Large Scale Central

From Biden's lips to G-d's ear!

Mik said:
(1.) "Evidence" may be long in coming for a very good reason. MOST Americans are hopelessly provincial. They neither know much about world history or geo-politics, nor particularly give a hoot. Beyond it's partisan value of making President Bush (and by extension Governor Palin and every other person they have political differences with) look like an unqualified bumpkin, I'm not certain many actually really much CARE about what is happening to a few thousand people in Eastern Europe.

Something to think about. There are actually many Americans (mostly older) who actually believe that 1. President Bush is directly responsible for the high price of gasoline here, and/or 2. He should “do” something about it. And that his supposed inaction is because he is “an oil man”. Nevermind that much of the cause is due to world market forces beyond his control, and that “doing something” would constitute a grevious abuse of presidential powers and probably only make things worse in the long run. I only bring it up in the sense that it is germaine as far as trying to understand how much of the American people think… or perhaps more precisely REACT emotionally without much thinking


Steve,
You find time to defend President Bush. What about defending Americans in general?
Ralph

Ralph Berg said:
Mik said:
(1.) "Evidence" may be long in coming for a very good reason. MOST Americans are hopelessly provincial. They neither know much about world history or geo-politics, nor particularly give a hoot. Beyond it's partisan value of making President Bush (and by extension Governor Palin and every other person they have political differences with) look like an unqualified bumpkin, I'm not certain many actually really much CARE about what is happening to a few thousand people in Eastern Europe.

Something to think about. There are actually many Americans (mostly older) who actually believe that 1. President Bush is directly responsible for the high price of gasoline here, and/or 2. He should “do” something about it. And that his supposed inaction is because he is “an oil man”. Nevermind that much of the cause is due to world market forces beyond his control, and that “doing something” would constitute a grevious abuse of presidential powers and probably only make things worse in the long run. I only bring it up in the sense that it is germaine as far as trying to understand how much of the American people think… or perhaps more precisely REACT emotionally without much thinking


Steve,
You find time to defend President Bush. What about defending Americans in general?
Ralph

Ralph, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE prove me wrong. The job I have is a LOT like a barber’s…I get to listen to a LOT of people spout off their opinions on just about every subject imaginable. I find it amazing and more than a little dismaying how many people of all ages races and backgrounds IN A COLLEGE TOWN think just as I have described. Nor have I found very much difference in all the other places that I have lived and worked.

Mik said:
Ralph Berg said:
Mik said:
(1.) "Evidence" may be long in coming for a very good reason. MOST Americans are hopelessly provincial. They neither know much about world history or geo-politics, nor particularly give a hoot. Beyond it's partisan value of making President Bush (and by extension Governor Palin and every other person they have political differences with) look like an unqualified bumpkin, I'm not certain many actually really much CARE about what is happening to a few thousand people in Eastern Europe.

Something to think about. There are actually many Americans (mostly older) who actually believe that 1. President Bush is directly responsible for the high price of gasoline here, and/or 2. He should “do” something about it. And that his supposed inaction is because he is “an oil man”. Nevermind that much of the cause is due to world market forces beyond his control, and that “doing something” would constitute a grevious abuse of presidential powers and probably only make things worse in the long run. I only bring it up in the sense that it is germaine as far as trying to understand how much of the American people think… or perhaps more precisely REACT emotionally without much thinking


Steve,
You find time to defend President Bush. What about defending Americans in general?
Ralph

Ralph, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE prove me wrong. The job I have is a LOT like a barber’s…I get to listen to a LOT of people spout off their opinions on just about every subject imaginable. I find it amazing and more than a little dismaying how many people of all ages races and backgrounds IN A COLLEGE TOWN think just as I have described. Nor have I found very much difference in all the other places that I have lived and worked.

What kind of job do you have?
I have many friends. You did not describe any of them accurately. Maybe you hang in the wrong circles.
Ralph

Mik.

You did ask for opinions on what others think of the USA political situation.

This was in the comments page of todays Age newspaper here in Melbourne.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/welcome-to-this-years-blockbuster-20080916-4hui.html

As long as you understand that is not necessarily my opinion. I am merely passing it on for your perusal. :wink:

Ralph Berg said:
I have many friends. You did not describe any of them accurately. Maybe you hang in the wrong circles. Ralph
Maybe I do... but let me ask you a few questions that will settle how "provincial" your friends are....

How many can speak two languages fluently enough to get by? Three? How many know enough of the culture of the countries that speak those languages to at least avoid most of the major faux pas?

How many can find Majorca on a map? The Dardanelles? Khuzestan? The Ardennes? Or know why these places might be important?

The difference between a Yen and a Yuan? The current exchange rate for same?

Who Zarathustra was? Siddhartha? What they said that might still be important and how?

What a Mullah actually does?

need I go on?

At this point I’d even settle for them knowing what all the major platform planks of our OWN 2 party system are and why?

Mik said:
Ralph Berg said:
I have many friends. You did not describe any of them accurately. Maybe you hang in the wrong circles. Ralph
Maybe I do... but let me ask you a few questions that will settle how "provincial" your friends are....

How many can speak two languages fluently enough to get by? Three? How many know enough of the culture of the countries that speak those languages to at least avoid most of the major faux pas?

How many can find Majorca on a map? The Dardanelles? Khuzestan? The Ardennes? Or know why these places might be important?

The difference between a Yen and a Yuan? The current exchange rate for same?

Who Zarathustra was? Siddhartha? What they said that might still be important and how?

What a Mullah actually does?

need I go on?

At this point I’d even settle for them knowing what all the major platform planks of our OWN 2 party system are and why?


I can name a thousand places the average European has no knowledge of. Ask the average European the same questions you posed and I bet most don’t have the answers. What does this prove?
You seem to feel you are superior to the “ugly American”. Is that why you reside here? Better to feel superior here than inferior elsewhere?
Or are you here to take advantage of the “stupid American”?
I would guess you are not from the US or Europe. Is this why you do not use your full name on the forum as the rest of us do and hide behind a moniker?
I noticed you failed to respond to my question about employment. As long as you keep hiding behind the “curtain”, your opinion has no value to me. In order for me to respect an opinion, I have to know where it originates.
Ralph

TonyWalsham said:
Mik.

You did ask for opinions on what others think of the USA political situation.

This was in the comments page of todays Age newspaper here in Melbourne.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/welcome-to-this-years-blockbuster-20080916-4hui.html

As long as you understand that is not necessarily my opinion. I am merely passing it on for your perusal. :wink:


Wow, Sarah has gotten under a lot of libs skin, hasn’t she? Not necessarily yours, Tony, since this is not your opinion, you are just passing it on… :smiley: The libs just don’t know what to do with her.

Now, if a conservative were to attack a lib woman the way Sarah has been attacked by the libs, there would be hell to pay! I wonder where NOW is? Aren’t they supposed to stick up for women who decide “you can do it all, girl?” :stuck_out_tongue:

She has–we “libs” generally dislike blatant, repeated lying. It’s a character flaw, I suppose

Meanwhile, the Bush administration just announced another bailout–we have now loaned American international Group, the world’s largest insurance company, 85 billion dollars to save it from collapse. But in return, we , the taxpayers, got an 80% share of a company that’s about to collapse.

Go deregulation! Go free market! Thanks, Bush administration! First you push deregulation, and the free market, then when it blows up, you stick us with the bill!

mike omalley said:
She has--we "libs" generally dislike blatant, repeated lying. It's a character flaw, I suppose
But you will tolerate lying when it is your candidate that is doing the lying. :P That must be your character flaw, I guess.

Still waiting for your report on Taffy 3.

Sarah Palin recently said her state of Alaska produces 20% of the “U.S. domestic supply of energy.” John McCain added that Palin has “been governor of our largest state, in charge of 20 percent of America’s energy supply.” McCain added that Palin “knows more about energy than probably anyone in the United States of America.”

These two really don’t know what they’re talking about.

While Alaska is a leading producer of crude oil, it produces relatively little natural gas, hardly any coal and no nuclear power. Its share of oil production has been declining sharply, and the state now ranks lower than Texas and Louisiana. Alaska is the ninth-largest energy supplier in the United States, accounting for a modest 3.5 percent share of the nation's total energy production.

After nonpartisan Factcheck.org pointed out Palin's error in her interview with Gibson, the governor revised her statement somewhat, limiting it to oil and gas. But data compiled by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) contradict her claim that she oversees "nearly 20 percent" of oil and gas production in the country. According to authoritative EIA data, Alaska accounted for 7.4 percent of total U.S. oil and gas production in 2005.

It is not even correct for Palin to claim that her state is responsible for "nearly 20 percent" of U.S. oil production. Oil production has fallen sharply in Alaska during her governorship. The state's share of total U.S. oil production fell from 18 percent in 2005 to 13 percent this year, according to the EIA.

What’s especially interesting about this is, if state energy production is key to understanding energy policy, George W. Bush entered the White House as the country’s foremost authority on the issue – Texas ranks first in the nation, producing 15.6% of America’s energy, more than quadruple Alaska’s ninth-best 3.5%. Dick Cheney’s Wyoming is second, producing 13.1% of the nation’s supply.

Ralph Berg said:
I can name a thousand places the average European has no knowledge of. Ask the average European the same questions you posed and I bet most don't have the answers. What does this prove? You seem to feel you are superior to the "ugly American". Is that why you reside here? Better to feel superior here than inferior elsewhere? Or are you here to take advantage of the "stupid American"? I would guess you are not from the US or Europe. Is this why you do not use your full name on the forum as the rest of us do and hide behind a moniker? I noticed you failed to respond to my question about employment. As long as you keep hiding behind the "curtain", your opinion has no value to me. In order for me to respect an opinion, I have to know where it originates. Ralph
First, I use the handle "Mik" on EVERY board I post on. There's a story behind it. Since I EARNED it I like it better than my given name. Maybe sometime I'll tell the story again, maybe not, but when you have a can of food do you eat the label or the contents? If I signed everything "Uncle Benjamin Hadd" and AGREED with you you'd not complain, even though U Ben Hadd, but a simple Mik gets your hackles up. As Alice said, "curiouser and curiouser".

I was BORN here in the US. That doesn’t mean I have to LIKE how far out of touch we are with the reality of the rest of the world. I don’t have to LIKE how we pay lip service to the value of an education, but teach jack in the public schools. I don’t have to LIKE how we loudly proclaim how “free” we are, but keep passing more and more laws restricting our own precious civil liberties. I don’t have to LIKE how people BOTH parties so often lie through their grinning teeth telling us what they think we want to hear, promise us the moon, then take money off some lobbyist. We have the best government money can buy, and it’s OUR OWN FAULT because we (as a people) are too “busy with more important things”(read: LAZY not stupid) to think about what it really means. To me THAT is what is at stake.

My job could be called low man on the totem pole with an energy company. But I have PERSONAL contact with about 200 people a DAY, EVERY day. I talk with them, and I listen to what they say (and HOW they say it). Do you?

As for the questions above. I DO know the answers (without looking them up) and I think you might find a reasonably educated European probably WOULD know the answers to most of them. Do I speak three languages? No, and more is the pity since my daughter in law is from the Dominican Republic and speaks limited English. We are both learning, but slowly.

Roasting Governor Palin for possibly being mis-informed on the history of a cultural clash in a tiny province in a small Eastern European country when it is damned unlikely that 99.9% of the rest of our populace knows (or cares) AT ALL is cynical at best. (They taught YOU all about it in high school, right?) SHOULD she have looked deeper beyond the report she was given before forming an opinion? We HOPE she will, but stop and think about the pressures the woman is under and the number of people wanting “just a little bit” of her time EVERY DAY. EXPECTING her to know everything about it back to 1922 without being briefed on it is a bit much, especially since I would imagine MOST of the stuff she got from the state department probably says pretty much what she did. Before you accuse me of being an apologist, if it was Obama you’d probably overlook it. BUT call me cynical, IMO much of our foreign policy blunders come from state department people slanting reports so that the pollies come to a conclusion based on what the state department people, our “allies”, (or our business interests) WANT (as opposed to what is the best or most moral choice) as it does from having “unqualifed bumpkins” in office.

Mik said:
Roasting Governor Palin for possibly being mis-informed on the history of a cultural clash in a tiny province in a small Eastern European country when it is damned unlikely that 99.9% of the rest of our populace knows (or cares) AT ALL is cynical at best. (They taught YOU all about it in high school, right?) SHOULD she have looked deeper beyond the report she was given before forming an opinion? We HOPE she will, but stop and think about the pressures the woman is under and the number of people wanting "just a little bit" of her time EVERY DAY. EXPECTING her to know everything about it back to 1922 without being briefed on it is a bit much, especially since I would imagine MOST of the stuff she got from the state department probably says pretty much what she did. Before you accuse me of being an apologist, if it was Obama you'd probably overlook it. BUT call me cynical, IMO much of our foreign policy blunders come from state department people slanting reports so that the pollies come to a conclusion based on what the state department people, our "allies", (or our business interests) WANT (as opposed to what is the best or most moral choice) as it does from having "unqualifed bumpkins" in office.
I disagree--I knew more about the situation than she apparently does, and I have a family and a full time job. I'm not a politician, and I'm not running for Commander in Chief. Is it unreasonable to expect that someone who thinks they could be President actually have some interest in and know something about foreign policy? Isn't it kind of surprising that a professional politician should know so little about her country's affairs?

I’d say yes, but I guess that wanting the President to be knowledgeable makes me an elitist in today’s political climate

mike omalley said:
Mik said:
Roasting Governor Palin for possibly being mis-informed on the history of a cultural clash in a tiny province in a small Eastern European country when it is damned unlikely that 99.9% of the rest of our populace knows (or cares) AT ALL is cynical at best. (They taught YOU all about it in high school, right?) SHOULD she have looked deeper beyond the report she was given before forming an opinion? We HOPE she will, but stop and think about the pressures the woman is under and the number of people wanting "just a little bit" of her time EVERY DAY. EXPECTING her to know everything about it back to 1922 without being briefed on it is a bit much, especially since I would imagine MOST of the stuff she got from the state department probably says pretty much what she did. Before you accuse me of being an apologist, if it was Obama you'd probably overlook it. BUT call me cynical, IMO much of our foreign policy blunders come from state department people slanting reports so that the pollies come to a conclusion based on what the state department people, our "allies", (or our business interests) WANT (as opposed to what is the best or most moral choice) as it does from having "unqualifed bumpkins" in office.
I disagree--I knew more about the situation than she apparently does, and I have a family and a full time job. I'm not a politician, and I'm not running for Commander in Chief. Is it unreasonable to expect that someone who thinks they could be President actually have some interest in and know something about foreign policy? Isn't it kind of surprising that a professional politician should know so little about her country's affairs?

I’d say yes, but I guess that wanting the President to be knowledgeable makes me an elitist in today’s political climate


Knowledge can only come from being given the information in the first place. That’s why presidents and other pollies have advisors and ask for briefs from the whatever department :wink: You knew more on THIS subject, but on ALL the subjects a government official you want to be an “expert” on every day? I’d rather have one with some sort of ethics that I more or less agree with, a lot of common sense, and a working bullshit detector… The jury is still out on whether Gov Palin fits that criteria.

Mik said:
Knowledge can only come from being given the information in the first place. That's why presidents and other pollies have advisors and ask for briefs from the whatever department ;) You knew more on THIS subject, but on ALL the subjects a government official you want to be an "expert" on every day? I'd rather have one with some sort of ethics that I more or less agree with, a lot of common sense, and a working bullshit detector.... The jury is still out on whether Gov Palin fits that criteria.
Nobody gave me my information, I went out and got it. It takes intellectual curiosity and effort. It takes a degree of civic-mindedness and an attention span. Nobody gave it to me. If the candidate is so lazy and incurious that she or he can only operate on information they are given, then we've got a lot to worry about. Sports fans kow all about sports--they read the paper, they watch ESPN, they study the details. there are millions of them.

Is it unreasonable to expect a politician to know as much about world affairs as the average sports fan knows about the NFL? I don’t think so.

Mike,

Be honest. The reason you know about the history of Georgia is because you are a professional historian. Cut the BS!

The average sports fan knows a bit about his favorite team, and not much else. In the NFL, things change too fast to keep up with it all, just as in world affairs. I know a little bit about the Seahawks, less about the Packers, and almost nothing about the Jets, though with their recent addition of Bret Favre, I just might begin to learn more. Now, I consider myself to be an average sports fan, not a “professional” sports fan, so I guess that Guv’nor Palin meets your test of knowledge of world affairs.

Mike, if you are too busy to look up Taffy 3, you could assign it to your Freshmen. :stuck_out_tongue:

Sure, and she’s a professional politician.

Even so, no one “gave me” the info. I went out and got it.

I’m a professional historian but I only know much about US history–really, what I know about Georgia is just what I read in the newspapers.

mike omalley said:
Sure, and she's a professional politician.

Even so, no one “gave me” the info. I went out and got it.

I’m a professional historian but I only know much about US history–really, what I know about Georgia is just what I read in the newspapers.

earlier mike said:
Is it unreasonable to expect a politician to know as much about world affairs as the average sports fan knows about the NFL? I don't think so.
Now you are changing the distance to the goal posts, to use a sports analogy. :P

Which newspaper did you read it in? All I get here is the Spokane Fishwrap.