The Olympics gaffe is legitimate but the other examples of mistakes in that article is just the media grasping at straws for a better story. Backside instead of back garden? Lol no one would care if HuffPost didnt just declare it to be significant. It's funny how elections in the US are so clouded by the fail that is the mainstream media. Even intelligent people buy into the tactics the media uses to sell better stories. I used to follow politics more closely and majored in political science but at that this point I have just come to the conclusion that it's not worth listening to the mainstream media or the uninformed and unintelligent arguments of all the people who base their opinions off that media.
On July 27 2012 21:42 DoubleReed wrote: How do you screw up Britain??? They went to Iraq with us ffs!
Can you imagine what would happen if he toured Greece? Or Turkey? It'd probably be an international incident. Maybe in Israel he'll propose a one state solution...
In fairness it's not as easy a crowd as you'd think. The British people didn't go to war in Iraq, Tony Blair did. A million people marched on the streets in London in the anti-war rally. Furthermore if the Democrats and Republicans were to run in the UK you'd expect the Democrats to get about 95% of the vote, Republicans are never going to have an easy time over here because of the differences in the political spectrum. Also regarding his social and financial status, Romney would almost certainly not be a leadership candidate in the UK, he's too isolated from the public. He'd most likely end up in an unelected position such as party chairman where he could use his wealth and connections for the good of the party, rather than in the spotlight.
The angels have the phone box
KwarK United Kingdom. July 27 2012 23:20. Posts 20627
"England is just a small island. Its roads and houses are small. With few exceptions, it doesn't make things that people in the rest of the world want to buy. And if it hadn't been separated from the continent by water, it almost certainly would have been lost to Hitler's ambitions."
Comments like this always amuse me. While he is correct that a country with a small army and an overwhelmingly powerful navy would run into problems if it wasn't an island it is probably something that the military planners considered when they decided that they were going to spend their budget on ships instead of tanks. I have this image of Romney sitting in that meeting and it going "But what if we get attacked by land?", "We're an island", "Yes, but what if we weren't? What if we were landlocked, we'd be totally wasting all this money on a navy if we were. There'd be nowhere to put all the ships".
The angels have the phone box
Gorsameth Netherlands. July 27 2012 23:45. Posts 1995
"England is just a small island. Its roads and houses are small. With few exceptions, it doesn't make things that people in the rest of the world want to buy. And if it hadn't been separated from the continent by water, it almost certainly would have been lost to Hitler's ambitions."
Comments like this always amuse me. While he is correct that a country with a small army and an overwhelmingly powerful navy would run into problems if it wasn't an island it is probably something that the military planners considered when they decided that they were going to spend their budget on ships instead of tanks. I have this image of Romney sitting in that meeting and it going "But what if we get attacked by land?", "We're an island", "Yes, but what if we weren't? What if we were landlocked, we'd be totally wasting all this money on a navy if we were. There'd be nowhere to put all the ships".
Haha thanks for that mental image
Fear is the keenest blade
coverpunch United States. July 28 2012 00:43. Posts 604
On July 27 2012 21:42 DoubleReed wrote: How do you screw up Britain??? They went to Iraq with us ffs!
Can you imagine what would happen if he toured Greece? Or Turkey? It'd probably be an international incident. Maybe in Israel he'll propose a one state solution...
In fairness it's not as easy a crowd as you'd think. The British people didn't go to war in Iraq, Tony Blair did. A million people marched on the streets in London in the anti-war rally. Furthermore if the Democrats and Republicans were to run in the UK you'd expect the Democrats to get about 95% of the vote, Republicans are never going to have an easy time over here because of the differences in the political spectrum. Also regarding his social and financial status, Romney would almost certainly not be a leadership candidate in the UK, he's too isolated from the public. He'd most likely end up in an unelected position such as party chairman where he could use his wealth and connections for the good of the party, rather than in the spotlight.
Yeah, I think it's worth noting that Europe is going through a turbulent, anti-conservative (i.e. anti-austerity) movement right now. All of the center-right governments in Europe are losing their elections very badly and David Cameron's days as Prime Minister are numbered.
Romney isn't likely to be welcomed as a conservative in many parts of the world right now. But he did flub this pretty badly, which is ugly since one of the GOP's main complaints against Obama is how gaffe-prone he is. Good thing nobody ever accused American presidents of being good at subtlety.
"England is just a small island. Its roads and houses are small. With few exceptions, it doesn't make things that people in the rest of the world want to buy. And if it hadn't been separated from the continent by water, it almost certainly would have been lost to Hitler's ambitions."
It has only been a couple days into his week-long international tour, and Mitt Romney's has managed to alienate an entire city of people and make himself a laughingstock.
And England is supposed to be the easy leg of the trip. It's like the plot of Will Ferrell movie!
Without the protective bubble of right-wing media, the rabid English media are simply pouncing on what is obvious to most international observers of the election -- that Romney is a phoney, weird, insulated rich guy that thinks he's way more popular than he actually is.
It's nuts.
Foreigners hated George W. Bush, but at least George had street smarts. He dodged those shoes like a ninja.
Because clearly the opinion of a different country matters to someone running for president of the US. Would we like to have a competition for all the allies Obama has outright insulted or snubbed?
Oh please, do go on. Which allies did Obama 'snub'?
Oh that's right, it was Mitt Romney who literally, in writing, called our 'greatest ally' an irrelevant, puny country!
Clearly, Mitt Romney and his campaign care about what other countries think, or else he wouldn't be pimping his fraudulent, baseless argument that Obama has alienated, or can't connect with, it's traditionally 'Anglo-Saxon' allies "wink-wink."
You have no concept of how much Obama has improved America's brand and reputation outside your country. And Obama has leveraged the support from other countries to enforce crippling sanctions on Iran, fight the war in Afghanistan and aid the overthrow of Gaddafi.
Romney has made it clear that he has no original ideas or concept for Foreign Policy. In fact, if you look at his 'plans', they are essentially things that the Obama administration has or is currently doing. The only think Romney differs on is his insistence on adding heated, polarizing, bolivating rhetoric about American Exceptionalism and No Apologies.
In other words, Romney's agenda on foreign policy is to do what Obama is doing, but be more obnoxious and weird about it. Good luck with that.
BluePanther United States. July 28 2012 01:39. Posts 2669
On July 27 2012 12:03 coverpunch wrote: Look guys, your argument is basically amounting to "NUH UH!" What I'm looking for are facts or actual applications of these principles to history, even hypothetical situations. How does the government use its monopoly of force? Why does it have such a thing? What would it look like if it doesn't have a monopoly of force and how is that different from what the US government looks like right now?
The 2nd Amendment has everything to do with this because of the misconception that the Constitution grants rights to American citizens when it is precisely the other way around, We the People grant the government its powers.
But here's a case that sort of applies it and affirms the individual right of the 2nd Amendment: DC vs Heller from the Supreme Court.
Wrong case, incidentally--you should be citing McDonald v Chicago. DC v Heller is rather narrow.
Other than that, I think you're misunderstanding the "monopoly on force" idea. When we say the government has a "monopoly on force", we mean that only the government (as a representation of the people, in democratic thought) has the ability to decide when violence can be used. Individuals do not have that right. Even in cases where individuals can use force (self-defense) without explicit governmental approval, they can do so only when following certain laws. Were the government not to have a monopoly on force, anyone would be able to choose to use violence at any time; for example, I could shoot a random person that I think is a murderer without having to go through those unpleasant procedures called "fair trials" and "due process". The loss of the government's monopoly on force is essentially the definition of anarchy.
jury nullification
coverpunch United States. July 28 2012 01:41. Posts 604
Piers Morgan defends Mitt Romney's statements on Britain as completely true. All he did was repeat what everyone in Britain is saying to David Cameron and Boris Johnson's face. He's a convenient scapegoat for London to vent all its problems.
On July 28 2012 01:41 coverpunch wrote: Piers Morgan defends Mitt Romney's statements on Britain as completely true. All he did was repeat what everyone in Britain is saying to David Cameron and Boris Johnson's face. He's a convenient scapegoat for London to vent all its problems.
What Mitt Romney said wasn't that bad.
But it's a little like Richard Branson showing up at the World Trade Center construction site, and going, "Hmmm, I don't know if these New Yorkers will pull this project thing together ... ."
Everyone American would be thinking, "Who the fuck does this rich British guy think he is?"
BluePanther United States. July 28 2012 02:02. Posts 2669
On July 28 2012 01:41 coverpunch wrote: Piers Morgan defends Mitt Romney's statements on Britain as completely true. All he did was repeat what everyone in Britain is saying to David Cameron and Boris Johnson's face. He's a convenient scapegoat for London to vent all its problems.
The point isn't that it isn't true, it's that if you're thrown charity meetings by friendly governments you don't say those things. Romney is not a US diplomat, not a leader in business or civil society and nonetheless meets with top officials about essentially nothing. The entire trip is about looking good and avoiding actual policy questions (but hey, at least EU reporters are competent enough to ask actual foreign policy questions). He's managing to screw up doing nothing.
What was the speech about exactly? Seemed kind of shallow and generic honestly, but that's how a lot of decent speeches are... It seemed pretty good to me.
Last edit: 2012-07-28 02:42:58
Baby, you want to make like Stravinsky and perform a Rite of Spring?
Leporello United States. July 28 2012 02:56. Posts 1659
On July 28 2012 02:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Kelly's speech was great. What do people not like about it?
It was kind of pointless. His anecdote about the baseball field, or the local business buying tape --- those are local ordinances or business expenses that have nothing to do with federal regulations. It was a nice speech I guess, but it didn't really do anything to discuss the vote that he was speaking on behalf of, at least not in any substantive way.
It was a political speech, and we don't need those in our House anymore than we already do. Both sides do it, to ham it up for the media. But it's cheap, and it's not really doing their job. He said nothing about the bill being voted on. Nothing.
(\/) (;,,;) (\/) More GG, more White-Ra, more TLO
Doodsmack United States. July 28 2012 03:01. Posts 2107
On July 28 2012 01:41 coverpunch wrote: Piers Morgan defends Mitt Romney's statements on Britain as completely true. All he did was repeat what everyone in Britain is saying to David Cameron and Boris Johnson's face. He's a convenient scapegoat for London to vent all its problems.
The point isn't that it isn't true, it's that if you're thrown charity meetings by friendly governments you don't say those things. Romney is not a US diplomat, not a leader in business or civil society and nonetheless meets with top officials about essentially nothing. The entire trip is about looking good and avoiding actual policy questions (but hey, at least EU reporters are competent enough to ask actual foreign policy questions). He's managing to screw up doing nothing.
It's not so big of a deal that need this many headlines and discussions about it, though. It's just Romney's opponents trying to find things to support their preconceived bias. Either that or people actually buy into the media sensationalizing a story to bait more views.
KwarK United Kingdom. July 27 2012 23:15. Posts 20627
