Let's go.........RANDOM!

The place to hang out and talk about totally anything general.
User avatar
zjoere
level5
level5
Posts: 1623
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:40 pm
Location: Belgium

Postby zjoere » Sun Sep 02, 2012 8:19 pm

You, me and everyone we know?
You're so vain, you probably think this sig is about you
Jordy...
level5
level5
Posts: 2367
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 7:57 pm

Postby Jordy... » Sun Sep 02, 2012 8:33 pm

Lol :)
Cuz fuck logic
User avatar
Xarlaxas
level5
level5
Posts: 1525
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:48 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Postby Xarlaxas » Sun Sep 02, 2012 10:27 pm

Feud wrote:
ynbniar wrote:
Feud wrote:Romney is looking Presidential. Excellent.


Over here he is a joke...the guy who mocked an incredibly feelgood and well organised Olympic games.


The whole world that lady do an awful job trying to play air guitar to Queen in the closing ceremony, and we can't unsee it. I'm not sure what Romney said about the games, but it's entirely likely that that moment justified it.


He said that London "wasn't prepared" for the Olympics, which I think was proven entirely wrong by the whole shebang.

Romney also provoked one of the few times I agree with David Cameron on something too, so I guess that proves that Romney is wholly evil. :P

I wouldn't say he's entirely considered a joke over here though, actually, he's seen as more dangerous than anything else, financial commentators are saying that Romney will be bad for the world economy in the short, medium, and long-term, which is pretty impressive. . . .

[Hint, implying that China and Germany are crooked traders that you'll take down a peg when you're president isn't good for the markets.]
User avatar
Laika
level5
level5
Posts: 1500
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 7:16 pm
Location: Moscow

Postby Laika » Sun Sep 02, 2012 10:57 pm

Xarlaxas wrote:financial commentators are saying that Romney will be bad for the world economy in the short, medium, and long-term


Any source links left ?
User avatar
Xarlaxas
level5
level5
Posts: 1525
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:48 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Postby Xarlaxas » Mon Sep 03, 2012 12:45 am

I heard it on the World Service, and it was either Business Daily or Global Business but I believe they were interviewing Stephen Roach, so this is probably as good a source as any: http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news ... s-currency
User avatar
The Mighty Santa
level2
level2
Posts: 219
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 4:16 pm
Location: North Pole

Postby The Mighty Santa » Mon Sep 03, 2012 1:01 am

Jordy... wrote:))<>((

Those of you who knows what that means, give me a shake with the hand!! Great movie!


Heh. :D But the real ones would be |<>|
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Mon Sep 03, 2012 5:58 am

shinygerbil wrote:Also; two wrongs don't make a right. There were plenty of Olympic moments to be proud of, and the closing ceremony - as much as it tried - can't cancel them all out.


That's wholly an issue of scale. :wink:

Xarlaxas wrote:I wouldn't say he's entirely considered a joke over here though, actually, he's seen as more dangerous than anything else, financial commentators are saying that Romney will be bad for the world economy in the short, medium, and long-term, which is pretty impressive. . . .


Are they basing that upon what he's saying, or his style of management when he was in office previously?

Also, it would be a hard sell to get elected based upon "good for world markets" unless it can convince people that it will be good for them personally. He's not running for world office. At the end of the day he's got to get elected by a plurality of Americans, and regardless of what is or what he thinks to be the best thing to do is, he can't do that if he doesn't get elected first.

I tend to worry a lot less about what a candidate is saying as whether I think they are capable of doing a good job. There's a million things for a president to do that can't or isn't covered in a campaign, and the future holds untold challenges. I'd rather have a person in office who I trust to handle the unknowns.

That was one of my biggest problems with Obama in the first election, I didn't think he was ready and that personally he had shown himself trust worthy yet. I gave him the benefit of the doubt though when he got elected, and that didn't work out too well. In this election, I trust Romeny more. I think he's a better person, better educated, more experienced, and better capable to handle both the knowns and unknowns of the job. So, unless something major happens, he'll likely get my vote.
Jordy...
level5
level5
Posts: 2367
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 7:57 pm

Postby Jordy... » Mon Sep 03, 2012 9:33 am

The Mighty Santa wrote:
Jordy... wrote:))<>((

Those of you who knows what that means, give me a shake with the hand!! Great movie!


Heh. :D But the real ones would be |<>|


o_O I don't follow?
Cuz fuck logic
User avatar
GreenRock
level4
level4
Posts: 512
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 3:47 pm
Location: Triangulating...

Postby GreenRock » Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:24 am

Jordy... wrote:
The Mighty Santa wrote:
Jordy... wrote:))<>((

Those of you who knows what that means, give me a shake with the hand!! Great movie!


Heh. :D But the real ones would be |<>|


o_O I don't follow?


You are not alone.
User avatar
Laika
level5
level5
Posts: 1500
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 7:16 pm
Location: Moscow

Postby Laika » Mon Sep 03, 2012 12:43 pm

Goatse ?
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Mon Sep 03, 2012 1:02 pm

Feud wrote:Are they basing that upon what he's saying, or his style of management when he was in office previously?

If those two are contradictory, then he is a lousy candidate.

However, regardless of how competent Romney might be, what assurances does the world have that he won't usher another era of "America, Fuck yeah" like Bush did?
That's what we mean when we say Romney sounds dangerous, he seems poised to do exactly that.
User avatar
The Mighty Santa
level2
level2
Posts: 219
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 4:16 pm
Location: North Pole

Postby The Mighty Santa » Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:29 pm

GreenRock wrote:
Jordy... wrote:
The Mighty Santa wrote:
Jordy... wrote:))<>((

Those of you who knows what that means, give me a shake with the hand!! Great movie!


Heh. :D But the real ones would be |<>|


o_O I don't follow?


You are not alone.


Heh, I assumed you were talking about Darth Vader's TIE fighter from Star Wars lol...
User avatar
Xarlaxas
level5
level5
Posts: 1525
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:48 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Postby Xarlaxas » Mon Sep 03, 2012 5:25 pm

Xocrates wrote:
Feud wrote:Are they basing that upon what he's saying, or his style of management when he was in office previously?

If those two are contradictory, then he is a lousy candidate.

However, regardless of how competent Romney might be, what assurances does the world have that he won't usher another era of "America, Fuck yeah" like Bush did?
That's what we mean when we say Romney sounds dangerous, he seems poised to do exactly that.


Well, considering how easily one can show off a whole reel of Romney clips making him look like a giant pair of flip-flops. . . .

Xoc has it pretty much exactly right, the idea of Romney being president is only slightly less scary than the thought of something happening to him and then Paul Ryan becoming president. With his policies it would be kinder for the army to just *shoot* all the poor people rather than wait for them to die of preventable illnesses and malnutrition.
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Mon Sep 03, 2012 9:48 pm

Glad to see it's a well grounded concern. :P

Xocrates wrote:If those two are contradictory, then he is a lousy candidate.

However, regardless of how competent Romney might be, what assurances does the world have that he won't usher another era of "America, Fuck yeah" like Bush did?
That's what we mean when we say Romney sounds dangerous, he seems poised to do exactly that.


First, a contradiction between those two does not a lousy candidate make.

Second, the current President has been just as bad, if not worse, about the Bush problems. I don't see how Bush arresting foreigners suspected of terrorism is worse than Obama deciding to skip the whole arrest and trial thing and just blow them up with a drone strike. I also don't see how Bush's process of going to war, which was to go through the legal process of asking Congress and then asking the UN for good measure, is somehow worse than Obama's of just deciding to go to war without asking at all.

Frankly, I think Bush was a much better President for the international community than Obama is, and exhibited a lot less of the "America, f- yeah" attitude. Everyone seems to want to give Obama a pass on it though, and pretend that it's somehow better to have him in office than Bush.

But hey, you're the ones living outside the US, not I. I personally don't like either the Bush or the Obama foreign policy models, and I don't think Romney has suggested either adopting Obama's policies or using Bush's, so that's good. Romeny isn't a ideologue, and no one has ever accused him of being one, so I don't think there's much reason to think he'll adopt a radical foreign policy.
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:40 pm

Feud wrote:First, a contradiction between those two does not a lousy candidate make.

Generally, that's true. In this context I would disagree.

Let's assume that the issue was raised due to his style of management previously, that means that not only he already has a history of crappy management, which not only makes him a dubious candidate to begin with, but a contradiction with what he's saying means he would have an unproven management style for politics he didn't try to implement before.

Now let's assume that the issue was raised due to what he's saying, having had a good style of management in the past, then it becomes worrisome since he'll be able to institute policies that are seen as dangerous or worrisome.

So the options are incompetent/unproven or dangerous. Neither looks very good.

Feud wrote:Obama's of just deciding to go to war without asking at all.

I had to do some serious googling to figure out that you're probably talking about Lybia :P

And granted, I'm not fully aware of what's going on US politics, but there is a significant difference between Obama and Bush: Obama build bridges and rarely, if ever, acted against the opinion of the international community (even if he did so without their consent), not to mention he's much closer politically to the other western countries than a Republican ever will. Bush heavily cultivated a "you're either with us or against us" mentality, which is why the US was so hated during the second part of his mandate.

Romney, in the meantime, has insulted allies and neutral parties for ill defined reasons.

So that's where we stand, one side is politically and diplomatically entwined with the international community, the other is not.

Return to “Introversion Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests