BBC BLOGS - Mark Mardell's America
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
« Previous | Main | Next »

A lesson from Ronald Reagan

Mark Mardell | 17:16 UK time, Tuesday, 26 October 2010

A snappy new documentary on Ronald Reagan underlines one of the most important skills for successful politicians. They have a thousand voices in their head every time they open their mouths.

If the Tea Party had a patron saint, it would be "St Ronnie", so it's timely that General Electric has put out this eight-minute plus documentary about the conservatives' hero.

Sure, it's hagiography, but that doesn't make it bland or worthless. Instead, it hammers home one of the key components of President Reagan's success, and underlines a lesson for all politicians. From 1954 to 1962, the former life guard, radio sports announcer and Hollywood actor became host to a Sunday evening programme, General Electric Theatre.

He also spent 10 weeks a year talking to GE workers all over the country. A quarter of a million of them every year. He later did much the same thing on the "rubber chicken circuit" for the Republican Party. Although Edmund Morris's controversial biography, Dutch, suggests as president he wasn't much of a listener, indeed glazed over when the subject wasn't himself, Reagan did listen then.

He got straight from the horses' mouths the preoccupations and prejudices of white, middle-class America, night after night, for weeks on end. Absorbing and articulating the views of these people, understanding the pulse of America, was critical to his political rise.

Although Bill Clinton is a very different politician, he is also someone who loves to talk and listen to people, although he probably parses and incorporates their views rather than adopting their thoughts as his own. It is a skill and an enthusiasm I suspect Barack Obama lacks. It is rather too late for him to take a tour on the General Electric circuit, but taking a leaf out of St Ronnie's book wouldn't have done him any harm.

Comments

or register to comment.

  • 1. At 6:13pm on 26 Oct 2010, powermeerkat wrote:

    I don't think I'd see a day!


    Ronald Reagan - not an Evil Incarnate?

    Not a Satan who destroyed Homeland of the World Proletariat?

    But as a role model?

    I'll be... :-)

    Complain about this comment

  • 2. At 6:19pm on 26 Oct 2010, SemiConcernedCitizen wrote:

    I'd much rather Obama emulate Roosevelt. You know, a "good" president.

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 6:23pm on 26 Oct 2010, TheRealRingo wrote:

    I always thought he was at his best on Spitting Image.

    Complain about this comment

  • 4. At 7:04pm on 26 Oct 2010, Curt Carpenter wrote:

    Having experienced Nixon (smart and evil) and Bush II (clueless and evil), Reagan DOES look like a saint. He'd have been another George Washington if he'd had a better astrologer.

    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 7:12pm on 26 Oct 2010, Barnaby101 wrote:

    It worries me that what you are describing in Reagan are the qualities of an exquisitely able propagandist - a person who knew people well enough to sell them policies that weren't in their long term best interest, such as the deregulation of the banking and investment system.

    Democracies were set up with the idea that people would vote according to their *enlightened* self interest. For a democracy to work, therefore, efforts have to be made to ensure that voters are somewhat enlightened. This is difficult enough to do (as anyone working for the BBC must know). But when billions are spent on employing talented propagandists to misinform voters - as is the case in the United States - what you get is not a democracy but a travesty.

    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 7:17pm on 26 Oct 2010, mscracker wrote:

    SemiConcernedCitizen wrote:
    I'd much rather Obama emulate Roosevelt. You know, a "good" president.

    Who, Teddy? :)

    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 7:30pm on 26 Oct 2010, Bro_Winky wrote:

    So I guess this means Obama should sell weapons to the Iranians...

    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 7:42pm on 26 Oct 2010, Englishmanininvegas wrote:

    Reagan was president in very different times....

    I have been keenly interested in both domestic and international politics for some 30 years now, and have had the good fortune to visit and live in many different countries

    I have NEVER encountered a more poisonous political environment than the one I find surrounding these mid-terms....

    Politics here simply STINKS - and this is not a partisan comment, BOTH parties are equally as bad

    The process is well and truly broken, and I am so sick of all the negative ads.... It's really no wonder so few people bother to vote. Elections here are for sale to the highest bidder - the group that can come up with the most money to fund their really dreadful TV ads

    I have never been more dispirited by the political process...

    And THIS is what we spent our energies telling the rest of the world they should be doing by way of governance ?!!!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 9. At 7:53pm on 26 Oct 2010, LucyJ wrote:

    Ronald Reagan had a special connection with the people of USA. He understood us. He protected us. He was us.

    However, each President has their own special, unique bond with the people of USA. No two are entirely alike and we cannot expect such.

    President Obama's bond with Americans started very strongly, because he inspired us and because we wanted someone new and fresh. But things went downhill when Obama took sides on ultraliberal divisive issues.

    Instead of going with the current, he is fighting against it...

    A President has to be wise in picking and choosing his fights...

    But when it comes down to it, Obama should be true to himself. Perhaps instead of trying to be or emulate someone else, which he is not, he should instead go back to why people voted for him and what initially made him great.

    Complain about this comment

  • 10. At 8:30pm on 26 Oct 2010, Curt Carpenter wrote:

    9. At 7:53pm on 26 Oct 2010, LucyJ wrote:
    "Ronald Reagan had a special connection with the people of USA. He understood us. He protected us. He was us."

    Now there's a sentiment to gag on.

    Ronald Reagan did more to gut the American middle class than any president since. You must have missed that part.




    Go figure.

    But a lot of us DIDN'T love him for it

    Please be a little more circumspect with the use of

    Complain about this comment

  • 11. At 8:36pm on 26 Oct 2010, BluesBerry wrote:

    Oh my, Mark, you have literally caught me speechless (wordless).
    I'm no fan of Ronald Reagan or Reagonomics.
    But I do like the presidential pairing:
    Reagon: I will cause your pain.
    Clinton: I will feel your pain.
    Or how about this pairing:
    Obama: Yes we can.
    Reagan: Oh no you won’t!
    Why is Reagan such a Tea Party hero?
    Let's look at this Presidential performance - Ronald Reagan.
    It was Ronald Reagon that left with a $2 trillion debt.
    It was Ronald Reaqan would cut revenue to the states for programs such as education and Medicaid.
    Reagan and the Republicans passed a bill to pay manufacturing plants to close. At that time, they were paid to move to another state. Now, instead of moving out of state, they move out of the country.
    I don't believe that Ronnie was ever awake enough to pick up many nuances from the American public, though he had several good handlers that tried to steer the cowboy in the right direction. When I think of Ronald Reagon, and I think of actors, I can't help but imagining a picture of Forest Gump.

    Complain about this comment

  • 12. At 8:37pm on 26 Oct 2010, qmrfc67 wrote:

    "It worries me that what you are describing in Reagan are the qualities of an exquisitely able propagandist"

    I'm not sure that being a great propagandist is a bad thing. Were not Franklin, Adams, Jefferson and Paine not great propagandists.

    I have mixed feelings about Reagan but he was truly very skilled at propaganda.
    He sold the idea that he was rooted in American moral and family values while his own family history was a disaster. He had grandchildren that he had never even met, was divorced, (so am I), had strained relations at different times with his kids and as a young man was notorious for whoring around with Errol Flynn.
    He sold the idea that he was a fiscal conservative whilst he presided over the greatest increase in the national debt as a percentage of GDP of any president in history. (Obama may claim that title if he lasts 8 years).

    One cannot deny, however, that "Mr Gorbachev. tear down this wall" was one of the most inspiring and statesman like moments in presidential history and his role in helping to end the cold war is undeniable, although I think often overstated (there were many other factors involved) by those to whom he is an untarnished hero.
    To me he remains in many ways an enigma, but a very interesting one.

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 8:50pm on 26 Oct 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    Mark Mardell.

    "Ronald Reagan ... spent 10 weeks a year talking to GE workers ... he wasn't much of a listener ... Although Bill Clinton is a very different politician, he is also someone who loves to talk and listen to people ... a skill and an enthusiasm I suspect Barack Obama lacks."

    so essentially you're saying that Mr Obama is not as vain (shallow?) as either of the others.

    not exactly a drawback, in my book.

    Complain about this comment

  • 14. At 9:08pm on 26 Oct 2010, SemiConcernedCitizen wrote:

    "Who, Teddy? :)"

    ----

    These days, I'd take either.

    Complain about this comment

  • 15. At 10:17pm on 26 Oct 2010, Scott0962 wrote:

    Whatever Reagan's faults may have been as a president there is no doubt he was affable, charming and projected a sincerity that made listeners feel he really enjoyed talking and listening to people.

    Unfortunately for President Obama that's a difficult skill to master and an impossible one to fake, people will recognize the difference and it requires that deep down the politician has to like the people. Obama likes the power, the prestige and the perks of office but when he's asked an unscripted question his facade slips and reveals a disdain for the people.

    Complain about this comment

  • 16. At 10:23pm on 26 Oct 2010, rodidog wrote:

    Ronald Regan was respected and appreciated by the vast majority of Americans because he had a friendly and inviting demeanor and articulated a positive message and vision that resonated with most Americans in a time when America was demoralized. I would say Obama has plenty to learn from Reagan.

    Complain about this comment

  • 17. At 10:24pm on 26 Oct 2010, Scott0962 wrote:

    re. #12. At 8:37pm on 26 Oct 2010, qmrfc67 wrote:

    "One cannot deny, however, that "Mr Gorbachev. tear down this wall" was one of the most inspiring and statesman like moments in presidential history and his role in helping to end the cold war is undeniable, although I think often overstated (there were many other factors involved) by those to whom he is an untarnished hero."

    Contrast Reagan's "tear down this wall" with George H.W.Bush's "chicken Kiev" speech where he told the people of the Ukraine not to rock the boat in pursuit of liberty; or with Jimmy Carter's famous advice to put on a sweater and turn down the thermostat as his response to the energy crisis. Those speeches demonstrate beautifully why they were both one term presidents: they were politicians, not leaders.

    Complain about this comment

  • 18. At 10:28pm on 26 Oct 2010, Scott0962 wrote:

    re. #7. At 7:30pm on 26 Oct 2010, Bro_Winky wrote:

    "So I guess this means Obama should sell weapons to the Iranians..."

    If the communists were trying to take over Central America again and Congress was sticking their head in the sand instead of doing something about it, then yes, perhaps he should.

    Different time and circumstances though, Obama has his own problems to solve.

    Complain about this comment

  • 19. At 10:31pm on 26 Oct 2010, Scott0962 wrote:

    re. # 14. At 9:08pm on 26 Oct 2010, SemiConcernedCitizen wrote:

    "Who, Teddy? :)"

    ----

    These days, I'd take either.

    ------------------------


    Well I wouldn't. FDR's reign was the closest we've ever come to dictatorship what with his packing the Supreme Court and concentration camps for American citizens.

    Complain about this comment

  • 20. At 11:38pm on 26 Oct 2010, joan_of_arc wrote:

    The article gives me the impression Republicans are better speakers and munipulators.
    Lets talk about the future instead.

    Complain about this comment

  • 21. At 00:02am on 27 Oct 2010, Rufus wrote:

    Reagan... yes... let me think... I get it... that one.

    You know he had a severe form of Alzheimer's, don't you?

    Now, that is a disease that incubates for decades.

    Ergo, his brain had already walked out on his body even before his two terms in office.

    So Reagan's lesson is you don't have to have half a brain to be US President (fully corroborated by subsequent White House occupants, including Dubya).

    Complain about this comment

  • 22. At 00:17am on 27 Oct 2010, Andy wrote:

    LucyJ wrote:
    "Ronald Reagan had a special connection with the people of USA. He understood us. He protected us. He was us.

    However, each President has their own special, unique bond with the people of USA. No two are entirely alike and we cannot expect such.

    President Obama's bond with Americans started very strongly, because he inspired us and because we wanted someone new and fresh. But things went downhill when Obama took sides on ultraliberal divisive issues.

    Instead of going with the current, he is fighting against it...

    A President has to be wise in picking and choosing his fights...

    But when it comes down to it, Obama should be true to himself. Perhaps instead of trying to be or emulate someone else, which he is not, he should instead go back to why people voted for him and what initially made him great.
    "

    I agree with nearly all of that LucyJ apart from "ultraliberal" as that description is usually spoken by the opposing radical, the "ultraconservative".

    Reagan for me was a good looking folksy American, I like them. On the face of it, he was one of the better American presidents for me even if he did seem lacking a bit in intelligence. He did not profess to be an intellectual giant though.

    When we get to the policies his administration enacted, there I find lots of fault with his presidency. Yet I still feel the urge to forgive him personally for the faults his administration made.

    The difference between Reagan and Obama are large, I think the largest is that people never really expected much from Reagan so when he delivered something, they were positively surprised. Obama promised much "change", unfortunately, many are now negatively surprised he has not delivered or even seemed to attempt to deliver on that "change".

    Complain about this comment

  • 23. At 00:38am on 27 Oct 2010, Dazzini wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 24. At 00:53am on 27 Oct 2010, McJakome wrote:

    6. At 7:17pm on 26 Oct 2010, mscracker wrote:
    SemiConcernedCitizen wrote:
    "I'd much rather Obama emulate Roosevelt. You know, a "good" president.

    Who, Teddy? :)"

    Neither the GOP/FOX/TEA party nor the bloated and vampiric insurance industry would like it if President Obama successfully emulated TR! I would be ecstatic if he would do so. What we need is someone to bust the bloated and abusive industries.

    TR, the Trust [i.e. monopoly] buster, just the thing, someone please send the president copies of the TR biography and strategy books.

    Complain about this comment

  • 25. At 01:55am on 27 Oct 2010, Curt Carpenter wrote:

    16. At 10:23pm on 26 Oct 2010, rodidog wrote:
    "Ronald Regan was respected and appreciated by the vast majority of Americans because he had a friendly and inviting demeanor and articulated a positive message and vision that resonated with most Americans in a time when America was demoralized. I would say Obama has plenty to learn from Reagan."

    My dog has a friendly and inviting demeanor and articulates a positive message and vision too. Should she run?

    Complain about this comment

  • 26. At 02:21am on 27 Oct 2010, ann arbor wrote:

    Reagan did not allow himself to be manipulated by unions. He caused unions a lot of pain, but did the nation a lot of good in the process.

    Reagan sought to push responsibility to the lowest (and most appropriate) level. He catered to self-responsibility and self-efficacy.

    Obama, on the other hand, frustrates self-responsibility and self-efficacy.

    Unlike Reagan, Obama, displays disdain for the majority of ethical, productive Americans. Reagan enjoyed theatrics as he did his job. Obama is all theatre as he squanders resources.

    I would readily have given Reagan a third term long before I would give the likes of Obama the time of day.

    Complain about this comment

  • 27. At 02:28am on 27 Oct 2010, TimR1944 wrote:

    #2
    Semi-concerned citizen

    I'd much rather Obama emulate Roosevelt. You know, a "good" president.

    -----------------

    Apparently you haven't noticed that Obama IS emulating, you know, Roosevelt, FDR, the president who, you know, smashed the economy to pieces with a battering ram and together with his predecessor turned a deep recession into the worst depression in modern history, with incalculable consequences, all wholly negative.

    You appear to have missed that. That is what comes from being, you know, semi-concerned.

    Complain about this comment

  • 28. At 02:37am on 27 Oct 2010, TimR1944 wrote:

    Reagan and FDR were both larger-then-life figures who transformed the direction of the nation.

    Obama cannot hope to be anything close to either one of them. He is relentlessly, intensely, extremely ordinary.

    He is a smaller-than-life figure who talks endlessly. He must be the most verbose politician I have ever seen - or heard. He complains and insults others constantly.

    He broke through the barrier and became the first African American president. For that he will always be remembered as a symbol.

    But he is also a left-wing Chicago political organizer with almost no experience who was turned by the media and a brilliant publicity machine into a celebrity superstar. He is in way over his head because he had no time to develop experience. He has no understanding at all of how to work with anyone who does agree with everything he says.

    Reagan? FDR? Never. Obama is a more glib and self-assured Jimmy Carter.



    Complain about this comment

  • 29. At 02:42am on 27 Oct 2010, TimR1944 wrote:

    #22

    Andy

    The difference between Reagan and Obama are large, I think the largest is that people never really expected much from Reagan so when he delivered something, they were positively surprised.

    -----------------------------

    Interesting. The reality was precisely the opposite of what you say here. Reagan entered office with enormous expectations. He fulfilled them, which was either wonderful news or terrible news, depending on your point of view.

    Complain about this comment

  • 30. At 02:43am on 27 Oct 2010, ann arbor wrote:

    Curt, sorry you missed so much history during your life.

    Tell us what "evil" Nixon did that was unique only to him? "A botched burglary and trying to cover his people." What else?!

    The only two we had that were both smart and ethical were Ford and Carter. You are hard pressed to find someone to champion either of them.

    Tell us again how Obama's accepting large sums of campaign money from foreign (laundered) sources is not evil. How about SEIU frustrating the ability of people to peacefully gather? How about benefiting from illegal actions (ACORN, voter fraud)? How about his $400B slush fund (unspent from the stimulus) he will use to buy votes? How about his denying investors of due process as he used forced-bankruptcy to channel investor equity and taxpayer funds to unions?

    We could cite that Reagan circumvented due process with providing weapons to promote America's interests (yes, it caused problems).

    Then again, we could spend the day citing where Obama circumvented due process to promote his own ambitions without regard to America's interests.

    Curt - the middle class that got gutted was mostly the undereducated, overpaid workers that used strikes to coerce and damage their employers. Reagan did not put with extortion. (Obama encourages it.)

    Complain about this comment

  • 31. At 02:43am on 27 Oct 2010, AndreaNY wrote:

    25. Curt Carpenter:

    "My dog has a friendly and inviting demeanor and articulates a positive message and vision too. Should she run? "

    ****************
    I've heard a motivational speaker articulate a positive message that we could do anything if we believed. Should he run?

    Complain about this comment

  • 32. At 02:45am on 27 Oct 2010, Eddie wrote:

    Reagan and Clinton were polar opposites but in both cases the economy boomed. That's because the president's job is nothing more than a glorified cheerleader. Reagan and Clinton were very positive in their talks. A bland, or even negative president, will produce a bad economy. See Carter, Bush.

    Complain about this comment

  • 33. At 02:55am on 27 Oct 2010, AndreaNY wrote:

    32. ruffianedward:

    Reagan and Clinton were polar opposites but in both cases the economy boomed. That's because the president's job is nothing more than a glorified cheerleader. Reagan and Clinton were very positive in their talks. A bland, or even negative president, will produce a bad economy. See Carter, Bush.

    ***********
    Obama's gone quite negative himself. He shouldn't be bad-mouthing any Americans at this point. They're all low enough.

    Complain about this comment

  • 34. At 03:20am on 27 Oct 2010, Andy wrote:

    Andy wrote:
    "The difference between Reagan and Obama are large, I think the largest is that people never really expected much from Reagan so when he delivered something, they were positively surprised."

    TimR1944 wrote:
    "Interesting. The reality was precisely the opposite of what you say here. Reagan entered office with enormous expectations. He fulfilled them, which was either wonderful news or terrible news, depending on your point of view."


    Perhaps it's my perspective and age. Over the Pond we saw a bumbling Hollywood actor enter office and did not expect much. A similar thing has happened with Arnie. Collectively we thought "only in America [then sighed>". Maggie was taken by him though and for the Iron Lady to melt in front of someone took some heat, I can tell you, the woman was not for moving :)

    Complain about this comment

  • 35. At 03:49am on 27 Oct 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    AndreaNY #33.

    "..bad-mouthing any Americans at this point. They're all low enough."

    really, but how is that possible? with the sheer amount of all legal and illegal drugs being consumed in the US of A, you'd think all Americans would be high as kites!! ;)

    "Over the last 10 years, the percentage of Americans who took at least one prescription drug in the past month increased from 44 percent to 48 percent.."

    "What's surprising is the type of drugs these kids are taking. All these adult drugs are popping up in children, which is really disturbing."

    "..16.2% of people in the United States had used cocaine in their lifetime, a level much higher than any other country surveyed.."

    Complain about this comment

  • 36. At 03:50am on 27 Oct 2010, TimR1944 wrote:

    #34

    Andy

    Perhaps it's my perspective and age. Over the Pond we saw a bumbling Hollywood actor enter office and did not expect much. A similar thing has happened with Arnie. Collectively we thought "only in America [then sighed>".

    -------------------------------

    Sigh indeed! Only in America - how very true.

    How much you must - collectively - suffer, putting up with us! And from a position of such unquestioned superiority! Thank you - collectively - for your tolerance.

    I am always fascinated by the various forms that anti-Americanism takes. In Britain it is evidently an epidemic. It is endlessly fascinating. This site is a veritable walking tour.

    Complain about this comment

  • 37. At 04:20am on 27 Oct 2010, TimR1944 wrote:

    # 35

    really, but how is that possible? with the sheer amount of all legal and illegal drugs being consumed in the US of A, you'd think all Americans would be high as kites!!

    --------------------

    This of course has nothing remotely to do with the topic. But if you insist on scuttling off into various rabbit trails of anti-Americanism, at least make an attempt at wit or at least originality.

    I am an experienced collector of anti-American remarks, comments, observations, responses, etc. "Have Your Say" is a veritable cornucopia of anti-Americanism: a microcosm of Britain, I presume? I cannot keep up with all of them

    I have high standards. Your comment does NOT make the standard.

    Try again!

    Complain about this comment

  • 38. At 06:19am on 27 Oct 2010, RaniV wrote:

    "...bad- mouthing Americans.They're low enough anyway."
    I'm somewhat surprised at how the media can cause and affect the moods of millions over a space of time. The media creates more often than it reflects.
    How can a country so rich in resources and so confident in their belief system, be feeling so 'low', verging on losing contact with reality and becoming paranoid? Maybe everyone is too materialistic ... and greedy.
    Life doesn't seem so bad if you stop listenng to the media and the politicians for a week or two.

    Complain about this comment

  • 39. At 06:31am on 27 Oct 2010, Curt Carpenter wrote:

    30. At 02:43am on 27 Oct 2010, ann arbor wrote:
    "Tell us what "evil" Nixon did that was unique only to him? "A botched burglary and trying to cover his people." What else?!"

    Oh my: where to start? Cambodia? Laos? His compassionately conservative discussion about the probable death of a million North Vietnamese civilians if he sent B52s to bomb their dikes (I believe he said he "didn't give a s**t". It's all there on the tapes. Check it out!)
    ------------

    "The only two we had that were both smart and ethical were Ford and Carter. You are hard pressed to find someone to champion either of them."

    Not that hard: I'll do Carter. He was the last of the Wilsonian Democrats. (I could be wrong on that. Jury's still out on Mr. Obama.) Not much to work with on Ford. Other than letting Dick off the hook, and play golf, what did he actually -do-?
    ------------

    "Tell us again how Obama's ...yada yada yada..."

    Thank you for NOT mentioning that Obama's a Marxist Moslem that wasn't born in the United State and is a founding member of the New Black Panthers. It's a nice break from the usual conservative crusader's line.
    -------------

    Curt - the middle class that got gutted was mostly the undereducated, overpaid workers that used strikes to coerce and damage their employers. Reagan did not put with extortion...

    Ah --you remember the ATC affair. Well done! But you're either ignorant or horribly misinformed. The "middle class" is hardly dominated by union men and women, and hasn't been since WWII (perhaps you need to get out of Michigan more often). And "undereducated"? Tell that to the average itinerant associate professor. Even those ATC employees that Reagan screwed were pretty well educated. (If you don't agree, perhaps it explains why you DON'T get out of Michigan more. By air, anyway).

    Reagan started the disasterous economic polarization of America with his "trickle down" fairy tale, and G.W. iced the cake with his tax breaks for rich guys. Get used to it.
    ----------------

    Get back to me on the history I've missed after you've listened to those Nixon tapes.

    Complain about this comment

  • 40. At 06:33am on 27 Oct 2010, Andy wrote:

    Andy wrote:
    "Perhaps it's my perspective and age. Over the Pond we saw a bumbling Hollywood actor enter office and did not expect much. A similar thing has happened with Arnie. Collectively we thought "only in America [then sighed>"."

    TimR1944 wrote:
    "Sigh indeed! Only in America - how very true.

    How much you must - collectively - suffer, putting up with us! And from a position of such unquestioned superiority! Thank you - collectively - for your tolerance.

    I am always fascinated by the various forms that anti-Americanism takes. In Britain it is evidently an epidemic. It is endlessly fascinating. This site is a veritable walking tour.
    "


    If the US elected a banana as President, we'd sigh and muse, "Only in America". Obviously you'd think we're just having a dig at your banana-in-chief just for the sake of it.

    Superior? Us? Shirley that's banana's.

    Complain about this comment

  • 41. At 06:51am on 27 Oct 2010, powermeerkat wrote:

    SemiConcernedCitizen wrote:
    I'd much rather Obama emulate Roosevelt. You know, a "good" president.

    Who, Teddy? :)





    If memory serves, Teddy was usually referred to as "the REAL Roosevelt" :)

    Complain about this comment

  • 42. At 06:51am on 27 Oct 2010, clamdip lobster claws wrote:

    People suffer from political amnesia. Wasn't it Reagan who gave us "Trickle Down" economics that never trickled down and left even more Americans in poverty and then don't forget NAFTA that created Mexico's Narco state. People need to stop glorifying these political ghosts from our past and create a lasting, sustainable legacy that's based in reality not Washington spin.

    Complain about this comment

  • 43. At 06:55am on 27 Oct 2010, powermeerkat wrote:

    Re #11 "Obama: Yes we can.
    Reagan: Oh no you won’t!"





    Obama: I will make you pay for it!
    Reagan: "Mr. Chairman, I've paid for this microphone!"

    Complain about this comment

  • 44. At 07:03am on 27 Oct 2010, powermeerkat wrote:

    "It was Ronald Reagon that left with a $2 trillion debt."




    And he left Soviet Union with...?

    [please remind us what was left from USSR after Ronnie left :)]


    Complain about this comment

  • 45. At 07:18am on 27 Oct 2010, rodidog wrote:

    25 Curt Carpenter,


    My dog has a friendly and inviting demeanor and articulates a positive message and vision too. Should she run?

    Considering the possible alternatives, I think I'd vote for her if she did.

    Complain about this comment

  • 46. At 07:58am on 27 Oct 2010, powermeerkat wrote:

    "My dog has a friendly and inviting demeanor and articulates a positive message and vision too. Should she run?"




    If sh'es a yellow dog Democrats will sure vote for her.

    Complain about this comment

  • 47. At 09:45am on 27 Oct 2010, PartTimeDon wrote:

    Reagan did a pretty good job in some respects but he made a lot of people hurt too.
    Unemployment, foreclosures and the general restructuring of the economy that happened on his watch was not an easy process to go through for many people and while he was able to make people relate to him. He did not reciprocate by taking any steps to make the modernisation of the American economy a bit easier.
    One other difference is that he also had a definable enemy against whom the American people would always take his side. Clinton's America lacked any adversary save it's own president's libido. Today the bogeyman is some amorphous concept called "terrorism". No-one can quite agree who fits into that category and how to combat it - or in doing so where the line is between self-defense and persecution.

    Complain about this comment

  • 48. At 09:53am on 27 Oct 2010, MagicKirin wrote:

    Although I disagreed with his social issues.

    but what Reagan did that Obama is too petty and small an individual to do;

    work with the other party

    look at american needs first

    Also Reagan never would engage in apology tour and sell out long term friends

    Complain about this comment

  • 49. At 12:47pm on 27 Oct 2010, powermeerkat wrote:

    "I am an experienced collector of anti-American remarks, comments, observations, responses, etc."




    So watch for FSB plants on duty here.

    I'm sure you'll be able to establish their real IPs.

    [they're not that sophisticated]

    Complain about this comment

  • 50. At 1:18pm on 27 Oct 2010, PartTimeDon wrote:

    Ref~48 MK
    but what Reagan did that Obama is too petty and small an individual to do;
    work with the other party
    look at american needs first
    Also Reagan never would engage in apology tour and sell out long term friends
    __________
    1. Critical difference: Today's GOP will not work with Obama. Politics in the 80's was less polarised.
    2. I think you're confusing America's needs with your own opinions.
    3. There are many reasons why the US couldn't afford to loose face when the USSR was still around, which just don't apply today. Also, Carter didn't leave the US with an international image equivalent to Biff Tannen in BTTF.

    Complain about this comment

  • 51. At 3:30pm on 27 Oct 2010, LucyJ wrote:

    ptd wrote: Also, Carter didn't leave the US with an international image equivalent to Biff Tannen in BTTF.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    If the people you were elected to serve love you at home, who cares about international?

    If a politician is more interested in serving foreigners or internationals than us, then that politician should move...

    Complain about this comment

  • 52. At 4:57pm on 27 Oct 2010, TeaPartyBrit wrote:

    #36 #37 TimR1944 Brits are not all anti-American, despite what you, unsurprisingly, think. I cannot understand why people are anti-American, I have discussed that state of mind with sufferers who otherwize give signs of intelligence. It seems to be some kind of visceral prejudice learnt possibly at a parent's knee which allows no sensible and logical argument but is ring fenced by a hermetically sealed closed mind.

    Meanwhile these anti-Americans drink Starbucks; eat McDonalds, KFC etc.; watch the latest Hollywood movies and TV series; make a big event out of Halloween (originally celebrated in the UK, but was pretty well ignored up till a few years ago); use American-English terminology more and more, for example: Santa Claus instead of Father Christmas.

    I very much regret the anti-Americanism expressed on whatever forum it might appear, but there must be freedom of expression, so all us who are pro-American can do is express the alternative viewpoint: That there is something of far more importance to be gained from the alliance with the US than Starbucks et al, and that is the continuance of the western way of life, democracy and liberty within the rule of law.

    Complain about this comment

  • 53. At 5:40pm on 27 Oct 2010, LucyJ wrote:

    52 Tea Party Brit,

    Thanx for your kind words. Nice to hear that not everybody hates us.
    I believe most of the anti-Americanism is due to the recent wars, which many British do not think we should be there or disagree with how its been run. USA did not realize that in fighting the terrorists in these wars, that some citizens of our allies would also turn anti-American...

    But when it comes down to it, alliances are very important as there is safety in numbers. Those without alliances are more likely to be picked off or bullied.

    So Great Britain has to ask itself:
    What allies will help us out the most in the future?

    America? China? BRIC? Middle Easterners or Muslims?

    Complain about this comment

  • 54. At 10:04pm on 27 Oct 2010, Andy wrote:

    LucyJ,

    "So Great Britain has to ask itself:
    What allies will help us out the most in the future?

    America? China? BRIC? Middle Easterners or Muslims?
    "

    The enemy of my enemy will help out, as is always the case.

    Complain about this comment

  • 55. At 10:11pm on 27 Oct 2010, John_From_Dublin wrote:

    # 48 MK

    "...Obama is too petty and small an individual to do..."

    MK loves to whine about personalised attacks. He also loves to dub anyone he dislikes or hates, or who disagrees with him (ie most people to the left of Rush Limbaugh) a 'hater'.

    Pot, kettle...


    Complain about this comment

  • 56. At 11:13pm on 27 Oct 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    Andy #54.

    "The enemy of the enemy
    He's a friend
    Till he's the enemy again"
    (Asian Dub Foundation)

    Complain about this comment

  • 57. At 11:36pm on 27 Oct 2010, Andy wrote:

    jr4412 wrote:

    "Andy #54.

    "The enemy of the enemy
    He's a friend
    Till he's the enemy again"
    (Asian Dub Foundation)
    "

    Indeed. (sounded a bit Prodigy at the start there).

    I'm more of an uplifting euphoric Trance kinda guy though :)

    Complain about this comment

  • 58. At 11:55pm on 27 Oct 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    TimR1944 #37.

    "I am an experienced collector of anti-American remarks.."

    and you must be frightfully busy, I imagine.


    Andy #57.

    "I'm more of an uplifting euphoric Trance kinda guy though :)"

    like that too, there's a time and a place for everything.

    "Music is the source of life...music is the only redeemer..."
    (cannot remember the artist, but it sums up my POV nicely)

    Complain about this comment

  • 59. At 00:43am on 28 Oct 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    TimR1944 #37.

    to clarify my position: I've 'a bone to pick' with the Macchivellian US American foreign policies in the 20th century, particulary post-WWII, not with indivudual US citizens whom I found to be decent people, on the whole. although naive and ill-informed (like LucyJ's) and sardonic (like Powermeercat's) comments can sometimes tax my tolerance.

    I find the warmongering, the human rights abuses, and the patriotic chest beating brought to us from your shores odious and obnoxious, to say the least. (we are being moderated!!)

    Complain about this comment

  • 60. At 01:32am on 28 Oct 2010, Interestedforeigner wrote:

    59. At 00:43am on 28 Oct 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    "... although naive and ill-informed (like LucyJ's) and sardonic (like Powermeercat's) comments can sometimes tax my tolerance."

    __________

    Sardonic? Are you sure that's the word you want?
    And, in respect of those "sardonic" comments, if it's only "sometimes" you're a better man than I am.

    Complain about this comment

  • 61. At 02:01am on 28 Oct 2010, Andy wrote:

    jr4412 wrote:

    "TimR1944 #37.

    to clarify my position: I've 'a bone to pick' with the Macchivellian US American foreign policies in the 20th century, particulary post-WWII, not with indivudual US citizens whom I found to be decent people, on the whole. although naive and ill-informed (like LucyJ's) and sardonic (like Powermeercat's) comments can sometimes tax my tolerance.

    I find the warmongering, the human rights abuses, and the patriotic chest beating brought to us from your shores odious and obnoxious, to say the least. (we are being moderated!!)
    "


    I've a bone to pick with BREF (belligerent, radical evangelizing fundamentalist) Americans. I've no beef with non-BREF Americans, indeed, I love 'em.

    When America's leaders are BREF, I am anti-American and proud of it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 62. At 02:53am on 28 Oct 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    Interestedforeigner #60.

    "Sardonic? Are you sure that's the word you want?"

    the dictionary tells me sardonic == 'disdainfully, derisively mocking', and I do think he (I'm fairly certain Powermeercat is a male) is frequently taking the p***. what would you say?

    wrt "..if it's only "sometimes"..", maybe I felt generous. :-)



    Andy #61.

    reading your comment made me think that adding 'intolerant' to the list would make it BRIEF.

    :-))

    Complain about this comment

  • 63. At 03:13am on 28 Oct 2010, Andy wrote:

    62. At 02:53am on 28 Oct 2010, jr4412 wrote:

    "reading your comment made me think that adding 'intolerant' to the list would make it BRIEF.

    :-))
    "


    Yeah, but and not anti-undies [unless they're Y-fronts) ;-)

    Complain about this comment

  • 64. At 3:08pm on 28 Oct 2010, LucyJ wrote:

    Andy wrote: I've a bone to pick with BREF (belligerent, radical evangelizing fundamentalist) Americans. I've no beef with non-BREF Americans, indeed, I love 'em.

    When America's leaders are BREF, I am anti-American and proud of it.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Andy,
    So does this mean when Britain's leaders are BREF, BRIEF or whatever, you are anti-British and proud of it?

    I am definitely glad you are British, Andy, cause' I'm the opposite of you; Even if I don't agree with our leaders, I love our country just the same, but that's American loyalty for ya...

    Don't know, maybe its the trance. Lol.

    Complain about this comment

  • 65. At 3:20pm on 28 Oct 2010, LucyJ wrote:

    jr. wrote: to clarify my position: I've 'a bone to pick' with the Macchivellian US American foreign policies in the 20th century, particulary post-WWII, not with indivudual US citizens whom I found to be decent people, on the whole. although naive and ill-informed (like LucyJ's) and sardonic (like Powermeercat's) comments can sometimes tax my tolerance.

    I find the warmongering, the human rights abuses, and the patriotic chest beating brought to us from your shores odious and obnoxious, to say the least. (we are being moderated!!)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Andy and Jr's child-like comments are also taxing tolerances...

    Ironic to hear some British going wild toward us when they should be listening to Eric Clapton,
    "Before you accuse me, take a look at yourself..."

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101028/wl_nm/us_britain_intelligence

    An exerpt:
    Sawers defended MI6's secrecy and its ties to counterparts in Muslim nations accused of poor rights records, a theme that has resurfaced in the West after the whistle-blowing Wikileaks website published secret U.S. files it said showed how coalition forces turned a blind eye to torture by Iraqi security forces.

    "We are the secret frontline of our national security," he said. "Secrecy is not a dirty word. Secrecy is not there as a cover up. Secrecy plays a crucial part in keeping Britain safe."

    So there you have it folks...

    Complain about this comment

  • 66. At 4:34pm on 28 Oct 2010, HabitualHero wrote:

    #52 "I cannot understand why people are anti-American"

    It's entirely down to american foreign policy which can be summed-up in four words - invade, murder, destroy, steal.

    Hey everyone, let's countdown to the first mention of WW2
    10.......9........8......



    Complain about this comment

  • 67. At 4:49pm on 28 Oct 2010, LucyJ wrote:

    66 (clickety click) wrote: It's entirely down to american foreign policy which can be summed-up in four words - invade, murder, destroy, steal.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    So what did the British do to...

    Austraila?
    South Africa?
    Ireland?
    Scotland?




    Complain about this comment

  • 68. At 4:51pm on 28 Oct 2010, LucyJ wrote:

    It's entirely down to american foreign policy which can be summed-up in four words - invade, murder, destroy, steal.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Its more like protect, save, create and give...

    Complain about this comment

  • 69. At 6:05pm on 28 Oct 2010, Andy wrote:

    64. At 3:08pm on 28 Oct 2010, LucyJ wrote:

    "Andy wrote: I've a bone to pick with BREF (belligerent, radical evangelizing fundamentalist) Americans. I've no beef with non-BREF Americans, indeed, I love 'em.

    When America's leaders are BREF, I am anti-American and proud of it."

    Andy,
    So does this mean when Britain's leaders are BREF, BRIEF or whatever, you are anti-British and proud of it?
    "

    Yes. Obviously my comments would raise an eyebrow and I would explain that I am anti-British [establishment] because my current political leaders where BREF. I certainly was not proud to be British when Blair led us into what I believed was (and still do) a false war.

    "I am definitely glad you are British, Andy, cause' I'm the opposite of you; Even if I don't agree with our leaders, I love our country just the same, but that's American loyalty for ya...

    Don't know, maybe its the trance. Lol.
    "

    Could be the trance [chuckle], but I'm not one to sit idly by and see my country do stuff I feel is immoral.

    If you were born during Nazi Germany, would you have been supporting your government, come what may? Would you have been a proud Nazi?

    Complain about this comment

  • 70. At 9:57pm on 28 Oct 2010, LucyJ wrote:

    Andy wrote: Yes. Obviously my comments would raise an eyebrow and I would explain that I am anti-British [establishment] because my current political leaders where BREF. I certainly was not proud to be British when Blair led us into what I believed was (and still do) a false war.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I can understand that you might not agree with all of Blair's actions persay, but don't you still love your country?
    Don't you want to defend your country?
    When the war began, I was initially against it, but at the same time could understand that we were attacked. I don't agree with all of the strategy, as our military has actually held back force, when we should have went full force. But I still love my country just the same, no matter who the President is. Sometimes its tough to accept new policies, but your homeland is your homeland.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Andy wrote: If you were born during Nazi Germany, would you have been supporting your government, come what may? Would you have been a proud Nazi?
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Well, one of my grandfathers, of German and Danish descent, was born and raised in USA, fought for our military as a fighter pilot against the Nazis. So you see, Germans fought on both sides.
    If I was born in USA during WWII, I, also would have volunteered or tried to help fight the Nazis, as well.
    If I was a German born during Nazi Germany, I would have been supporting the govt. publicly (because those who didn't support the govt. were often tortured, harassed or killed), but secretly would be against supporting the govt. and I would have tried to help the Jewish and other people escape and survive. Sometimes that means playing along with the enemy if you can get closer to the inside and gain more knowledge.
    However, despite the fact that the govt. was wrong, I would still love my country just the same for what it was outside of Hitler, which was a lot more. Today, Germany proves that it is a nation that can change, survive and thrive...


    Complain about this comment

  • 71. At 10:11pm on 28 Oct 2010, Andy wrote:

    70. At 9:57pm on 28 Oct 2010, LucyJ wrote:

    "I can understand that you might not agree with all of Blair's actions persay, but don't you still love your country?
    Don't you want to defend your country?
    "

    I certainly do love my country. I certainly want to defend my country. I would not defend my country if it turned into Nazi Germany, Nazi-esque. I love my country enough be a traitor to my country (Nazi-esque version of my country) if that happened, and proud it. I'm not about to condone actions I feel are immoral just because they're committed in my name by my country's leaders.


    "When the war began, I was initially against it, but at the same time could understand that we were attacked. I don't agree with all of the strategy, as our military has actually held back force, when we should have went full force. But I still love my country just the same, no matter who the President is. Sometimes its tough to accept new policies, but your homeland is your homeland."

    States can be disappeared and created at the stroke of a pen, lives cannot. I value human life over a state's right to exist.



    "Andy wrote: If you were born during Nazi Germany, would you have been supporting your government, come what may? Would you have been a proud Nazi?
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Well, one of my grandfathers, of German and Danish descent, was born and raised in USA, fought for our military as a fighter pilot against the Nazis. So you see, Germans fought on both sides.
    If I was born in USA during WWII, I, also would have volunteered or tried to help fight the Nazis, as well.
    If I was a German born during Nazi Germany, I would have been supporting the govt. publicly (because those who didn't support the govt. were often tortured, harassed or killed), but secretly would be against supporting the govt. and I would have tried to help the Jewish and other people escape and survive.
    "

    So, you understand the concept of loving your country but acting as a traitor to protect your country from itself. You would, if caught, be considered anti-your-country, a traitor. You would not have been loyal to your Nazi-eqsue country if your country became Nazi-esque.

    Complain about this comment

  • 72. At 00:37am on 29 Oct 2010, LucyJ wrote:

    Andy wrote: So, you understand the concept of loving your country but acting as a traitor to protect your country from itself. You would, if caught, be considered anti-your-country, a traitor. You would not have been loyal to your Nazi-eqsue country if your country became Nazi-esque.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Andy,
    Glad to know that you love and want to defend your country. :)
    I love and want to defend my country very much so, as well. I may speak out against the govt. from time to time if don't agree or are unhappy with, but I will never be a traitor to my country, ever.
    Its one thing to betray your govt. if it turns overcorrupted, its another thing to betray your country.
    There were Germans who tried to overturn Hitler. Ever see Valkyrie with Tom Cruise? They were trying to overturn Hitler because they knew what he was doing was wrong for them and for the world. Fortantely, allies stepped in and saved the world from destruction.
    But the simplest way to change the govt. is through fair voting.
    America voted in Obama because he was the opposite of Bush.
    And if we don't think a rep is up to task, can simply vote them out.
    When you care, you vote. I am excited about the upcoming election,
    the fact that we may get some fresh faces and new ideas.
    Did you vote in your last election, Andy?

    Complain about this comment

  • 73. At 00:40am on 29 Oct 2010, LucyJ wrote:

    ANdy wrote: States can be disappeared and created at the stroke of a pen, lives cannot. I value human life over a state's right to exist.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    What happens when overpopulation hits?

    Expand to space?
    To the bottom of the ocean?

    Complain about this comment

  • 74. At 01:26am on 29 Oct 2010, Andy wrote:

    72. At 00:37am on 29 Oct 2010, LucyJ wrote:

    "Andy wrote: So, you understand the concept of loving your country but acting as a traitor to protect your country from itself. You would, if caught, be considered anti-your-country, a traitor. You would not have been loyal to your Nazi-eqsue country if your country became Nazi-esque.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Andy,
    Glad to know that you love and want to defend your country. :)
    I love and want to defend my country very much so, as well. I may speak out against the govt. from time to time if don't agree or are unhappy with, but I will never be a traitor to my country, ever.
    Its one thing to betray your govt. if it turns overcorrupted, its another thing to betray your country.
    There were Germans who tried to overturn Hitler. Ever see Valkyrie with Tom Cruise? They were trying to overturn Hitler because they knew what he was doing was wrong for them and for the world. Fortantely, allies stepped in and saved the world from destruction.
    But the simplest way to change the govt. is through fair voting.
    America voted in Obama because he was the opposite of Bush.
    And if we don't think a rep is up to task, can simply vote them out.
    When you care, you vote. I am excited about the upcoming election,
    the fact that we may get some fresh faces and new ideas.
    Did you vote in your last election, Andy?
    "


    What is "your country" to you?

    If the USA turned Nazi-esque, and you had a chance to pass information to an actor whom your Nazi-esque leaders would not want you to pass but if you passed it, it would save thousands of Americans, you would pass the information (based on what you have said before) and as such you would be a traitor the the America you then lived in, a traitor to "your country". If the authorities caught you, you would be treated as a traitor, and probably executed on the spot.

    Perhaps you have some definition of "your country" that I just don't understand, please explain. (the only one I can think of is "the country of your memory, the nice America you preferred before it went all Nazi-esque").

    Yes, I voted in the last election. I think it should be mandatory to vote as it is in Australia (afaik).

    Complain about this comment

  • 75. At 01:28am on 29 Oct 2010, Andy wrote:

    73. At 00:40am on 29 Oct 2010, LucyJ wrote:

    "ANdy wrote: States can be disappeared and created at the stroke of a pen, lives cannot. I value human life over a state's right to exist.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    What happens when overpopulation hits?

    Expand to space?
    To the bottom of the ocean?
    "

    I fail to see the relevance of those questions, please explain.

    Complain about this comment

  • 76. At 01:45am on 29 Oct 2010, _marko wrote:

    To LucyJ #72

    "I love and want to defend my country very much"

    Why can't your behaviour be more targeted and refined? - defend and support the good bits, argue against and criticise the bad? Maybe encouraging this reactive, participative and selective strategy is of greater benefit to the USA.

    Complain about this comment

  • 77. At 3:46pm on 29 Oct 2010, LucyJ wrote:

    Andy wrote: What is "your country" to you?
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    My country is my homeland, a place my ancestors emigrated to a hundred plus years ago because they wanted better lives and more freedom. My ancestors have helped defend our homeland and now it is up to us, modern day inhabitants, to continue freedom and defense the best we can.
    My country, to me, is the past, present and future. The past, ancestors, present, us. And future, our children and children's children.
    My country and more specifically my state, Illinois, is home. There are varying cultures all across America. Mine is 'everyday countrytown', Illinois. Small-town America. Its home where the heart is. Its home, home on the range, where the deer and the antelope play. A place where no matter how cold it gets, there is always way to warm your heart. A place where neighbors wave at neighbors. A place where you can buy country eggs, veggies and meat just down the street. A place where if your car breaks down, someone will help you. A place where innocence, wholesomeness and genuine goodness lives on.
    USA, to me, represents a gift of freedom given to us by our ancestors; however, our freedom comes with the cost of self-defense and preservation/conservation of our country, as well.
    Freedom is not free and not always politically correct.

    Andy, I have explained some of what I feel about my country...what does your country, Great Britain, mean to you? Is it merely a place to live? Or if it was disbanded, wouldn't it break your heart?

    Complain about this comment

  • 78. At 3:49pm on 29 Oct 2010, LucyJ wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 79. At 4:00pm on 29 Oct 2010, LucyJ wrote:

    marko wrote: Why can't your behaviour be more targeted and refined? - defend and support the good bits, argue against and criticise the bad?
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I love and support our military. They do what they do for us. Are they perfect? Of course not, they are humanly...but they are some of the best people on Earth. I defend and support most all about our military, except Guan. Bay, which am against. I am in support of shutting it down, but only if they don't bring them on USA soil. Perhaps the best option is out to sea. Obama wants to bring the world's most dangerous terrorist to Illinois, which is like a stab in the back. You would think, of all people, he would feel some loyalty to our state. Think again.

    Complain about this comment

  • 80. At 4:04pm on 29 Oct 2010, LucyJ wrote:

    "ANdy wrote: States can be disappeared and created at the stroke of a pen, lives cannot. I value human life over a state's right to exist.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    What happens when overpopulation hits?

    Expand to space?
    To the bottom of the ocean?"

    I fail to see the relevance of those questions, please explain.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I'm just saying, if you save everyone's lives, will there come a time when we run out of land, resources, food, water, etc.?
    Is there a reason why cholera, growing old, etc. exist?
    To keep the human population at bay...
    I don't know why I asked this, there is no reason why you would know the answer more than I. I guess its rhetorical...

    Complain about this comment

  • 81. At 4:40pm on 29 Oct 2010, RHCracker wrote:

    A lesson or two from Ronald Reagan
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xK30k2WTxY0&feature=related
    Reagan said because we remained strong the soviets came back to the table.
    Now there is a lesson that could be used today with Iran and perhaps N.korea,if we only had a leader in the white house instead of an appeaser
    And now Obama.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfu1_Scgyow&feature=related
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4-AKcH3eC8&feature=related

    Complain about this comment

  • 82. At 6:20pm on 29 Oct 2010, Andy wrote:

    LucyJ,
    "I'm just saying, if you save everyone's lives, will there come a time when we run out of land, resources, food, water, etc.?
    Is there a reason why cholera, growing old, etc. exist?
    To keep the human population at bay..."

    Hmmm, so 9/11 happened to reduce the population of NYC, right, got it. God works in mysterious ways, marvellous.

    Complain about this comment

  • 83. At 6:28pm on 29 Oct 2010, Andy wrote:

    77. At 3:46pm on 29 Oct 2010, LucyJ wrote:

    "Andy wrote: What is "your country" to you?
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    My country is my homeland, a place my ancestors emigrated to a hundred plus years ago because they wanted better lives and more freedom. My ancestors have helped defend our homeland and now it is up to us, modern day inhabitants, to continue freedom and defense the best we can.
    My country, to me, is the past, present and future. The past, ancestors, present, us. And future, our children and children's children.
    My country and more specifically my state, Illinois, is home. There are varying cultures all across America. Mine is 'everyday countrytown', Illinois. Small-town America. Its home where the heart is. Its home, home on the range, where the deer and the antelope play. A place where no matter how cold it gets, there is always way to warm your heart. A place where neighbors wave at neighbors. A place where you can buy country eggs, veggies and meat just down the street. A place where if your car breaks down, someone will help you. A place where innocence, wholesomeness and genuine goodness lives on.
    USA, to me, represents a gift of freedom given to us by our ancestors; however, our freedom comes with the cost of self-defense and preservation/conservation of our country, as well.
    Freedom is not free and not always politically correct.
    "


    So your country is an ideal and by your previous posts you've admitted that should it not meet your ideals your prepared, depending on the severity of your countries leaders not meeting your ideals, of committing treason (although you have a problem admitting to the word "treason").

    You love and support your military, apart from when they come out and say they're gay.

    You support your fellow citizens apart from those who can't procreate with each other.

    You're glad there are fatal diseases to keep the population down.

    You claim you're a Christian.

    Hmmmm...

    Complain about this comment

  • 84. At 7:34pm on 29 Oct 2010, LucyJ wrote:

    Andy wrote: You're glad there are fatal diseases to keep the population down.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    No, I'm not glad of that. You are trying to put words in my mouth, as many ultraliberals often attempt to do, cause' they want to control the situation and tailor the conversation to their own liking. It is hard for many ultraliberals to expand, compromise or admit that there is another side to the story.
    In fact, I think that the reason why many illnesses today have not been cured is due to health care/pharm industry making too much money and paying people off, but that's just me...
    God does work in mysterious ways. I do not claim to know all the reasons how, why, etc., cause' there's no way to know.
    Do I believe that ultimately USA is a good country?
    Without a doubt. :)


    Complain about this comment

  • 85. At 7:49pm on 29 Oct 2010, Andy wrote:

    LucyJ,

    OK, I'll retract "You're glad there are fatal diseases to keep the population down." and replace it with "Explains disease as keeping the population at bay."

    Complain about this comment

  • 86. At 8:04pm on 29 Oct 2010, LucyJ wrote:

    Andy,

    Is it only since the recent wars you have felt this certain way toward America? Or is it your whole life?
    Do you also feel this way toward other countries, or is there only one you like to unfairly target?

    Is there not a single thing you like about America?

    I can name many things I like about GB- their accent, London Bridge, Big Ben Tower, the Monty Python, Beatles and other assorted rock bands, James Bond, the love of tea, the castles, etc.

    Complain about this comment

  • 87. At 8:29pm on 29 Oct 2010, Andy wrote:

    86. At 8:04pm on 29 Oct 2010, LucyJ wrote:

    "Is it only since the recent wars you have felt this certain way toward America? Or is it your whole life?"

    Since recent wars, before that I was very pro-American. Should America change, I shall go back to my natural state of being pro- although with age I learn things that will probably never be forgotten/forgiven (much like I learn things about my own country that I'm not proud we did).


    "Do you also feel this way toward other countries, or is there only one you like to unfairly target?

    Many other countries, some of which preach they they are democratic and nice, most which have no such pretensions.


    "Is there not a single thing you like about America?"

    Many of the people; many of it's policies; the country (wildlife & animals), many of it's films/telly, its determination (when focused nice stuff). There's a lot in America to like but it's increasingly stained by the increasing amount of crap that spreading within & without.

    "I can name many things I like about GB- their accent, London Bridge, Big Ben Tower, the Monty Python, Beatles and other assorted rock bands, James Bond, the love of tea, the castles, etc."

    Glad to hear it, but I note you did not mention any UK citizens. Shurly shom mishtake muddum?


    Tell me, have you travelled outside the US much? For my own, I have travelled outside the UK quite a bit, but the UK is smaller than the US so that comparison would be unfair. I have travelled outside Europe a bit (Africa, Middle East, North America), I'd like to travel more, I'd like to travel to the US again but my self-imposed ban due to the deterioration I've witnessed 2nd hand there prevents me from doing so - I'd probably not make it through customs/security.

    Complain about this comment

  • 88. At 10:17pm on 29 Oct 2010, LucyJ wrote:

    Andy wrote: although with age I learn things that will probably never be forgotten/forgiven
    Does this mean despite all America has done in the past, because of one President you did not like the things he did, that you will never forgive your old friends because of this one particular administration?
    Do you deem us all guilty in your eyes, even if we didn't vote for Bush or were too young to vote? And the ones who did vote for Bush and did not know what he would do or that such a situation would occur, do you blame us all, ANdy?

    wrote: Should America change
    And just curiously here, what kind of changes are you talking about?

    wrote: many of it's films/telly
    What kind of films and 'telly'?

    wrote: you did not mention any UK citizens.
    Neither did you? Well, UK includes the triangle, right- Great Britain, Scotland and Ireland? (Personally, my other half of descent is Irish, English and Scottish.) I love Sean Connery, Princess Diana, Dolores O'Riordan, Gavin Rossdale, Hugh Grant, David Beckham, Keira Knightley, the Redgraves, etc. Don't know enough about your politicians to say a whole lot, but seems like the people are happy enough with what they've got...

    wrote: travelled outside the US much?
    Mostly within and across USA. I have been to both oceans that touch us and majority of coastal states, except the colonials- have been to Williamsburg and Jamestown, though, which were pretty fun. Have been to Hawaii, which is by far, the most beautiful place I have ever been to. Love, love, love Hawaii. Want to go to Alaska next.
    Outside of USA, have been to Niagara Falls, Canada (amazingly beautiful) and some border town in Mexico years ago, close by Arizona. Its funny cause' I can still remember going to a restaurant that served us all tequila shots. In Mexico, of course, its legal to drink at younger age. My parents don't drink, I and my cousins were too young by USA's and my parents' standards but not by Mexico's standards, so somehow the shots ended up all going to my older bros. They were psyched. Lol.
    My family has always loved to travel on road trips, though, especially because we get to connect with family throughout the USA (which has given me a more open view of different cultures in USA, as we have Orleans, Carolina, Arizonan, Cali relatives, etc.)
    ANd, of course, road trips are a lot of fun with friends, as well.
    Would like to go to UK someday perhaps, but may try Alaska first. Know of some people excited about going to GB Olympics 2012.
    Maybe in a couple of years, there will hopefully be cheerier relations...

    Complain about this comment

  • 89. At 10:18pm on 29 Oct 2010, LucyJ wrote:

    Andy wrote: I have travelled outside Europe a bit (Africa, Middle East, North America
    What is the most beautiful place you have ever been?

    wrote: I'd probably not make it through customs/security.
    Why not? Alas, perhaps, it just wasn't meant to be...

    Complain about this comment

  • 90. At 02:53am on 30 Oct 2010, McJakome wrote:

    87. At 8:29pm on 29 Oct 2010, Andy wrote: "I'd like to travel to the US again but my self-imposed ban due to the deterioration I've witnessed 2nd hand there prevents me from doing so - I'd probably not make it through customs/security."

    I think you have picked up some of the negativity. If you fear Texas or Teaparty Land, try Boston. The Northeast is much more real America than the one Sarah Simleton Palin inhabits. The founding fathers were literate and knew the world and its history quite well. I am absolutely certain they would have thought Sarah Palin unacceptable as a voter, much less as a candidate. So, pay us a visit, as Mr. Mardell has.

    Complain about this comment

  • 91. At 09:42am on 30 Oct 2010, Rufus wrote:

    88. At 10:17pm on 29 Oct 2010, LucyJ wrote:

    ...I love Sean Connery, Princess Diana, Dolores O'Riordan, Gavin Rossdale, Hugh Grant, David Beckham, Keira Knightley, the Redgraves, etc....

    ====

    LucyJ, it's me who loves Dolores O'Riordan!! Me, me, me!!!

    You can have all the rest though, especially Princess Diana, ooph no thank you, and Beckman... well I better not say anymore...

    Here's an old one about Hugh Grant:

    Q: How does a hooker go to college?

    A: On a Hugh Grant.

    Complain about this comment

  • 92. At 11:22am on 30 Oct 2010, Andy wrote:

    LucyJ,

    Re. #88

    The "probably" in my statement answers your question - I don't know what the future holds. Your second was answered with "some". The third; only those who supported or stood idly by (ie, the "some").



    Complain about this comment

  • 93. At 12:06pm on 30 Oct 2010, Andy wrote:

    JMM,

    I've been to Boston although Nov/Dec probably was not the best time to go (windy & wet, just like at home). NYC was busy & interesting but not much sky. Alabama was weird, bible-belt & dry counties on my daily drive from Huntsville to Athens, met quite a few rednecks and finally found out what a cotton plant looks like - I was amused the the Jack Daniels brewery was in a dry county (you can buy a bottle but not drink it there). Florida was not as exciting as I would have wanted (although being order by Mr big's security guards to dance with his girls was amusing/a bit scary). I witnessed a murder in New Orleans, tranny on tranny. San Fan' was also interesting - like a giant china town, it also also had the most amazing hotel I've ever stayed in. The area around the Great Lakes is lovely, I still wonder if my dime wedged in between some rocks at Niagra falls is still there ......

    Complain about this comment

  • 94. At 12:12pm on 30 Oct 2010, Andy wrote:

    89. At 10:18pm on 29 Oct 2010, LucyJ wrote:

    "Andy wrote: I have travelled outside Europe a bit (Africa, Middle East, North America
    What is the most beautiful place you have ever been?
    "

    Very tough one, it depends what mood I'm in. At a push, I'd say Capetown, South Africa & surroundings. Waking up with Table Mountain and the [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]> on one side and the blue Atlantic on the others surrounded by friend who are all sports mad and have a hard working work ethic and cosmopolitan national/world view was just inspiring each and every day.

    Complain about this comment

  • 95. At 12:43pm on 30 Oct 2010, Andy wrote:

    My, a link (post #94) to a picture of the Twelve Apostles nr Camps Bay in Capetown was deemed worthy of moderation - how daft is that!

    Complain about this comment

  • 96. At 2:55pm on 30 Oct 2010, Chryses wrote:

    Andy, (#85. At 7:49pm on 29 Oct 2010)

    “... Explains disease as keeping the population at bay."

    Women who are incapacitated by a disease have fewer children than do healthy women. Women who are killed by that disease have even fewer children.

    Complain about this comment

  • 97. At 3:05pm on 30 Oct 2010, Andy wrote:

    Chryses,

    "Women who are incapacitated by a disease have fewer children than do healthy women. Women who are killed by that disease have even fewer children."

    Thanks for those self-evidents, perhaps you'd like another: water is wet.

    Complain about this comment

  • 98. At 3:15pm on 30 Oct 2010, LucyJ wrote:

    Sung wrote: LucyJ, it's me who loves Dolores O'Riordan!! Me, me, me
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sung,
    I also love Dolores O'Riordan and the Cranberries as well. There's just something special about them and its not just cause' you pick up an Irish accent on the way or that it helps connect cultures with some understanding and outreach. The music is inspiring, whimsical and continually engaging. I got to see them in concert in Indiana when I was 14 and it is an experience I treasure. It was at a nice concert theater which was just outside of the city enough where you were surrounded by woods. Dolores was in full fashion, going wild that night, wailing loudly and with vengeance, with the band rocking it out in good ole' USA. Band was having fun and even played extra encores for the crowd, who lived it up. ;)
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    On the UK citizens bit, I forgot to add Jason Statham. He is one of my favorite action movie stars due to his amazing martial arts skills, smoothness, charm, charisma and awesome stunts. Don't like the Crank movies, but love, love, love the Transporter movies. :)

    Complain about this comment

  • 99. At 3:29pm on 30 Oct 2010, LucyJ wrote:

    Andy wrote: Capetown, South Africa & surroundings...
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sounds like a snapshot in time...
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    wrote: (although being order by Mr big's security guards to dance with his girls was amusing/a bit scary). I witnessed a murder in New Orleans, tranny on tranny.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Gotta watch out for the hot dancers! Lol.
    Where did you see this murder at?
    In the street or the alley?
    New Orleans is a pretty safe city now, except at night, which is when most crimes in NO take place. Day is much safer.
    Did you get some beignets?
    (not exactly sure how to spell those French doughnuts)

    Complain about this comment

  • 100. At 3:49pm on 30 Oct 2010, as is wrote:

    On the topic. No underestimating of Reagan's exceptional ability to communicate with ordinary Americans, but his legacy was based on communicating with, or absorbing the ideas of, people like Laffer, Mundell, Friedman, Hayek, etc.

    Communication skills, as BHO has discovered by now, is just the means. The ends, unfortunately for BHO, is the message itself.

    Complain about this comment

  • 101. At 3:52pm on 30 Oct 2010, Chryses wrote:

    Andy, (#97. At 3:05pm on 30 Oct 2010)

    You did ask in your post #85 (at 7:49pm on 29 Oct 2010): “... Explains disease as keeping the population at bay" did you not? I answered your question.

    You seem to have taken exception. Well, if one asks a silly question, on occasion one sometimes gets a silly reply. I wonder what one might, on occasion, expect if one asks a derisive question?

    Complain about this comment

  • 102. At 4:19pm on 30 Oct 2010, Andy wrote:

    LucyJ,

    "Gotta watch out for the hot dancers! Lol.
    Where did you see this murder at?
    In the street or the alley?
    New Orleans is a pretty safe city now, except at night, which is when most crimes in NO take place. Day is much safer.
    Did you get some beignets?
    (not exactly sure how to spell those French doughnuts)
    "

    At a bar on Burbon Street. An argument between two transvestates culmunated in one slashing the other with a razor blade. That even indicated to my lap-dancing from along Route Huntsville-Athens escort and her consort, moi, to leave. Later on we were watching the news and saw a report of a murder having been committed in that place around the time we were there.

    I may have had some beignets, I can't remember.



    Chryses,

    No I did not ask in post #85 as you should be able to fathom by re-reading it and also indicated by the lack of a question mark in post #85.

    What seems to be for you is very often evidently not the case. Your statements are often merely delusions your having.

    Complain about this comment

  • 103. At 4:39pm on 30 Oct 2010, Chryses wrote:

    Andy, (#102. At 4:19pm on 30 Oct 2010)

    “... Your statements are often merely delusions your having.”

    If you say so.

    Complain about this comment

  • 104. At 4:44pm on 30 Oct 2010, LucyJ wrote:

    Andy wrote: Later on we were watching the news and saw a report of a murder having been committed in that place around the time we were there.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sounds very dramatic.

    Actually, if you are in the South, its smartest just to stay out of fights, especially if you see domestic abuse- you can call the police, sure, away from the fight, but don't get involved, cause' a lot of people carry guns in those parts.
    I am American, but even I don't get involved in domestic abuse or other fights between people in the South, cause' its too dangerous.

    Sorry you missed the beignets.
    You would probably remember them if you had them.

    Complain about this comment

  • 105. At 5:14pm on 30 Oct 2010, Andy wrote:

    LucyJ,

    "if you are in the South, its smartest just to stay out of fights, especially if you see domestic abuse- you can call the police, sure, away from the fight, but don't get involved, cause' a lot of people carry guns in those parts.
    I am American, but even I don't get involved in domestic abuse or other fights between people in the South, cause' its too dangerous.
    "

    We don't have a gun culture in the UK so we more often jump in to help our fellow innocent citizens from violence. I prefer it that way, and I'd characterize that as being more civilised.

    Complain about this comment

  • 106. At 5:50pm on 30 Oct 2010, Chryses wrote:

    Andy, (#105. At 5:14pm on 30 Oct 2010)

    “... I prefer it that way, and I'd characterize that as being more civilised.”

    Most people characterize what they prefer as being more civilized than what they dislike.

    Complain about this comment

  • 107. At 6:07pm on 30 Oct 2010, LucyJ wrote:

    Andy,

    I'm just being truthful. You can have lots and lots of fun in the South, but have to be cautious just the same and avoid getting involved in others' fights...if I was in GB and saw a couple fighting, domestic abuse, and the guy had a knife, I would likely not get involved because its not worth it to get killed, but I would call the British cops for help.
    And even if the guy didn't have a knife, there are some guys that could knock out another male or female with a single punch.
    For these reasons above is why people should go out in groups of at least four or more...safety reasons...

    Its tough to say cause' of course I am against domestic violence and would try to help someone when I can, but some situations are too dangerous and you have to call police in such times. You can help another person a whole lot more when you are alive...

    Complain about this comment

  • 108. At 6:15pm on 30 Oct 2010, LucyJ wrote:

    civilized

    Being so-called 'civilized' is overrated...

    Complain about this comment

  • 109. At 6:35pm on 30 Oct 2010, Chryses wrote:

    LucyJ, (#108. At 6:15pm on 30 Oct 2010)

    “... Being so-called 'civilized' is overrated...”

    One way (not the only way) some people assert their supposed superiority to others is to claim that they are civilized, or at the very least more civilized. Did the Ancients share our contemporary notions of civilized behavior? Some. Were they dramatically different in many ways? Yes. Were the Ancients uncivilized? No.

    Complain about this comment

  • 110. At 7:31pm on 30 Oct 2010, Andy wrote:

    108. At 6:15pm on 30 Oct 2010, LucyJ wrote:

    "civilized

    Being so-called 'civilized' is overrated...
    "

    Being able to aid you fellow citizen more is overrated, sure, whatever you say.

    Complain about this comment

  • 111. At 7:49pm on 30 Oct 2010, Chryses wrote:

    LucyJ,

    ... if you see what I mean. :)

    Complain about this comment

  • 112. At 9:18pm on 30 Oct 2010, LucyJ wrote:

    111 Chryses,
    I do see what you mean...lol...

    Complain about this comment

  • 113. At 9:22pm on 30 Oct 2010, LucyJ wrote:

    If someone has to be 'superior' or 'snobbish' to be civilized, then I don't want to be civilized...

    Complain about this comment

  • 114. At 9:27pm on 30 Oct 2010, TimR1944 wrote:

    # 87
    Andy

    "Since recent wars, before that I was very pro-American. Should America change, I shall go back to my natural state of being pro- although with age I learn things that will probably never be forgotten/forgiven (much like I learn things about my own country that I'm not proud we did)"

    -------------------------

    Indeed?

    What did being 'pro-American' mean? And I look forward very much to your answer.

    ------------------------

    Andy #87

    "Tell me, have you travelled outside the US much? For my own, I have travelled outside the UK quite a bit, but the UK is smaller than the US so that comparison would be unfair. I have travelled outside Europe a bit (Africa, Middle East, North America), I'd like to travel more, I'd like to travel to the US again but my self-imposed ban due to the deterioration I've witnessed 2nd hand there prevents me from doing so - I'd probably not make it through customs/security."

    -----------------------------

    *chuckle*

    Self-imposed ban - priceless. I like your posts, especially when you are in high dudgeon.

    You drag out the crudest and most vulgar stereotypes about Americans, add a few (very few) drops of dessicated wit, and prop up your 'observations' as the Truth. It really is pitiful stuff.

    You also claim - with more than a hint of smugness - to have traveled outside the UK, and you have even visited the US, and yet you STILL carry on about evil Americans in the style of hysterical tabloid?

    I find that rather strange. A certain amount of contact with the outside world usually increases awareness and understanding and tolerance. In your case it has not had the effect it usually does.

    It appears that your self-imposed ban is a very good idea - for all concerned. It is much better to keep xenophobia limited to a harmless web site.

    Complain about this comment

  • 115. At 9:44pm on 30 Oct 2010, Andy wrote:

    113. At 9:22pm on 30 Oct 2010, LucyJ wrote:

    "If someone has to be 'superior' or 'snobbish' to be civilized, then I don't want to be civilized..."

    It's easier for a person to be more civilized if they're not in a gun culture and scared of helping their fellow civilians, not living in such a gun culture does not make a person not living in such a gun culture "superior" or "snobbish", it makes them and their fellow citizens safer and protecting fellow civilians is part of civil & civic duty imv.

    Complain about this comment

  • 116. At 10:56pm on 30 Oct 2010, Chryses wrote:

    LucyJ,

    Notice now the presumption that ‘my way is the right way’, and the equivocation?

    Complain about this comment

  • 117. At 4:18pm on 31 Oct 2010, LucyJ wrote:

    Andy wrote: if they're not in a gun culture
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    You just don't get it, Andy. Its not the guns, its the person. And you will find good and bad people both in every country.

    If someone stabs and injures another person with a knife, how is that any different than someone shooting and injuring a person with a gun?

    Again, it comes down to the person.

    Andy wrote: scared of helping their fellow civilians

    I help out others when I can, but as I said earlier, you can help a lot more people when you are alive...

    Complain about this comment

  • 118. At 4:22pm on 31 Oct 2010, LucyJ wrote:

    Chyrses,

    Yes, I do notice such...and I also remember Andy saying that he thinks he saw that murder when he was in USA- and what was the weapon? The common household product, the razor blade...Don't people shave in England, too?

    Again, clearly its the person...there are good and bad both, which is why you look for good, but must be cautious of bad...

    Complain about this comment

  • 119. At 5:25pm on 01 Nov 2010, RHCracker wrote:

    @ Andy 105;
    It's easier for a person to be more civilized if they're not in a gun culture and scared of helping their fellow civilians,

    We don't have a gun culture in the UK so we more often jump in to help our fellow innocent citizens from violence.
    .................
    Hmmm,no guns yet you still have violence.
    we have concealed weapons permits,just for such occasions,and you were refering to a knife murder but somehow still managed to blame guns.

    If your life was being threatened by a man wielding a knife,wouldnt it be nice if a fellow citizen came to your rescue with his or her sidearm.

    Blaming guns for violence is like blaming the pencil when you misspell a word ,or blaming matches for an arson fire.



    Complain about this comment

  • 120. At 10:31pm on 01 Nov 2010, LucyJ wrote:

    Rh wrote: Blaming guns for violence is like blaming the pencil when you misspell a word ,or blaming matches for an arson fire.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Agreed...a gun doesn't shoot itself...

    Complain about this comment

  • 121. At 10:55pm on 01 Nov 2010, Chryses wrote:

    RHCracker, (#119. At 5:25pm on 01 Nov 2010)

    “... Blaming guns for violence is like blaming the pencil when you misspell a word ,or blaming matches for an arson fire.”

    Or, as some of the more pitiful do, blame America for almost everything they dislike.

    Complain about this comment

  • 122. At 1:48pm on 02 Nov 2010, _marko wrote:

    Then it follows that there should be no concern about the arms trade and controlling which countries receive arms. You can't blame the weapons!

    Complain about this comment

  • 123. At 7:56pm on 02 Nov 2010, RomeStu wrote:

    122 marko


    now now, you'll confuse them with your clever logic!

    Complain about this comment

  • 124. At 8:09pm on 02 Nov 2010, LucyJ wrote:

    RomeStu wrote: now now, you'll confuse them with your clever logic!
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Too bad its not clever nor logical...

    Complain about this comment

  • 125. At 8:32pm on 02 Nov 2010, _marko wrote:

    To Lucy #124

    Could you expand on your argument "it's not"?

    Complain about this comment

  • 126. At 8:43pm on 02 Nov 2010, margaret howard wrote:

    This has turned into the "Lucy and Andy Show"!

    Complain about this comment

  • 127. At 8:49pm on 02 Nov 2010, LucyJ wrote:

    marko,

    Terrorists sometimes use household items to make their bombs, do we blame household items for terrorism?

    Think not!

    Complain about this comment

  • 128. At 8:55pm on 02 Nov 2010, _marko wrote:

    To Lucy #127

    So we shouldn't blame the weapons.

    That supports the argument that there should be no concern about the arms trade and controlling which countries receive arms.

    Complain about this comment

  • 129. At 9:14pm on 02 Nov 2010, LucyJ wrote:

    mark wrote: That supports the argument that there should be no concern about the arms trade and controlling which countries receive arms.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    No, we shouldn't blame the weapons, but we should blame the people who commit the crimes. It supports the statement that there are good and bad people in every country...

    Complain about this comment

  • 130. At 9:22pm on 02 Nov 2010, LucyJ wrote:

    marko wrote: That supports the argument that there should be no concern about the arms trade and controlling which countries receive arms.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    So if a country supports terrorists you should give them arms?

    Think not!

    Where is your logic, marko?

    Complain about this comment

  • 131. At 9:52pm on 02 Nov 2010, RomeStu wrote:

    marko - a brave attempt, but you've entered the twilight zone. Logic means something else here.

    And the concept of devil's advocate may also be extraneous, if not actually satanic.

    Complain about this comment

  • 132. At 7:05pm on 03 Nov 2010, _marko wrote:

    To LucyJ #130

    If a country supports terrorists you support that:
    1) They should not be given arms.
    2) We should blame the people who commit the crimes.

    So in this particular case of giving weapons to bad people, can you confirm if you are
    1) blaming the weapons or
    2) not blaming the weapons

    Complain about this comment

  • 133. At 9:16pm on 03 Nov 2010, LucyJ wrote:

    Marko,
    Why does it feel like you are trying to trick me or one-up me or so on?

    Just say what you mean!

    Don't mince the words around....

    Complain about this comment

  • 134. At 9:22pm on 03 Nov 2010, LucyJ wrote:

    BTW, I have seen Lord of War, the based after a true story movie about that arms dealer who basically sold opposing groups in poor countries weapons, in which they warred against each other with. It was a very thought-provoking movie. And very sad, as well.

    I don't understand all the way the world works, but hopefully someday we will reach a truce and not have to use them against each other.

    Complain about this comment

  • 135. At 5:26pm on 05 Nov 2010, _marko wrote:

    To LucyJ #133

    "Why does it feel like you are trying to trick me or one-up me or so on"

    It's more about collective education including mine and about how people arrive at their opinions.

    "Just say what you mean!"

    You avoided answering an important and key point:

    In this particular case of giving weapons to bad people, can you confirm if you are blaming the weapons or not?

    Complain about this comment

  • 136. At 8:56pm on 05 Nov 2010, LucyJ wrote:

    marko wrote: If a country supports terrorists you support that:
    1) They should not be given arms.
    2) We should blame the people who commit the crimes.

    So in this particular case of giving weapons to bad people, can you confirm if you are
    1) blaming the weapons or
    2) not blaming the weapons
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    I blame the providers of the weapons and not the weapons themselves. After all, weapons are as old as time- at first it was just bow and arrow, etc., now tis' more advanced. Anyhew, whoever knowingly and purposefully gives weapons to terrorists is supporting terrorism.

    Of course, in some instances our country has given weapons to a country, only for years later for the country to go rogue and fall in the wrong hands and in all honesty, there is no way to predict the future unless someone is psychic. So that would be unknowingly and unpurposefully.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    mark wrote: That supports the argument that there should be no concern about the arms trade and controlling which countries receive arms.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There should absolutely be concern, especially with particular countries like Iran. Just because the weapons should not be blamed doesn't mean the providers or traders of the weapons should not be, as some leaders have bad intentions, regardless of whether the people are good. The providers or traders of intense weaponry should be regulated due to the potential of particular weapons, even if weapons are not to be blamed. However, if a trader or provider sells arms to a country, who in return, sells it to a country that is not so good, then in such a case, the second country who did secretly or not secretly sell is the enabler, not the first, as the first did not sell to such and the second actually did. Once a sale is final, though, a sale is final and the responsibility lies with the country who has the weapons themselves to use those weapons responsibly. However, what is responsible to one country may not be considered responsible to another.

    Bottom line: It is up to the world to combat the ones who seek destruction via terrorism, etc. to the best of our ability.

    Complain about this comment

  • 137. At 1:07pm on 06 Nov 2010, _marko wrote:

    To LucyJ

    Thanks for your comprehensive response.

    Complain about this comment

  • 138. At 1:37pm on 06 Nov 2010, LucyJ wrote:

    marko wrote: comprehensive response...
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Your welcome, Marko. Hope it was comprehensive enough...I am a rambling kind of writer and can sometimes get offtopic or offsides.

    Truth is, answers seem easy enough, but there are always two sides to every story. It just depends what side you choose to be on.

    Complain about this comment

View these comments in RSS

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.