CMS Author Craig Vecchione Posted September 10, 2008 CMS Author Share Posted September 10, 2008 Wrong. Not even in the top 10. Good think he stated "per capita", eh? In raw dollars, the US gave nearly double the second-place nation in 2006, the latest year for which data is readily available. And if you include military assistance, double that figure again. Then add private charitable donations to that. Then go back to 1946 and start comparing figures year-by-year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lonerstoenr Posted September 10, 2008 Members Share Posted September 10, 2008 It's not a matter of that. It's a matter of diametrically opposed interests in many cases. Especially in todays global political and economic climate. what is bad for the USA could be very good for say....China, Russia, France, Germany, etc. And Vice-Versa. Fairly generalised sentiment there, there are obviously instances where that would be true, economically, and many were it wouldn't. For instance, if the US production started dropping and inflation rose it'd suck to want a Fender. It's not necessarily a black and white issue, that's all! Are american interests the same as European interests? I would say in a great many instances no. And in fact there is direct competition between the EU and the USA in many many areas. Resources is a big one. Sure there are discrepancies, absolutely. But I've not heard anyone say anything remotely close to; "I hope they elect that dude president so he stuffs up the country and our $$ rises!!!!!!" So that fact that the EU wants Obama leads me to believe that they feel he will be a better US president from THEIR point of view. Which can many times, and on many issues, mean that he will be a worse leader for the US from OUR point of view. I think, and have heard, many people arguing that Obama would be good for America. Obviously he's not dealt with many overseas situations before (any outside of meeting and greeting?) so it's almost impossible to say he'd HELP the international community, as a certainty. He just *appears* be better able to be diplomatic and appeal to a larger range of countries, that's what I'm basing my guess off. I could be very mistaken, cannot say I've met either McCain or Obama. I want a leader who is MOST interested in protecting US interests. If that also coincides with being in the best interests of many other nations, fantastic. But often that is not the case. And I still want a US leader with MY interests at heart. Not some guy 5000 miles away in a different country. I seriously doubt either McCain OR Obama are out to help any other nation instead of America. That makes no sense! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Crescent Seven Posted September 10, 2008 Members Share Posted September 10, 2008 Good think he stated "per capita", eh? In raw dollars, the US gave nearly double the second-place nation in 2006, the latest year for which data is readily available. And if you include military assistance, double that figure again. Then add private charitable donations to that. Then go back to 1946 and start comparing figures year-by-year. "Per Capita" is an incredible way to massage a number to make it look like something else, ain't it? Nevermind that the actual dollar amount is astoundingly enormous, it's all about the total population of the country...which is what makes that number possible in the first place. But it's not enough...there's too many people here, it needs to be MOAR!!! C7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members NeonVomit Posted September 10, 2008 Members Share Posted September 10, 2008 Ahem......."SEE SMILIE" It was late I should've been asleep instead of online. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members hawkhuff Posted September 10, 2008 Members Share Posted September 10, 2008 Now that's as "uppity" as one can be. Literally. The Nobama people actually evaluated this guy? OMG. :facepalm: What does that say about the Messiah's people? Not very deciplish of them now is it? And now Barry's islamist 'slip' and then his pig comment. Way to roll out the sexism platform. Americans just love it when you limousine libs from Hahvahd pick on working mothers who have kids and won't suck them into the sewer hopper. Keep going you libby Marxists. You're sinking you're own ship and we don't even need to hand you the water. :thu: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Tommy Gunz Posted September 10, 2008 Members Share Posted September 10, 2008 The Clintons are in a tough spot.They hate having to support Obama but they know if they don't both their futures in politics is over let alone Hillary making another bid for Prez four years from now. I'm a Canadian so here's a question about the American electoral systems. When a sitting president is running for 2nd term, he/she will not have win the party primaries again rigth? So in Hillary's case, wouldn't it be better for her if MaCain wins so she wouldn't have to wait possibly 8 years before she has a chance to run for prez again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted September 10, 2008 Members Share Posted September 10, 2008 Good think he stated "per capita", eh? In raw dollars, the US gave nearly double the second-place nation in 2006, the latest year for which data is readily available. And if you include military assistance, double that figure again. Then add private charitable donations to that. Then go back to 1946 and start comparing figures year-by-year. I've read that the US is the only country where private international donations exceed public international donations but can't find the source again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rcz Posted September 10, 2008 Members Share Posted September 10, 2008 the party typically will not allow anyone to run against a sitting president, though it's not a law. of course, having primaries at all isn't technically required, but the republicans and democrats like to bill us for their internal party politics, anyway. but, yes. clinton would probably prefer that mccain win so that she can run against him in 2012 instead of waiting for 2016. she's not getting any younger. she's 61, and people have issues with mccain being 72. that makes 2016 problematic. robb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted September 10, 2008 Members Share Posted September 10, 2008 Fairly generalised sentiment there, there are obviously instances where that would be true, economically, and many were it wouldn't. For instance, if the US production started dropping and inflation rose it'd suck to want a Fender. It's not necessarily a black and white issue, that's all! However, if the value of the dollar drops (which it obviously has) that makes it cheaper for you to buy a Fender. It can be detrimental here if people want to buy imported goods, but good for those in other countries to buy our goods. That can also have positive effects for us as well. Exports can go up. It's more complicated than A+B=C. Sure there are discrepancies, absolutely. But I've not heard anyone say anything remotely close to; "I hope they elect that dude president so he stuffs up the country and our $$ rises!!!!!!" Well, of course they won't say that. What the will say however is that if the US elects Candidate A, that will be better for us and candidate B will not be good for us at all. I think, and have heard, many people arguing that Obama would be good for America. I have heard a lot of people say a lot of stupid {censored}. so? Obviously he's not dealt with many overseas situations before (any outside of meeting and greeting?) so it's almost impossible to say he'd HELP the international community, as a certainty. He just *appears* be better able to be diplomatic and appeal to a larger range of countries, that's what I'm basing my guess off. I could be very mistaken, cannot say I've met either McCain or Obama. "Appearances" can be very deceiving. Kinda like banging the supermodel only to find out later she has HIV. I seriously doubt either McCain OR Obama are out to help any other nation instead of America. That makes no sense! I don't think either one of them would want to hurt america intentionally, regardless of what some people think. bu I do think that the way Obama wants to "help" the Us will in fact hurt us drastically. I don't think he's a bad guy, I think he's very misguided and his socialist policies would be an economic disaster for this country. Then again, I don't think McCain would be that much better. But that wasn't my point. My point is that many of our "allies" are not really allies at all except in name. Power shifts globally. Right now it is shifting from the USA to China. England went through the same thing many moons ago. The dissolution of the USSR is another good example. They went from being a major player to a minor one. The (now) EU, China, India, etc. picked up a lot of the slack at that time as did the US. Good for us, bad for them. There are many countries out there that want nothing more than to see the the US fall. Then they can try and step into that place as a major power in the world. It is in their interests to see us fail. It is in our best interests to not see us fail. I want someone who will protect american interests in that office. Just as China wants a leader that will promote Chinese interests. France, French interests. And so on and so on. Many times those interests are diametrically opposed. Not always. But many times. Iraw is a perfect example. Russia, France, Germany, etc didn't want us to take out SH because they had lucrative oil deals going with his regime and that is the real reason they put up such a stink about it. they don't give a {censored} about Iraq or the Iraqui people. They care about the oil. Sometimes it is in everyones best interests (or at least the majority of countries) to work together. That is what the UN is for. However, it has been a massive failure and needs to be disbanded, kick them all out of New York, and sell that valuable real estate and pay down the debt a little bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted September 10, 2008 Members Share Posted September 10, 2008 I'm a Canadian so here's a question about the American electoral systems. When a sitting president is running for 2nd term, he/she will not have win the party primaries again rigth? So in Hillary's case, wouldn't it be better for her if MaCain wins so she wouldn't have to wait possibly 8 years before she has a chance to run for prez again? Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members J. Posted September 10, 2008 Members Share Posted September 10, 2008 Hillary won't run 8 years from now, because she'll be too old. She'll be 68 years old in 2016, and no one in their right mind would run for the presidency when they're pushing 70. I mean, seriously... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JeffBass Posted September 11, 2008 Members Share Posted September 11, 2008 How can Obama be viewed as the "change" candidate by selecting the same old {censored} in Biden? He should have picked Palin before McCain scooped her up. That would be a change! Another thing, people are harping on Palin's experience factor yet she has MORE experience than Obama. Obama selected Biden to offset his lack of experience. So on one side you have the number two with more experience than number one while on the other it's just the opposite (as it should be). McCain teaches number two while Biden teaches number one? What's wrong with this picture? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members crabfunk Posted September 11, 2008 Members Share Posted September 11, 2008 How exactly is Palin more experienced than Obama? Illinois senator vs. Alaska governor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted September 11, 2008 Moderators Share Posted September 11, 2008 How exactly is Palin more experienced than Obama? Illinois senator vs. Alaska governor?One could argue that a governor is an executive level position where the decision making process is yes or no and the buck stops at that desk. A senatorial position would not have as much responsibility. A governor would have a large state budget and thousands of employees under his/her direction. A Senator? Not so much. A Senator can miss a vote on a bill. A Governor either signs it or sends it back. This is one of the unusual elections where the 2 primary party POTUS candidates are both Senators. Generally speaking, previous "executive" level experience is something many folks look for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members J. Posted September 11, 2008 Members Share Posted September 11, 2008 Well, neither side is really "change." Obama is a hard leftist with the same agenda and tax & spend policy platform as the rest of his crew. There's nothing new about Obama. McCain wants to keep taxes low, cut spending, and be strong on national defense. Aside from previous ventures "across the aisle," he's pretty much the same as the rest of his crew as well. Nothing new with McCain. Pick which side you want. Same liberals. Same conservatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members georgestrings Posted September 11, 2008 Members Share Posted September 11, 2008 One could argue that a governor is an executive level position where the decision making process is yes or no and the buck stops at that desk. A senatorial position would not have as much responsibility. A governor would have a large state budget and thousands of employees under his/her direction. A Senator? Not so much. A Senator can miss a vote on a bill. A Governor either signs it or sends it back. This is one of the unusual elections where the 2 primary party POTUS candidates are both Senators. Generally speaking, previous "executive" level experience is something many folks look for. Another argument I'm hearing is that as Governor of Alaska, Palin has handled security matters - since being so close to Russia, and all those missiles being up there... - georgestrings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rhat Posted September 11, 2008 Members Share Posted September 11, 2008 Another argument I'm hearing is that as Governor of Alaska, Palin has handled security matters - since being so close to Russia, and all those missiles being up there... - georgestrings She is the commander and chief of the AK guard. Who has obama been over? His campain staff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members georgestrings Posted September 11, 2008 Members Share Posted September 11, 2008 She is the commander and chief of the AK guard. Who has obama been over? His campain staff. Yeah, and I think the Alaskan NG is the only one in the country that is permanently active... - georgestrings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted September 11, 2008 Moderators Share Posted September 11, 2008 Another argument I'm hearing is that as Governor of Alaska, Palin has handled security matters - since being so close to Russia, and all those missiles being up there... - georgestringsHadn't heard that. I would be surprised the Obama campaign could hit her on "the one heartbeat away from President" argument if such were the case. I will say that the argument that she hasn't ever ordered troops to do something is invalid. Jindahl asked her for some assistance with AK guard in hurricane relief and she did send some. That's from a recent interview I saw with a General of the AK Guard. He said she was an extremely quick study upon becoming Governor, was interested in finding out their needs and getting them equipment to do their job, etc. edit: As a side note, I wasn't attempting to belittle Senatorial experience, as much as simply highlighting certain differences in level of responsibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Crescent Seven Posted September 11, 2008 Members Share Posted September 11, 2008 edit: As a side note, I wasn't attempting to belittle Senatorial experience, as much as simply highlighting certain differences in level of responsibility. It's been 48 years since a Senator was elected President. I wonder why that is...C7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.