|
|
 Tue Feb 26, 2008 1:28 am The New York Times, McCain and Obama |
|
|
| Torsten wrote: | | Jamie, what do you think is the percentage of US citizens who know the programs of each of the presidential candidates. It seems to me that a lot of people choose politicians because of their charisma and manetism rather than their programs. |
I know the European media like to depict American voters as stupid and unable to make electoral decisions. They even deliberately choose obviously stupid people to interview in order to make that point. However, most Americans walking down the street know enough about the candidates so that they can make some kind of informed decision, whether the European media elite agree with it or not. They can listen to several debates every election season, they can read and watch the news, and the candidates' platforms are discussed all day and night on the radio. There's plenty of information, and most people know enough to make at least a minorly informed decision.
| Torsten wrote: | | As for Bush, he might rely on diplomacy but so did other presidents before him and it seems that Obama is quite capable of diplomacy too. |
Obama is capable of diplomacy, but he's not experienced enough to be capable of making sound judgments. We've already had that type of president in Jimmy Carter, and most of the problems the nation is fighting today were originally caused by him.
| Torsten wrote: | | If Bush were such a great diplomat he would not have been promoting the slogan "War on Terror". |
Do you think it would have made the terrorists any nicer if he had called them "our friends Al-Qaeda"? Kindness and diplomacy didn't seem to change Hitler much. In fact, it made him more aggressive. What's your point? |
|
Jamie (K)
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Posts: 3992
Location: Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
|
| Tue Feb 26, 2008 11:34 am The New York Times, McCain and Obama |
|
|
Obama will reward people who've made poor financial decisions by taxing the hell out of those who generally don't.
At this point it looks like McCain should get most of the moderate votes -- he is a moderate repub, while the dems have once again sent a candidate who is of the Marx School of Wallet Control... which makes him unpalatable to most most Americans. The repub smear machine won't have to get personal; they just need to photoshop him into a picture of Red Square and that will be it.
Hell, Kerry was more moderate than Obama is, and Bush beat him.
_________________
Billie Jean is not my lover. Hee. |
|
prezbucky
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 1988
Location: Nashville, TN (USA)
|
 |
| Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:30 pm The New York Times, McCain and Obama |
|
|
| Jamie (K) wrote: | | Kindness and diplomacy didn't seem to change Hitler much. In fact, it made him more aggressive. What's your point? |
My point is this: Bush called himself "a war president" who "makes decisions in foreign policy matters with war on his mind". Do you think that you can fight terrorism with war? Terrorists use war as their justification for terrorism. Many people either don't have access to all the background information on world politics or they don't have enough interest to educate themselves properly. However, what most people do want to have is an OPINION on world politics. And they base their opinion on slogans and phrases.
| Jamie (K) wrote: | | Do you think it would have made the terrorists any nicer if he had called them "our friends Al-Qaeda"? |
And do you think that Al-Qaeda and suicide bombers will stop their activities because Bush has declared himself as "the war president"?
_________________
Test Of English for International Communication
TOEIC Preparation & TOEIC Vocabulary |
|
Torsten
Site Admin
Joined: 25 Sep 2003
Posts: 6027
Location: EU
|
|
| Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:44 pm The New York Times, McCain and Obama |
|
|
| Phoo wrote: | | Phoo wrote: | | What Obama is saying is that he will fights against terrorism to protect those who cooperate with US on the war of terror but at the same time he says he will talk to terrorists too, he does not say that military force is the only solution. |
Terrorist groups usually use talking as a stalling tactic while they prepare for more attacks. |
Obama didn't say he is going to talk to "terrorists". He said he would establish diplomatic relations with countries like Cuba.
_________________
Test Of English for International Communication
TOEIC Preparation & TOEIC Vocabulary |
|
Torsten
Site Admin
Joined: 25 Sep 2003
Posts: 6027
Location: EU
|
|
| Tue Feb 26, 2008 13:24 pm The New York Times, McCain and Obama |
|
|
| Torsten wrote: | | My point is this: Bush called himself "a war president" who "makes decisions in foreign policy matters with war on his mind". |
You'll have to show me the quote, Torsten. I doubt that's how he put it, if he even said it. It sounds like something that's been filtered through some media that oppose him.
| Torsten wrote: | | Do you think that you can fight terrorism with war? Terrorists use war as their justification for terrorism. |
They use any war they can think of, including wars that occurred 1,000 years ago, such as the first crusade, and wars that happened 500 years ago, such as the expulsion of the Moors from Spain. So not fighting them won't make them stop fighting.
In addition, they're using the life of Mohammed as their model, and he started wars simply because other people refused to convert to Islam. He'd have letters sent that told the head of some community that if they accepted Islam they "will be safe". If they refused, they'd get attacked and slaughtered. Since these people aren't living in the modern world, modern diplomacy won't make them peaceful.
| Torsten wrote: | | Many people either don't have access to all the background information on world politics or they don't have enough interest to educate themselves properly. However, what most people do want to have is an OPINION on world politics. And they base their opinion on slogans and phrases. |
A typical European doesn't have access to all the background information on world politics, and he doesn't have the interest to educate himself properly, so he bases his opinion on slogans and phrases, such as "war for oil", on things like Michael Moore movies, and on a general bigotry that leads him to think that Americans are simple-minded "cowboys".
| Torsten wrote: | | Jamie (K) wrote: | | Do you think it would have made the terrorists any nicer if he had called them "our friends Al-Qaeda"? |
And do you think that Al-Qaeda and suicide bombers will stop their activities because Bush has declared himself as "the war president"? |
The only thing that will stop those people is military defeat. Do you think we could have stopped Hitler without a war? |
|
Jamie (K)
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Posts: 3992
Location: Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
|
| Tue Feb 26, 2008 13:32 pm The New York Times, McCain and Obama |
|
|
| Jamie (K) wrote: | | You'll have to show me the quote, Torsten. I doubt that's how he put it, if he even said it. It sounds like something that's been filtered through some media that oppose him. |
Here is the quote. In addition you can watch the interview on Youtube.
_________________
Test Of English for International Communication
TOEIC Preparation & TOEIC Vocabulary |
|
Torsten
Site Admin
Joined: 25 Sep 2003
Posts: 6027
Location: EU
|
|
| Tue Feb 26, 2008 14:50 pm The New York Times, McCain and Obama |
|
|
To Torsten,
OK, I got wrong, he will not talk to terrorists but talk to enemy countries.
At least, he is more ready to talk to those who oppose to US than
Bush or Hillary, any other polititions.
To Jamie
If "October surprise" occurs every time as you say, it could be a big surprise about McCain
not about Obama. You may not agree with me but I just point out one of the possibilities.
I don't know much about Obama's detail policy on economy however,
in order to rebuild economy, some people must be suffered.
There is no such a perfect measure which sounds good to everybody.
In Japan, when bubbling economy bursted, our tax was used to rebuilt economy
and lots of people complained about it saying it was truly unfair.
However, something had been done at that time to stop it got worse.
Since there seems no best way, people have to choose a better way,
I mean better than nothing even if it makes some people feel so unfair.
Obama says that the problem is not we don't have good ideas, the real problem is
that we don't have a government which functions properly because it is so divided.
I agree with him, one person can not fix problem no matter how clever he/she is.
He knows it, so he emphasize the unity, ordinary people can do unordinary things when they get united.
I don' know how intelligent this columnist is but
what Obama is saying is not that people should change their views or values in order to get united.
What he tries to make is that people need to talk without assuming it is not worth doing.
As the result, there may be some problems still unsolved but some problems might be solved
if they are caused by preoccupations, misunderstanding or just lack of information each other.
I saw the video she was killed by terrorist.
She was having an rally in the open space with a lot of people.
I know it must be difficult to protect her against terrorist under such situation.
What I am saying is that US could have done something before she
had the rally there, like...give her some advice to choose a safer place for rally.
US military must have a lot of tactics to prevent from that happening.
I think terrorists are not terrorists since they were born.
There must be some reasons to be.
I know it is intolerable whatever the reasons are.
I understand how much American people hate them since 9/11.
But war is not the solution, Obama was the only one who predicted today's
situation in Iraqi, more and more terrorists are being trained every day.
He knew that hatred only invites another hatred
and it goes endlessly.
Have you read the story "The North Wind and The Sun"? |
|
Phoo
I'm here quite often ;-)
Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 119
|
|
| Tue Feb 26, 2008 17:49 pm The New York Times, McCain and Obama |
|
|
| Jamie (K) wrote: | | The only thing that will stop those people is military defeat. Do you think we could have stopped Hitler without a war? |
Jamie, who do you mean by "we"? You should ask yourself how Hitler was able to seize power in the first place. The answer: Through manipulating large parts of the German public by using carefully chosen slogans, phrases and expressions. Jospeh Goebbles was a very clever person who lead the Nazi propaganda machine quite effectively. He knew exactly how powerful words can be.
Once the war had started, military force was the most effective tool to stop it and one of the major powers in that war was Russia/the Soviet Union. The difference between terrorists and Hitler's army is that you can't identify a suicide bomber until he actually blows himself up and then it's tool late to stop him. In WWII the enemy was clearly defined. In the current 'war' it is almost impossible to say who and where the potential terrorists are.
I also see a difference between saying "I'm a war president with war on my mind" and "I stand for peace and stability". The US isn't "a war country". They have the most sophisticated intelligence services and military in the world. Many Americans also know that language is one of the most powerful tools. The vast majority of publications in the fields of psychology, mediation, negotiation, etc. are US American. When you compare the way American diplomats, politians and industry leaders express their thoughts with the approach of other nationalities, you will find that in most cases the Americans are superior. They know how to "get a message across" and how to use language to achieve positive results. Maybe I'm wrong but I could imagine that there are quite a number of Americans who don't want "a war president".
_________________
Test Of English for International Communication
TOEIC Preparation & TOEIC Vocabulary |
|
Torsten
Site Admin
Joined: 25 Sep 2003
Posts: 6027
Location: EU
|
|
| Wed Feb 27, 2008 5:34 am The New York Times, McCain and Obama |
|
|
Torsten, please explain to me what you think "war president" means, so that I know what you think Bush said.
Other war presidents:
Lyndon Johnson
Harry Truman
Franklin Roosevelt
Woodrow Wilson
Abraham Lincoln |
|
Jamie (K)
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Posts: 3992
Location: Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
|
|
Jamie (K)
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Posts: 3992
Location: Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
|
| Wed Feb 27, 2008 18:22 pm The New York Times, McCain and Obama |
|
|
| Jamie (K) wrote: | | Torsten, please explain to me what you think "war president" means, so that I know what you think Bush said. |
Jamie, I think we both agree that words play a decisive role in politics. If I understand you correctly, the thinking process of many Americans is this: If a guy has a funny surname he can't be a good president. If a guy's middle name happens to be the same as a very bad guy's surname, that guy must be a bad guy too. If somebody attended a Muslim madrassa as a child, this person can't be a good president. Again, my conclusion might be totally wrong but this is how I see it. There obviously is a number of people who make a connection between a person's name and that person's ability to lead a country. Now, if somebody thinks that Huckabee can't be president because of his name then there certainly are quite a number of people who think that Bush wants to fight terrorism with war.
_________________
Test Of English for International Communication
TOEIC Preparation & TOEIC Vocabulary |
|
Torsten
Site Admin
Joined: 25 Sep 2003
Posts: 6027
Location: EU
|
|
| Wed Feb 27, 2008 20:19 pm The New York Times, McCain and Obama |
|
|
Again, Torsten, please answer my question: Please explain to me what you think "war president" means, so that I know what you think Bush said.
I didn't ask you about people's names or whether someone attended a madrassa or not. I asked you what you think "war president" means. |
|
Jamie (K)
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Posts: 3992
Location: Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
|
| Wed Feb 27, 2008 20:54 pm The New York Times, McCain and Obama |
|
|
'War president' to me means that he has been spreading his military force thin by overcommiting his troops in Iraq.
_________________
Test Of English for International Communication
TOEIC Preparation & TOEIC Vocabulary |
|
Torsten
Site Admin
Joined: 25 Sep 2003
Posts: 6027
Location: EU
|
|
| Wed Feb 27, 2008 21:02 pm The New York Times, McCain and Obama |
|
|
| Torsten wrote: | | 'War president' to me means that he has been spreading his military force thin by overcommiting his troops in Iraq. |
In English, "war president" means that a person happens to be the president in office when a war starts, and he's the one who has to make decisions and set policy with that in mind. It does NOT mean the guy is a president who goes into office hoping to start a war, which is how most Europeans probably wish to interpret it. Bush happened to be in office when the war started in 2001, so he's the president who has to deal with it.
What are you reading about the progress in Iraq since Donald Rumsfeld left office and the strategy was changed? Probably nothing, because the European media get most of their cues from the NYT, and that paper wants to downplay it. It doesn't fit their political purpose.
By the way, "overcommitting his troops in Iraq" and "spreading forces too thin in Iraq" are also both slogans, but they're not coming from Bush. They come from the same people who made up the slogan "war for oil", which is also bogus. |
|
Jamie (K)
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Posts: 3992
Location: Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
|
|
| Freelance: new job trend of Vietnamese youth | Kosovo independence |
