Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Bush refusing to congratulate Schroeder

Bush refusing to congratulate Schroeder
Thread Tools
Mastrap
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2002, 02:22 AM
 
Apparently Bush is refusing to congratulate Schroeder on his re-election. Not even a form telegram, you know something along the lines he'd expect to get from say, China.

He just doesn't want to know. He did however last night reiterate his point of "Who isn't with us is against us".

I don't know what to think about this. Sure, he and Schroeder will never be the best of friends but that doesn't mean he couldn't be at least polite, it's what is expected of a statesman. Nobody's expecting him to kiss the man. Schroeder is the democratically elected leader of a sovereign country that happens to be an ally of the US. That he doesn't agree with Bush on everything Bush want to achieve is hardly a crime, it's a point worth discussing. While I don't particulary care for Schroeder I am glad he isn't as much of a poodle as Blair seems to be. There are people in Germany who aren't terribly happy about German foreign policy at the moment. I do think we should play a bigger role and I do think that at the very least we should totally disarm Iraq but I still respect that the majority doesn't share my points of view and has elected someone who represents theirs.

So Mr Schroeder, if Bush won't do it I will. Congratulation on your re-election.
     
El Pre$idente
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2002, 02:29 AM
 
Schroeder has more global support than Herr Busch so who cares? Do we vilify every single nation that doesn't want to ride the war machine? No. Fact is, German's don't want to take part in any WASP vs. Semites war. They did that once and regret it to this day. Germans were killing Jews and taking their gold.

Now we have descendents of Puritan Christian Europeans ruling America, a land obtained through stealth and murder, who are bombing their way across the Arab world and using Jews as toys in the region simply to expand imperialist rule. Good on the Germans for staying out of it.
     
file
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2002, 02:31 AM
 
who's schroeder?

j/k.

political diplomacy for bush is not important because he'll be in office for just 2.5 more years.

tell your kid i challenge him to a beer drinking contest anytime anywhere! :mad:
     
Bushleaguer
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Coming to a stereo near you.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2002, 02:35 AM
 
George W. Bush is a joke. A devastatingly dangerous joke.
He's not a leader, he's a Texas leaguer..
Swingin' for the fence, got lucky with a strike..
Drilling for fear, makes the job simple..
Born on third, thinks he got a triple..
     
Sven G
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Milan, Europe
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2002, 03:50 AM
 
     
rjenkinson
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2002, 04:55 AM
 
look, he's obviously just jealous of schroeder HUGE majority.

-r.
     
Captain Obvious
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2002, 06:04 AM
 
Yeah I agree that its bad decorum to not at least send congratulations on paper but come on....... Schroeder won this at the expense of badmouthing this administration.

I would expect any president to feel coldly towards him if he had used that kind of public bashing. And the incident involving the German justice minister was a direct result of Schroeder's new Anti-Bush election strategy. Its fine if he was opposed to any attack on Iraq but he rode that issue only for his personal gain and no one can deny that.

Things will blow over but this guy is a dumbass if he thinks anyone over at the White House is going to give him a pat on the back for winning by stabbing them in theirs.

Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
     
ablaze
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Saarbruecken
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2002, 06:18 AM
 
Originally posted by rjenkinson:
look, he's obviously just jealous of schroeder HUGE majority.

-r.
Good point. The SPD had 8800 votes more than the CDU.
     
ablaze
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Saarbruecken
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2002, 06:19 AM
 
Originally posted by Sven G:
*LOL*
But again: She never did this comparison.
     
Mastrap  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2002, 06:21 AM
 
Originally posted by Captain Obvious:
And the incident involving the German justice minister was a direct result of Schroeder's new Anti-Bush election strategy.
Well, yes and no. He's definetely a very political animal but he also immediately wrote a letter to Bush apologising for the alledged statements of his minister and also assuring Bush that if they were found to be correct that he'd instantly sack her. To quote: "I'd like to assure you that there is no position in my cabinet for anyone who compares the president of the United States to a common criminal."

But yes, I agree about him milking it for his own purposes.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2002, 07:13 AM
 
Originally posted by Mastrap:


Well, yes and no. He's definetely a very political animal but he also immediately wrote a letter to Bush apologising for the alledged statements of his minister and also assuring Bush that if they were found to be correct that he'd instantly sack her. To quote: "I'd like to assure you that there is no position in my cabinet for anyone who compares the president of the United States to a common criminal."

But yes, I agree about him milking it for his own purposes.
Even The Independent called that letter a "semi-apology." In fact it was downright surly. Not to mention very brief - less than one page. Remember, she not only indirectly compared Bush to Hitler (and then denied it), she also directly stated that Bush should be in jail, and the never denied saying that.

Let's not beat about the bush. Schroeder quite deliberately went out of his way to appeal to Anti-Americanism. That's not the same thing as simply disagreeing with Bush on Iraq. He could have simply stated that Germany would not be committing troops, and there would have been no diplomatic ramifications. Instead, he made it personal and, frankly, nationalistic. Americans, and our government have a right to be upset about that. The US has risked a great deal for Germany in the past few decades. We risked war in the Berlin Airlift, and nuclear war in the Berlin Crisis in 1961. We have stationed up to 300,000 troops permanently in Germany for 50 years for your protection. That not only cost a great deal of money, but people get killed in military exercises even in peacetime. The only reason that Germany reunified in 1990 is because Bush's father convinced the British and French (and Soviets) that it would be OK. If it had been left to them, Germany would still be two countries. German-American relations run very deep, and Schroeder spat on them and he should not be rewarded politically by being given the cover of a nice letter.

I don't want you to think that this is a big issue in this country. Bush is not risking anything politically here in the US by delivering this slap. Most Americans won't notice it and I'm probably much more angry about Schroeder's tactics than most Americans. Remember, I grew up in Europe and the level of anti-American bigotry I have encountered there has upset me since I was a child. It's something that is deep, and powerful, and responsible politicians need to restrain it, not encourage it.

I know also that many Europeans and their leaders do not share that bigotry and understand its irrationality. Bush does too, and part of giving Schroeder the cold shoulder over his cynical tactic is probably to encourage opposition criticism of Schroeder for poisoning US-German relations. That will hopefully do one of two things. Either Schroeder will seriously distance himself from his campaign (as this article among others seems to suggest), or it will help make this shaky coaltion a brief one.
( Last edited by SimeyTheLimey; Sep 24, 2002 at 07:45 AM. )
     
deekay1
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: here and now
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2002, 07:34 AM
 
Originally posted by Captain Obvious:
Yeah I agree that its bad decorum to not at least send congratulations on paper but come on....... Schroeder won this at the expense of badmouthing this administration.
bullsh!t - that had very little to do with it...

Originally posted by Captain Obvious:

I would expect any president to feel coldly towards him if he had used that kind of public bashing. And the incident involving the German justice minister was a direct result of Schroeder's new Anti-Bush election strategy. Its fine if he was opposed to any attack on Iraq but he rode that issue only for his personal gain and no one can deny that.
that's such a load of crap! the reason why his party is still in power is largely due to the "möllemann" skandal and the dismal showing of the fdp (the conservative coalition partner) at the elections. his anti "war against" iraq stance had little to nothing to do with the spds "success"!

Originally posted by Captain Obvious:

Things will blow over but this guy is a dumbass if he thinks anyone over at the White House is going to give him a pat on the back for winning by stabbing them in theirs.
actually the real "dumba$$" in this situation is, as usual, dubya. get him out of office and the relations will pick up where they left off.

hedonist, anarchist, agnostic, mac enthusiast and a strong believer in evolution and the yellow m&m conspiracy
     
deekay1
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: here and now
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2002, 07:45 AM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
...the level of anti-American bigotry I have encountered there has upset me since I was a child. It's something that is deep, and powerful, and responsible politicians need to restrain it, not encourage it.
another bunch of conservative bull! a lot of people over here really liked clinton and were very much in favor of him.

the problem is bush and the ultra nationalistic american right wing warmongers. up to the point where dubya and the gang took over, the relations were going quite well. not only on a national and political level, but also on a cultural.

sad to see it all going down the drain, because of that texan a$$monkey behaving like a spoilt little brat!

in your other posts you constantly claimed that schröder wanted to talley up votes with his "anti american" stance. now the elections are over, and he is still in power! let's see if his attitude changes...me thinks not!

hedonist, anarchist, agnostic, mac enthusiast and a strong believer in evolution and the yellow m&m conspiracy
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2002, 08:53 AM
 
Originally posted by file:
who's schroeder?

j/k.

political diplomacy for bush is not important because he'll be in office for just 2.5 more years.
I heard people say the same thing about Clinton in 93
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2002, 08:55 AM
 
Originally posted by deekay1:


another bunch of conservative bull!
Ok you say this then

the problem is bush and the ultra nationalistic american right wing warmongers.
WarMonger? ROFL! Come on!
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2002, 08:57 AM
 
Originally posted by deekay1:


another bunch of conservative bull! a lot of people over here really liked clinton and were very much in favor of him.

the problem is bush and the ultra nationalistic american right wing warmongers. up to the point where dubya and the gang took over, the relations were going quite well. not only on a national and political level, but also on a cultural.

sad to see it all going down the drain, because of that texan a$$monkey behaving like a spoilt little brat!

in your other posts you constantly claimed that schröder wanted to talley up votes with his "anti american" stance. now the elections are over, and he is still in power! let's see if his attitude changes...me thinks not!
Sorry, Deekay, you can't shuffle the blame off that easily. The anti-Americanism I am talking about didn't begin with Bush and Schroeder, and if your point of comparison only goes back as far as Clinton you are missing the full flavor of it. Its a wave that has had peaks and valleys periodically for several decades.

Maybe I should make my own experience a bit more explicit so you can see where I am coming from. I was born in the US, but I lived in England since I was a baby. My father was in the US Air Force, but my mother was English. I was in England from 1969 to 1988, from the ages of 3 to 21. Because my father retired in 1973, I went to British schools. I also spoke with a British accent. Unless people knew me well, I appeared to be English. Because of that, I heard the stuff that you guys generally don't say to Americans to our faces. This is not a matter of me being a sensitive conservative. This is me as a kid hearing his teachers and friend's parents call his family names because of their nationality. In other words, its bigotry, and it made me quite angry.

Much of that bigotry came from left wingers. That was particularly the case when there were conservative presidents in office, and when international tensions in the news. The early 1980s was particularly bad. But there is also a more generalised set of cultural attitudes that go across the political spectrum. Europeans seem to be quite a resentful bunch.

You say that all of this was nonexistant during Clinton's term. I think that is rubbish. I was stationed in Germany from 1992 to 1995. My knowledge of Germany is certainly less than my knowledge of Britain. I wasn't working with Germans the way I lived and worked with the British and I was clearly an outsider when I was there. Nevertheless, I still encountered anti-Americanism there, possibly because it was so obvious that I was in the US military. I would say that it was less than when there was a Republican in the White House. The most vociferous anti-Americans are left wingers. Clinton was president and his politics was certainly closer to theirs than a Republican president's would be, so they were less critical. Culturally, Clinton was also more European in style. He was a Rhodes Scholar and it showed. Frankly, he seemed more comfortable in European circles than in many American ones. So it was a natural fit. But it was also quite exceptional. Bush is abrasive, but he is also more mainstream as an American president than Clinton was. If you think that the next president will be just like Clinton, the odds are good you will be disappointed.

As for where this is going, I don't know. Probably nowhere that bad. The Iraq situation will probably be resolved in a few months. The elections will be behind us and Schroeder will have eaten a little well-deserved crow. In the mean time, the US won't be losing a lot of sleep over US-German relations. The Cold War is long over and Germany isn't all that important to US foreign policy any more. And since Germany can clearly kiss any idea about getting a permanent UN Security Council seat goodbye, it's probably not going to become important again any time soon.
     
red rocket
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2002, 09:04 AM
 
Knowing Bush, this was to be expected. Of course, I would have acted the same way but then again, I'm not the world's best diplomat, either.

As for Schroeder having won the election because he appealed to widespread anti-US sentiments among the population, I think that's untrue. Most people in Germany actually like the US (perhaps they don't like GWB quite as much but hey, who does?) and the few who don't wouldn't vote to keep a left2centre coalition in power.

The reason he won is because the fdp totally screwed up their campaign, and because of general "pacifist" tendencies (It's not like Schroeder's government actually ever promoted pacifism, nor will it. That would involve scrapping drafting in favour of a professional army. Nobody in his government has made any serious effort in that direction.) which he exploited.

Regarding his justice minister, he should have sacked the woman as soon as he heard of the allegations; that would have been the only responsible thing to do.
     
deekay1
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: here and now
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2002, 09:23 AM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Sorry, Deekay, you can't shuffle the blame off that easily. The anti-Americanism I am talking about didn't begin with Bush and Schroeder, and if your point of comparison only goes back as far as Clinton you are missing the full flavor of it. Its a wave that has had peaks and valleys periodically for several decades.
marginally maybe. but on the whole america, has ALWAYS been revered more than rejected by a great majority of europeans! and you KNOW that is true!

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

Maybe I should make my own experience a bit more explicit so you can see where I am coming from...and it made me quite angry.
i totally can understand that. my experience though (also being half american and growing up in europe) was very different.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

Much of that bigotry came from left wingers. That was particularly the case when there were conservative presidents in office, and when international tensions in the news. The early 1980s was particularly bad.
go figure, with a complete dumb**** like reagan at the helm...

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

But there is also a more generalised set of cultural attitudes that go across the political spectrum. Europeans seem to be quite a resentful bunch.
again, - not from my experience!

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

If you think that the next president will be just like Clinton, the odds are good you will be disappointed.
maybe, but anything different from dubya would be a great improvement! including (or maybe especially) ralph nader!...

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

In the mean time, the US won't be losing a lot of sleep over US-German relations.
or just enough to be all "cranky" about a few meaningless comments...

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

And since Germany can clearly kiss any idea about getting a permanent UN Security Council seat goodbye, it's probably not going to become important again any time soon.
but at least it won't have gained its notoriety by boming "stray nations" into submission!

hedonist, anarchist, agnostic, mac enthusiast and a strong believer in evolution and the yellow m&m conspiracy
     
BlackGriffen
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Dis
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2002, 09:26 AM
 
Don't mind Simey, folks, Americans like to think that everything centers around them. For instance, everybody here assumed that the "crisis" (it's amazing how my perception of the scale of that has changed) would be the big campaign issue between Ehud Barak and Benjamin Netanyahu. IIRC, the critical issue was education. Sure, Schroder took a stand on the Iraq issue, but there were probably other issues that were far more critical to his success.

Imagine that, there may be things that happen on this Earth that don't have any direct relationship to the U.S.

At least Schroder earned a majority of the vote .

BlackGriffen
     
Lerkfish
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2002, 09:46 AM
 
Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Don't mind Simey, folks, Americans like to think that everything centers around them.
thanks for that bigoted interlude.

BOT, as I've stated in other threats, we* have let our diplomatic muscles atrophy through lack of use. Our military muscles are quite well-developed and defined, however.
The fact is, diplomacy is trickier and more difficult to pull off, but I would argue If only we had been exercising our diplomatic muscles to the same extent as our military ones, we'd be champions at it by now.

* meaning modern man in general, which includes the US.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2002, 09:51 AM
 
Originally posted by deekay1:
marginally maybe. but on the whole america, has ALWAYS been revered more than rejected by a great majority of europeans! and you KNOW that is true!
Well, of course. The number of real bigots in any group is thankfully pretty small. But that doesn't make them any less obnoxious, and it doesn't remove the obligation of the rest of the population not to play to them.

Of course, if I had been a voter in Germany, I might easily have faced the opposite dilemma with the FDP. It must have been a tough choice. So perhaps we'll just chalk this up to a rotten election that was so close it brought all kinds of nastyness to the fore. Kind of like Florida did here a couple of years ago.

BTW, although it was fun having crowds cheer me in Poland just because I was an American soldier, I don't think it's necessarily a good thing for America to be "revered." We have our problems and that kind of attitude can lead to an unrealistic identification with a country when there is really no need to put your emotions into it. Does that make sense?
     
MacManMikeOSX
Senior User
Join Date: May 2001
Location: U.S.A at the moment
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2002, 10:05 AM
 
Originally posted by Captain Obvious:
Yeah I agree that its bad decorum to not at least send congratulations on paper but come on....... Schroeder won this at the expense of badmouthing this administration.

I would expect any president to feel coldly towards him if he had used that kind of public bashing. And the incident involving the German justice minister was a direct result of Schroeder's new Anti-Bush election strategy. Its fine if he was opposed to any attack on Iraq but he rode that issue only for his personal gain and no one can deny that.

Things will blow over but this guy is a dumbass if he thinks anyone over at the White House is going to give him a pat on the back for winning by stabbing them in theirs.
agreed i prefered the christian democrats.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2002, 10:18 AM
 
Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
[B]Don't mind Simey, folks, Americans like to think that everything centers around them.
We do? Thanks for the generalization.
     
Timo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2002, 10:25 AM
 
1. Re: Schröder. I do think Schröder, being a political animal, put getting re-elected in front of a consistent foreign policy. I had hoped, in an earlier post, that Schröder was trying to influence the US towards a more multi-lateral solution, but now I tend to agree with Simey that we saw American bashing for votes.

To this end I'm not troubled. Politicians typically appeal to fear to get elected (remember Willie Horton?), and Fear of an American Hegemon won Schröder some votes. Fine. I'll say this: at least Schröder was smart enough to appeal to broad portions of his own political constituency, unlike a certain Albert Gore, Jr.

2. Which leads me to Simey's general commentary on anti-Americanism,

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Much of that bigotry came from left wingers.
He's right (no pun intended). But to be a bit more accurate, it's important to note that the Left is—in Europe and even more in the United States—splintered. There is no real "Left": there are, instead, different strains of leftism. One particular strain is, for lack of a better phrase, an anti-imperialist one, and it is the source of virulent anti-Americanism. These anti-imperialists can't bring themselves to think that the US could be the source of anything good; rather, for them, the US is is a convenient symbol of what is wrong and decrepit with "late capitalism."

In the US the Left is even more marginalized, in part because it likes to live in the fantasy world of its own margins. From Michael Bérubé's "Why the Left can't get Iraq right" in the Boston Globe:
On the other side are the anti-imperialists who opposed the war in Afghanistan in stark and unyielding terms. They did not cheer the collapse of the World Trade Center; that is simple slander. But they did argue, to their shame, that the US military response was even more morally odious than the hijackers' deliberate slaughter of civilians. Some antiwar protesters were 19-year-old anarchists, some were devout Quakers, and some were Trotskyite diehards; but some were America's most distinguished dissidents at home and abroad, like Howard Zinn and Gore Vidal. And the antiwar left's arguments against war were simply astonishing. As Z Magazine contributor Cynthia Peters wrote last October, the operation that wrested control of Afghanistan from Al Qaeda and the Taliban was a ''calculated crime against humanity that differs from September 11th only in scale; that is: it is many times larger.'' Obtuse arguments like these, combined with the paranoid insistence that the United States had long planned strikes against the Taliban in order to secure an Afghan oil pipeline (a claim thoroughly debunked by Ken Silverstein in The American Prospect), have damaged the anti-imperialists' cause immeasurably. The anti-imperialist left correctly believes, for instance, that the American bombing of Kakrak in early July (a massive ''intelligence failure'' that killed about 50 Afghans attending a wedding party) was an atrocity; but it cannot admit that, on balance, the routing of the Taliban might have struck a blow, however ambiguous and poorly executed, for human freedom.
Of course, as a person on the Left, I'll be the first to bemoan those fools who sell out the whole cause so that they can stand in principled idiocy. But I'm less inclined to bemoan Schröder; at least he keeps enough people under his leftist tent to win.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2002, 10:45 AM
 
Thanks, Timo for a great post. Not so much for defending me, but more because you made what I think is an important distinction that I missed.

This is also very reassuring.
Throughout the campaign, Mr. Fischer emphasized the importance of the German partnership with the United States and its debt to American soldiers for both defeating the Nazis and helping West Germany stand up to the Communist East. But he also defended the right of Germans to express a different view on Iraq.

Mr. Fischer said he telephoned Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who congratulated him on his re-election — a signal that Washington, too, wants to keep lines open to a close ally, the largest country in Europe.

Mr. Fischer shook his head over Ms. Däubler-Gmelin's comments, which she has denied making in such a crude form. "I don't know what the minister said — there was no protocol — but even the impression that the president of the United States, the democratically elected leader of the oldest democracy in the world, is linked to a war criminal, a criminal against humanity — it's ridiculous," Mr. Fischer said.

"We will never forget that we were liberated by the United States," he said. "The U.S. soldiers were the good guys. You defended us in the cold war, you defended West Berlin, and without the father of the president there would never be such a smooth way to peaceful unification. We will never forget that."
     
driven
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2002, 11:35 AM
 
Originally posted by ablaze:

*LOL*
But again: She never did this comparison.
Which is why they fired her.
     
Developer
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: europe
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2002, 02:01 PM
 
If news are right, Bush refused to talk to Schröder, when Schröder called him. I think that would be a little bit childish.
Nasrudin sat on a river bank when someone shouted to him from the opposite side: "Hey! how do I get across?" "You are across!" Nasrudin shouted back.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2002, 02:04 PM
 
Originally posted by Developer:
If news are right, Bush refused to talk to Schröder, when Schröder called him. I think that would be a little bit childish.
A bit like Gore calling bush, and conceding, then calling and taking it back.

Maybe if Schroder was a bit kinder to Bush he would have.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2002, 02:16 PM
 
Originally posted by Developer:
If news are right, Bush refused to talk to Schröder, when Schröder called him. I think that would be a little bit childish.
Is this recent? This morning the Washington Post, the New York Times and the London Telegraph all reported that Bush hadn't made the customary congratulatory phone call, but they didn't say anything about Schroeder calling Bush.

Generally, people don't call to ask for their congratulations. The one offering the congratulations would make the call. Unless Schroeder had some other reason to call, it doesn't sound likely he would have initiated the contact.

On the other hand, Fischer and Powell have talked on the phone. See the New York Times article I linked to and quoted from above.

Let's hope your news isn't just the rumor mill going. Tempers are frayed enough without the urban myth machine going.
     
deekay1
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: here and now
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2002, 02:18 PM
 
Originally posted by Developer:
If news are right, Bush refused to talk to Schröder, when Schröder called him...
is this true? *muahahahaha* ROTFLMAO

"i'm not talking to you anymore, you little poopoohead!" hahaha ha ha ha hahahaahaha

hedonist, anarchist, agnostic, mac enthusiast and a strong believer in evolution and the yellow m&m conspiracy
     
Nimisys
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Diego, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2002, 02:22 PM
 
Originally posted by deekay1:



go figure, with a complete dumb**** like reagan at the helm...


oh i am sorry i completely forgot he managed to end the cold war by bankrupting the soveit union, a war in which how many US dollars went to keep your ass safe? do you really think the star wars program was about a space born antimissle tech?
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2002, 02:32 PM
 
This thread needs the Knee-Jerk reaction thread of the day award.

:-)
     
deekay1
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: here and now
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2002, 02:36 PM
 
Originally posted by Nimisys:
oh i am sorry i completely forgot he managed to end the cold war by bankrupting the soveit union...
oh how very interesting. and how exactly did he "bankrupt" the soviet union? this is the first i hear about this.

...and of course certain domestic soviet political occurences had nothing to do with ending the cold war

afair the only thing reagan pretty much successfully bankrupted was his own country. "trickle down reagonomics" ring a bell?

hedonist, anarchist, agnostic, mac enthusiast and a strong believer in evolution and the yellow m&m conspiracy
     
Developer
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: europe
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2002, 02:40 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Is this recent? This morning the Washington Post, the New York Times and the London Telegraph all reported that Bush hadn't made the customary congratulatory phone call, but they didn't say anything about Schroeder calling Bush.

Generally, people don't call to ask for their congratulations. The one offering the congratulations would make the call. Unless Schroeder had some other reason to call, it doesn't sound likely he would have initiated the contact.

On the other hand, Fischer and Powell have talked on the phone. See the New York Times article I linked to and quoted from above.

Let's hope your news isn't just the rumor mill going. Tempers are frayed enough without the urban myth machine going.
This was in Pro7 tv-news 20 minutes ago, but I didn't see it in written news yet (spiegel.de), so I would call it not testified.

I doubt Schröder would have called to "ask for congratulations", and I don't know if improving american-german relationship is a good enough reason to call or how often these guys talk to each other regularly.

I know Fischer and Powell talked to each other, but it would be silly if Bush and Schröder would let this escalate into a personal antipathy and only talk via their lackeys to each other.
Nasrudin sat on a river bank when someone shouted to him from the opposite side: "Hey! how do I get across?" "You are across!" Nasrudin shouted back.
     
Nimisys
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Diego, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2002, 02:49 PM
 
Originally posted by deekay1:


oh how very interesting. and how exactly did he "bankrupt" the soviet union? this is the first i hear about this.

...and of course certain domestic soviet political occurences had nothing to do with ending the cold war

afair the only thing reagan pretty much successfully bankrupted was his own country. "trickle down reagonomics" ring a bell?
lets see, all through out the cold war the soveit union was matching US defencive spending, reagon introduced star wars project, not for the missle tech but for the defence spening knowing the SU would have to increase there spending as well. US went up to 10-15% of budget to defence, howvere the SOveit union had to goto 30% spending to match it... show me any country that could sustain 30% of their bidget going into defece spending, and survive for any length of time, before the economy crumbles and bankrupts them...political forces inside also helped in the downfall, howeveer the priomary reason was economic collapse.

as for reagon bankrupting the US, his trickle down reagonmics resulted in the economic boom of the 90's, ask any economist and they will contirbute it to reagon.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2002, 02:55 PM
 
Originally posted by Developer:
I doubt Schröder would have called to "ask for congratulations", and I don't know if improving american-german relationship is a good enough reason to call or how often these guys talk to each other regularly.
I don't know either. I'm just slightly skeptical. A few words could make all the difference in how we look at events. Suppose we start with what was reported this morning:

Bush refused to call Schroeder.

That could easily be transformed to Bush refused to speak to Schroeder.

From there it is just another slip of the tongue away from Bush refused to speak to Schroeder when Schroeder called.

The three statements would be just a slip of the tongue apart, but the difference in meaning is huge. I think a certain degree of frostyness is inevitable and in order, but I agree with you that if Schroeder extends his hand, Bush should take it. Not taking the phone call of a close ally would be a bad move, which is why I have my doubts that is what really happened.
     
deekay1
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: here and now
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2002, 03:06 PM
 
Originally posted by Nimisys:
as for reagon bankrupting the US, his trickle down reagonmics resulted in the economic boom of the 90's, ask any economist and they will contirbute it to reagon.
oh, i think you mean the "recession" of the early 90s, don't you?

and concerning the soviet "budget" going to defense spending, afair it was around 80%...since the mid 70s

hedonist, anarchist, agnostic, mac enthusiast and a strong believer in evolution and the yellow m&m conspiracy
     
driven
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2002, 03:06 PM
 
Originally posted by deekay1:


oh how very interesting. and how exactly did he "bankrupt" the soviet union? this is the first i hear about this.

...and of course certain domestic soviet political occurences had nothing to do with ending the cold war

afair the only thing reagan pretty much successfully bankrupted was his own country. "trickle down reagonomics" ring a bell?

... our modern school systems at work.
     
daimoni
Occasionally Quoted
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Francisco
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2002, 03:10 PM
 
.
( Last edited by daimoni; May 8, 2004 at 02:49 PM. )
.
     
Nimisys
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Diego, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2002, 03:10 PM
 
Originally posted by deekay1:


oh, i think you mean the "recession" of the early 90s, don't you?

and concerning the soviet "budget" going to defense spending, afair it was around 80%...since the mid 70s
no i am reffering to the boom that ended the summer of 1999
     
daimoni
Occasionally Quoted
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Francisco
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2002, 03:11 PM
 
.
( Last edited by daimoni; May 8, 2004 at 02:50 PM. )
.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2002, 03:15 PM
 
Originally posted by Nimisys:


no i am reffering to the boom that ended the summer of 1999
The one that ended before Bush was in office.

But shhh that isn't Clinton's fault it's Bush's!

(I don't think it's Clinton's fault either BTW)
     
Nimisys
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Diego, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2002, 03:40 PM
 
Originally posted by daimoni:


Ask any economist? Wow. That is really too funny.

Maybe you should read The Economist someday?
sinced you asked

"The Reagan economic program led to a substantial improvement in economic conditions" found here

Reaganomics Architect Wins Nobel Prize

"MILTON FRIEDMAN [Professor Emeritus, University of Chicago]: Yes, absolutely. There is no doubt in my mind that that action of Reagan, plus his emphasis on lowering tax rates, plus his emphasis on deregulating ... I mentioned that the regulations had doubled, the number of pages in the Federal Register had doubled, during the Nixon regime; they almost halved during the Reagan regime. So those actions of Reagan unleashed the basic constructive forces of the free market and from 1983 on, it's been almost entirely up. "

""I believe that if we keep to the Reagan principles at home and abroad, we will go on to have a third consecutive decade of prosperity," said Kudlow, co-host of CNBC's "America Now" show and head of his own New York-based economic and investment research firm. He declared a strong economy among the nation's best weapons in the war against terrorism.

"I think the Reagan principles on the economy and foreign policy are the best benchmark in guiding the economy and nation," said Kudlow, urging administration officials to be confrontational and aggressive in promoting the president's domestic agenda, even in a congressional election year "I think Bush is on the right track, but his economic advisers are too bloody meek." here
"To conclude this brief assessment of Reaganomics, let us look at a relatively even-handed treatment of the topic by two distinctly liberal economists from the Urban Institute. There are three legacies, said the authors in a volume published in 1984, when policies were just beginning to work. First, a significant decrease in inflation had already taken place. The second was large budget deficits, which led the authors to be pessimistic about long-term growth. But, third,
“...there was ashift in expectations about what the government should or will do. ...public opinion surveys suggest that the president has struck a responsive chord, and messages from the Rose Garden about the importance of entrepreneurship and individual initiative may yet have an impact on the way managers and workers behave...” Hindsight enables us to say quite clearly that the economy’s productivity and efficiency were greatly improved by the Reagan years, and continue to provide the basis for the functioning of the economy well into the 21st century." here
     
thunderous_funker
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beautiful Downtown Portland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2002, 05:38 PM
 
Originally posted by Nimisys:


no i am reffering to the boom that ended the summer of 1999
You mean the imaginary boom that only happened on paper that has resulted in the recession that we're now in?

It's a chicken/egg argument. The boom bust cycle is pretty constant and no president can claim to have the dominating influence one way or the other. The primary fuel of the US economy over the last 30 years has been consumer debt.

It's also easy to look at nebulous indicators of financial health like the GNP, but fail to realize that they don't equate to anything even remotely associated with standards of living and quality of life.

Pollution and crime both contribute to the GNP but aren't desirable elements of society.

Perhaps most telling is that the disparity between rich and poor has grown in the US more in the last 20 years than at almost any time prior.

Trickle down economics looks good on paper, but you must realize on the ground it works differently. It trickles from John D. Rockefeller to Nelson Rockefeller......
     
Nimisys
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Diego, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2002, 06:25 PM
 
Originally posted by thunderous_funker:

It trickles from John D. Rockefeller to Nelson Rockefeller......
abd how the rich store their wealth? in giant biles of cash/gold/jewelry? or is most of the wealth in this country made up in stock options and other investments? so money not spent on taxes stays in investments, which means more money to the company beung invested in, whcih has to be put somewhere.

yeah the rich stay rich, but their money is being used by everyone else
     
thunderous_funker
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beautiful Downtown Portland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2002, 06:36 PM
 
Originally posted by Nimisys:


abd how the rich store their wealth? in giant biles of cash/gold/jewelry? or is most of the wealth in this country made up in stock options and other investments? so money not spent on taxes stays in investments, which means more money to the company beung invested in, whcih has to be put somewhere.

yeah the rich stay rich, but their money is being used by everyone else
That's the theory, anyway. Unfortunately the idea that it eventually trickles down to "everyone" is largely unrealized.


Here's some statistics:
Income inequality has skyrocketed. In 1979, for example, on an hourly basis, the top decile of men earned four times what the bottom decile earned; by 1993 they were earning five times as much. This rise in inequality occurred in the context of general wage stagnation: the median male worker, for example, earns about 13 percent less than the median male 15 years ago-despite his being older and having more education.

Inequality in earnings has led to inequality in family incomes. Virtually all of the past decade's economic growth has gone to the upper 5 percent of families. Since the early 1970s, while the income of the top 1 percent of households has doubled, family and household incomes have stagnated or declined for 80 percent of the population.

Heavy income losses at the bottom of the distribution have resulted in increased poverty. The share of Americans living in poverty rose from 11.2 percent in 1974 to 15.1 percent in 1993, and the "poverty deficit"-or amount of money needed to lift all to the poverty line-doubled in real terms. The effects are felt most heavily among children. The lowest quintile of American children are now poorer than the lowest quintile of children in 15 other advanced countries, even as the upper quintile of American children are richer than the upper quintile in those same countries.

Measured in "purchasing power parity" terms (which take account of differences in prices), the bottom third of US workers now earn less per hour than the bottom third of workers in Europe or Japan. Tenth decile German workers make about twice as much as tenth decile American workers, and the tenth decile worker in a typical European Union country makes 40 percent or so more than a tenth decile American-this without taking account of the fact that the European has national health insurance and other protections that the American either buys out of the paycheck or does without.

Across the board, high-skill groups-college graduates, professionals, managers, older workers-have obtained greater pay increases than low-skill groups. The pay of professional men, for instance, increased by 6 percent while that of laborers fell by 21 percent and that of machine operators fell by 16 percent. The only low-paid group whose wages increased were women whose pay rose relative to men (though there still remains a male-female pay gap).3

Falling incomes and rising inequality have occurred despite US success in generating jobs and a huge work effort by Americans. Since 1974, the US employment/population ratio has grown from 65 percent to 71 percent while OECD Europe's has fallen from 65 percent to 60 percent. Americans work considerably more hours and take less vacation than Europeans; according to the newest OECD data, we even work more than the Japanese.4The experience of prolonged earnings declines and rising inequality in the context of job growth and economic expansion is unprecedented in US economic history
     
spacefreak
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2002, 08:07 PM
 
The fact of the matter is that Europe would have been taken over and run by people like Hussein, Milosovic, Hitler, Mussolini, etc. had the "Ultra-nationalistic war monger" Americans not committed so much money and resources to protecting and building Europe through the later part of the 20th century.

To all Europeans: I don't care if you like Bush or not. He's not your leader, and the US is not your country. Focus on your own political situation(s). If you don't want war with Iraq, let your leaders know. Many Americans feel the Iraqi threat is real, and we have our elected officials working to ease our concerns.

So take your anti-Bush, anti-American rhetoric and shove it. We have too much to worry about. We serve our interests just as your government serves yours.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2002, 08:11 PM
 
We'd never backstab a fellow European country.

(oh and Simey, I'd recommend councelling, to get over all those evil Europeans who have harassed you and your family all these years )
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
thunderous_funker
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beautiful Downtown Portland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2002, 08:23 PM
 
Originally posted by spacefreak:
The fact of the matter is that Europe would have been taken over and run by people like Hussein, Milosovic, Hitler, Mussolini, etc. had the "Ultra-nationalistic war monger" Americans not committed so much money and resources to protecting and building Europe through the later part of the 20th century.

To all Europeans: I don't care if you like Bush or not. He's not your leader, and the US is not your country. Focus on your own political situation(s). If you don't want war with Iraq, let your leaders know. Many Americans feel the Iraqi threat is real, and we have our elected officials working to ease our concerns.

So take your anti-Bush, anti-American rhetoric and shove it. We have too much to worry about. We serve our interests just as your government serves yours.
From the immortal film Stripes:
WINGER:" We're Americans .. with a capital 'A', huh. You know what that means? Do ya'? That means that our forefathers were kicked out of every decent country in the world."
If you can't discuss a difference of opinion without resorting this kind of foaming at the mouth you should stop reading these threads.

Anti-Bush does NOT equal anti-American, nor does anti-war or even anti-military.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2002, 08:47 PM
 
Originally posted by voodoo:
(oh and Simey, I'd recommend councelling, to get over all those evil Europeans who have harassed you and your family all these years )
One European stereotype about Americans that I don't live up to is the one about all being in therapy.

Basically, you might doubt it given what I write here but I left Europe both physically and emotionally a long time ago. It's true that the comments people make on these boards sometimes get my back up (that Ugly European thing), but for the most part, I'm not terribly concerned wih what Europeans think about anything. A board like this is only a very small proportion of my life. So I was quite serious the other day when i said I don't much care who you elect as your leaders. For the most part, it has zero effect on my life. You are still going to trade with the US, so what your taxes are and whether your unemployment is 10% or not is not my concern. And likewise, your concerns about foreign policy are pretty much irrelevant because the European left have a track record of bieng wrong about pretty much everything, and the US has a track record of ignoring you and doing the right thing regardless.

The disunity this causes seems perplexing to you. But really, the difference in perceptions about how important it is to agree on everything on either side of the Atlantic is striking. I took a look at some German papers today. One of them had a section on "the Atlantic Crisis." Do you think that anyone here is calling this spat over the election in Germany "the Atlantic Crisis?" Hardly!
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:24 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,