SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - Why Obama is so bad and why Europe loves him

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - Why Obama is so bad and why Europe loves him (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=175072)

Quote:

Originally Posted by heartc (Post 1499108)

Oh, you mean that place where most of the hitech industry is (Siemens, EADS, BMW etc.) and which is paying the bills of its more socialistic "enlightened" neighbours further up north?
That place? :O:

[Enter generic "Saupreiß" insult here.] ;)

:haha:
So true, Bavaria sure has a lot going for it and the socialists envy it im sure.
I wish i could make it to the Oktoberfest this year.:woot:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve (Post 1499459)

Color it any way you like. The fact is that their ancestors were here before our ancestors.

I agree that Obama is just another politician, and not one I have any love for, but it seems to me that more and more this forum is filling up with far-right tripe hype, more and more ranting and less and less discussion.

To delve into it even deeper and get technical they weren't Mexican but another native population. But you're right someone was here before we were. And I've also noticed this ranting, people need to show less of their D's and R's and show more brain.

Quote:

To delve into it even deeper and get technical they weren't Mexican but another native population

But surely mexicans were mexicans as soon as mexico came about which was in the 1500s.
So does that mean that those complaining about their Presidents lack of knowledge and his rewriting of history are the ones who are displaying their own lack of knowledge and are rewriting history.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tribesman (Post 1499505)

This thread's title... talk about seriously rewriting history for our 44th president...:roll:

But on, it would behoove anybody who is actually interested in this to readup on his quote. "Long before America was even an idea, this land of plenty was home to many peoples. The British and French, the Dutch and Spanish, to Mexicans, to countless Indian tribes. We all shared the same land."

He's actually not incorrect on this, regardless of what people choose to think or openly preach.

By the time Cortes launched his northern military campaigns, several colonial provinces had already been established by the Spanish. Situated between Michoacan, Guerrero, Morelos, Tlaxcala, Hidalgo, and Queretaro was the province of Mexico. Originally, it was called Mexico-Tenochtitlan by the Nahua Aztec tribe the Mexicas who had used this term since the 14th century (they also used the shorter "Mexihco") for their home city (which is what the name translates to be: "city" or "place"; note that by this time, all the natives had all either been killed off or driven away OR had been forced into slavery). The Spanish just used "Mexico" for the region, however, and actually established the capitol Mexico City not but a short time later.

I don't think it's necessary of me or anyone else to tell you how/why they chose "Mexico City" OR for that matter what the inhabitants were called... it's pretty redundant.

Although, it's also pretty redundant that Obama is the president of the country- not some commissar... it's very sad when a person can't figure that out, or figure out how to use Google.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexica
http://www.aboutmexico.net/mexico/etymology.asp

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aramike (Post 1499377)

Europeans and their sympathizers, at least in this thread, are offering up no resistance whatsoever, and are rather busy patting themselves on the back for their "you must be kidding" responses which actually do nothing to factually refute the concepts Morris presents.

Excuse me? I (and other people) have refuted several of your and Bubbleheads arguments. You didn't refute any of these counter-arguments of mine.

So before you say that we are offering no resistance whatsoever, you may want to take a look at this post. Or this one. Or this. This. And this. Etc. All of which contain valid counter arguments that still haven't been refuted.

I'm from the UK and I was being sarcastic since bubblehead is intent on telling us europeans we don't have the same liberties as in the US which was news to me.

As for not understanding individual rights we do, and we exercise them everyday.

Oh btw I also lived in the US for two years when I was a teenager in Houston so I have experience of the US first hand. i want to be clear that I am not attacking the US or how her society works, there are many things I like. I just don't like someone making ill judged presumptions and presenting opinion as fact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by heartc (Post 1499108)

You mean all these industries Bavaria build up from the money they got from the Länderfinanzausgleich well into the early 90ies, enabling that place to get where it is now from the agrarian state it has been before in the first place? :O:

Coming from Northrhine Westphalia, it is really astonishing how bavarians fed their egos with our money. :shucks:

So, basicly, socialism got bavaria where it is now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by XabbaRus (Post 1499572)

I am not attacking the US or how her society works, there are many things I like. I just don't like someone making ill judged presumptions and presenting opinion as fact.

:sign_yeah:
couldn't agree more

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve (Post 1499459)

but it seems to me that more and more this forum is filling up with far-right tripe hype, more and more ranting and less and less discussion.

Agreed. It's become a "OMG i'm soooooo outraged! Let me show everyone how outraged I am by posting this in the right wing echo chamber.....err....I mean General Topics!"

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETR3(SS) (Post 1499456)

Very true but those where Spaniards, not Mexicans. I think what is happening here is a different interpretation of the facts. Ask yourself this, if Mexicans weren't Mexican before September 16, 1810, does that mean that we were not Americans before July 4, 1776? Bottom line Obama is a politician speaking at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Politics as usual.

This. He explicitly refers to Americans as coming from elsewhere, can't mix and match. Americans are British (etc) until the Revolution, and Mexicans are Spaniards. Period.

If Bush had said this, the press would have been all over the "gaffe." They'd probably be chalking it up to his lack of "gravitas." Remember "gravitas?"

Mexicans are "Mexicans" when a country called "Mexico" exists, not before. "Americans" includes Native Americans who've been here since the Bering Sea ice bridge, does that mean we're 30,000 years old? (and since human migration went from North to South the US must predate the rest of the Americans (they hit Alaska before Canada) ;)

I thought humans migrated from the landbridge between Russia and Alaska. :hmmm: Maybe it was the Vikings? :hmmm:

haha, that cartoon is priceless, although I think atleast around here "economics" shouldn't be missing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk (Post 1499640)

I thought humans migrated from the landbridge between Russia and Alaska. :hmmm: Maybe it was the Vikings? :hmmm:

It was land far enough back, then a mixture with ice/land past that (I wanna say it required some ice crossing as recently as 10,000 years ago. But regardless, Bering (what is now Sea) bridge was the crossing.

The Carter-Obama Comparisons Grow

Walter Mondale himself sees a parallel.

By JOHN FUND

Quote:

Comparisons between the Obama White House and the failed presidency of Jimmy Carter are increasingly being made—and by Democrats.

Walter Mondale, Mr. Carter's vice president, told The New Yorker this week that anxious and angry voters in the late 1970s "just turned against us—same as with Obama." As the polls turned against his administration, Mr. Mondale recalled that Mr. Carter "began to lose confidence in his ability to move the public." Democrats on Capitol Hill are now saying this is happening to Mr. Obama.

Mr. Mondale says it's time for the president "to get rid of those teleprompters and connect" with voters. Another of Mr. Obama's clear errors has been to turn over the drafting of key legislation to the Democratic Congress: "That doesn't work even when you own Congress," he said. "You have to ride 'em."

Mr. Carter himself is heightening comparisons with his own presidency by publishing his White House diaries this week. "I overburdened Congress with an array of controversial and politically costly requests," he said on Monday. The parallels to Mr. Obama's experience are clear.

Comparisons between the two men were made frequently during the 2008 campaign, but in a favorable way. Princeton University historian Sean Wilentz, for instance, told Fox News in August 2008 that Mr. Obama's "rhetoric is more like Jimmy Carter's than any other Democratic president in recent memory." Syndicated columnist Jonah Goldberg noted more recently that Mr. Obama, like Mr. Carter in his 1976 campaign, "promised a transformational presidency, a new accommodation with religion, a new centrism, a changed tone."

But within a few months, liberals were already finding fault with his rhetoric. "He's the great earnest bore at the dinner party," wrote Michael Wolff, a contributor to Vanity Fair. "He's cold; he's prickly; he's uncomfortable; he's not funny; and he's getting awfully tedious. He thinks it's all about him." That sounds like a critique of Mr. Carter.

Foreign policy experts are also picking up on similarities. Walter Russell Mead, then a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, told the Economist magazine earlier this year that Mr. Obama is "avoiding the worst mistakes that plagued Carter." But he warns that presidents like Mr. Obama who emphasize "human rights" can fall prey to the temptation of picking on weak countries while ignoring more dire human rights issues in powerful countries (Russia, China, Iran). Over time that can "hollow out an administration's credibility and make a president look weak." Mr. Mead warned that Mr. Obama's foreign policy "to some degree makes him dependent on people who wish neither him nor America well. This doesn't have to end badly and I hope that it doesn't—but it's not an ideal position after one's first year in power."

Liberals increasingly can't avoid making connections between Mr. Carter's political troubles and those of Mr. Obama. In July, MSNBC's Chris Matthews asked his guests if Democrats up for re-election will "run away from President O'Carter." After much laughter, John Heileman of New York Magazine quipped "Calling Dr. Freud." To which Mr. Matthews, a former Carter speechwriter, sighed "I know."

Pat Caddell, who was Mr. Carter's pollster while he was in the White House, thinks some comparisons between the two men are overblown. But he notes that any White House that is sinking in the polls takes on a "bunker mentality" that leads the president to become isolated and consult with fewer and fewer people from the outside. Mr. Caddell told me that his Democratic friends think that's happening to Mr. Obama—and that the president's ability to pull himself out of a political tailspin is hampered by his resistance to seek out fresh thinking.

The Obama White House is clearly cognizant of the comparisons being made between the two presidents. This month, environmental activist Bill McKibben met with White House aides to convince them to reinstall a set of solar panels that Mr. Carter had placed on the White House roof. They were taken down in 1986 following roof repairs. Mr. McKibben said it was time to bring them back to demonstrate Mr. Obama's support for alternative energy.

But Mr. McKibben told reporters that the White House "refused to take the Carter-era panel that we brought with us" and only said that they would continue to ponder "what is appropriate" for the White House's energy needs. Britain's Guardian newspaper reported that the Obama aides were "twitchy perhaps about inviting any comparison (to Mr. Carter) in the run-up to the very difficult mid-term elections." Democrats need no reminding that Mr. Carter wound up costing them dearly in 1978 and 1980 as Republicans made major gains in Congress.

Mr. Fund is a columnist for WSJ.com.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...147816104.html