• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Conservative Prime Minister Cameron: "All of England" united against Mitt Romney

If I lost their business, it'd probably go to my French competitors.

I don't think you actually fear losing it.


What I'm actually searching for is a way to agree that the Nicaraguans should have thrown out the Sandinistas without endorsing the CIA-backed death squads.

Riiiiiiiiight. Considering you were referring to the 1979 elections originally, and then made some vague comment about the legitimacy of the 1984 elections, when you just could have answered the question, this is total bull****.

Own what you think. Radical concept, I know.

Which is, you know, what I take the libertarian position on the issue to be.

Stupid cheap shot which misses the mark in almost every way possible.
 
There was not "being worked up" there, it was merely a statement of fact. The UK can say anything they want, but in the end it's not up to them. And in the end it won't make a difference. Even if we elected someone unpopular with Europe, it's not like Europe will stop doing business with us. We'll continue on as is now.

yeh fair enough, sorry I thought you were getting worked up over nothing.

End of the day the whole Romney issue was more about his comments about the olympics and in time most people will have forgotten about that ( if they havent already). As you said The US can hate Europe, Europe hate the US, China hate Japan etc but when it comes down to it they all put on a brave face and do what needs to be done.
 
yeh fair enough, sorry I thought you were getting worked up over nothing.

End of the day the whole Romney issue was more about his comments about the olympics and in time most people will have forgotten about that ( if they havent already). As you said The US can hate Europe, Europe hate the US, China hate Japan etc but when it comes down to it they all put on a brave face and do what needs to be done.

I don't really think Europe hates America or vice versa. America has very deep European roots, we may not like what each others governments have done or continue to do; but governments suck.
 
I don't think you actually fear losing it.

I could afford to lose it. I wouldn't be pleased with it.

Riiiiiiiiight. Considering you were referring to the 1979 elections originally...

Own what you think. Radical concept, I know.

I will if you will. We'll begin here:

There was no election in Nicaragua in 1979. What I referred to was the Sandinistan revolution in 1979, which was confirmed by a mandate in 1984.

The Americans were very much in favor of the Sandinistas being voted out of power. I agree, and hold that the Nicaraguans should have done so when they had the opportunity. I am opposed, however, to the eventual CIA-backed coup.

The Nicaraguans should have listened to their northern counterparts. Most Americans felt as though they should have, too. But what's good for the goose is good for the gander as well: if the opinions of one nation matter in the domestic politics of another, then the opinions of all nations matter, however slightly, in the domestic politics of all other nations.
 
I could afford to lose it. I wouldn't be pleased with it.

Can you answer a post without dodging what I actually say? It seems that you cannot.

I don't think you're actually worried about losing it at all.



I will if you will.

:roll: What of what I've said have I not owned? What a childish, playground retort.


We'll begin here:

There was no election in Nicaragua in 1979. What I referred to was the Sandinistan revolution in 1979, which was confirmed by a mandate in 1984.

The Americans were very much in favor of the Sandinistas being voted out of power. I agree, and hold that the Nicaraguans should have done so when they had the opportunity. I am opposed, however, to the eventual CIA-backed coup.

You still haven't answered what I actually asked you.

I didn't ask who you thought the Nicaraguans should have elected.

I asked if you if they should have cared what America wanted.

Obviously, it's a lost cause to get you to answer. Which, really, is answer enough.

That's a game I'm done playing; continue to be tiresomely evasive at your own leisure.
 
You still haven't answered what I actually asked you.

I didn't ask who you thought the Nicaraguans should have elected.

I asked if you if they should have cared what America wanted.

Funny. It looked to me like I answered just that.

The Americans were very much in favor of the Sandinistas being voted out of power. I agree, and hold that the Nicaraguans should have done so when they had the opportunity. I am opposed, however, to the eventual CIA-backed coup.

The Nicaraguans should have listened to their northern counterparts. Most Americans felt as though they should have, too. But what's good for the goose is good for the gander as well: if the opinions of one nation matter in the domestic politics of another, then the opinions of all nations matter, however slightly, in the domestic politics of all other nations.
 
Funny. It looked to me like I answered just that.

Funny; that second paragraph wasn't there when I quoted you.

Fine, you answered -- sure took you long enough and a lot of prodding from me to get you to do it. You could have done it several posts back, but no.

But then you try to spin it around on me:

Most Americans felt as though they should have, too. But what's good for the goose is good for the gander as well: if the opinions of one nation matter in the domestic politics of another, then the opinions of all nations matter, however slightly, in the domestic politics of all other nations.

However, I think they should have elected whoever they wanted whatever we thought, even if I think it's the wrong choice. It's not my call.

And even if "most Americans" thought they should have listened (which is a dubious claim; I doubt "most Americans" gave much thought to the matter, period), that doesn't mean they thought their opinion "mattered."

And the leap you make doesn't flow logically from it if it did (ALL nations). But one need not even go there, considering in your OP you couched it in the terms of harming our relationship with our "closest ally."
 
The English were far more traditionalist than were the Americans of the day.

In many ways, yes. However they have since abandoned almost all of those Traditional Values in favor of Socialism; which is a crime against humanity on every level possible.

You may continue to believe that. Reality, apparently, will never convince you otherwise.

Please tell me which country other than the US has the best interests of the United States as its primary goal. Until you can find one, there cannot be anyone considered America's ALLY.

The influence of Spain, France, etc. on America's heritage is vastly overstated. Over 90% of the Patriots during the Revolution spoke English as a first language, despite the fact that French was the lingua france of the day. A vast majority of our early literature, and virtually our entire body of law, came from the United Kingdom, as did High Church Anglicanism.

Not so much before the Revolution as after. In the 200+ years since the Revolution the impact of those societies, and many others on the United States has been significant.
 
Funny; that second paragraph wasn't there when I quoted you.

I know. Because you were trying to spin my very thoroughgoing reply into empty air.

Fine, you answered -- sure took you long enough and a lot of prodding from me to get you to do it. You could have done it several posts back, but no.

I said materially the same thing in my first post on the matter.

By the same token, incidentally, one might ask why the Nicaraguans ought to have cared about whether or not the Americans appreciated the 1979 Sandinista revolution... but we certainly did.

And even if "most Americans" thought they should have listened (which is a dubious claim; I doubt "most Americans" gave much thought to the matter, period), that doesn't mean they thought their opinion "mattered."

It mattered enough for the Reagan Administration to involve itself in a potentially Administration-ruining scandal.

And the leap you make doesn't flow logically from it if it did (ALL nations). But one need not even go there, considering in your OP you couched it in the terms of harming our relationship with our "closest ally."

Certainly it does. If an election in a culturally alien nation like Nicaragua matters to Americans, then it makes far more sense that an election in America should matter to the British. And if it matters to the British, then, noblesse oblige, it should matter to us.
 
Who cares, Canadians and brits cannot vote in american elections. If Romney pisses off the limeys, good for him. Let them go down the financial tubes with the rest of europe, while the fools spend all of their time looking at pictures of Kates boobs.
 
In many ways, yes. However they have since abandoned almost all of those Traditional Values in favor of Socialism; which is a crime against humanity on every level possible.

That's irrelevant. You said:

That self-same nation is also the one which my forefathers had to bleed and shed other's blood to separate ourselves from due to their... lack of values.

If you agree with me that the British, at the time of the Revolution, were a more traditionally-minded (or Traditionalist, if you prefer) society than the Colonies, whither comes your patriotic sentiment?

Please tell me which country other than the US has the best interests of the United States as its primary goal. Until you can find one, there cannot be anyone considered America's ALLY.

None. The definition of "ally" has nothing to do with putting the needs of another nation above one's own.

Not so much before the Revolution as after. In the 200+ years since the Revolution the impact of those societies, and many others on the United States has been significant.

That's not very Traditional, is it? Are you embracing progress, Tigger? ;-)

Anyway, this thread is boring now.
 
I know. Because you were trying to spin my very thoroughgoing reply into empty air.

Uh, no, it's because you edited your post after I hit "quote" and started responding. Don't try to blame that on me, or make it seem like that's not what happened. This is what we call a "lie."


I said materially the same thing in my first post on the matter.

No, you didn't.

You have serious problems with honest conversation. What people think it gains them, I have no idea.


It mattered enough for the Reagan Administration to involve itself in a potentially Administration-ruining scandal.

See, you're just trying to run another red herring here.


Certainly it does. If an election in a culturally alien nation like Nicaragua matters to Americans, then it makes far more sense that an election in America should matter to the British. And if it matters to the British, then, noblesse oblige, it should matter to us.

You apparenlty cannot make a single point without ignoring what I actually said or trying to spin off a red herring. This still doesn't make the leap to it applying to ALL nations.

What a waste of time. If this is the best you've got, it isn't much.
 
If you agree with me that the British, at the time of the Revolution, were a more traditionally-minded (or Traditionalist, if you prefer) society than the Colonies, whither comes your patriotic sentiment?

My sentiment comes from the fact that some of the Traditions embraced by the British Empire were not appropriate and do not fall in line with the Universal Morality that I espouse. In fact, in several cases these were the exact issues that caused the Revolution.

None. The definition of "ally" has nothing to do with putting the needs of another nation above one's own.

It does in my mind, which is the only thing that matters to me.

That's not very Traditional, is it? Are you embracing progress, Tigger? ;-)

Change, yes on occasion. Progress, Never. When one looks at the things that these societies have brought, most of them of value have had little impact on the morals and values of the society but have more impacted the social side of things.
 
Who cares, Canadians and brits cannot vote in american elections. If Romney pisses off the limeys, good for him. Let them go down the financial tubes with the rest of europe, while the fools spend all of their time looking at pictures of Kates boobs.

she does have a smokin bod...: )
 
I would take the comments that the attitude of Cameron has no bearing seriously if those dismissing it didn't make it an issue when Netanyahu pulls a diplomatic faux pas on Obama. And of course vice versa.
 
You see, the difference between asian indians and arabs is that asian indians who came in the UK came from an environment which was already very westernized. India was the jewel of UK colonies and western influence was prominent. Pakistan is no India from any point of view... and the cultural baggage it exports with every citizen is far from the westernized cultural baggage indians came in the UK with.

Slightly awkward for my first post here to be a correction - but Pakistan was India before independence, and influenced by precisely the same factors (although the NW frontier, adjoining Afghanistan, was never an area where the Raj's power was strong). Indeed, British favouritism for Muslims in India was a bugbear for many Hindus.
 
Back
Top Bottom