The Official Religious/Political Debate Thread (country, hardcore, house, Europe)

[franscar]

Originally Posted by riseagainstrocks

And franscar, I and it seems the majority of America believed that Bush wasn't wrong.

The reason there has been an increase in money spent is because we are fighting two wars. those do tend to take up supplies.

The entire facade over beginning those wars was false though. He's crippling the U.S. economy, and moving more towards state control than any president during my lifetime. I dunno, maybe you have to be outside the U.S. to truly get a picture of just how badly he is screwing you all.

[Sweet Jane]

^ I totally agree. Bush is a warmonger, and as I think Coyle pointed out earlier, the US only tends to get too involved when they are getting something back in return.
I geniunely think you get a better picture of whats going on in the US from the outside rather than the inside, because you can be more objective. That's why I dropped my point a few pages ago, it was going nowhere and I believe thats only because I feel you do need to see the goings on from an objective, neutral point of view to see whats going on.

[Greg]

The media in the States is all controlling so americans have to try hard to find impartial reporting. It would appear that the majority don't bother. Unfortuneately Britain is going that way to.

[hookers with machineguns]

You guys seem to have quick judgments about the states without living here. Not to say the things you say are wrong, but some of you certainly act like you know more about this country than the people who live here.
^^I agree with you, but what majority population in the world actually thinks objectively? In the US, it is difficult to meet people who do, because seemingly everyone has a strong political or religious bias. Usually, the people in the middle are too cynical or too apathetic. Yet your statement can really be applied to anyone in any part of the world.
^^^ Iraq is/was a disaster, no matter how you look at it. But, Saddam was a threat, moreso to his own people. He potentially was a global threat, but this is long-term, he certainly wasn't an imminent threat. The U.S. should have focused all their attention on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, where many Taliban and Osama officials are STILL hiding. Saying war is bad is historically irrelevant; besides, do you think America should just take it on the chin after 9/11?
^How much access do you have to American media? You seem to know much about it, maybe your countrymen do to. Regardless, the majority of Americans focus on one kind of media, which would be Hollywood gossip. The fact is, not as many people watch the news outlets as much as you think. That is equally as big a problem as what you said. But, media distortion is all part of the game, not just in the U.S. Have you ever seen news casts where they actually give mostly good news? No. If it weren't for bad news, then their wouldn't be anything to report, because hardly anyone would watch it.

[IamAlejo]

Originally Posted by franscar

The entire facade over beginning those wars was false though. He's crippling the U.S. economy, and moving more towards state control than any president during my lifetime. I dunno, maybe you have to be outside the U.S. to truly get a picture of just how badly he is screwing you all.

The economy part is wrong. It takes a President's actions many years before it has a true effect on the economy. And our economy isn't truly crippled as of now. And how do you say he is moving towards state control? Isn't he the one when states started allowing same sex marriages, he led to it being injuncted by federal courts?

[IamAlejo]

Originally Posted by Sweet Jane

^ I totally agree. Bush is a warmonger, and as I think Coyle pointed out earlier, the US only tends to get too involved when they are getting something back in return.
I geniunely think you get a better picture of whats going on in the US from the outside rather than the inside, because you can be more objective. That's why I dropped my point a few pages ago, it was going nowhere and I believe thats only because I feel you do need to see the goings on from an objective, neutral point of view to see whats going on.

As opposed to never getting involved? I'm not quite sure which one is better.

And geniunely I think people are objective no matter where they are from. Whether being blinded by party line, political views, or country bias. I could be blinded by where I was born, but couldn't you be as well. I'm sure that the "America Sucks" is quite the cool thing around the world to follow.

[Greg]

I resisted temptation to get involved in this thread because it is such a complex issue, and it's not my country. Our opinions are mostly based on biased reporting. I really wanted to say that the UK is similar in many ways to the US and no doubt if you go to the middle east we are probably similarly hated. I don't hate the US or any religion because I can't see how you can lump all people together like that. Now if you were talking about the French, that would be different.

[franscar]

Originally Posted by IamAlejo

The economy part is wrong. It takes a President's actions many years before it has a true effect on the economy. And our economy isn't truly crippled as of now. And how do you say he is moving towards state control? Isn't he the one when states started allowing same sex marriages, he led to it being injuncted by federal courts?

It is the economy that Bush is controlling, the US no longer ranks among the free economies of the world, state intervention is higher there than among the majority of western European nations. By State I was referring to the government, as opposed to the individual states, propbably a poor choice of words, there's no double meaning when the term is used to describe the UK economy.

[Sneer]

englands a ****hole too. i hate the way we've become americas extra state.

[Sweet Jane]

Originally Posted by hookers with machineguns

I agree with you, but what majority population in the world actually thinks objectively? In the US, it is difficult to meet people who do, because seemingly everyone has a strong political or religious bias. Usually, the people in the middle are too cynical or too apathetic. Yet your statement can really be applied to anyone in any part of the world.

The majority of Americans focus on one kind of media, which would be Hollywood gossip. The fact is, not as many people watch the news outlets as much as you think.

Your second statement scares me, I assumed if I said something like that I would be accused of ludicrous stereotyping.

The first statement, well a lot more states have more powers that make them think more objectively about their actions. In my country, we have our own Parliament who passes laws on various things. We're also governed by the UK parliament, where the government can do what they want, but there are 2 Houses that have to pass any laws that get through, and thirdly, the Monarchy have to approve also. Don't get me started on the Monarchy though, basically apart from that particular fuction, I think they are a joke. Fourthly, we are governed by the European Regulations, and cannot do anything than contravenes the Convention. So America have more power here than most places, I think thats why a lot of people hate it, but maybe for some, its jealousy. But I think thats why things are able to get a little more out of hand.

Originally Posted by iamalejo

Isn't that better than never getting involved at all?

Is that really the only two choices you think the US have considered? Helping out when there is something to be gained or not at all?
What about getting involved in the countries who are in similar trouble to what happened in Iraq but who don't have any oil or any other way they could pay your country back?