# Top 10 Bushisms



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

I 'missunderestimate' this video...


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Apart from the extremely annoying commentary, these were hilarious :lol:


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

emiellucifuge said:


> Apart from the extremely annoying commentary, these were hilarious :lol:


A friend of mine who is a Professor of Law and a radical liberal had shared this video with me on facebook. Apart from our strong disagreements about almost everything, we both agree that this video is hilarious...


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

emiellucifuge said:


> Apart from the extremely annoying commentary, these were hilarious :lol:


I agree with everything you just said.

And to think... I _grew up_ during his presidency.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Oh man... at least we had Clinton


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

Well the guy is currently in the white house also made some hilarious comments...this is from an actual recording...


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

How did that man become president again? Did somebody actually vote for him? I guess they must have. It's a scary world. A scary, frightening world!


----------



## Chris (Jun 1, 2010)

The other day I bought a three CD set of Barack Obama speeches in a bargain bookshop. Only £2.99. It's called 'Yes We Can!'. I haven't got round to listening to any of it yet.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

Chris said:


> The other day I bought a three CD set of Barack Obama speeches in a bargain bookshop. Only £2.99. It's called 'Yes We Can!'. I haven't got round to listening to any of it yet.


I cant believe you're a fan of this guy...


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

Edward Elgar said:


> How did that man become president again? Did somebody actually vote for him? I guess they must have. It's a scary world. A scary, frightening world!


And somebody voted for him _twice._ That's the worst thing about it.


----------



## Nix (Feb 20, 2010)

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Well the guy is currently in the white house also made some hilarious comments...this is from an actual recording...


His name is Obama and it sounds like he blanked out, which happens to just about everyone on a regular basis.


----------



## Chris (Jun 1, 2010)

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> I cant believe you're a fan of this guy...


I'm not, I promise!

I can't explain why I bought the CDs....


----------



## Aksel (Dec 3, 2010)

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Well the guy is currently in the white house also made some hilarious comments...this is from an actual recording...


Bush was funnier. Obama just blanked out. I do it all the time. You probably do it as well.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

Chris said:


> I'm not, I promise!
> 
> I can't explain why I bought the CDs....


You were bored and had some extra cash to spend...?

:lol:


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

Aksel said:


> Bush was funnier. Obama just blanked out. I do it all the time. You probably do it as well.


I thought that this Obama vid was no less hilarious, I laughed so hard...:lol:


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Obama is a fantastic speaker. Really unrivalled in modern politics.

The timing, and contour of his speeches are incredibly powerful.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

emiellucifuge said:


> Obama is a fantastic speaker. Really unrivalled in modern politics.
> 
> The timing, and contour of his speeches are incredibly powerful.


Incredibly powerful in their empty rhetoric...this guy has done absolutely nothing since taking office, I mean going to McDonalds to get some burgers and fries for his staff is not what I call been a president...


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Well I intentionally did not make a comment on his actions, as the thread was kind of about speeches.


But it begs the question.... why are the Republicans so up in arms about Health-care?
Plus... by most indicators, the economy seems to be recovering and unemployment is decreasing faster than expected.

Getting a burger is a nice sign of contact with the people.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

emiellucifuge said:


> Well I intentionally did not make a comment on his actions, as the thread was kind of about speeches.
> 
> But it begs the question.... why are the Republicans so up in arms about Health-care?
> Plus... by most indicators, the economy seems to be recovering and unemployment is decreasing faster than expected.
> ...


But going around the white house and asking each member of the staff what kind of burgers they want, and writing it down, and then going in the car with the secret service and personally shopping in McDonalds all the burgers , with the fries, salads, and drinks, putting all of this into two huge bags, and personally carrying them and then coming back to the white house and handing each and everyone of them their burgers, is an insult to the American presidency, and any presidency for that matter.

Been a waiter would have been more proper for someone like this.

I cant seem to find the video on youtube for some reason, though when I saw it a few months ago, I was offended as an American citizen watching the president become so low.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Hes just a nice boss and a normal person that people can relate to.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

emiellucifuge said:


> Hes just a nice boss and a normal person that people can relate to.


So the whole concept of been a king or a ruler or a leader that is elevated above the people and has royalty is not a nice thing according to you?

There's a difference between a nice boss in your small business, and the Leader of the Free world...and this difference should stay.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Thats the thing about democracy - we dont have a monarchy. Elected officials are normal people and must also answer to the people.

So no, I dont think having royalty or a ruler elevated above the people is a good idea.

Here in Holland the PM cycles to work in the morning.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

emiellucifuge said:


> Thats the thing about democracy - we dont have a monarchy. Elected officials are normal people and must also answer to the people.
> 
> So no, I dont think having royalty or a ruler elevated above the people is a good idea.
> 
> Here in Holland the PM cycles to work in the morning.


So its ok for the President of the United States to personally go and buy Burgers for his staff?

I'm amazed.

WOW.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Tell me in concrete terms what is wrong with that?


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

emiellucifuge said:


> Tell me in concrete terms what is wrong with that?


Why dont you call him tommorow and ask him if he has some time to shoot some hoops with you...


----------



## Guest (Mar 18, 2011)

That there is this belief that so many other politicians are so much more enlightened than former President Bush is a bit of a fallacy. While generally not the most eloquent of speakers, it is important to understand that more of these misstatements are caught today, now that everybody is recording everything. Let's not forget some of these doozies from the past (and I will try to be bipartisan):
"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." Bill Clinton




"I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." John Kerry
"Read my lips: no new taxes!" George H. W. Bush
"What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is." Dan Quayle
''You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.... I'm not joking.'' Joe Biden
''Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job.'' George W. Bush
''I've now been in 57 states -- I think one left to go.'' Barack Obama

"I just couldn't bear the though of anyone drowning in a river while trying to make a better life for themselves." Senator Ted Kennedy (if you aren't sure why this is a doozy, go look up Chappaquiddick on wikipedia)
''When I was in England, I experimented with marijuana a time or two, and I didn't like it. I didn't inhale and never tried it again.'' 
-Bill Clinton 
''I've looked on many women with lust. I've committed adultery in my heart many times. God knows I will do this and forgives me.'' Jimmy Carter
''Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won't tell you. I just did.'' Walter Mondale
''I think that gay marriage should be between a man and a woman.'' Arnold Schwarzenegger


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

DrMike said:


> That there is this belief that so many other politicians are so much more enlightened than former President Bush is a bit of a fallacy. While generally not the most eloquent of speakers, it is important to understand that more of these misstatements are caught today, now that everybody is recording everything. Let's not forget some of these doozies from the past (and I will try to be bipartisan):
> "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." Bill Clinton
> 
> 
> ...


LOL!!! :lol::lol::lol:

If bush would have done that...:lol:


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Why dont you call him tommorow and ask him if he has some time to shoot some hoops with you...


I cant quite figure out what your issue is:

a) You think its 'beneath' a president, and not befitting his function to take part in these 'common' activities.

b) You think its a waste of his time.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

emiellucifuge said:


> I cant quite figure out what your issue is:
> 
> a) You think its 'beneath' a president, and not befitting his function to take part in these 'common' activities.
> 
> b) You think its a waste of his time.


No, I meant to say that if he no different then anyone else, why don't you arrange to shoot some hoops with him...

The man lives in a contradiction, he has some qualities of a president, meaning not everyone can approach him , eat with him, and do these activities with him, yet he goes out to buy burgers for his staff, this is just incongruous,


----------



## Toccata (Jun 13, 2009)

emiellucifuge said:


> I cant quite figure out what your issue is:
> 
> a) You think its 'beneath' a president, and not befitting his function to take part in these 'common' activities.
> 
> b) You think its a waste of his time.


I thought you have a monarchy in the Netherlands. How would you like it if your Queen suddenly got the urge to nip rond to McDonald's and come back with a large bagful of cheeseburgers and fries for the staff. Wouldn't you be even slightly concernced that this kind of thing is beneath her dignity? I can't imagine our Queen ever demesning herself of her office in quite such a manner.


----------



## Guest (Mar 18, 2011)

What it all boils down to is whether or not you think your country's top politician should be "above it all" or more a man (or woman) of the people. Would you rather have them "look presidential" or look approachable. Much of what helped Clinton during the worst periods of his presidency was his charisma and ability to connect with people. In contrast, in times of crisis, people tend to prefer their president looking in control and in command. People didn't respond well to Jimmy Carter rejecting a suit coat, preferring a cardigan sweater, when times were really tough. But above all, they don't like presidents who seem out of touch. George H. W. Bush suffered immensely when he was shown going shopping and apparently amazed at the supermarket scanner. Ditto when he seemed nonplussed about the direction the economy was headed. Images of Barack Obama golfing or making March Madness picks when unemployment is well over where he predicted it would be, a crisis in Japan, and rebellions sprouting up in various Middle East nations faster than the little Dutch boy can stick his finger in the **** make him look disinterested and out of touch.

Ever since the Nixon/Kennedy presidential debates, image has become a huge factor in presidential politics. Gaffes are tolerated, but only if results are delivered.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

A Queen is not a democratically elected representative of the people.

And frankly, I couldnt give a **** what she does with her time, as long as she doesnt guzzle taxpayer money.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

DrMike said:


> What it all boils down to is whether or not you think your country's top politician should be "above it all" or more a man (or woman) of the people. Would you rather have them "look presidential" or look approachable. Much of what helped Clinton during the worst periods of his presidency was his charisma and ability to connect with people. In contrast, in times of crisis, people tend to prefer their president looking in control and in command. People didn't respond well to Jimmy Carter rejecting a suit coat, preferring a cardigan sweater, when times were really tough. But above all, they don't like presidents who seem out of touch. George H. W. Bush suffered immensely when he was shown going shopping and apparently amazed at the supermarket scanner. Ditto when he seemed nonplussed about the direction the economy was headed. Images of Barack Obama golfing or making March Madness picks when unemployment is well over where he predicted it would be, a crisis in Japan, and rebellions sprouting up in various Middle East nations faster than the little Dutch boy can stick his finger in the **** make him look disinterested and out of touch.
> 
> Ever since the Nixon/Kennedy presidential debates, image has become a huge factor in presidential politics. Gaffes are tolerated, but only if results are delivered.


You're right. I havent been/lived in the US for a while, so perhaps Ive grown overly accustomed to the Dutch 'down to earth' way of politics.

In Obama's case im sure it was a calculated 'image' stunt


----------



## Guest (Mar 18, 2011)

That's part of the meaning behind the phrase that all politics are local. Honestly, to most people, the governments of other nations, viewed through the spectrum of their own, seem at times incomprehensible. Living in a winner-take-all style of government, looking at parliamentary style, where seats are apportioned according to your party's proportional take of the electorate, seems bizarre, with the odd coalitions that get formed.

The presidency in the USA has evolved over time. We have gone through periods where we wanted people who did little more than make sure nothing went wrong, to presidents that were downright imperial (say what you will about Bush and the "Imperial Presidency" but FDR came just about as near as this country has ever been to a monarch). We shift back and forth, but regarding the question earlier that someone asked about what the objections are to "Obamacare," you have to realize the the USA is really quite conservative, especially when compared to European nations. A conservative in Britain would probably, at best, be viewed as a left-leaning moderate in the USA. Obama has presided as much more liberal than he campaigned - a campaign, which has been sort of eluded to here, that hinged a lot on his incredible presence and persona, with a healthy dose of voter fatigue for the other party.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> No, I meant to say that if he no different then anyone else, why don't you arrange to shoot some hoops with him...
> 
> The man lives in a contradiction, he has some qualities of a president, meaning not everyone can approach him , eat with him, and do these activities with him, yet he goes out to buy burgers for his staff, this is just incongruous,


No such actions by a politician are performed in a vacuum. He obviously was going for some sort of PR stunt. Maybe it was misguided. But it's a rather minor incident. I believe that the success or failure of his presidency will hang on much bigger issues: whether the country recovers economically or not - especially the job market; whether the foreign wars get to some sort of positive resolution or continue to be an expensive quagmire; whether the American people ends up appreciating or not the new health care law once it takes full effect and shows (or fails to show) results, etc. History will not remember Obama positively or negatively for buying hamburgers for his staff.

However some people will have viscerally positive or negative reactions to politicians they love or hate. Obama adversaries will see anything that he does in a negative way - while Bush adversaries used to make similar criticisms (e.g. the episode of his stance at that elementary school during 9/11, etc).

American politics have been so divisive that about half of the population will always hate Obama for anything he does regardless of it actually being a good thing or not, and the other half will tend to excuse him (currently his numbers are worse than this, but trust me, closer to 2012 the polarization will kick in again and whoever wins - either a second term for him or a first term for his opponent - will do so by a small margin, with half the country supporting each candidate, like it's been the case lately).


----------



## Toccata (Jun 13, 2009)

Almaviva said:


> snipped
> 
> ... American politics have been so divisive that about half of the population will always hate Obama for anything he does regardless of it actually being a good thing or not, and the other half will tend to excuse him (currently his numbers are worse than this, but trust me, closer to 2012 the polarization will kick in again and whoever wins - either a second term for him or a first term for his opponent - will do so by a small margin, with half the country supporting each candidate, like it's been the case lately).


It is pretty well known that the USA population has long been generally more right wing than opinion in the UK. In present times, a typical Republican would be quite a lot to the right of a typical "Conservative" voter in the UK. The UK's present Coalition Government (comprising Conservatives and Lib Dems) is probably on a broad political par with the Obama Administration, although obviously the institutional and specific policy details differ.

There is no longer that much difference between all the main political Parties in the UK compared with former times. Each has shifted ground considerably towards the "centre". The only major difference between the present Coalition Government and the main Opposition Party (Labour) is over the matter of how quickly the public sector deficit should be reduced. Here too, there is a lot of shadow boxing because ultimately the matter of deficit reduction is determined by the World's financial markets, not by political Parties, if they want the country to remain solvent.

In the UK we have taken for granted that the State will provide comprehensive health care for all, free of charge at the point of delivery, since the end of WWII. In addition, we have long enjoyed a comprehensive social care system for the poor, unemployed, elderly, etc. Please note, any Americans reading this, that the UK National Health Service system is still pretty good despite the pressure for cuts and cost savings, and is nothing like so grotesquely bad as suggested by some of the stupid reports put out by sections of your "conservative" media.

The USA has had nothing like the UK's comprehensive health care/social policy. The kind of arguments against Obama's attempts to introduce something along similar lines in the USA, for comprehensive health care, would be laughed out of court here, in the sense that it would be sure-fired political death for any major Party if it proposed really major changes to the health/social care package as currently enjoyed.

On the matter of foreign policy/national Defence, I would doubt that there is any major political difference between the Obama stance and mainstream thinking current in the UK. Completely gone is the gung-ho foreign policy mentality of Tony Blair. Virtually the whole nation felt badly hoodwinked by Blair and Bush over what turned out to be a very ill conceived and calamitous invasion of Iraq, based largely on trumped up charges in order to give Bush and his Neo-Con cronies licence to exercise their military ambitions.

The ill-fated invasion of Iraq aside, and his penchant for making many foot-in-mouth faux pas, G W Bush has always been seen largely a joke in the UK. I strongly doubt that any British electorate in modern times would ever have voted in such an obvious dim-witted political loose canon. At least, British Prime Ministers are bright and intelligent. To think that he was Commander in Chief of the world's most powerful military was frightening. The USA political system clearly didn't have "checks and balances" in place to prevent the idiot from launching one of most fruitless/high cost wars in recent times. It's not surprising that the USA's already bad reputation around the World for imperialistic behaviour took a sharp nose-dive into even deeper infamy following that invasion. On that front, at least Obama has tried to restore credibility, and I would say that he has done quite well on the whole.


----------



## Igneous01 (Jan 27, 2011)

im surprised people even take politics seriously. anthropomorphizing a man as being some superhero is just to much. If he wants to go to burger king for his staff, then hell let him do it, I dont expect him to grind his head with his pencil all day or to sit at his desk with a facepalm either. I admit he hasnt done anything really (but then again name someone who really has, alot of changes that were made in the United States over the past 50 years or so are small and conservative - no big leaps in culture or idealogy.)

If Einstein could create and publish his theory of relativity, while making silly faces to his kids and going to a local store to buy a can of cola - i dont see why barack obama cant go to burger king. 

Or better yet - Beethoven walking around bars and having a few drinks, maybe even getting loaded (never know, im sure he got tanked a few times in his life) and then writing the repertoire he has, i see no reason why obama cant go to burger king.

whether its a stunt or not, the mans still a man, he needs to eat (even if his diet is quite horrid) or would people rather prefer him to just stay at his desk for 24 hours straight because it makes him look more like a president?


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Toccata said:


> It is pretty well known that the USA population has long been generally more right wing than opinion in the UK. In present times, a typical Republican would be quite a lot to the right of a typical "Conservative" voter in the UK. The UK's present Coalition Government (comprising Conservatives and Lib Dems) is probably on a broad political par with the Obama Administration, although obviously the institutional and specific policy details differ.
> 
> There is no longer that much difference between all the main political Parties in the UK compared with former times. Each has shifted ground considerably towards the "centre". The only major difference between the present Coalition Government and the main Opposition Party (Labour) is over the matter of how quickly the public sector deficit should be reduced. Here too, there is a lot of shadow boxing because ultimately the matter of deficit reduction is determined by the World's financial markets, not by political Parties, if they want the country to remain solvent.
> 
> ...


Bush's IQ has been estimated at 85, by a method that uses verbal fluency and vocabulary as markers. Bill Clinton's IQ by the same method has been estimated at the exact double: 170. So after a big dip in intelligent leadership in 2000, it's reassuring that we're going up again - Obama's has been estimated at 135. (I don't have the links, but I've read about it; I can't guarantee the accuracy of these numbers and methods, but even without tests and scales one can easily see that these numbers are onto something).

About health care, I believe that most of the opposition against the new law is based on misinformation, ignorance, and political posturing. But I'm also not sure whether it will succeed, simply because it didn't go far enough in establishing true universal health care, and it is a complex hydra that may have unintended consequences, especially given the fact that the opponents will try (and in many cases be able) to undermine it. Meanwhile the quality of our health care has dropped to 37th in the world by WHO indicators, while France is number 1. I used to live in France for several years and I'm always puzzled when I think - why wouldn't my fellow countrymen want a system like that one, if they only knew how good it can be? But transforming the multi-headed, big business US health care system into the well oiled, harmonious, efficient French system is virtually impossible. Besides, we in this country suffer with a kind of paralysis brought about by our bi-partisan system: one side tries to implement something, the other side tries hard to undo it. The result is that nothing gets done.

About our foreign policy, our two countries have lately committed the same errors together, but seem to be both on a better path now, which is no guarantee that the results will be any better, since the wrong can't be easily undone, and the radicalization surrounding the main issues in the world right now seems to be deepening. I anticipate troubled times ahead.


----------



## Aksel (Dec 3, 2010)

It's really quite mind-boggling for someone who lives in the far, communist, socialist dictatorships (like Sweden, whose government is conservative. Remember the whole Sweden debacle a few years ago?) of Scandinavia to see how insanely right-wing the US is. By Norwegian standards, Obama is on the far right of the Norwegian political spectrum.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

I agree with you Aksel.

But we see the results.

Netherlands and Scandinavia (along with much of europe) enjoy the best quality of life, the greatest freedom, the greatest healthcare, the greatest equality, the greatest emancipation, and we also lead the way on enviromental issues.

Not to mention our countries rank highest on the democracy index.


----------



## Aksel (Dec 3, 2010)

Yes! Hooray for the Welfare State!


----------



## Guest (Mar 19, 2011)

Toccata said:


> It is pretty well known that the USA population has long been generally more right wing than opinion in the UK. In present times, a typical Republican would be quite a lot to the right of a typical "Conservative" voter in the UK. The UK's present Coalition Government (comprising Conservatives and Lib Dems) is probably on a broad political par with the Obama Administration, although obviously the institutional and specific policy details differ.
> 
> There is no longer that much difference between all the main political Parties in the UK compared with former times. Each has shifted ground considerably towards the "centre". The only major difference between the present Coalition Government and the main Opposition Party (Labour) is over the matter of how quickly the public sector deficit should be reduced. Here too, there is a lot of shadow boxing because ultimately the matter of deficit reduction is determined by the World's financial markets, not by political Parties, if they want the country to remain solvent.
> 
> ...


The impression the U.S. has of British Prime Ministers is that, with the obvious exception of Churchill, they are seen as appeasers ("Peace in our time"), or lap dogs to the U.S. (particularly since WWII), or completely unknown. Say what you will about Bush, but for someone lambasted as so moronic, Tony Blair was taking his cues from him.

I'm sure the British love their social programs. It is the ratchet effect that Thatcher talked about. No matter how hard it is to get a social program running, it is infinitely harder to ever eliminate it. Case in point - when FDR first implemented Social Security, it was meant to be a temporary program. The problem is now that the UK and other countries with all these social programs are having to implement austerity measures. Again, as Thatcher said, the problem with socialism is that sooner or later, you run out of people to tax. Nobody likes having "free" handouts taken away, but sometimes you have to tell the children that there isn't enough money to pay for it. The problem is, politicians have figured out the best way to stay in office is to promise to take away more from one group to give it to another in exchange for their votes. Politics is the art of figuring out just how many people you can take wealth from to bribe the rest to vote you back into power. Hence the reason that poorer people tend to vote Democrat - Democrats promise to take money from rich people to give to them.

Unfortunately, the more things you promise, the more expensive it gets, and there are a lot more people receiving than giving. If you were to tax all the millionaires and billionaires in the U.S. at 100%, you would have nowhere near the amount of money the federal government needs to pay for all the entitlement programs, and the basics of keeping the nation running. Yes, voting to cut back such programs may be political suicide, but it is sometimes the only intelligent thing to do. If teenagers were allowed to pick and choose their parents like we pick our political leaders, who do you think they would choose - the ones who tell them that they need to be responsible and save their money and go out and get a job, or the ones who hand them the credit card and the keys to the BMW whenever they ask? But in the long run, which parents are the better ones? You find out when the credit cards are maxed out and the kid is in the hospital from the car accident they were in.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Thats a very good point but of course there are many ways to go about austerity measures.

For example, cuts to education are stupid because education is a long-term economy boosting investment.
Cuts to environmental protections are stupid because of the same reasons, not to mention the health benefits.
And all the while we still go on spending on unnecessary military equipment (speaking for my country)


----------



## Guest (Mar 19, 2011)

emiellucifuge said:


> I agree with you Aksel.
> 
> But we see the results.
> 
> ...


Assuming all of this is true - it would be wonderful if the U.S. could have kept all the money it has spent in the defense of Europe since WWI to spend on ourselves. Much of the peace and prosperity that Europe has enjoyed has been due to them sleeping comfortably under the defense umbrella set up by the U.S. True, we could have so much more money had we not had to shield western Europe from the U.S.S.R. for half of the last century.

Quality of life and freedom? Don't you penalize people over there for making derogatory comments about Muslims? Greatest healthcare? Maybe the cheapest, but last time I checked, the U.S. is the final destination for most people needing the newest, state of the art medical care. Science is hampered over there from excessive environmental and animal rights protestions. Science funding is also way down - everybody knows that the place to go for scientific funding is the U.S. government, even with as backward as we supposedly are. And don't forget that the U.S. was pioneering most of this democracy back when you all were still figuring out the proper way to bow and curtsy to the various monarchs that ruled over you.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

You're right, but please dont forget im also a US citizen. 

No we dont penalise people for insulting religion in this country at least. 

But in the US:
Isnt it true that homosexual couples still cant get married?
1 in 6 people in america live below the poverty line. America suffers from a much higher rate of violent crime. 
Most EU countries are ranked higher than the US on the WHO's healthcare rankings.

Monarchies are indeed a problem we still cope with. Yet many european countries have a higher score on the democracy than the US.

So yeah it does depend on your political perspective and what you believe to be more important. But im happy to live in a country where everybody leads a dignified life and is free to live it how they choose.


----------



## Toccata (Jun 13, 2009)

DrMike said:


> The impression the U.S. has of British Prime Ministers is that, with the obvious exception of Churchill, they are seen as appeasers ("Peace in our time"), or lap dogs to the U.S. (particularly since WWII), or completely unknown. Say what you will about Bush, but for someone lambasted as so moronic, Tony Blair was taking his cues from him.


Americans tend to harbour some strange views about foreign countries, especially Britain, and this one is about par for the course. I have discovered quite a lot of prejudice against Britain from observing many threads in the general discussion topic areas of one or two other classical music boards over several years.

Britain is often the main target, although there is quite often some outspoken prejudices against some Continental European countries, which some Americans tend to view as one huge socialist camp of sponging, whining, surrender-monkeys, crawling with Moslems and terrorists. These comments were not from young, loud-mouthed schoolchildren, but from several seemingly generally well-educated, professional types.

The most common misconceptions about modern Britain centred are on topics like BBC neutrality, the capability of Britain's military forces (in the context of Iraq), allegations about Britain's poor social infrastructure such as education and health care.

A regular "golden oldie" topic is the typical American's view on how the USA came to sort out European problems in 1941, at great cost to itself, and how ungrateful we are. The fact that the USA only entered WWII because Germany declared war against the USA is always missed out of the reckoning, as is the fact that Britain had no fundamental need to take on Germany in 1939 and did so, at great peril to itself, to tackle the menace posed by Nazism. WWII crippled Britain badly and it never recovered anything like its former glory, but at least Britain responded to the challenge and used its might to minimise what otherwise have been a far worse outcome. Without British involvement at an early stage, iinvolving highly valued support from its Commonwealth, Germany and Japan would have had a much easier task in taking on the USA, by which time more of Continental Europe would have fallen to Nazism, no doubt with countless more victims of an even more horrendous Holocaust.

It was mainly the Brits who got involved in responding to these prejudices on the message boards I referred to. Possibly this was partly due to a language issue but more likely it was because the Continental European members on the forums were so incensed at the ignorance and prejudice being preached against them that they were probably too speechless to respond. I'm not going to say any more as it simply brings back too many bad memories of some eye-wateringly prejudiced comments I have seen.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Toccata said:


> Americans tend to harbour some strange views about foreign countries, especially Britain, and this one is about par for the course. I have discovered quite a lot of prejudice against Britain from observing many threads in the general discussion topic areas of one or two other classical music boards over several years.
> 
> Britain is often the main target, although there is quite often some outspoken prejudices against some Continental European countries, which some Americans tend to view as one huge socialist camp of sponging, whining, surrender-monkeys, crawling with Moslems and terrorists. These comments were not from young, loud-mouthed schoolchildren, but from several seemingly generally well-educated, professional types.
> 
> ...


While what you're saying does unfortunately happen, you're indulging in generalizations ("Americans tend to..." "the typical American view..."). There are many Americans who admire Europe and are thankful to Europe for creating Western civilization and values, and have a positive view of many aspects of European life (see, as an example, my comment about France's excellent health care system).

And the other way around is just as valid: I've seen Europeans refer to Americans as a bunch of uneducated monolingual fat ******** who gobble hamburgers and hot dogs all day long while watching the weird game of handegg (it's not football, they say, since it uses hands and the "ball" is not round) and while engaging in extremist right-wing gun-totting war mongering.

I take it as plain sibling rivalry... since our two countries are actually great allies of each other, walk hands in hands on most paths of this perilous world, and share the same basic culture and language. It's a love-hate relationship but in everything that matters we tend to agree rather than not.

The problem with generalizations is that they never take into account the profound diversity of a population. While Americans who fit the above stereotypes do exist (these stereotypes aren't completely groundless, naturally), there are just as many or more who don't.

And yes, America has many problems, and maybe wasn't as instrumental in ensuring the freedom of Western Europe in WWII as we like to believe (but not negligible either in doing so), but there are many other ways we have contributed to modern Western civilization - one of these other ways is, for example, modern science. We've produced more patents and more research into new technology than any other country, and chances are that when you grow old and sick and need some sophisticated technology like an MRI or some advanced treatment to help your ailing body, the ideas behind the help that you'll be receiving were originated in America (and often even the equipment, since bioengineering equipment is one of our hottest export items). Sure, this was done by following the foot steps of great European scientists (and in many cases, by importing them directly into our universities), but we surely did take things a number of steps forward.

I see the prevalent anti-American sentiment in the world as based on three factors:
1. Valid claims, thanks to some of our past errors and mistakes in our foreign policy and our current problems
2. Prejudices, generalizations, and misunderstandings (like I've demonstrated above, and just as silly as the same when they are directed the other way around, such as American anti-European sentiments)
3. The natural human resentment towards any prevailing empire.

You and others here have addressed item 1. I have addressed item 2. Now, for item 3:

History is made of cycles. Empires come and go, and all powerful nations who have ruled the past cycles have both accomplished great things, and committed gross atrocities and abuses of power. You can see this in all historical eras; take for example the Romans who spread out the _Pax Romana_ and the values and developments taken from the Greeks, but then became decadent and abusive. Take the British who once ruled the seven seas and spread out the industrial revolution but then committed excesses and massacres in India. Take the French who were instrumental in the field of ideas with their exquisite literature and their push for liberty, equality, and fraternity, but then engaged in some rather reprehensible behavior towards the Maghreb.

We've been for a few decades under the influence of America as a superpower, and while we Americans have also accomplished great things, we had more than our share of abuses and excesses, and now we are in decline.

But the alternative is not any better. The historical alternative would have been Nazi Germany or the ruthless Soviets (go ask people in places like the Czech Republic or Hungary what they think of that), and it looks like the future alternative will be the Chinese who can also be quite ruthless. China will be the next superpower in the next cycle - at least they'll be drawing all the criticism to themselves and will take this burden off our backs.

If I were to live this long, I'm sure at a certain point in history I'd see people complaining of the Chinese and longing for the past when the Americans were on top.

So, everything is relative, and while thinking about nations and cultures and history, it's good to have a balanced view, and to understand that all nations and all cultures have their strengths and their weaknesses. Meanwhile, it's good to extend a hand in friendship across the pond, and acknowledge that the differences that separate us are actually less important than the ties that unite us. We should rather do this and remain united, because the next big bully on the block won't be too friendly to us.


----------



## Toccata (Jun 13, 2009)

Almaviva said:


> While what you're saying does unfortunately happen, you're indulging in generalizations ("Americans tend to..." "the typical American view..."). There are many Americans who admire Europe and are thankful to Europe for creating Western civilization and values, and have a positive view of many aspects of European life (see, as an example, my comment about France's excellent health care system).
> 
> etc


I accept much of what you say. I think you may agree, however, that I wasn't "knocking" America so much as responding to the kind of unflattering comment about Britain I have seen so often on other classical message boards. I admit that I have seen much less of such comment here, but the post to which I responded looked ominously similar to the kind of slap round the face to Britain which I've seen many times before.

Of course, the truth is that the USA and UK are great allies. It's not what faceless people on message boards say about the situation, which is totally inconsequential and very often highly partial and distorted, but what the two countries actually do when the chips are down and need each other's help on the international scene. I hardly need remind people that the UK has been among the first in helping the USA fight terrorism, and has contributed by far the heaviest resources in terms of diplomatic and military facilities, and in high casualties/fatalities, etc. All of this stems from the fact that without the massive help from the USA in 1941 et seq we would have been sunk, and the rest of Europe too.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Toccata said:


> I accept much of what you say. I think you may agree, however, that I wasn't "knocking" America so much as responding to the kind of unflattering comment about Britain I have seen so often on other classical message boards. I admit that I have seen much less of such comment here, but the post to which I responded looked ominously similar to the kind of slap round the face to Britain which I've seen many times before.
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the USA and UK are great allies. It's not what faceless people on message boards say about the situation, which is totally inconsequential and very often highly partial and distorted, but what the two countries actually do when the chips are down and need each other's help on the international scene. I hardly need remind people that the UK has been among the first in helping the USA fight terrorism, and has contributed by far the heaviest resources in terms of diplomatic and military facilities, and in high casualties/fatalities, etc. All of this stems from the fact that without the massive help from the USA in 1941 et seq we would have been sunk, and the rest of Europe too.


Thanks for clarifying your views, they do look a lot more balanced now.:tiphat:
This thread - and even Dr.Mike's more inflammatory comments, which do have their merits as well - show that there are always two sides of the same coin, and the truth is often in the middle.


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2011)

My comments were, probably, a bit on the inflammatory side. They were my response to what I saw as the standard hyperbole thrown around about the U.S. ever since the events of 9/11. 

Yes, mistakes have been made by the U.S. Yes, we do value our alliances with European nations. But sometimes it does feel like we get far more criticism that is highly disproportionate to the aid we give. We had absolutely no national interest in the war in the Balkans, and yet we went to help prevent a holocaust when most other European nations decided to sit it out. Maybe our actions in Iraq weren't what should have been done. But were the motives of countries like France any more pure, which in light of the evidence from the Oil-for-food scandal has revealed that their objections to our intervention in Iraq might have not been pure, given that much of the new weaponry found in Iraq had "made in France" stamped all over it? 

Most people have national pride. I am a conservative. I voted for Bush twice. It was getting a bit aggravating hearing how dumb I must have been for having done so. The U.S. has made mistakes. But if one of those "mistakes" led to the removal of a psychopathic leader that gassed his own people and let his sons feed people into wood chippers, I'll take that kind of mistake, as opposed to turning the other way and pretending everything was just fine - especially in a world where we can no longer afford to overlook these types of threats. What was more righteous and compelling about our intervention in the Balkans?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

DrMike said:


> ... But if one of those "mistakes" led to the removal of a psychopathic leader that gassed his own people and let his sons feed people into wood chippers, I'll take that kind of mistake, *as opposed to turning the other way and pretending everything was just fine - especially in a world where we can no longer afford to overlook these types of threats. * What was more righteous and compelling about our intervention in the Balkans?


Interesting. Can you ask your president why you guys haven't invaded North Korea?


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2011)

Toccata said:


> Virtually the whole nation felt badly hoodwinked by Blair and Bush over what turned out to be a very ill conceived and calamitous invasion of Iraq, based largely on trumped up charges *in order to give Bush and his Neo-Con cronies licence to exercise their military ambitions*.
> 
> *The ill-fated invasion of Iraq aside, and his penchant for making many foot-in-mouth faux pas, G W Bush has always been seen largely a joke in the UK.* I strongly doubt that any British electorate in modern times would ever have voted in *such an obvious dim-witted political loose canon. At least, British Prime Ministers are bright and intelligent.* To think that he was Commander in Chief of the world's most powerful military was frightening. *The USA political system clearly didn't have "checks and balances" in place to prevent the idiot from launching one of most fruitless/high cost wars in recent times.* It's not surprising that the USA's already bad reputation around the World for imperialistic behaviour took a sharp nose-dive into even deeper infamy following that invasion. On that front, at least Obama has tried to restore credibility, and I would say that he has done quite well on the whole.


This is the post that my "inflammatory" post was responding to, and yet I wonder why mine is the one referred to as inflammatory? 
Toccata, your indignation over my comments seems rather laughable given what you said above.

The British did an important service in holding off the Nazis. But lets put it into perspective. The Holocaust had been going for some time before they got involved. They didn't step in when Hitler re-armed, when the Sudetenland was annexed (they were a party to that), or when Austria was absorbed. Only when Poland was finally invaded. Maybe the U.S. delayed their entry into the war, but our support, in money and supplies, allowed England to last as long as it did. The U.S. was the arsenal of democracy. And post WWII (because let's not pretend that all global threats ended in the 1940's), I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that the U.S. has born a disproportionate share of the cost, both in lives and in money, of global defense. Have we made mistakes in going too far? No doubt that has happened. But I think it can also be said that the other Western democracies have also made many mistakes of not going far enough. Where was international concern when people were being slaughtered in Rwanda? Why did the U.S. have to intervene to stop the genocide in the Balkans when other European countries couldn't be bothered? Who stood down the USSR? What European country had a bigger role than the U.S. in helping bring down the iron curtain?

I'm not saying we are perfect, but to rip the U.S. and its president like you did, and then bellyache about the perception that Americans have of Europeans seems inconsistent, at best.


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2011)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Interesting. Can you ask your president why you guys haven't invaded North Korea?


Because North Korea is a nuclear power, and before it was a nuclear power, it had the full backing of a nuclear power, China, and as you remember, the last time we went to war with North Korea, we also went to war with China as they sent their troops in. In toppling Saddam, he was stopped before he got to that level. There were nations profiting off of him, but nobody blatantly standing by him.

That really isn't that difficult a question to answer. Why didn't the allies go ahead and topple Stalin after they finished with Hitler? Stalin had only joined our side because Hitler had double-crossed him. Stalin invaded Poland when Hitler did. Stalin slaughtered millions.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

You forgot one other point. Oil.


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2011)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> You forgot one other point. Oil.


Right, because we've reaped the benefits of all the freely flowing oil that has been pouring out of Iraq. That is why our gas prices are reaching some of the highest prices we've ever seen. The oil was flowing more freely before we invaded. Everybody knows that war in the Middle East is the best way to get more oil. You know, we get more oil from Canada. Why haven't we invaded them? We agonize over drilling for oil up in the barren wasteland of northern Alaska, but we go start wars for oil in the Middle East that cause more political fallout than the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Yeah, that makes sense.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Dr. Mike, actually *I* used the term _inflammatory_, not Toccata. But I used it in a milder context than you seem to have understood - I said "even the *more *inflammatory comments by Dr. Mike had its merits." I meant to say that among many correct observations that you have made, even the ones that could be seen as more inflammatory still had its valid points.:tiphat:

I believe that I have countered Toccata's points using similar arguments to your own (but maybe with milder language).

The result of my post was that Toccata kind of back-tracked and admitted to the fact that the US did help significantly in WWII and that we are good allies to the Brits.

Yes, some of Toccata's points can also be construed as inflammatory, but he/she had the merit of backing off and resuming a more civil approach.

So this was a dialectical process, and I thought that the thread was again adopting the right direction. But now I'm once more a little worried. You also seemed to backtrack, but then you seemed to go back to the previous tone and lately to some sarcasm.

You know, the old British vs. American argument is a common source of conflict in Internet boards. But here in Talk Classical we pride ourselves for adopting a friendly and respectful tone, and this was the sense of my intervention.

Like I said, maybe we should rather focus on what unites us - and there are numerous reasons for continuous friendship between the Brits and ourselves - rather than on our differences.

In any case, I agree with you that while it is OK to criticize politicians (and even to consider whether they are intelligent or not), it is not OK to indirectly attack those members here who have voted for them. This may be perfectly fine in a real life political argument, but here in Talk Classical one of the forum rules is that personal attacks - direct or indirect, subtle or not - are not allowed (and now, I'm trying to shield *you*, Dr. Mike).

So far this thread has not, in my opinion, crossed this threshold, but it certainly has approached it, so I encourage all parts to resume the dialectical process and find the good middle and the good common grounds, so that the discussion *can* proceed. I hope I'm being clear when I say this.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Almaviva said:


> So far this thread has not, in my opinion, crossed this threshold, but it certainly has approached it, so I encourage all parts to resume the dialectical process and find the good middle and the good common grounds, so that the discussion *can* proceed. I hope I'm clear when I say this.


Yes, sir. No more from me, even though I only just posted above with only a couple of posts that didn't go down too well.


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2011)

Almaviva said:


> No such actions by a politician are performed in a vacuum. He obviously was going for some sort of PR stunt. Maybe it was misguided. But it's a rather minor incident. I believe that the success or failure of his presidency will hang on much bigger issues: whether the country recovers economically or not - especially the job market; whether the foreign wars get to some sort of positive resolution or continue to be an expensive quagmire; whether the American people ends up appreciating or not the new health care law once it takes full effect and shows (or fails to show) results, etc. History will not remember Obama positively or negatively for buying hamburgers for his staff.
> 
> However some people will have viscerally positive or negative reactions to politicians they love or hate. Obama adversaries will see anything that he does in a negative way - while Bush adversaries used to make similar criticisms (e.g. the episode of his stance at that elementary school during 9/11, etc).
> 
> American politics have been so divisive that about half of the population will always hate Obama for anything he does regardless of it actually being a good thing or not, and the other half will tend to excuse him (currently his numbers are worse than this, but trust me, closer to 2012 the polarization will kick in again and whoever wins - either a second term for him or a first term for his opponent - will do so by a small margin, with half the country supporting each candidate, like it's been the case lately).


I apologize for my heated comments, and will try to dial them back. I think I made the point I wanted to make regarding that digression of the discussion anyway.

Getting back to what you said here, I know that it seems that this is the most divided the country has ever been, but there really has never been some idyllic time in the USA where politics was congenial and not divisive - except when one party had come to dominate. True, at the very beginning, leaders like Washington had urged Americans to avoid party distinctions. But almost immediately they were formed - even during Washington's presidency, you had the formation of the Federalist and Democratic-Republicans (the forerunner of the modern Democratic party, although bearing very few similarities). The Federalists, and later, the Whigs, all disintegrated, and until the Republican party formed in the wake of the loss of the Whig party, the Democratic party was all that existed.

Division? Go look up Aaron Burr. Recall that half the nation split off after the first Republican was elected to the presidency. A man was clubbed in Congress over the issue of slavery. Democrats were in the wilderness for a while after the Civil War, as they had been seen as the party that supported the South. Then the Republicans were sent into exile for a while in the wake of the Great Depression, and Democrats controlled all branches of government. For a time, before the ascendency of the new conservative movement, many people viewed the Republican party as merely the dime-store New Deal. Then with Reagan there began, once again, to be more of a distinction between the parties.

But the divisions have always been there. Woodrow Wilson had people thrown in jail and newspapers shut down during the days of WWI for what his administration viewed as subversive actions. Many of his actions make the Patriot Act look like it was practically written by the ACLU. Democrats criticize Republicans for their plans to cut taxes - the very same policy that JFK pursued. Or, if you want divisive - consider the commercial that LBJ ran, implying that if Barry Goldwater were to be elected president, we would all die in a nuclear holocaust. No, we're not really that much more divided than we used to be.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

DrMike said:


> I apologize for my heated comments, and will try to dial them back. I think I made the point I wanted to make regarding that digression of the discussion anyway.
> 
> Getting back to what you said here, I know that it seems that this is the most divided the country has ever been, but there really has never been some idyllic time in the USA where politics was congenial and not divisive - except when one party had come to dominate. True, at the very beginning, leaders like Washington had urged Americans to avoid party distinctions. But almost immediately they were formed - even during Washington's presidency, you had the formation of the Federalist and Democratic-Republicans (the forerunner of the modern Democratic party, although bearing very few similarities). The Federalists, and later, the Whigs, all disintegrated, and until the Republican party formed in the wake of the loss of the Whig party, the Democratic party was all that existed.
> 
> ...


Thanks for your first paragraph.:tiphat:
I agree with everything you've just said.
Maybe what I meant is that as long as the dividing line falls very close to 50% and we don't have a supermajority, we won't be implementing any agenda, will continue to suffer paralysis, and the Chinese will continue to outplay us. Currently, what one party tries to do, the other vetoes or filibusters. Nothing gets done. Probably the best way to go would be to have truly viable multiple parties. Then, not only ideological lines would be clearer and better represented (this conservative-liberal divide is so simplistic), but also alliances would have to be drawn and things would get done. Our 2-party, 50-50 divide is getting us nowhere. Just my opinion, but I'm no expert in politics.


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2011)

Almaviva said:


> Thanks for your first paragraph.:tiphat:
> I agree with everything you've just said.
> Maybe what I meant is that as long as the dividing line falls very close to 50% and we don't have a supermajority, we won't be implementing any agenda, will continue to suffer paralysis, and the Chinese will continue to outplay us. Currently, what one party tries to do, the other vetoes or filibusters. Nothing gets done. Probably the best way to go would be to have truly viable multiple parties. Then, not only ideological lines would be clearer and better represented (this conservative-liberal divide is so simplistic), but also alliances would have to be drawn and things would get done. Our 2-party, 50-50 divide is getting us nowhere. Just my opinion, but I'm no expert in politics.


I read it a different way. True, the founding fathers probably didn't plan on the two-party system we have today, but if you look at the history, they were trying to devise a government that would do really well what it needed to, but make it very difficult for it to do more than that. It is very difficult to pass large, broad pieces of legislation, but the original intent was not for the government to create such large and broad-sweeping pieces of legislation. It is intentionally devised to be difficult to pass major changes. Some would argue that much of what has been done should only have been done by constitutional amendment, which is even more difficult. The government was originally limited by the constitution as to what it can do. Lately, with a great deal of help from very general readings of specific phrases in the constitution (like the much discussed commerce clause), new interpretations are given by the Supreme Court which have allowed new programs that before were inconceivable.

The problem often is not the constitution, rather the rules that Congress abides by. People like to bend them to suit their needs when it is advantageous, and then pretend the other side has no right to such actions when the shoe is on the other foot. You worry about the difficulty passing legislation. Democrats used the 60-vote rule to prevent justices from being appointed while they were in the minority. Now that they control the Senate, they bemoan the fact that Republicans force them to garner 60 votes to pass major legislation. And of course it goes the other way as well.

I personally am glad that it is only a 2-party system. Were there to be other minor parties garnering small percentages of representation, then you would see coalitions forming. The problem here is that to gain the support of some smaller group, you have to promise to help them with some pet issue of theirs. But by definition, since they are such a small group, their pet issue probably does not appeal to the majority of the electorate, yet out of necessity to gain a majority of votes, they suddenly have disproportionate power relative to their share of the voting block. In the Federalist papers, it is spelled out quite clearly about how a republic (which is what we really are, not a democracy) would help to eliminate the power of such fringe groups and protect the majority of people from minority rule. If it were truly one person, one vote (true democracy), then every issue would have to be debated and voted on. But instead we get together to vote for representatives, who in turn cast votes on the major issues. The politicians have to appeal broadly to gain enough votes to be elected - Senators have to appeal to a majority of voters in the entire state, Congressmen can be a little more partisan, because they don't have to appeal to as many people, and can have more regional interests. But the Senate is a a check on the House. The House is more in tune with the mood of the people, while the Senate is the more deliberative body - the choke point in the legislative process.

So partisanship protects us, in general, from every whim of whatever party happens to have the majority at the time. Broad-sweeping legislation usually is only passed when one party gains some supermajority, and then that legislation tends to be very controversial and alienates a broad swath of the population. That is why the welfare programs, the health care law, Social Security, are such controversial topics. They were passed by one party ramming it through without allowing the other party participation in the process. By definition they are partisan bills. In contrast, bills like the Civil Rights Act, while controversial at the time, enjoy broad popularity now, because they were truly passed in a bipartisan manner. Members of both parties were on both sides of it, with the opposition generally breaking down along geographic boundaries rather than partisan lines (Democrats were able to bypass a Democrat-led filibuster thanks to the support of a large percentage of Republicans joining them to pass it).


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

A discussion unrelated to the topic of this thread has been moved to a new thread - "Skilled versus unskilled immigration."


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)




----------

