-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Hello Americans. Are you really all stupid?
- Thread starter Bailey's Dad
- Start date
Sirpopopop
Member
dark10x said:
John Kerry... a liberal - HAH. OH NOE! NUMBER 1 LIBERAL SENATOR! DOOM! DOOM! DOOM! This is the same guy that actively campaigned for some of the measures within the Patriot Act. This is the same guy which doesn't seem to be advocating any form of universal health care coverage. This is the same guy whose proven time and again that the only issue in the Senate on which he really seems to vote with his heart = Veteran's Rights.
I say the problem is that there is no such thing as a liberal senator anymore. It's not that John Kerry won't pass as you say, "bullshit laws". I don't see the status quo changing, but if Kerry is elected I will expect to see more fiscal responsiblity and hopefully no proposals for crazy amendments that won't pass or appeals to the fundamentalist Christian Right.
Azih said:
The fact of the matter is, listening to something does not necessarily mean the fully believe it. People do place trust in the media, but not nearly as many people as you think. Typically, most people here believe that the media is somewhat corrupt. Taking it with a grain of salt is more common than you think. Sadly, in many cases, that doesn't mean they are going out of their way to find other sources for news...it just means they don't fully trust what they are hearing. Listening to something does not necessarily mean full belief.
What I was getting at was the origin of those ideas. All of these "facts" that people keep bringing up typically originate in some form of media. Most everyone here is speaking based on information they may have discovered through some media outlet. I fear that many folks here talking down on American people are also basing their ideas on something pulled from THEIR media. Whether a news report or a poll, you can't trust them anywhere.
The media wants trouble and they will do anything to achieve it. The media is what often turns mankind against mankind...and based on this small thread, they have at least been somewhat successful.
Sadly, I can do nothing. I believe in no government and I believe in no god. I'm simply trying to find some logic in this madness. My statement above (regarding voting) isn't how I FEEL...but that IS the logic that others might use.
I won't be living in the US during the next term, so I could care less. However, I am not wrong. People do feel that way and will use that as a reason to vote Bush even if they hate him.
Sirpopopop
Member
The media is the devil!
Well, I arrive late but I will give you the vision that people on my country have of you:
They see you as people with a lack of culture and with no interest for other things outside the US. They think americans have the idea of the world being theirs. They also see you as extremelly patriotic people and with no reasoning-abilities when it comes about terms such as war. People has the idea all american are fat and that they only eat hamburgers.
It's not that this is my opinion of you so don't jump on me...It's just my impressions about other's peoples thoughts about the US.
They see you as people with a lack of culture and with no interest for other things outside the US. They think americans have the idea of the world being theirs. They also see you as extremelly patriotic people and with no reasoning-abilities when it comes about terms such as war. People has the idea all american are fat and that they only eat hamburgers.
It's not that this is my opinion of you so don't jump on me...It's just my impressions about other's peoples thoughts about the US.
ourumov said:
Yep, I can see that. It is not true, however, and demonstrates ignorance. They are basing their opinions on stereotypes that have some basis in reality, but by and large are not the norm.
The sad thing is, many people over here feel the same way about other countries. I just wish people would start to learn the truth...
spangler said:
As an American, I don't think I've ever had much trouble finding discussion/coverage of any of the issues you mention above. I don't even follow the news religiously on a daily basis - I mostly skim when I do. And yet, I'm still somehow aware of the basic arguments around the topics you raised above. So how does an American like me manage to sidestep the "great hoax" so easily all this time?
I will agree that John Stewart rocks, but I've only started watching the Daily Show recently so he doesn't account for my awareness of world events and issues during my 30 yr lifetime that you claim are being actively hidden from Americans like myself.
Yeah, because rioting in the streets would show the rest of the world how intelligent we Americans really are...
kaching said:
Rioting no. Demonstrating yes. The funny (yet enfuriating) thing is that Americans were PROHIBITED from demonstrating in some US cities during the Iraqi war due to "security reasons". If that doesn't prove the lack of democracy some people are trying to enforce, what does?
Sirpopopop
Member
This does not jive with:
You are saying with the first quote that because Kerry is the #1 liberal Senator that we will see a bunch of bullshit laws passed. I posted a response which, said that maybe you are looking at this from the wrong angle. Then you post a response that says you are not "wrong". How are you not "wrong"? You were not talking about people not voting for Kerry on the basis of him being a liberal senator. You were talking about what might happen when Kerry, "brings in more of his people", and your fears of what a liberal president could bring about. I merely rebutted you, by stating that his record is not that of a staunch liberal, so you don't have to worry about the "evil" liberal threat.
If you were talking about reasons why people might not vote for Kerry then you should have clarified the following statement, "we could start to see a bunch of bullshit laws getting passed." Rather, you should have said, "people are scared that because Kerry was found to be the #1 liberal senator in 2003 that we might see a bunch of bullshit laws passed." At the very least if this was what you were saying you should have clarified it, rather than say, "hey! I'm not wrong.", when your words in the first passage don't correlate with your words in the second passage.
Sorry for the mis-understanding. I'll lay it out. I hate both candidates and I don't care what happens. My original post was poorly worded, but was simply created to demonstrate the way someone could feel using my own perspective. I was not clear enough in stating that I do not actually believe it. I was actually repeating something specific which I heard today.
If I must vote, I probably WOULD vote Kerry as he is simply DIFFERENT from Bush and has SOME potential to start setting things right. I am f*cking sick of this political bullshit.
Even if I liked Bush (for some unknown reason), I would want him the fuck out of the Whitehouse forever.
I just want the whole world to get along, but it will never happen.
If I must vote, I probably WOULD vote Kerry as he is simply DIFFERENT from Bush and has SOME potential to start setting things right. I am f*cking sick of this political bullshit.
Even if I liked Bush (for some unknown reason), I would want him the fuck out of the Whitehouse forever.
I just want the whole world to get along, but it will never happen.
A quick note on the whole "first and fourth most liberal senators" bit, courtesy of Andrew Sullivan's blog:
"I'm growing a bit frustrated with the media, including you, running with this Kerry and Edwards being the first and fourth most liberal Senators. Everyone is citing the National Journal's ratings but they are doing it sloppily. I have seen no recent article that cites anything but the 2003 ratings where Kerry missed 37 and Edwards missed 22 of 62 votes and both were setting themselves up for primary battles where their base was essential. Think what you may about missing votes and pandering a bit (seems suicide to not do both when going for the nomination), but my larger point is the media should be looking at this much more historically and in years when Edwards and Kerry actually showed up to do their jobs. I'll do it for them. Following are rankings and liberal scores since 1999.
2003: Kerry - 1st (96.5) Edwards - 4th (94.5)
2002: Kerry - 9th (87.3) Edwards - 31st (63.0) Edwards made the centrist list.
2001: Kerry - 11th (87.7) Edwards - 35th (68.2) Edwards almost tied with Lieberman.
2000: Kerry - 20th (77) Edwards - 19th (80.8) Rankings past 20 are not available nor are composite scores for all Senators, so Kerry is 21st or higher.
1999: Kerry - 16th (80.8) Edwards - 31st (72.2)
Average: Kerry - 12th (85.9) Edwards - 24th (75.7)
Now this paints a different picture. Certainly Kerry is a stalwart liberal (although probably not or barely a top 10 liberal), but he does hail from and represent one of the most liberal states. But Edwards is definitely a moderate Democrat (if you define that as somewhere in the ideological middle of the Democratic platform)."
FnordChan
"I'm growing a bit frustrated with the media, including you, running with this Kerry and Edwards being the first and fourth most liberal Senators. Everyone is citing the National Journal's ratings but they are doing it sloppily. I have seen no recent article that cites anything but the 2003 ratings where Kerry missed 37 and Edwards missed 22 of 62 votes and both were setting themselves up for primary battles where their base was essential. Think what you may about missing votes and pandering a bit (seems suicide to not do both when going for the nomination), but my larger point is the media should be looking at this much more historically and in years when Edwards and Kerry actually showed up to do their jobs. I'll do it for them. Following are rankings and liberal scores since 1999.
2003: Kerry - 1st (96.5) Edwards - 4th (94.5)
2002: Kerry - 9th (87.3) Edwards - 31st (63.0) Edwards made the centrist list.
2001: Kerry - 11th (87.7) Edwards - 35th (68.2) Edwards almost tied with Lieberman.
2000: Kerry - 20th (77) Edwards - 19th (80.8) Rankings past 20 are not available nor are composite scores for all Senators, so Kerry is 21st or higher.
1999: Kerry - 16th (80.8) Edwards - 31st (72.2)
Average: Kerry - 12th (85.9) Edwards - 24th (75.7)
Now this paints a different picture. Certainly Kerry is a stalwart liberal (although probably not or barely a top 10 liberal), but he does hail from and represent one of the most liberal states. But Edwards is definitely a moderate Democrat (if you define that as somewhere in the ideological middle of the Democratic platform)."
FnordChan
Xenon said:
The one is a series of laws which abolishes many many of the rights the American people gained and their respected leaders made during the years (before the war mongers started to destroy the real America) and the other is giving the right to EVERYONE to get married. You're an asshole, sorry.
Che said:
Well, I totally disagree with the Patriot Act...but thankfully, it has had little effect on innocent people. The problem, however, is that it has the potential to be used in a negative manner. I shudder to think what COULD be done with it...
Hopefully, there will be people present to keep this in line.
Yeah, those "anti-Gay marriage" issues that people keep bringing up REALLY piss me off as well (simply because it removes rights which people should have). I blame religion as much as the government, though...
Hell, I blame religion as much as I blame the government for a lot of these things. The more religion connects with anything political, the worse everything gets. It's hard to believe that a bunch of fairy tales can cause so much trouble (oops).
:OWolfy said:
No you haven't. The authorities have the right to "name" anyone a terrorist and monitor his every move without a court or even illegally arrest him. Does this seems to you "not that bad"? A small preview of the Act is the fact that the FBI has illegally arrested people and keep them without their basic rights. Thanks but no thanks.
I'm glad so many of you are informed about the realities of American foreign policy and how it impacts the way the rest of the world views us. In my experience, though, many Americans are ignorant of the actual motivations behind such issues. I think this has been illustrated through a few posts in this thread, such as the idea that America "coddles" third-world nations. The US doesn't care what any leader does to his own people as long as his regime is willing to funnel natural resources into the US and provide a climate friendly to US corporations and interests. It's when this changes, not the number of human rights violations, that the US chooses to intervene. Look at Nicaragua. Look at Panama. Look at Iraq. Look at Colombia. Look at the inaction in Saudi Arabi. I never said that the truth isn't out there. I stated that it takes more effort to find the truth and a willingness to reframe one's view of the United States. I'm pleased some of you have realized these things on your own with no real effort put forth, but I think you are in the minority. Don't your discoveries bother you? Do you feel the need to let others see the bigger picture? The first work I recall reading that was critical of the US and actually documented these criticisms was Chomsky's What Uncle Sam Really Wants. I was a freshman in college and found the book on my own. I honestly felt like crying after reading through the rather short treatise. I wondered why none of the issues raised in the book had ever been discussed in my high school courses and why I never saw similar issues raised on tv or in the newspapers. I felt betrayed then and continue to feel betrayed now.
Rioting in the streets may have been a bit harsh. Demonstrating, as several of you pointed out, would have been a more appropriate term. Violence is certainly not an appropriate response to dissatisfacton and is most definitely counter-productive in an effort to effect change. I do think there is more resistance to the Neo-con vision of the US than the mainstream media reports and may not be obvious to interested observers from other countries.
Rioting in the streets may have been a bit harsh. Demonstrating, as several of you pointed out, would have been a more appropriate term. Violence is certainly not an appropriate response to dissatisfacton and is most definitely counter-productive in an effort to effect change. I do think there is more resistance to the Neo-con vision of the US than the mainstream media reports and may not be obvious to interested observers from other countries.
Wolfy said:
It's kinda difficult to point out specific abuses of an act that throws the Fourth Amendment out the door in favor of secret searches. It's even more difficult when the Patriot Act cripples judicial oversight. If you're having difficulty seeing the potential for abuse here, the ACLU and the Electronic Privacy Information Center will be happy to elaborate.
FnordChan
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Che said:
i think some of that was because they were scared of a possible terrorist attack in major cities... there were plenty of protests in the US.. and there still are.. (mostly on college campuses) .. there just isnt much media coverage..
Had spangler said the latter, there wouldn't have been reason to comment in the first place.Che said:
Surely you wouldn't want me to take your statement at face value, without requesting fuller disclosure to make sure I have a fully objective understanding of the issue at hand, right? After all, taking your statement above at face value would be no better than the what we Americans are being accused of in this thread, in relation to our own media outlets.
I'm pretty sure that dude was joking. Calm down.
Ever heard of due process?
You don't think there's been demonstrating? Damn. Now who's media is feeding them garbage?
I just graduated from Berkeley, and I can tell you that since the war started, the campus has had protests at least once a week. Large protests. Made it a bitch to get to classes on time.