face it, the whole world is screwed thanks to bush
i think there will be an attack on US soil before the election
Look, I dislike the man's behavior as much as the next guy but this is just stupid.
A) The world was not precisely a hotbed of peace and tranquility before Bush came into office. There were civil wars filled with attrocious acts, there were internationa kiddie-porn rings, there were terrorists, there was greed and hatred beyond a logical person's measure. Bush did not create any of that.
He may have exacerbated anti-American sentiments with his free-wheeling style and done some other stupid things, but Bush is not the root of all evil.
I'm sorry, but the quotes pulled from that letter read to me like a high school pranskter wrote it. It's obviously some jerkoff who dislikes the head scarve rule and is hoping to sway things during a touchy time. Maybe I'm wrong but it just reads phony to me.
Maybe all these terrorist masterminds have crappy English skills and just write with a fakey style but I doubt this is the genuine article or that France will soon become a mass killing ground. Possible but unlikley IMO.
Look, I dislike the man's behavior as much as the next guy but this is just stupid.
A) The world was not precisely a hotbed of peace and tranquility before Bush came into office. There were civil wars filled with attrocious acts, there were internationa kiddie-porn rings, there were terrorists, there was greed and hatred beyond a logical person's measure. Bush did not create any of that.
He may have exacerbated anti-American sentiments with his free-wheeling style and done some other stupid things, but Bush is not the root of all evil.
I'm sorry, but the quotes pulled from that letter read to me like a high school pranskter wrote it. It's obviously some jerkoff who dislikes the head scarve rule and is hoping to sway things during a touchy time. Maybe I'm wrong but it just reads phony to me.
Maybe all these terrorist masterminds have crappy English skills and just write with a fakey style but I doubt this is the genuine article or that France will soon become a mass killing ground. Possible but unlikley IMO.
9/11 has nothing to do with Bush, Ben Laden planified this attack before the US elections. The same attack will have occured if Al Gore was president. Ben Laden do not give a rat ass who is in power, right or left. If Kerry come into office he will not withdraw US troops in Iraq or change the WOT. Probabily there will some changes in foreign affair, but Kerry will not be more sympathic to Ben Laden than Kerry.
A brilliant foreign policy can reduce the support of integrist islamist among the islam population, but it will not stop terrorists to do their dirty war.
An all time classic - we need a hall of lame for this stuff, really we do...
Seriously why is so silly? He's only slightly relevant, and not even of his own doing. He's relevant due to his opponent having views that were unpopular and terrorists having bombed his homeland.
Is Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney typically important to a Spaniard? Of course not. Do I expect a Spaniard to know the names of any given Governor in any given state? Of course not.
I said Spain is effectively a state in the E.U. In context can't you see I'm saying that any given E.U. country's leader is likely irrelevant to any given U.S. citizen except for major, noteworthy exceptions, in the exact same way any of our State Governors would likely be unknown to a Spaniard (or German or whatever). Christ, let them settle into office and do something besides merely winning an election before we should be expected to notice them.
Step off your pedestal for a second and read what I'm saying with a smug condescension, if possible.
If anything, your amusement indicates a lack of understanding about the U.S.
We are not one giant country. We are a collection of states, each with its own government. We are federated and united. Sound familiar? Comparing a sovereign nation in the E.U. and a U.S. state isn't as silly as you think it is.
Seriously why is so silly? He's only slightly relevant, and not even of his own doing. He's relevant due to his opponent having views that were unpopular and terrorists having bombed his homeland.
. . . .
Agreed.
Spain has been a minor player in global dynamics for a while now (like 350 years). Keep in mind that California is a more significant entity than almost all countries out there in terms of economics, culture, and fame. And after all it's just a state in the US.
Though you probably know who the governor of California is. . . but did you know who it was before it was seven-time Mr. Olympia?
EU is not US, Spain is not a state, nor any other countrie of EU. They are countrie who are belonging to a club.
You are comparing apples and oranges.
That's a very procedural argument.
If an American state with a nuclear arsenal secedes, then what? In the American Civil War, South Carolina seceded and then fired on US ships with formely US munitions.
Bottom line: you can draw lines on a map if you'd like, and you can appoint heads of state if you'd like, but what it comes down to is influence. There are US states with more influence than Spain. This, hence, makes them more important than Spain as far as world affairs are concerned.
EU is not US, Spain is not a state, nor any other countrie of EU. They are countrie who are belonging to a club.
Blair or Chirac can push on the nuclear button, do you think that a governor of a state has this power ?
Can you cite the name of the president of EU ? i guess not, neither i can. There is none.
You are comparing apples and oranges.
No one is comparing them exactly. I said "effectively". In context I am talking about the man on the street, be it Chicago or Barcelona, probably doesn't know names of U.S. Governors or EU Heads of State.
To an American, day to day life doesn't require knowing names of all/most/any but the most famous foreign leaders.
To an EU citizen, day to day life doesn't require knowing names of all/most/any but the most famous U.S. leaders (be they governors or representatives etc).
How is this not true?
Direct comparison isn't what it was about. Rough analogy != Direct comparison.
Again, to all but Spaniards and Spain's neighbors perhaps, Jose-Luis Rodriguez Zapatero would be a complete unknown in the U.S. had their not been the bombings. Sure, now that he's won and is kicking dust up, sure, well remember him. Just as I don't expect a Spaniard to know about, say, Mitt Romney, unless Romney does something that warrants national/international headlines. (There is more to governing than nuclear buttons Powerdoc)
If an American state with a nuclear arsenal secedes, then what? In the American Civil War, South Carolina seceded and then fired on US ships with formely US munitions.
Bottom line: you can draw lines on a map if you'd like, and you can appoint heads of state if you'd like, but what it comes down to is influence. There are US states with more influence than Spain. This, hence, makes them more important than Spain as far as world affairs are concerned.
That's not a procedural argument. A director of division of Microsoft has much more influence on the software world than the CEO of Quark, but the CEO of Quark has much more power. Can you understand this anology ?
And i ask you what is the diplomatic influence of the governor of california ?
Well Johnq, I suppose the bit I found amusing was the comparing a European head of a nation to a State governor.
I suppose it would be like me equating the President of the US to the Mayor of Catalunya.
No...
That the E.U. Coucil presidency changes every 6 months is swell, but doesn't prevent me from roughly comparing, say, Bush to Ahern.
(Remember this argument is ONLY about whether the average person will notice or deem these people worthy enough to bother remembering their names. I have no point to otherwise compare the U.S. and E.U.)
U.S. President <> E.U. Council President
U.S. State Governor <> E.U. Member Nation Head of State
U.S. City Mayor <> E.U. Member Nation City Mayor.
Remember our States each voluntarily agree to unite as one country with a president over it. We are very much potentially separate countries (and effectively so in the past). We have our own laws and constitutions and flags and taxes.
It's no insult to compare a U.S. state to an European nation. Unless you are smug about it (both ways)
That's not a procedural argument. A director of division of Microsoft has much more influence on the software world than the CEO of Quark, but the CEO of Quark has much more power. Can you understand this anology ?
And i ask you what is the diplomatic influence of the governor of california ?
answer : none. It's not his busisness.
I hate to say this, but you continue to amaze me with your 1 dimensional vision.
Let's say Arnold decides to make California less hospitable to business, and everyone leaves for texas. In the transistion, the world economy will go down, and there will be at least 6 or 7 extra strikes in France. Furthermore, the developed nations of the world will scramble, the WTO will start whining, etc.
Secondly, if the guy in charge of Outlook decided to make some huge revisions, you can bet more people would care than if Quark completely died.
I hate to say this, but you continue to amaze me with your 1 dimensional vision.
Let's say Arnold decides to make California less hospitable to business, and everyone leaves for texas. In the transistion, the world economy will go down, and there will be at least 6 or 7 extra strikes in France. Furthermore, the developed nations of the world will scramble, the WTO will start whining, etc.
Secondly, if the guy in charge of Outlook decided to make some huge revisions, you can bet more people would care than if Quark completely died.
Is this hard to understand?
The current shape of California is very low (huges debts), due to the terrible management of the previous governor, and the world economy did not collapse. The power of a governor is limited to inside politic, and have nothign to do with foreign policy. That's not the case of european countrie (and that's a problem IMO). Is this hard to understand ?
It's easy to understand, but it's easy to understand as not valid.
There is no local government abstraction anymore. In a world economy such as the one we have, any action by any player can have consequences on the whole system.
California's debt is not so much an economic matter as it is a matter of fiscal legislation. That is handled locally, but the well being of Californian businesses, which ended up causing the debt when the Internet IPO bubble burst, is generally unaffected by state debt so long as the state government doesn't collapse.
I'd actually argue that most businesses in California wouldn't be particularly affected if the state government did collapse.
It's easy to understand, but it's easy to understand as not valid.
There is no local government abstraction anymore. In a world economy such as the one we have, any action by any player can have consequences on the whole system.
California's debt is not so much an economic matter as it is a matter of fiscal legislation. That is handled locally, but the well being of Californian businesses, which ended up causing the debt when the Internet IPO bubble burst, is generally unaffected by state debt so long as the state government doesn't collapse.
I'd actually argue that most businesses in California wouldn't be particularly affected if the state government did collapse.
World economy is on the way, but US is much more unified than Europe. When you went to France to Spain or vice versa : you go in a foreign countrie. When you travel in US from state to state, you really feel that you are still in US . There is differences, but in a much lesser extent.
In europe there is the differences of languages (and therefore culture), the huge historical background (many centuries of war or alliances), great economic differences in term of taxes, income, growth (compare polland or Malte to germany and you will discover a wide gap).
Europe is more a common market play ground than anything else for the moment.
U.S. states can be radically different from each other, although not to such an extent as a European country, but only language really. Culture, terrain, peoples...wildly different sometimes. Not moreso than EU but not trivially either.
Actually I'm more conscious of which state I'm in in the U.S. than what country I am in when in Europe. I feel I'm in Europe no matter what country I'm in but in the States I'm more conscious of what State I'm in.
Guess we just see things differently. Maybe it's just a matter of familiarity.
Hate to play devil's advocate, but going from Florida to Louisiana is a big f-ing change. Or, for that matter, is going from Maryland to West Virginia. It's certainly a much bigger difference than going from Holland to Belgium or Denmark, and more different from going from Northern Italy to Switzerland. Delaware has no sales tax (no VAT). That's a big change if you're coming from another state.
There are neighboring American states that are similar, and neighboring European countries that are different. There are neighboring american states that are different, and neighboring European countries that are similar. There's really no effective stereotype here, and I love to stereotype things.
Comments
Originally posted by Gilsch
So irrelevant you're actually reading about them?
I don't expect Spaniards to know about Kucinich, Kerry (until lately), Gephardt, Nader etc.
More accurately, knowing Spain's leaders is like knowing the Mayor of Baltimore or the Governor of Utah since Spain is effectively a state in the E.U.
Not much need to know and it's a Google away if you do.
Originally posted by johnq
...Spain is effectively a state in the E.U....
Oh, giggles...
Originally posted by burningwheel
face it, the whole world is screwed thanks to bush
i think there will be an attack on US soil before the election
Look, I dislike the man's behavior as much as the next guy but this is just stupid.
A) The world was not precisely a hotbed of peace and tranquility before Bush came into office. There were civil wars filled with attrocious acts, there were internationa kiddie-porn rings, there were terrorists, there was greed and hatred beyond a logical person's measure. Bush did not create any of that.
He may have exacerbated anti-American sentiments with his free-wheeling style and done some other stupid things, but Bush is not the root of all evil.
Maybe all these terrorist masterminds have crappy English skills and just write with a fakey style but I doubt this is the genuine article or that France will soon become a mass killing ground. Possible but unlikley IMO.
Originally posted by Moogs
Look, I dislike the man's behavior as much as the next guy but this is just stupid.
A) The world was not precisely a hotbed of peace and tranquility before Bush came into office. There were civil wars filled with attrocious acts, there were internationa kiddie-porn rings, there were terrorists, there was greed and hatred beyond a logical person's measure. Bush did not create any of that.
He may have exacerbated anti-American sentiments with his free-wheeling style and done some other stupid things, but Bush is not the root of all evil.
Maybe all these terrorist masterminds have crappy English skills and just write with a fakey style but I doubt this is the genuine article or that France will soon become a mass killing ground. Possible but unlikley IMO.
9/11 has nothing to do with Bush, Ben Laden planified this attack before the US elections. The same attack will have occured if Al Gore was president. Ben Laden do not give a rat ass who is in power, right or left. If Kerry come into office he will not withdraw US troops in Iraq or change the WOT. Probabily there will some changes in foreign affair, but Kerry will not be more sympathic to Ben Laden than Kerry.
A brilliant foreign policy can reduce the support of integrist islamist among the islam population, but it will not stop terrorists to do their dirty war.
Originally posted by segovius
An all time classic - we need a hall of lame for this stuff, really we do...
Seriously why is so silly? He's only slightly relevant, and not even of his own doing. He's relevant due to his opponent having views that were unpopular and terrorists having bombed his homeland.
Is Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney typically important to a Spaniard? Of course not. Do I expect a Spaniard to know the names of any given Governor in any given state? Of course not.
I said Spain is effectively a state in the E.U. In context can't you see I'm saying that any given E.U. country's leader is likely irrelevant to any given U.S. citizen except for major, noteworthy exceptions, in the exact same way any of our State Governors would likely be unknown to a Spaniard (or German or whatever). Christ, let them settle into office and do something besides merely winning an election before we should be expected to notice them.
Step off your pedestal for a second and read what I'm saying with a smug condescension, if possible.
If anything, your amusement indicates a lack of understanding about the U.S.
We are not one giant country. We are a collection of states, each with its own government. We are federated and united. Sound familiar? Comparing a sovereign nation in the E.U. and a U.S. state isn't as silly as you think it is.
Originally posted by johnq
Seriously why is so silly? He's only slightly relevant, and not even of his own doing. He's relevant due to his opponent having views that were unpopular and terrorists having bombed his homeland.
. . . .
Agreed.
Spain has been a minor player in global dynamics for a while now (like 350 years). Keep in mind that California is a more significant entity than almost all countries out there in terms of economics, culture, and fame. And after all it's just a state in the US.
Though you probably know who the governor of California is. . . but did you know who it was before it was seven-time Mr. Olympia?
Blair or Chirac can push on the nuclear button, do you think that a governor of a state has this power ?
Can you cite the name of the president of EU ? i guess not, neither i can. There is none.
You are comparing apples and oranges.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
EU is not US, Spain is not a state, nor any other countrie of EU. They are countrie who are belonging to a club.
You are comparing apples and oranges.
That's a very procedural argument.
If an American state with a nuclear arsenal secedes, then what? In the American Civil War, South Carolina seceded and then fired on US ships with formely US munitions.
Bottom line: you can draw lines on a map if you'd like, and you can appoint heads of state if you'd like, but what it comes down to is influence. There are US states with more influence than Spain. This, hence, makes them more important than Spain as far as world affairs are concerned.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...nce#post517864
Originally posted by Powerdoc
EU is not US, Spain is not a state, nor any other countrie of EU. They are countrie who are belonging to a club.
Blair or Chirac can push on the nuclear button, do you think that a governor of a state has this power ?
Can you cite the name of the president of EU ? i guess not, neither i can. There is none.
You are comparing apples and oranges.
No one is comparing them exactly. I said "effectively". In context I am talking about the man on the street, be it Chicago or Barcelona, probably doesn't know names of U.S. Governors or EU Heads of State.
To an American, day to day life doesn't require knowing names of all/most/any but the most famous foreign leaders.
To an EU citizen, day to day life doesn't require knowing names of all/most/any but the most famous U.S. leaders (be they governors or representatives etc).
How is this not true?
Direct comparison isn't what it was about. Rough analogy != Direct comparison.
Again, to all but Spaniards and Spain's neighbors perhaps, Jose-Luis Rodriguez Zapatero would be a complete unknown in the U.S. had their not been the bombings. Sure, now that he's won and is kicking dust up, sure, well remember him. Just as I don't expect a Spaniard to know about, say, Mitt Romney, unless Romney does something that warrants national/international headlines. (There is more to governing than nuclear buttons Powerdoc)
Originally posted by Splinemodel
That's a very procedural argument.
If an American state with a nuclear arsenal secedes, then what? In the American Civil War, South Carolina seceded and then fired on US ships with formely US munitions.
Bottom line: you can draw lines on a map if you'd like, and you can appoint heads of state if you'd like, but what it comes down to is influence. There are US states with more influence than Spain. This, hence, makes them more important than Spain as far as world affairs are concerned.
That's not a procedural argument. A director of division of Microsoft has much more influence on the software world than the CEO of Quark, but the CEO of Quark has much more power. Can you understand this anology ?
And i ask you what is the diplomatic influence of the governor of california ?
answer : none. It's not his busisness.
Originally posted by johnq
There is more to governing than nuclear buttons Powerdoc)
Luckily. Just wanted to point out, that they have more power than a governor even if their countrie is smaller than some states of US
BTW, i did not complain that an US people do not know all the name of european leaders. Just crticize the analogy wich is innacurate.
Originally posted by segovius
Well Johnq, I suppose the bit I found amusing was the comparing a European head of a nation to a State governor.
I suppose it would be like me equating the President of the US to the Mayor of Catalunya.
No...
That the E.U. Coucil presidency changes every 6 months is swell, but doesn't prevent me from roughly comparing, say, Bush to Ahern.
(Remember this argument is ONLY about whether the average person will notice or deem these people worthy enough to bother remembering their names. I have no point to otherwise compare the U.S. and E.U.)
U.S. President <> E.U. Council President
U.S. State Governor <> E.U. Member Nation Head of State
U.S. City Mayor <> E.U. Member Nation City Mayor.
Remember our States each voluntarily agree to unite as one country with a president over it. We are very much potentially separate countries (and effectively so in the past). We have our own laws and constitutions and flags and taxes.
It's no insult to compare a U.S. state to an European nation. Unless you are smug about it (both ways)
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Luckily. Just wanted to point out, that they have more power than a governor even if their countrie is smaller than some states of US
BTW, i did not complain that an US people do not know all the name of european leaders. Just crticize the analogy wich is innacurate.
Analogy is inherently inexact.
Analogy only works as much as all parties agree to ignore the things that do not fit the argument.
Anyway, we digress....
Originally posted by Powerdoc
That's not a procedural argument. A director of division of Microsoft has much more influence on the software world than the CEO of Quark, but the CEO of Quark has much more power. Can you understand this anology ?
And i ask you what is the diplomatic influence of the governor of california ?
answer : none. It's not his busisness.
I hate to say this, but you continue to amaze me with your 1 dimensional vision.
Let's say Arnold decides to make California less hospitable to business, and everyone leaves for texas. In the transistion, the world economy will go down, and there will be at least 6 or 7 extra strikes in France. Furthermore, the developed nations of the world will scramble, the WTO will start whining, etc.
Secondly, if the guy in charge of Outlook decided to make some huge revisions, you can bet more people would care than if Quark completely died.
Is this hard to understand?
Originally posted by Splinemodel
I hate to say this, but you continue to amaze me with your 1 dimensional vision.
Let's say Arnold decides to make California less hospitable to business, and everyone leaves for texas. In the transistion, the world economy will go down, and there will be at least 6 or 7 extra strikes in France. Furthermore, the developed nations of the world will scramble, the WTO will start whining, etc.
Secondly, if the guy in charge of Outlook decided to make some huge revisions, you can bet more people would care than if Quark completely died.
Is this hard to understand?
The current shape of California is very low (huges debts), due to the terrible management of the previous governor, and the world economy did not collapse. The power of a governor is limited to inside politic, and have nothign to do with foreign policy. That's not the case of european countrie (and that's a problem IMO). Is this hard to understand ?
I dont give a rat ass about outlook express
There is no local government abstraction anymore. In a world economy such as the one we have, any action by any player can have consequences on the whole system.
California's debt is not so much an economic matter as it is a matter of fiscal legislation. That is handled locally, but the well being of Californian businesses, which ended up causing the debt when the Internet IPO bubble burst, is generally unaffected by state debt so long as the state government doesn't collapse.
I'd actually argue that most businesses in California wouldn't be particularly affected if the state government did collapse.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
It's easy to understand, but it's easy to understand as not valid.
There is no local government abstraction anymore. In a world economy such as the one we have, any action by any player can have consequences on the whole system.
California's debt is not so much an economic matter as it is a matter of fiscal legislation. That is handled locally, but the well being of Californian businesses, which ended up causing the debt when the Internet IPO bubble burst, is generally unaffected by state debt so long as the state government doesn't collapse.
I'd actually argue that most businesses in California wouldn't be particularly affected if the state government did collapse.
World economy is on the way, but US is much more unified than Europe. When you went to France to Spain or vice versa : you go in a foreign countrie. When you travel in US from state to state, you really feel that you are still in US . There is differences, but in a much lesser extent.
In europe there is the differences of languages (and therefore culture), the huge historical background (many centuries of war or alliances), great economic differences in term of taxes, income, growth (compare polland or Malte to germany and you will discover a wide gap).
Europe is more a common market play ground than anything else for the moment.
Actually I'm more conscious of which state I'm in in the U.S. than what country I am in when in Europe. I feel I'm in Europe no matter what country I'm in but in the States I'm more conscious of what State I'm in.
Guess we just see things differently. Maybe it's just a matter of familiarity.
:big shrug:
There are neighboring American states that are similar, and neighboring European countries that are different. There are neighboring american states that are different, and neighboring European countries that are similar. There's really no effective stereotype here, and I love to stereotype things.