- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 7,059
- Reaction score
- 2,412
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Likewise ...Indeed! Very profound.
Likewise ...Indeed! Very profound.
Fact is that wasn't a fact.I dont suggest anything, just stating a fact. Sorry if you dont like that fact.
Done editing that post, or is there any more foolishness you plan on squeezing in?Indeed! Very profound. It makes you laugh and ask how they can "entertain" such an argument?........fascinating. I'll have to sleep on all that infomation just to let it sink in.
Has nothing to do with partisan crap.. but facts.
First off Bush was elected in highly controversial circumstances broadcast all around the world. YES the world was amazed that in the US, elections could go that wrong and have to be settled in a court of law.. That happens in the 3rd world, not in what many up to that point saw as the beacon of democracy, liberty and freedom. How could the US from that day on, go around preaching democracy and freedom, when they could not even figure out how to count their own freaking votes in an election.
Secondly Iraq. Need I say more?
Thirdly Gitmo and Abu Graib.. Need I say more?
While no country has a "moral compass" really, the US always had an aura of being what everything is good about democracy and liberty in the free world, but that was shattered during the Bush administration. Obama is trying to rebuild that aura but he has one hell of a steep hill to climb and I am not even certain that he is doing it in the right way yet. Time will tell.
I dont suggest anything, just stating a fact. Sorry if you dont like that fact.
Fact is that wasn't a fact.
Yeah. You got bupkis, which probably surprises no one.
It was wrong, illegal, anti-democratic, but you can't point to how and why. Typical. This is probably by and large true of all the other throngs you invoke as well.
LOL it is not a fact that the 2000 election has "issues" in it?
Like it or not, I grew up along with many Europeans, being taught that the US was the beacon of democracy, liberty and freedom, and yet here we had an election that was ... lets just say controversial at best. So yes that illusion we grew up on was shattered in 2000.. like it or not. And that did damage the illusion of any "moral compass" by the US on things like democracy and elections.
Where the HELL did I state that? Stop making **** up just because you disagree with my view.
LOL it is not a fact that the 2000 election has "issues" in it?
Like it or not, I grew up along with many Europeans, being taught that the US was the beacon of democracy, liberty and freedom, and yet here we had an election that was ... lets just say controversial at best. So yes that illusion we grew up on was shattered in 2000.. like it or not. And that did damage the illusion of any "moral compass" by the US on things like democracy and elections.
Yet, you can't explain what was wrong or what should have been right about it. Noted.
Why should I explain that? That is not what I am discussing. I am talking about perceptions for god sake.
You can't explain why your "perception" is correct, and I'm supposed to take it seriously? It's a perception based on ignorance.
God, I hope they got the balls to do it!
Look who's running the government. You actually have to ask that question?
It was not the first time. Open a damned history book, the Congress elected the president a couple of times, and the whole Gore thing and the court was a bitch, but guess why we had the court system in place? Jesus. If one controversial election is what it takes to lose our "moral compass" than the damned thing wasn't worth having in the first place.
I dont care if it was not the first time lol... People were not use to hearing of "troubled" elections in the US for peak sake, that is the whole point!
US elections have been transmitted to other countries in a very short time period. Most countries transmitted it on national channels during the night during the late 1980s and 1990s, but in the late 1990s satellite TV news channels started to pop up and the 1996 and 2000 election were the first two fully globally watched elections and what a whopper people got to watch in 2000.. week after week after week..
Hence the perception many people had that the US had a near perfect democracy and election system was shattered because of what they saw on TV. Dont blame me for what they saw, it is your election system and elections, and yes facts are facts on what happened in 2000. We all saw and heard it.
I dont care if it was not the first time lol... People were not use to hearing of "troubled" elections in the US for peak sake, that is the whole point!
US elections have been transmitted to other countries in a very short time period. Most countries transmitted it on national channels during the night during the late 1980s and 1990s, but in the late 1990s satellite TV news channels started to pop up and the 1996 and 2000 election were the first two fully globally watched elections and what a whopper people got to watch in 2000.. week after week after week..
Hence the perception many people had that the US had a near perfect democracy and election system was shattered because of what they saw on TV. Dont blame me for what they saw, it is your election system and elections, and yes facts are facts on what happened in 2000. We all saw and heard it.
Well let me blow up your bubble and inform you that an election becoming controversial and then being solved is certainly not a basis for the claim for a lack of Democracy.LOL it is not a fact that the 2000 election has "issues" in it?
Like it or not, I grew up along with many Europeans, being taught that the US was the beacon of democracy, liberty and freedom, and yet here we had an election that was ... lets just say controversial at best. So yes that illusion we grew up on was shattered in 2000.. like it or not. And that did damage the illusion of any "moral compass" by the US on things like democracy and elections.
Ahmadinejad does not deserve an audience. He has lost his right to be taken seriously. Not only would I applaud them walking out on his speech but I'd respect folks just not showing up to hear him in the first place. He's a joke of a leader with zero credibility. Why even bother feigning interest in what he has to say at all? Why even attempt to put on a show of legitimacy for appearances sake? Why does it even matter if he says it today, when he has said it pointedly and clearly yesterday and obviously gets off on the emotional anger it creates? Walking out on him would be cool. Not showing up or sticking around to even hear him utter one word would be even better.
Actually, I think that showing up for the speech, and then walking out in the middle of it, would send a stronger message than just not showing up.
They should attend and then walk out.Apparently Canada is going to boycott his speech regardless of what he aims to say. Kudos to them. That's how it should be.