Well, holy ****...as far as I've seen, that's the first time the
question has actually been asked rather than the answer assumed...no,
I'm not, nor have I ever been.

"Why must you turn this place into a den of lies?"

/daytripper (take a poll. let's see how many folks buy it ;-)

"rb608" wrote in message
oups.com...
Opus wrote:
When did we ever have such a thing. I mean, we've been over-throwing
democratically elected governments since after the Second World War, and
it
hasn't been the exclusive real of the Republicans.

I don't disagree with your assessment of that facet of our
not-so-covert foreign policy; but we have in the past been so much more
than a mere military bully on the world stage.

No, we were military bullies covertly. WE just didn't recognize the fact
and the rest of the so-called democratic developed nations were only too
happy for us to spend billions to protect them from the evil commies. All
of those who lost loved one's, in so many *poor* nations, never saw us as
the moral standard. Certainly not in Latin America, Southeast Asia, the
Philippines, the Middle East... The only people who may have held us up as
the moral champions of the world were those around the world who had a
monetary interest at stake.

I'm just as upset as you are about the baffoon and chief and his minons, but
it certainly won't be the Dems who bring us back to some fantasy moral
equilibrium, as their fingerprints are all over our nasty post WWII history.


On balance, we have
done a lot of good for a lot of people outside our borders.

"USA's aid, in terms of percentage of their GNP has almost always been lower
than any other industrialized nation in the world, though paradoxically
since 2000, their dollar amount has been the highest. (Only since 2004 have
they move up from last place, by one.)"

"The US gives 13c/day/person in government aid..American's private
giving-another 5c/day-is high by international standards but does not close
the gap with most other rich countries. Norway gives $1.02/day in public aid
and 24c/day in private aid" per person."

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRel...onGNIperce nt

I'm not so
naive as to think much or any of that was purely altruistic; but in
terms of how the rest of the world viewed our actions and motives; I
believe we were, prior to this administration's war, generally seen as
a positive actor more often than not.

I guess it's a matter of who's doing the viewing?

Op

Joe F.

wrote:

Did you guys, like, you know, study any history, at like, you know, a
school, or like, you know, something?

You mean like at the southern mississippi school of like chocloate and
vanilla?

Wolfgang
oprah oprah absinthe latifa oprah emeril.

wrote:

Those putting their faith for change or "reform" in
Clinton-Pelosi-Schumer type "Dems" are going to be in for a serious
disappointment, and on a number of levels. Thus far, they've attempted
to put an "unindicted co-conspirator" and an impeached-and-removed
Federal Judge-turned-Congressman into leadership roles, backtracked on
the 9/11 Commission promises because of what it might to do _specific_
Dems power (_not_ control) in various committees, etc. And if they
attempt to backpedal and start all sorts of "investigations," they'll
really take it up the ass. Or rather, they'll really cause the entire
Dem party to take it up the ass. Even many real, honest liberal Dems
are cringing. Whining that a turd like Tom DeLay and his ilk are bad
and cheering a turd like Pelosi and her ilk as good is nothing but
hypocritical partisanship.


Its remarkable how much the 110th Congress can be held accountable for
doing or not doing, when they HAVEN'T EVEN CONVENED YET.

Give them a chance before you cast your judgement, eh?

--riverman

I opened this thread thinking that Illinois or North Carolina were still
playing football.........g

Tom