Hamas endorses Obama

[epchick]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

I don't think it's simply because his father's Muslim, but what it means that America could elect a President with that heritage. There is certainly a tendancy to support the person "like" you, especially when you don't have as much of a stake in the winner.

That's true as well. My professor made that comment when I asked her opinion about Hamas endorsing Obama (my professor's Palestinian).

But your last sentence is totally true--its just like the president of BET said (i'm pretty sure there is already a thread about that so i wont go into it).

[shinerbock]

While I don't think it is a bad thing to be admired because we're open to electing people from varying backgrounds...I'm not sure I care what those countries think.

Sure, I want the United States to be respected, but do I want the Netherlands to respect us because we're being destroyed by political correctness just like they are? Not really. Simply because something garners respect doesn't mean it is good for America.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

While I don't think it is a bad thing to be admired because we're open to electing people from varying backgrounds...I'm not sure I care what those countries think.

Sure, I want the United States to be respected, but do I want the Netherlands to respect us because we're being destroyed by political correctness just like they are? Not really. Simply because something garners respect doesn't mean it is good for America.

Which is why people should take these things for what they are, announced preferences. However people allow them to sway their opinions both for and against.

I think the United States should want to be respected by the rest of the world, and the fact that we're not suggests very strongly that we're doing something wrong. That doesn't mean that we change policy on the whims of Luxembourg, just that we respect the world's opinion.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Which is why people should take these things for what they are, announced preferences. However people allow them to sway their opinions both for and against.

I think the United States should want to be respected by the rest of the world, and the fact that we're not suggests very strongly that we're doing something wrong. That doesn't mean that we change policy on the whims of Luxembourg, just that we respect the world's opinion.

I avidly disagree with this sentiment, and find it pretty dangerous. I think EU countries are going to experience some very problematic times over the next couple of decades, and much of it is by their own doing. Thus, I'm not sure their opinion about us should really impact our course of action.

Of course I think it is fine when people argue the same points that the international community is arguing, but when they start saying "the international community's tenor about our actions indicates..." I think it gets a bit frightening when used as an appeal to authority.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I avidly disagree with this sentiment, and find it pretty dangerous. I think EU countries are going to experience some very problematic times over the next couple of decades, and much of it is by their own doing. Thus, I'm not sure their opinion about us should really impact our course of action.

Of course I think it is fine when people argue the same points that the international community is arguing, but when they start saying "the international community's tenor about our actions indicates..." I think it gets a bit frightening when used as an appeal to authority.

If everyone hates you, at some point it's not everyone else.

However, I said clearly that we should NOT necessarily change our policies based on the whims of everyone else. I think we should change the course the country is on, but not because of Europe, because the population of this country is unhappy with our course and because I don't think it's in the best interest of our country. My complaint is with the disregarding of other countries' opinions simply because they're European and "liberal" or poor or whatever and only caring about the countries that agree with us. That's a stupid idea and leads to self-delusion in individuals and in nations.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

If everyone hates you, at some point it's not everyone else.

However, I said clearly that we should NOT necessarily change our policies based on the whims of everyone else. I think we should change the course the country is on, but not because of Europe, because the population of this country is unhappy with our course and because I don't think it's in the best interest of our country. My complaint is with the disregarding of other countries' opinions simply because they're European and "liberal" or poor or whatever and only caring about the countries that agree with us. That's a stupid idea and leads to self-delusion in individuals and in nations.

I think when a country is as powerful as the US is that we're going to be disliked by a lot of the international community for that reason alone.

Global popularity as an end in itself isn't really a worthwhile goal; we should concern ourselves with doing what's right while we look out for our own interests. Ideally, we would could do this in a cooperative spirit with others, but it's not essential.

And, I don't really mean you Drolefille, but a lot of the folks who concern themselves with the rest of the world hating us conveniently assume that they hate us for the same reasons that they are dissatisfied with our government or foreign policy.

A some of the world hates us because we pollute the world with porn and radical ideas about women's rights. Others hate us because we have protectionist trade policies and promote a much higher standard of living for our own citizens than we do for the rest of the world.

Our foreign policy may not be helping, but life isn't going to be rosy with the rest of the world because we elect Obama, unless of course, we're willing to change the way we live for the sake of making the international community happy. I'm not particularly interested.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

My complaint is with the disregarding of other countries' opinions simply because they're European and "liberal" or poor or whatever and only caring about the countries that agree with us. That's a stupid idea and leads to self-delusion in individuals and in nations.

Why? If I want investment advice, I don't go to a guy who has filed bankruptcy 3 times in his life. If I want advice on how to combat terrorism, I'm not gonna look to the Netherlands or France where Islamic extremism is likely to erupt in a big way in the next few decades.

I'm not saying that all opinions are worthless, but a majority of countries saying something in unison doesn't mean much unless those countries have credibility on the subject matter.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I think when a country is as powerful as the US is that we're going to be disliked by a lot of the international community for that reason alone.

Global popularity as an end in itself isn't really a worthwhile goal; we should concern ourselves with doing what's right while we look out for our own interests. Ideally, we would could do this in a cooperative spirit with others, but it's not essential.

And, I don't really mean you Drolefille, but a lot of the folks who concern themselves with the rest of the world hating us conveniently assume that they hate us for the same reasons that they are dissatisfied with our government or foreign policy.

A some of the world hates us because we pollute the world with porn and radical ideas about women's rights. Others hate us because we have protectionist trade policies and promote a much higher standard of living for our own citizens than we do for the rest of the world.

Our foreign policy may not be helping, but life isn't going to be rosy with the rest of the world because we elect Obama, unless of course, we're willing to change the way we live for the sake of making the international community happy. I'm not particularly interested.

I just feel like too many people focus on the bolded things and not that some people hate us because we think we own the world, we talk big but then we don't pay our debts, and when we do "walk the walk" it's invading a sovereign country, one that did not directly threaten us at the time, (Sure it was Iraq, no one really liked them, but it's a precedent that we should NOT have set), because we are perceived not just as a Christian nation but a crazy oversexualized and over-sexually-repressed society all in one go.

Also, we "promote" a high standard of living, but we do not live up to it. People who live in this country are starving. We're the richest country in the world and we cannot manage to feed our own people. It's so ridiculously depressing that most of us just don't even think about it for our own mental health.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Also, we "promote" a high standard of living, but we do not live up to it. People who live in this country are starving. We're the richest country in the world and we cannot manage to feed our own people. It's so ridiculously depressing that most of us just don't even think about it for our own mental health.

This is probably the crux of the matter. But of course, this is ridiculously overstated. The idea that the American poor live in abject poverty when compared to China or India or Africa is absurd. Sure, we can do a better job of helping our fellow citizens, but I think your comment reflects the true ideology of the American left.

They want us to listen to EU countries when they criticize, because they want us to be like them. They want socialistic economic policy and reduced autonomy. They think it is ok to punish citizens for uttering politically incorrect WORDS. I think this argument goes a lot deeper than a simple plea for international respect. I'm not saying it does with you, I'm just expressing why I think this discussion gets pretty frightening, pretty quickly.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

This is probably the crux of the matter. But of course, this is ridiculously overstated. The idea that the American poor live in abject poverty when compared to China or India or Africa is absurd. Sure, we can do a better job of helping our fellow citizens, but I think your comment reflects the true ideology of the American left.

They want us to listen to EU countries when they criticize, because they want us to be like them. They want socialistic economic policy and reduced autonomy. They think it is ok to punish citizens for uttering politically incorrect WORDS. I think this argument goes a lot deeper than a simple plea for international respect. I'm not saying it does with you, I'm just expressing why I think this discussion gets pretty frightening, pretty quickly.

Both sides get extremely polarized on it.

The idea that just because people are worse off in India and China shouldn't be a way to dismiss the fact that we are richer than those countries per capita and still have people who are starving. I wouldn't care whether it was the government, or charity, or whoever was providing the food, but it is neither or if it's both it isn't enough and that is incredibly tragic.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

The idea that the American poor live in abject poverty when compared to China or India or Africa is absurd. Sure, we can do a better job of helping our fellow citizens, but I think your comment reflects the true ideology of the American left.

But America is a highly developed country and a democracy. China is not a democracy and India and Africa are still developing nations. So you really can't compare. And just look at the hunger problem that exists in staggering numbers in America -- in America! The pictures here say more than 1,000 words, but the words are heartbreaking, scroll about 1/2 way down the page and you'll find this: "Starvation also drives many to eat dirt. Many black women in Mississippi, Alabama and North Carolina eat clay even in the 90's according to New York Times." http://www.american-pictures.com/roots/chapter-16.htm

Not taking responsibility for the reality of this WITHIN OUR OWN COUNTRY and instead trying to make it some figment of the "American left's" imagination only widens the gap between the haves and have nots and leaves millions of American citizens wasting away right beneath our noses.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Both sides get extremely polarized on it.

The idea that just because people are worse off in India and China shouldn't be a way to dismiss the fact that we are richer than those countries per capita and still have people who are starving. I wouldn't care whether it was the government, or charity, or whoever was providing the food, but it is neither or if it's both it isn't enough and that is incredibly tragic.

It certainly is tragic, but I am concerned about where we dump the responsibility. I believe it is on the American people to help the less fortunate (as opposed to the government). But if we ever really want to stop poverty, we have to reduce a culture which condones irresponsibility. I of course am not claiming all people living in poverty are lazy, but there is an epidemic in this country of irresponsibility, and that will certainly be an obstacle to ending poverty in America.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

But America is a highly developed country and a democracy. China is not a democracy and India and Africa are still developing nations. So you really can't compare. And just look at the hunger problem that exists in staggering numbers in America -- in America! The pictures here say more than 1,000 words, but the words are heartbreaking, scroll about 1/2 way down the page and you'll find this: "Starvation also drives many to eat dirt. Many black women in Mississippi, Alabama and North Carolina eat clay even in the 90's according to New York Times." http://www.american-pictures.com/roots/chapter-16.htm

Not taking responsibility for the reality of this WITHIN OUR OWN COUNTRY and instead trying to make it some figment of the "American left's" imagination only widens the gap between the haves and have nots and leaves millions of American citizens wasting away right beneath our noses.

Nobody is making it a figment of anyone's imagination. But when people on the left criticize America for having people living in poverty, they're usually not appealing to individual citizens to fix it. When they start promoting individual generosity, not charity at the tip of a spear, I'll think about supporting their arguments. But when they continuously blame America's enterprise system while condoning irresponsible behavior, you're not going to get full scale support in America.

Helping people out of poverty is a great thing, but usually "closing the income gap" is argued in a way that I will never support. And I don't think my objection to that is trivial, I think it is unspeakably important for the future of this country.

[nittanyalum]

I was about to launch a full-scale rebuttal, shiner, but I suddenly flashed on the 3+-hour debates I'd have with one of my brothers about these type issues and I'm going to pull off that experience ---- we never made any kind of impression on each other with our opinions and I can tell you and I would have the same kind of exchange. So we'll just stare at each other from across the aisle on this one because I don't want to get all mad and emotional (which this subject makes me) at this late hour, k?

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

I was about to launch a full-scale rebuttal, shiner, but I suddenly flashed on the 3+-hour debates I'd have with one of my brothers about these type issues and I'm going to pull off that experience ---- we never made any kind of impression on each other with our opinions and I can tell you and I would have the same kind of exchange. So we'll just stare at each other from across the aisle on this one because I don't want to get all mad and emotional (which this subject makes me) at this late hour, k?

Of course, you're free to do whatever you want. I'm not really looking to persuade you, some people don't agree that protecting free enterprise is important for America. A lot of people, actually. Many of them work in places that end in "College" or "University".