• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are we an arrogant country?

Are we an Arrogant country?


  • Total voters
    64
Let me preface this by pointing out I'm hardly a big TD fan in regards to many of the ways he presents his stances, that said.

How is mimicing something mocking it? The video is even there because Limbaugh provides a webcam feed for subscribers to his site to be able to see his broadcast. If he said someone was waving as they left on a boat, and he mimiced waving, would he be "mocking" them? Because your original argument was that he was mocking Fox.

Oh come on! If it was simply mimicking then it was extremely exaggerated which I would categorize under mocking. I could totally see Rush's point if he would have attacked the message rather than the messenger. It was a lowest common denominator attack which I felt was aimed at mocking Michael J. Fox rather than addressing the issues that he took with the message itself.

As far as the video you posted, I'm at work so can't view it. However I'd be interested to know if it was the one that was spread around on the broadcast networks that was purposefully sped up to increase the speed and then looped to make it appear to go on longer then it did.

The one I saw didn't appear sped up at all.
Which again, mimicking does not equal mocking.

I agree. However, I wouldn't categorize what he did as mere mimicking.

Now, I don't agree TD with you trying to play on emotional hysterics. HOWEVER, I actaully DO agree with Rush. I've watched Fox on Boston Legal numerous times and on the previews for Rescue Me. He is no where NEAR as fidgety and shaky as he was in the video.

They probably don't film him for tv shows while he is fidgety and shaky. It's a result of the medication and Rush made the claim that he was under-medicated and did so on purpose. I just think that's absurd to assume that he would put on a show of being fidgety just for the purpose of garnering sympathy. I've seen him in plenty of interviews where he is just as or even more shaky.

So my question to you, would be WHY would he purposefully take lengths not to be that way when on television shows, but was doing it while in his commercial? Its obvious that he COULD'VE been FAR more composed in his commercial than he was, but he wasn't. Why was that?

The condition worsens over time. You mentioned earlier that you never saw him that way on Boston Legal, but if I recall correctly he did the commercial some time after he ended his stint with Boston Legal. Since the interview I really haven't seen him where he isn't fidgety like that.

My guess would be, trying to view it from his side, he wanted to the most raw look into parkinsons that he could provide in the commercial, and thus didn't want to take steps to make himself seem "better" than he really was. And you know what, I don't blame him for that. But to say that the reason you'd want to do that is for any reason OTHER than to hope that it still strike an emotional cord with people is simply dishonest in my opinion. The REASON you'd want to show it at its worst for him is specifically so people feel more emotionally disgusted at not helping such a horrible illness than if he just seemed like a perfectly fine person up there talking on the screen.

Well, regardless I think it's silly to just assume that's what he was doing. Obviously Rush needed to do more research on Parkinson's because he thought that he was under-medicated which makes no sense.

Which is exactly the point Rush was trying to make; albiet in his normal verbose, over the top, rather idiotic way.

Which I read as mockery. Maybe I'm wrong because I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh all the time and I'm not aware of his nuances. Regardless, he is obviously quite ignorant on the subject of Parkinson's Disease.
 
Which I read as mockery. Maybe I'm wrong because I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh all the time and I'm not aware of his nuances. Regardless, he is obviously quite ignorant on the subject of Parkinson's Disease.

You are wrong which was the point I attempted to make; and as for your claim that Rush is obviously ignorant on the subject of Parkinson's disease; yes he probably is as are perhaps 90% of the population myself included.

Perhaps you are letting your perceptions and knowledge of the disease bias your claims regarding Rush’s intention?
 
I think we are. I know I am when it comes to the US. I hate to admit it but I get caught up in the nationalism at times. So yes I think we are at heart.
 
Oh come on! If it was simply mimicking then it was extremely exaggerated which I would categorize under mocking. I could totally see Rush's point if he would have attacked the message rather than the messenger. It was a lowest common denominator attack which I felt was aimed at mocking Michael J. Fox rather than addressing the issues that he took with the message itself.

You can't literally sit here on this forum and tell me attacking the messanger, in regards to their motivations for how they're framing the debate, isn't a legitimate tactic. Evereyone uses it.

Lets say Obama suddenly invaded Darfur because there were reports a terrorist cell of Al-Qaeda had started up there that became well funded and was where Bin Laden had relocated. After invading it was found out that wasn't the case and that Obama administration likely new it. TD then goes on a fit, complaining that Obama lied so he and his administration could just go in and do what they were planning on doing all along. He's a war criminal, he's horrible, he needs to be removed from President.

Are you telling me, seriously, you'd look at that and ONLY debate the message? You wouldn't look at the poster, and his motives, and question that in the context of the topic? That you wouldn't say "TD, how in the world is this any different than with Bush and Iraq and WMD's. How can you justify being upset about this when you defended bush"?

I doubt it, because people do it constantly on this forum.

How is going "Alright Michael J. Fox, I dislike your stance here, but are you trying to tell me you're not purposefully allowing yourself to go on camera showing the worst affects of your illness in hopes of illiciting an emotional response instead of going on there like you do with other TV appearances you've been on, with it under control, so people can base their choice on this on the FACTS of the case rather than an emotional reaction to your unfortunante state" ANY DIFFERENT?

The only possible difference is that, frankly, Rush did it in a far more ass like fashion. I'm not going to sit here and say that Rush wasn't an ass. Rush is an ass. He's routinely an ass. But that doesn't mean he was MOCKING him or was "attacking the messanger" in some way that was abhorent. He was complaining about a LEGITIMATE bit of dishonest attempt to manipulate the voting population, though doing so in an ass like manner.

The one I saw didn't appear sped up at all.

Could be the case. Like I said, I'd need to see it and can't at work.

I agree. However, I wouldn't categorize what he did as mere mimicking.

Perhaps he was a bit more over the top with it, perhaps he's not a trained actor and was doing his rendition of it, I don't know. I didn't see it as a "hur hur, look at me shake like a retard" type of thing that i'd think of when I hear the word "mocking". I didn't see him doing it with any kind of great malice against Fox or in an attempt to get people to ridicule Fox DUE to his disease or to laugh at him for shaking. That to me is mocking. From what I saw, he was mimicing it, albiet poorly.

They probably don't film him for tv shows while he is fidgety and shaky. It's a result of the medication and Rush made the claim that he was under-medicated and did so on purpose. I just think that's absurd to assume that he would put on a show of being fidgety just for the purpose of garnering sympathy. I've seen him in plenty of interviews where he is just as or even more shaky.

Honestly, i've not seen him in many interviews. The few I've seen him in are ones where he's talking about parkinsons and the ravages of it and advocating people trying to find ways to help it. Again, as I've said before, I don't blame him one bit for allowing the full scope of the effects he's experiencing due to the disease or the drugs needed to help the disease to be seen when he's making these claims. I would too. He's trying to stir up support, and it HELPS to appeal to emotions when you stir up support. Just don't get upset when people point out that you are doing things to try and stir up support.

The fact is, he can appear on camera without that large of an amount of fidgeting. If all he wanted people to do was make a judgement based on the FACTS, he'd have appeared that way. He didn't. He choose to appear in such a way that would likely appeal to emotions along with appeal to peoples logic. I don't fault him for that, but I also don't think for a minute that wasn't part of it.

I don't think he OVER exaggerated it purposefully, which Rush mused about but to my memory didn't specifically suggest was definitive fact.

Well, regardless I think it's silly to just assume that's what he was doing. Obviously Rush needed to do more research on Parkinson's because he thought that he was under-medicated which makes no sense.

Which I read as mockery. Maybe I'm wrong because I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh all the time and I'm not aware of his nuances. Regardless, he is obviously quite ignorant on the subject of Parkinson's Disease.

No qualms with you here. Rush can be and often is an Ass and shoots his mouth off without a full understnading of what he's saying. That doesn't make his point any less right, even if the fact he blathered about during it were wrong.
 
I think we are. I know I am when it comes to the US. I hate to admit it but I get caught up in the nationalism at times. So yes I think we are at heart.

Are you? Are we? Perhaps what is needed here is a dictionary definition:

Main Entry: arrogance !ar-u-gun(t)s
Pronunciation: \ ˈer-ə-gən(t)s, ˈa-rə- \
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
Results
14th century an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions


I am not sure I would label you as being arrogant from what I have seen on the forum.

I am not sure I can label America as being arrogant in context of global events.

It would be easy placing someone like Castro or Hugo Chavez into that category, but US Presidents in modern history? I don’t believe so.
 
The fact that people are failing to admit that the U.S. is arrogant ... is arrogance itself.



Conservatives ... :roll:
 
The fact that people are failing to admit that the U.S. is arrogant ... is arrogance itself.

Conservatives ... :roll:

Then you obviously have a fantastically confused idea about the definition of arrogance.

Perhaps it is because your goal here is just to put down Conservatives? :2wave:
 
The fact that people are failing to admit that the U.S. is arrogant ... is arrogance itself.



Conservatives ... :roll:

Wow that is pretty much bull**** man. Quite a few people who would call themselves conservative said yes.

zip your fly, your partisanship is hanging out. :roll:
 
Then you obviously have a fantastically confused idea about the definition of arrogance.

Perhaps it is because your goal here is just to put down Conservatives? :2wave:

Maybe ... :roll:
 
Are you? Are we? Perhaps what is needed here is a dictionary definition:

Main Entry: arrogance !ar-u-gun(t)s
Pronunciation: \ ˈer-ə-gən(t)s, ˈa-rə- \
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
Results
14th century an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions


I am not sure I would label you as being arrogant from what I have seen on the forum.

I am not sure I can label America as being arrogant in context of global events.

It would be easy placing someone like Castro or Hugo Chavez into that category, but US Presidents in modern history? I don’t believe so.
We're the World Police. We feel it is our duty to monitor all of the world's activities. We feel that it is our place to tell countries that they are not allowed to create weapons. That is arrogance.
 
We're the World Police. We feel it is our duty to monitor all of the world's activities.
Gotta take issue with that, hear me out. It is our government that intervenes in that manner, with much dissention from either side of the aisle depending on the reasoning for doing so. Also we, unlike many other member countries within the U.N. uphold our end of the bargain in enforcing resolutions and NATO sanctions, it's not a good justification but a responsibility we have, which is one of the many reasons to get out of the U.N.
We feel that it is our place to tell countries that they are not allowed to create weapons. That is arrogance.
Certain countries shouldn't have weapons, those without the proper channels to launch a nuke or bio-weapon should be monitored closely, how much of that falls on our shoulders is more than fair for debate, but I don't think anyone can argue that N.Korea, Iran, formerly Iraq, and a few of the terrorist havens shouldn't have any kind of mass destruction capability.
 
Your president, that you love so much TOJ, is on a world apology tour because he has a consciounce and is probably the first president in recent times to realize, that perhaps taking into consideration the thoughts and feelings of states abroad regarding certain issues without blowing things up and making a mess of everything first is the right thing to do. In the midst of the economic crises in america, its becoming more and more evident that you cant just think about yourselves and rely on yourselves only and do whatever you want. You need the support of the internation community. No good seeking support in NATO or whatever issue it may be if those countries feel American policies are just lame arse and destructive like the warlord Bush's policies.

Um the financial crisis has nothing to do with foreign policy whatsoever, what are you even talking about? If the financial crisis actually proves anything it is that the entire global economy relies on a successful U.S. economy.
 
We're the World Police. We feel it is our duty to monitor all of the world's activities. We feel that it is our place to tell countries that they are not allowed to create weapons. That is arrogance.

I want you to think for a moment why the US has taken on that "perceived" role; there are many reasons, but I will keep it simple here.

Our Western and Canadian allies have feckless small military’s. The reason for this is that they have CHOSEN to hand over security issues to the United States which has the worlds most powerful military force so that they can spend HUGE sums on their social welfare programs.

The United Nations look to the United States when it comes to enforcing UN resolutions. Much for the reasons above; no one else has the military might to enforce them.

It was not a role the United States CHOSE through arrogance, it was a role that evolved because of the all the mistakes made by Europe in their Imperialist empire building of the past and global problems in Asia and the Middle East, the base of which climaxed with World War II.

In the Middle East, we were not the arrogant Imperialists; we were the neutral party that was asked to broker peace between the factions. We reluctantly went along with the carving of a Jewish State out of Palestine. We were close allies with the Saudi Kingdom. We forced the French and the British to stop their invasion of Egypt during the Suez crises.

Hardly being the arrogant Imperialists, we were the ones attempting to keep the peace while also preventing Soviet Communist Imperialism. We were not the ones who exploited Middle Eastern oil; that was the British and the Dutch.

So before you make such uninformed claims, do a little historical research before spewing your DNC talking points.

The FACT is that if we do not attempt to maintain order and peace, no one else is capable of it. The notion that the UN could do anything without US force and money requires the willing suspension of disbelief.

The United States, contrary to popular opinion on DP, is the singular force in the world for all that is good; if you define “good” as human dignity, human rights, economic prosperity and freedom. No other nation in the world or combination of nations can do what we can do. The notion that we should retreat into a cocoon and this would make the Globe a safer better place requires historical ignorance.
 
We're the World Police. We feel it is our duty to monitor all of the world's activities. We feel that it is our place to tell countries that they are not allowed to create weapons. That is arrogance.

Unfortunately, we're self-elected to fill a role nobody else wants us in. When we piss everyone else off and they retaliate, we suddenly act like we're the ones that have been wronged. :roll:
 
Unfortunately, we're self-elected to fill a role nobody else wants us in. When we piss everyone else off and they retaliate, we suddenly act like we're the ones that have been wronged. :roll:

Once more, the notion that the US self elected itself requires willful ignorance or the willing suspension of disbelief.

Read the above comments I made to your buddy and become informed rather than spewing the nonsense that is typified by someone who is ignorant of the historic record.

You are of course welcome to debate my version of the historic record with facts and links to support your assertions that the US has somehow, without outside influences, interjected itself in global affairs.
:roll:
 
Once more, the notion that the US self elected itself requires willful ignorance or the willing suspension of disbelief.

Read the above comments I made to your buddy and become informed rather than spewing the nonsense that is typified by someone who is ignorant of the historic record.

You are of course welcome to debate my version of the historic record with facts and links to support your assertions that the US has somehow, without outside influences, interjected itself in global affairs.
:roll:

So when the UN went to a vote that the US invasion of Grenada was an act of aggression and the only reason it was rejected was because we vetoed it that isn't an example of the US forcefully injecting itself into other's affairs? (Vote: 122 in favor, 9 oppossed, 27 abstentions)

And when we invaded Iraq outside the confines of UN authority with a "coalition of the willing" we were once again acting as restrained constituent in global affairs as oppossed to a hegemonic dictator?
 
So when the UN went to a vote that the US invasion of Grenada was an act of aggression and the only reason it was rejected was because we vetoed it that isn't an example of the US forcefully injecting itself into other's affairs? (Vote: 122 in favor, 9 oppossed, 27 abstentions)

No it was not an example of US forcefully interjecting itself into other's affairs, it was an example of the US Government protecting US citizens who were being threatened by the illegitimate party led by Deputy Prime Minister Bernard Coard who placed the legitimate Prime Minister Bishop under house arrest, instituted military rule and eventually murdered Bishop.

The Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) appealed to the United States, Barbados, and Jamaica for assistance and many of the population of Grenada supported our ousting of an illegitimate ruler who was supported by Communists of Cuba and the Soviet Union.
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Urgent_Fury]Invasion of Grenada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

I find it fascinating when the America haters like you think it is right for communists to take over Governments by force but it is wrong for the US to invade to re-institute the legitimate Government and Constitution of this nation and protect its citizens.

Why is that?

And when we invaded Iraq outside the confines of UN authority with a "coalition of the willing" we were once again acting as restrained constituent in global affairs as oppossed to a hegemonic dictator?

Once again your version of events represents the hate America mentality of Leftists who have a blatant disregard of the facts and events surrounding our legitimate invasion of Iraq to enforce resolutions defied by Saddam Hussein for over a decade.

The only thing more fascinating is that the America haters like you think that Saddam Hussein should have been left in power after invading two neighboring nations and defying agreements he had signed in order to remain in power.

America led the coalition to oust Saddam from Kuwait during the Gulf War and the US has always been the nation who provided the most aid, the most force and enforces resolutions which UN nations cannot do themselves.

Under UN resolutions, member states are given the power to enforce UN resolutions and it did not require Frances, Russia’s or China’s blessings to enforce resolutions a decade after they had been defied nor do these resolutions suggest that it requires further action from the UN to enforce those resolutions.

I suggest you read UN resolution 687 in its entirety and specifically enforcement contained item 27 and 678 in its entirety and specifically enforcement contained item #2 and the Joint resolution to go into Iraq so that you can be better informed as to what amounts to LEGAL authority.

UN Resolutions on Iraq
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/gopher/s90/32

Un resolution 678
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/gopher/s91/4

Un Resolution 687
UN Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq

Joint Authorization on Iraq
S. J. Res 45 Auhorizing Use of Armed Forces Against Iraq
 
We're the World Police. We feel it is our duty to monitor all of the world's activities. We feel that it is our place to tell countries that they are not allowed to create weapons. That is arrogance.

Well, without world police, we end up with nightmares such as WWI (16 million dead) and WWII (72 million dead).

I know there are some around the world and even in the U.S. who'd like to compare our last administration to the tyrants who caused these worldwide tragedies. I think their perspective of history is somewhat distorted.

;)
 
Gotta take issue with that, hear me out. It is our government that intervenes in that manner, with much dissention from either side of the aisle depending on the reasoning for doing so. Also we, unlike many other member countries within the U.N. uphold our end of the bargain in enforcing resolutions and NATO sanctions, it's not a good justification but a responsibility we have, which is one of the many reasons to get out of the U.N.
Right... I'm not sure how that refutes anything I've said.

Certain countries shouldn't have weapons
In your opinion. They probably think we should not have weapons. So now what?

those without the proper channels to launch a nuke or bio-weapon should be monitored closely, how much of that falls on our shoulders is more than fair for debate, but I don't think anyone can argue that N.Korea, Iran, formerly Iraq, and a few of the terrorist havens shouldn't have any kind of mass destruction capability.
No one should have mass destruction capability. It's a bit late to start saying "Hey, we're America. I know we have nukes, but you can't. That may sound hypocritical, but we Americans trust ourselves and have decided that you should dismantle your weapons because we don't trust you. Thanks!" :roll:
 
Well, without world police, we end up with nightmares such as WWI (16 million dead) and WWII (72 million dead).
How would you care to support that? All of our meddling in the Middle East pissed off enough people to give them reason to fly themselves into buildings.
 
No it was not an example of US forcefully interjecting itself into other's affairs, it was an example of the US Government protecting US citizens who were being threatened by the illegitimate party led by Deputy Prime Minister Bernard Coard who placed the legitimate Prime Minister Bishop under house arrest, instituted military rule and eventually murdered Bishop.

The Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) appealed to the United States, Barbados, and Jamaica for assistance and many of the population of Grenada supported our ousting of an illegitimate ruler who was supported by Communists of Cuba and the Soviet Union.
Invasion of Grenada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I find it fascinating when the America haters like you think it is right for communists to take over Governments by force but it is wrong for the US to invade to re-institute the legitimate Government and Constitution of this nation and protect its citizens.

Why is that?

Once again your version of events represents the hate America mentality of Leftists who have a blatant disregard of the facts and events surrounding our legitimate invasion of Iraq to enforce resolutions defied by Saddam Hussein for over a decade.

The only thing more fascinating is that the America haters like you think that Saddam Hussein should have been left in power after invading two neighboring nations and defying agreements he had signed in order to remain in power.

America led the coalition to oust Saddam from Kuwait during the Gulf War and the US has always been the nation who provided the most aid, the most force and enforces resolutions which UN nations cannot do themselves.

Under UN resolutions, member states are given the power to enforce UN resolutions and it did not require Frances, Russia’s or China’s blessings to enforce resolutions a decade after they had been defied nor do these resolutions suggest that it requires further action from the UN to enforce those resolutions.

I suggest you read UN resolution 687 in its entirety and specifically enforcement contained item 27 and 678 in its entirety and specifically enforcement contained item #2 and the Joint resolution to go into Iraq so that you can be better informed as to what amounts to LEGAL authority.

UN Resolutions on Iraq
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/gopher/s90/32

Un resolution 678
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/gopher/s91/4

Un Resolution 687
UN Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq

Joint Authorization on Iraq
S. J. Res 45 Auhorizing Use of Armed Forces Against Iraq

This is why I gave up on actually attempting to debate hyper-partisans. Yes, we understand that you hate Communists. We get it.
 
Last edited:
How would you care to support that? All of our meddling in the Middle East pissed off enough people to give them reason to fly themselves into buildings.

I didn't say our policing of the world was perfect.

What I said was, compared to the 72 million dead in WWII and the 16 million dead in WWI, the past 60 years of U.S. policing have resulted in a relatively peaceful period in world history.

I also noted that many seem to have a distorted perspective of history. Which your post seems to be confirming.

Your suggestion that we've 'pissed off' Middle Easterners is baffling to me compared to the 72 million dead in WWII and 16 million dead in WWI. Are you suggesting the world is a more deadly place today than it was during the first half of the 20th Century?

:confused:
 
I didn't say our policing of the world was perfect.

What I said was, compared to the 72 million dead in WWII and the 16 million dead in WWI, the past 60 years of U.S. policing have resulted in a relatively peaceful period in world history.

I also noted that many seem to have a distorted perspective of history. Which your post seems to be confirming.

Your suggestion that we've 'pissed off' Middle Easterners is baffling to me compared to the 72 million dead in WWII and 16 million dead in WWI.
You have yet to provide any sort of information to suggest that we have not had conflicts like the World Wars BECAUSE we have been policing the world.

Are you suggesting the world is a more deadly place today than it was during the first half of the 20th Century?

:confused:
Not at all.
 
How would you care to support that? All of our meddling in the Middle East pissed off enough people to give them reason to fly themselves into buildings.

The only way anyone can make the absurd comments you have is either; (1) they are ignorant about US history and involvement in the ME; (2) they have swallowed the terrorist rhetoric and hyperbole hook line and sinker and therefore rationalize the reasons for their murderous actions; or (3) they just hate America and will spew any vile excuse for the terrorists actions they can fabricate.

Which one is yours?

What child like naiveté’ does one have to wallow in to REALLY think it mattered what the US did in the ME to rationalize the murderous events of 9-11?

Once again the statements you make cannot be supported by any credible historical facts unless taken out of context or fabricated.

I challenge you to provide ONE case of US "meddling" in historical context that can justify terrorists flying airliners into high rise buildings and the pentagon. Good luck with that.
 
The only way anyone can make the absurd comments you have is either; (1) they are ignorant about US history and involvement in the ME; (2) they have swallowed the terrorist rhetoric and hyperbole hook line and sinker and therefore rationalize the reasons for their murderous actions; or (3) they just hate America and will spew any vile excuse for the terrorists actions they can fabricate.

Which one is yours?

What child like naiveté’ does one have to wallow in to REALLY think it mattered what the US did in the ME to rationalize the murderous events of 9-11?

Once again the statements you make cannot be supported by any credible historical facts unless taken out of context or fabricated.

I challenge you to provide ONE case of US "meddling" in historical context that can justify terrorists flying airliners into high rise buildings and the pentagon. Good luck with that.
I never claimed that terrorist actions were justified. Nice strawman, though. I'll save myself the effort by quoting a post from earlier in this thread:

This is why I gave up on actually attempting to debate hyper-partisans.
 
Back
Top Bottom