I never said delicious. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
/me points at self Borne and Raised NYC, White, Male, Uppermiddle class. The worst of the crop by many standerds.
And now to defend my self <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I am not Ethnocentric, I am not an ego maniac, I DON'T Think that the US is by default better then ever where else. Same holds true for most of my friends.
I Do believe that the US is a wondeful place to live atm (And am very glad that I do live here, simply b/c I know there are many places I would be much worse off).
I Deal with the infestation of pop culture (something for the most part that bothers me, though every so often there is some good in it).
MY Music of choce tends to be Digitaly Imported.
I Like mcDonalds, but then again I Also love: Italian, Japanese, Chinese, German, Polish, Spanish, Mexican.
Honestly, the thing that I lvoe the most about being a New Yorker is that I have access to every one elses culture, and that infact is a large part of american culture, the fact that I can take a 10 min walk (or 5 min bus) and stop off at a wonderful asian food market (my mom has a thing for ussing 'exotic' ingrediants <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->)
So, all of this talk of American Culture invading every one else?
Well your invading us (And I Like It <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->)
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Feb 2 2004, 05:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Feb 2 2004, 05:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You can always say that Euro's don't hate American's, but all I know is that there isn't one politician in America who goes on the premise of hating Europe for votes, whereas there are hordes of very popular politicians in Europe who use anti-america as their campaign platform. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Care to name these politicians and quote their anti-American policies to back up your statement ? I'm interested. Really.
And hate is pretty strong word, as there hasn't been many euros crashing in to office buildings or doing suicide bombings. Also the reasons between euro and mid-eastern dislike are probably veryy different. Though I don't think envy plays as big part as you might think; most of european people you hear criticizing USA probably think their life-quality is better in where they are, than in USA, so it's not envy per se. My guess is fear, which leads to hate(young padawan <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->). If wrong people start controlling USA, it could cause much damage, as USA is the strongest nation around. That's why it's pretty natural for other nations to be more wary of USA than some smaller nation with less influence.
<!--QuoteBegin-_Creep_+Feb 3 2004, 06:16 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (_Creep_ @ Feb 3 2004, 06:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Feb 2 2004, 05:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Feb 2 2004, 05:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You can always say that Euro's don't hate American's, but all I know is that there isn't one politician in America who goes on the premise of hating Europe for votes, whereas there are hordes of very popular politicians in Europe who use anti-america as their campaign platform. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Care to name these politicians and quote their anti-American policies to back up your statement ? I'm interested. Really. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You can start with my locked thread in this forum, read the starting essay in the topic.
Yep, I read it Forlorn. And I agree with Nem's response.
The two British MPs you quoted both had axes to grind with the government when they made those comments.
Ken Livingstone is an old school socialist who got his post as Mayor of London partly by being popularist. He was expelled from the ruling Labour party years ago and has only been recently re-admitted.
As for Michael Meacher. I had to look up who he was. When he made his anti-American comments, he had only recently been sacked from his ministerial job. Sour grapes ? I think so.
Suffice to say, neither of them speak for me, my government or my country.
Why do British MPs do this ? By bad-mouthing America, especially over issues linking the two countries (read: Iraq), then they are indirectly bad-mouthing the UK, in particular, the goverment and the ruling Labour party, Tony Blair et al. I don't think its some form of xenophobia aimed directly towards America.
However, I do agree that having so much power in one place is unbalancing.
<!--QuoteBegin-_Creep_+Feb 3 2004, 10:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (_Creep_ @ Feb 3 2004, 10:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yep, I read it Forlorn. And I agree with Nem's response.
The two British MPs you quoted both had axes to grind with the government when they made those comments.
Ken Livingstone is an old school socialist who got his post as Mayor of London partly by being popularist. He was expelled from the ruling Labour party years ago and has only been recently re-admitted.
As for Michael Meacher. I had to look up who he was. When he made his anti-American comments, he had only recently been sacked from his ministerial job. Sour grapes ? I think so.
Suffice to say, neither of them speak for me, my government or my country.
Why do British MPs do this ? By bad-mouthing America, especially over issues linking the two countries (read: Iraq), then they are indirectly bad-mouthing the UK, in particular, the goverment and the ruling Labour party, Tony Blair et al. I don't think its some form of xenophobia aimed directly towards America.
However, I do agree that having so much power in one place is unbalancing. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> And you miss the point.
Having the mayor of London get into power by bad mouthing America (I'm not saying his only thing was to bash America.. but it was on his agenda) is like having our mayor of New York by bad mothing Europe.
The point is, we've never had one politician with an agenda against Europe, and I'm sure you've had scores of them.
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Feb 4 2004, 05:34 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Feb 4 2004, 05:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The point is, we've never had one politician with an agenda against Europe, and I'm sure you've had scores of them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You miss the point too. Like America is not a nation, Europe is not a nation. If one country in Europe has a politician that has an axe to grind with USA, that doesn't mean every country has. European countries are not borgs, they think very differently and have different policies. You can't say ALL european countries think alike based on what one person in one country says. Direct your arguments against one country or prove them right for every country. So now we are talking about UK? Fine, but don't think UK = european opinion.
Thank you.
Edit: This is actually the reason why EU has problems with the new constitution. Every country has different opinions and policies so it's hard to please everyone.
<!--QuoteBegin-Dread+Feb 3 2004, 10:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Feb 3 2004, 10:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Feb 4 2004, 05:34 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Feb 4 2004, 05:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The point is, we've never had one politician with an agenda against Europe, and I'm sure you've had scores of them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You miss the point too. Like America is not a nation, Europe is not a nation. If one country in Europe has a politician that has an axe to grind with USA, that doesn't mean every country has. European countries are not borgs, they think very differently and have different policies. You can't say ALL european countries think alike based on what one person in one country says. Direct your arguments against one country or prove them right for every country. So now we are talking about UK? Fine, but don't think UK = european opinion.
Thank you. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I bet you all the money in the world that you cannot find a single politician in America that had anti-Europe in it's agenda, versus in Europe if I search hard enough I could find at least one from Europe. At saying at least one is probably and understatement, it seems to me there are a lot more.
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Feb 4 2004, 05:54 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Feb 4 2004, 05:54 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Dread+Feb 3 2004, 10:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Feb 3 2004, 10:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Feb 4 2004, 05:34 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Feb 4 2004, 05:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The point is, we've never had one politician with an agenda against Europe, and I'm sure you've had scores of them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You miss the point too. Like America is not a nation, Europe is not a nation. If one country in Europe has a politician that has an axe to grind with USA, that doesn't mean every country has. European countries are not borgs, they think very differently and have different policies. You can't say ALL european countries think alike based on what one person in one country says. Direct your arguments against one country or prove them right for every country. So now we are talking about UK? Fine, but don't think UK = european opinion.
Thank you. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I bet you all the money in the world that you cannot find a single politician in America that had anti-Europe in it's agenda, versus in Europe if I search hard enough I could find at least one from Europe. At saying at least one is probably and understatement, it seems to me there are a lot more. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You keep on missing the point. How about you try reading my post again?
Edit: <b>Direct your arguments against one country or prove them right for every country.</b> Don't say EUROPE is anti-american based on one or two or hundred politicians, because EUROPE is not one entity. It consists of tens of countries. Find anti-american politician form each and every European countries or stop calling europe anti-american.
Ken <i>didn't</i> get the mayor of London job by campaigning on an anti-American platform.
By picking out a couple of fringe politicians in your examples doesn't equate to mass anti-American feeling in the UK or Europe, amongst its populace or its politicians.
However, perhaps we <i>are</i> concerned by the amount of power that is wielded by one country. I know I am. And I think Abe had something pertinent to say about that.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Urza doesn't voice the opinions of all 400 million Europeans <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
thats because some of them have not yet developed the ability to speak
Getting slightly back on topic, I really have no problem with American culture influencing the globe. Afterall, it's a culture that comes from an incredibly diverse background of millions of people from all parts of the world. Granted, one hell of a large part of the culture the rest of the world seems to be getting (according to those who talk as if there was a Mcdonalds on every street corner, and probably two Starbucks per block) consists of giant faceless corporations shoving Bic Macs down the throats of babies, but I don't know if that's all that bad (I don't want to see any posts about why shoving food down the throats of babies is wrong, I'm only joking, don't turn it into an argument) . People seem to be accepting the products, ads, shows, etc of the American culture, or else the corporations would "pack up and leave". I don't really think that anyone is being forced to accept such a culture, but many seem to be embracing it instead. So, well, what's the issue really? I understand that people want to keep old ways and traditions, but is there really any reason that you can't, as well as enjoying another culture? I just can't really get the image of American culture being this big steamroller destroying all other ways in it's path that some people in this thread seem to be expressing concerns about (well, that's how I see some of them as saying, not everyone). Hope I'm not off-topic with this, I was just wondering what the huge deal was.
Look at the roman empire, it was such a huge and powerful culture it completely influenced most of the world, right down to our days and months.
The major laungauges in the world have roman routes
In fact, the roman culture influenced a LOT of things...
This is common sense, however, my point is that it happens with ANY country, as long as they are powerful. This is why English is spoken everywhere and our corpirations own a lot of the world's workforce. You may not like it, but the reality of it is very simple.
When the Europeans were the most powerful section on this planet, their culture spread like wildfire. It is only a natural progression of event's I'd surmise. Perhaps the longest lasting achievement of the Europeans is their way of handling foriegn politcs, just about every country on the planet today keeps a semi-hostile to hostile attitude to others as it benifits them, and I can assure you the Europeans are a major player of why it is this way today. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
So I honestly don't see what the big deal is, rather than fight it I would work with it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->When the Europeans were the most powerful section on this planet, their culture spread like wildfire<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Pretty much sums up everything beautifully. Well said.
How do you think people are going to view the most powerful country in the world?
Some people react to their friends getting bigger and badder computers by being envious for instance. And others simply feel happy for them. I can tell you that the more common response is envy.
I think it pretty much just boils down to what kind of person you are. Would you be envious of someone who got better stuff than you? If so, and you aren't an American citizen, you're far more likely to hate America. Don't act so surprised.
<!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+Feb 5 2004, 07:39 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Feb 5 2004, 07:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> How do you think people are going to view the most powerful country in the world?
Some people react to their friends getting bigger and badder computers by being envious for instance. And others simply feel happy for them. I can tell you that the more common response is envy. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> ...and most of them are just going to be scared that they get their arses whooped by the guy with 99999fps.
<!--QuoteBegin-MonsieurEvil+Feb 4 2004, 11:49 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Feb 4 2004, 11:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->When the Europeans were the most powerful section on this planet, their culture spread like wildfire<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Pretty much sums up everything beautifully. Well said. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So, does that mean it's a good or a bad thing? Simply naming something a fact is not an answer to the discussion.
At least Ness made a valuable addition to the thread. The problem, however, is that culture is a social thing, and you cannot simply ignore the major culture. Next to that, the US is conciously spreading its culture, for example by the IMF.
<!--QuoteBegin-Urza+Feb 5 2004, 05:57 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Urza @ Feb 5 2004, 05:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-MonsieurEvil+Feb 4 2004, 11:49 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Feb 4 2004, 11:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->When the Europeans were the most powerful section on this planet, their culture spread like wildfire<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Pretty much sums up everything beautifully. Well said. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So, does that mean it's a good or a bad thing? Simply naming something a fact is not an answer to the discussion.
At least Ness made a valuable addition to the thread. The problem, however, is that culture is a social thing, and you cannot simply ignore the major culture. Next to that, the US is conciously spreading its culture, for example by the IMF. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Basically, it's human nature and trying to fight it is stupid, and you should therefore try to instead understand it.
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Feb 5 2004, 09:40 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Feb 5 2004, 09:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Basically, it's human nature and trying to fight it is stupid, and you should therefore try to instead understand it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Aha, so if it is in someone's nature to start killing someone that means we should just understand it and that's the end of the story? I for myself firmly believe that man is inherently evil (read egocentric) and will try to attain power at the cost of others. I see this as a bad thing, and think that one of the main goals of politics is to "tame mankind". Anyway, I'm getting horribly off-topic.
<!--QuoteBegin-Urza+Feb 6 2004, 08:01 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Urza @ Feb 6 2004, 08:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Feb 5 2004, 09:40 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Feb 5 2004, 09:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Basically, it's human nature and trying to fight it is stupid, and you should therefore try to instead understand it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Aha, so if it is in someone's nature to start killing someone that means we should just understand it and that's the end of the story? I for myself firmly believe that man is inherently evil (read egocentric) and will try to attain power at the cost of others. I see this as a bad thing, and think that one of the main goals of politics is to "tame mankind". Anyway, I'm getting horribly off-topic. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Since when is killing someone and the influencing of other cultures the same thing?
<!--QuoteBegin-Urza+Feb 5 2004, 05:57 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Urza @ Feb 5 2004, 05:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So, does that mean it's a good or a bad thing? Simply naming something a fact is not an answer to the discussion.
At least Ness made a valuable addition to the thread. The problem, however, is that culture is a social thing, and you cannot simply ignore the major culture. Next to that, the US is conciously spreading its culture, for example by the IMF. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> All that they're saying is that the spread of the culture of a world power is a consequence of that status and cannot be stopped except with the loss of that status.
Is the US the only one influencing the IMF? I think you need to clarify how the US conciously spreads its culture ( i.e. willfully and with the intent of spreading its culture at the expense of others ).
I doubt it is deliberate, just a function of capitalism. For example, just consider the amount of American written books, particularly in science that are used world wide. The likes of E.O Wilson, Campbell etc. These help to aid American style writing and spelling into students basically everywhere.
Also consider things like many movies are American based and made, same thing with many sitcoms. These aren't 'forced' into other countries, they are willingly bought in. That helps to spread what are seen as American ideas and concepts into other countries.
From what I've noticed/read/realized in many occasions is that every other country hates America. We help other countries and everybody just turns around or looks up in the sky and pretend it isn't happening, but we f* up, boom, we get pelted. Even thought a very few countries...well maybe one or two have actually aided us or liked us in general.
So many people are lucky that I am not President >:] Hehe
<!--QuoteBegin-Paranoia-2MB+Feb 6 2004, 11:13 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Paranoia-2MB @ Feb 6 2004, 11:13 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> From what I've noticed/read/realized in many occasions is that every other country hates America. We help other countries and everybody just turns around or looks up in the sky and pretend it isn't happening, but we f* up, boom, we get pelted. Even thought a very few countries...well maybe one or two have actually aided us or liked us in general.
So many people are lucky that I am not President >:] Hehe <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Its called "Keeping up Appearances". Pretend you are an abusive boyfriend for a moment. You beat her and slap her up and basically treat her like crap. But once every few weeks or so you kiss her romantically, or buy her flowers and tell her how special she is. Its a twisted cycle but it works sadly. I see no other reason that the US "helps" other nations than that. Pretty much because if our policy truly wanted to help people we would help ourselves first.
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Feb 6 2004, 08:03 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Feb 6 2004, 08:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Since when is killing someone and the influencing of other cultures the same thing?
Terrible analogy dude. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> No dude. It was a comment on Monse's just-accept-the-facts-answer.
<!--QuoteBegin-othell+Feb 6 2004, 10:23 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (othell @ Feb 6 2004, 10:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> All that they're saying is that the spread of the culture of a world power is a consequence of that status and cannot be stopped except with the loss of that status.
Is the US the only one influencing the IMF? I think you need to clarify how the US conciously spreads its culture ( i.e. willfully and with the intent of spreading its culture at the expense of others ). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The US percentage of voting power is 17,46 percent ( <a href='http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/memdir/members.htm)' target='_blank'>http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/memdir/members.htm)</a>. The IMF encourages a total opening of borders and adoption of fullout capitalism.
Next to that, you do not have to exercise power to continue posessing it.
Comments
And now to defend my self <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I am not Ethnocentric, I am not an ego maniac, I DON'T Think that the US is by default better then ever where else. Same holds true for most of my friends.
I Do believe that the US is a wondeful place to live atm (And am very glad that I do live here, simply b/c I know there are many places I would be much worse off).
I Deal with the infestation of pop culture (something for the most part that bothers me, though every so often there is some good in it).
MY Music of choce tends to be Digitaly Imported.
I Like mcDonalds, but then again I Also love:
Italian, Japanese, Chinese, German, Polish, Spanish, Mexican.
Honestly, the thing that I lvoe the most about being a New Yorker is that I have access to every one elses culture, and that infact is a large part of american culture, the fact that I can take a 10 min walk (or 5 min bus) and stop off at a wonderful asian food market (my mom has a thing for ussing 'exotic' ingrediants <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->)
So, all of this talk of American Culture invading every one else?
Well your invading us (And I Like It <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->)
Care to name these politicians and quote their anti-American policies to back up your statement ? I'm interested. Really.
Care to name these politicians and quote their anti-American policies to back up your statement ? I'm interested. Really. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can start with my locked thread in this forum, read the starting essay in the topic.
The two British MPs you quoted both had axes to grind with the government when they made those comments.
Ken Livingstone is an old school socialist who got his post as Mayor of London partly by being popularist. He was expelled from the ruling Labour party years ago and has only been recently re-admitted.
As for Michael Meacher. I had to look up who he was. When he made his anti-American comments, he had only recently been sacked from his ministerial job. Sour grapes ? I think so.
Suffice to say, neither of them speak for me, my government or my country.
Why do British MPs do this ? By bad-mouthing America, especially over issues linking the two countries (read: Iraq), then they are indirectly bad-mouthing the UK, in particular, the goverment and the ruling Labour party, Tony Blair et al. I don't think its some form of xenophobia aimed directly towards America.
However, I do agree that having so much power in one place is unbalancing.
The two British MPs you quoted both had axes to grind with the government when they made those comments.
Ken Livingstone is an old school socialist who got his post as Mayor of London partly by being popularist. He was expelled from the ruling Labour party years ago and has only been recently re-admitted.
As for Michael Meacher. I had to look up who he was. When he made his anti-American comments, he had only recently been sacked from his ministerial job. Sour grapes ? I think so.
Suffice to say, neither of them speak for me, my government or my country.
Why do British MPs do this ? By bad-mouthing America, especially over issues linking the two countries (read: Iraq), then they are indirectly bad-mouthing the UK, in particular, the goverment and the ruling Labour party, Tony Blair et al. I don't think its some form of xenophobia aimed directly towards America.
However, I do agree that having so much power in one place is unbalancing. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
And you miss the point.
Having the mayor of London get into power by bad mouthing America (I'm not saying his only thing was to bash America.. but it was on his agenda) is like having our mayor of New York by bad mothing Europe.
The point is, we've never had one politician with an agenda against Europe, and I'm sure you've had scores of them.
You miss the point too. Like America is not a nation, Europe is not a nation. If one country in Europe has a politician that has an axe to grind with USA, that doesn't mean every country has. European countries are not borgs, they think very differently and have different policies. You can't say ALL european countries think alike based on what one person in one country says. Direct your arguments against one country or prove them right for every country. So now we are talking about UK? Fine, but don't think UK = european opinion.
Thank you.
Edit: This is actually the reason why EU has problems with the new constitution. Every country has different opinions and policies so it's hard to please everyone.
You miss the point too. Like America is not a nation, Europe is not a nation. If one country in Europe has a politician that has an axe to grind with USA, that doesn't mean every country has. European countries are not borgs, they think very differently and have different policies. You can't say ALL european countries think alike based on what one person in one country says. Direct your arguments against one country or prove them right for every country. So now we are talking about UK? Fine, but don't think UK = european opinion.
Thank you. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I bet you all the money in the world that you cannot find a single politician in America that had anti-Europe in it's agenda, versus in Europe if I search hard enough I could find at least one from Europe. At saying at least one is probably and understatement, it seems to me there are a lot more.
You miss the point too. Like America is not a nation, Europe is not a nation. If one country in Europe has a politician that has an axe to grind with USA, that doesn't mean every country has. European countries are not borgs, they think very differently and have different policies. You can't say ALL european countries think alike based on what one person in one country says. Direct your arguments against one country or prove them right for every country. So now we are talking about UK? Fine, but don't think UK = european opinion.
Thank you. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I bet you all the money in the world that you cannot find a single politician in America that had anti-Europe in it's agenda, versus in Europe if I search hard enough I could find at least one from Europe. At saying at least one is probably and understatement, it seems to me there are a lot more. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You keep on missing the point. How about you try reading my post again?
Edit: <b>Direct your arguments against one country or prove them right for every country.</b> Don't say EUROPE is anti-american based on one or two or hundred politicians, because EUROPE is not one entity. It consists of tens of countries. Find anti-american politician form each and every European countries or stop calling europe anti-american.
By picking out a couple of fringe politicians in your examples doesn't equate to mass anti-American feeling in the UK or Europe, amongst its populace or its politicians.
However, perhaps we <i>are</i> concerned by the amount of power that is wielded by one country. I know I am. And I think Abe had something pertinent to say about that.
thats because some of them have not yet developed the ability to speak
The major laungauges in the world have roman routes
In fact, the roman culture influenced a LOT of things...
This is common sense, however, my point is that it happens with ANY country, as long as they are powerful. This is why English is spoken everywhere and our corpirations own a lot of the world's workforce. You may not like it, but the reality of it is very simple.
When the Europeans were the most powerful section on this planet, their culture spread like wildfire. It is only a natural progression of event's I'd surmise. Perhaps the longest lasting achievement of the Europeans is their way of handling foriegn politcs, just about every country on the planet today keeps a semi-hostile to hostile attitude to others as it benifits them, and I can assure you the Europeans are a major player of why it is this way today. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
So I honestly don't see what the big deal is, rather than fight it I would work with it.
Pretty much sums up everything beautifully. Well said.
Some people react to their friends getting bigger and badder computers by being envious for instance. And others simply feel happy for them. I can tell you that the more common response is envy.
I think it pretty much just boils down to what kind of person you are. Would you be envious of someone who got better stuff than you? If so, and you aren't an American citizen, you're far more likely to hate America. Don't act so surprised.
Some people react to their friends getting bigger and badder computers by being envious for instance. And others simply feel happy for them. I can tell you that the more common response is envy. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
...and most of them are just going to be scared that they get their arses whooped by the guy with 99999fps.
Pretty much sums up everything beautifully. Well said. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, does that mean it's a good or a bad thing? Simply naming something a fact is not an answer to the discussion.
At least Ness made a valuable addition to the thread. The problem, however, is that culture is a social thing, and you cannot simply ignore the major culture. Next to that, the US is conciously spreading its culture, for example by the IMF.
Pretty much sums up everything beautifully. Well said. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, does that mean it's a good or a bad thing? Simply naming something a fact is not an answer to the discussion.
At least Ness made a valuable addition to the thread. The problem, however, is that culture is a social thing, and you cannot simply ignore the major culture. Next to that, the US is conciously spreading its culture, for example by the IMF. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Basically, it's human nature and trying to fight it is stupid, and you should therefore try to instead understand it.
Aha, so if it is in someone's nature to start killing someone that means we should just understand it and that's the end of the story? I for myself firmly believe that man is inherently evil (read egocentric) and will try to attain power at the cost of others. I see this as a bad thing, and think that one of the main goals of politics is to "tame mankind".
Anyway, I'm getting horribly off-topic.
Aha, so if it is in someone's nature to start killing someone that means we should just understand it and that's the end of the story? I for myself firmly believe that man is inherently evil (read egocentric) and will try to attain power at the cost of others. I see this as a bad thing, and think that one of the main goals of politics is to "tame mankind".
Anyway, I'm getting horribly off-topic. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Since when is killing someone and the influencing of other cultures the same thing?
Terrible analogy dude.
At least Ness made a valuable addition to the thread. The problem, however, is that culture is a social thing, and you cannot simply ignore the major culture. Next to that, the US is conciously spreading its culture, for example by the IMF. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
All that they're saying is that the spread of the culture of a world power is a consequence of that status and cannot be stopped except with the loss of that status.
Is the US the only one influencing the IMF? I think you need to clarify how the US conciously spreads its culture ( i.e. willfully and with the intent of spreading its culture at the expense of others ).
Also consider things like many movies are American based and made, same thing with many sitcoms. These aren't 'forced' into other countries, they are willingly bought in. That helps to spread what are seen as American ideas and concepts into other countries.
So many people are lucky that I am not President >:]
Hehe
So many people are lucky that I am not President >:]
Hehe <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its called "Keeping up Appearances". Pretend you are an abusive boyfriend for a moment. You beat her and slap her up and basically treat her like crap. But once every few weeks or so you kiss her romantically, or buy her flowers and tell her how special she is. Its a twisted cycle but it works sadly. I see no other reason that the US "helps" other nations than that. Pretty much because if our policy truly wanted to help people we would help ourselves first.
Terrible analogy dude. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
No dude. It was a comment on Monse's just-accept-the-facts-answer.
Is the US the only one influencing the IMF? I think you need to clarify how the US conciously spreads its culture ( i.e. willfully and with the intent of spreading its culture at the expense of others ). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The US percentage of voting power is 17,46 percent ( <a href='http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/memdir/members.htm)' target='_blank'>http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/memdir/members.htm)</a>. The IMF encourages a total opening of borders and adoption of fullout capitalism.
Next to that, you do not have to exercise power to continue posessing it.