Make visible what, without you, might perhaps never have been seen.
- Robert Bresson
SCJP1.4, SCWCD
Originally posted by Alfred Neumann:
Actually I think it was in the end, Jason. The first night of Bush's visit they had low turnout but London Police estimated 100,000 protestors on day 2.
Stop The War estimated some 200,000 people took part in anti-American demonstrations, many of them middle class. Official sources � those without a partisan axe to grind � tell a different story. Scotland Yard estimated 70,000 people. However, London�s Metropolitan Police figured the number of participants at only 30,000, nearly none of whom were middle class. In other words, not only did Stop the War overestimate its crowd by between 130,000 and 170,000 people, but the middle classes occupied themselves as they usually do, by going to work. Thus, the protests were pulled off by the usual suspects: leftist malcontents, Islamists, a few college students up for a laugh, full-time protesters and unemployed losers, the typical flotsam and jetsam that finds itself with spare time and a grudge to bear during the day in the middle of the work week. They were joined by truant schoolchildren, whose teachers looked the other way, and a few retirees -- at least, STW claims there were retirees present.
Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
I do know that Blair's support seems to have reversed the once growing American hostility towards Great Britain, an exasperation that was aroused by the 1996 handgun ban, and reinforced by the shameful treatment of Tony Martin.
Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
I've read one criticism that Blair offered so much to Bush with nothing to show for it in return. I cannot recall that Blair asked for anything in return, other than maybe that Bush would continue to support the peacekeeping efforts in the Balkans (which Bush seems to be doing).
I do know that Blair's support seems to have reversed the once growing American hostility towards Great Britain, an exasperation that was aroused by the 1996 handgun ban, and reinforced by the shameful treatment of Tony Martin.
Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
I've read one criticism that Blair offered so much to Bush with nothing to show for it in return. I cannot recall that Blair asked for anything in return, other than maybe that Bush would continue to support the peacekeeping efforts in the Balkans (which Bush seems to be doing).
I do know that Blair's support seems to have reversed the once growing American hostility towards Great Britain, an exasperation that was aroused by the 1996 handgun ban, and reinforced by the shameful treatment of Tony Martin.
Pounding at a thick stone wall won't move it, sometimes, you need to step back to see the way around.
Originally posted by Tony Collins:
Believe me Bush really is hated in England.
Tony
Originally posted by Angela Poynton:
Oh and I'm guessing the NRA had a lot to say about our handgun ban! Personally, I love America, I love Americans but their obsession with guns terrifies me, and if a poor relationship with the US is the price we would have to pay to have no guns in thie country then I'd vote for it any day!
Mark Fletcher - http://www.markfletcher.org/blog
I had some Java certs, but they're too old now...
Originally posted by Tony Collins:
Who on earth thought the British Handgun ban was a bad thing ? Hand guns are made for one thing , killing people. Or am I reading your post incorrectly?
BTW Tony Martin shot someone in the back, how is a death sentance fair for theft.
SCJP1.4, SCWCD
Originally posted by Tony Collins:
Believe me Bush really is hated in England.
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Yeah, we know there are a lot of anti-Americans there. Always have been, always will be.
Originally posted by HS Thomas:
The Brits hate pensioners more. It's all relative to how the state manages it's pockets. Well, the Irish love their young and treat their old with respect so we can exclude them on this one.
SCJP1.4, SCWCD
So I guess the gun ban has been a huge success.Originally posted by Tony Collins:
In the city I live in gun crime has exploded (along with cocaine use) the British fight in the pub is now a shooting.
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Originally posted by Tony Collins:
I think this thread exibits the cultural difference between England and America. To me self defense is defense of ones self not the property that one owns. We do not define ourselfs purely by what we own.
Originally posted by Tony Collins:
In the city I live in gun crime has exploded (along with cocaine use) the British fight in the pub is now a shooting. The sharp end of gun crime is in the lower working classes not on rich farms.
SCJP1.4, SCWCD
Originally posted by HS Thomas:
Students go on protest marches about university fees that add to their debt burden.
About 1000 UK students have taken the bankruptcy route to get clear of debts.
Never mind that bankrupts may find it difficult to get credit.
One student was �38,000 in debt.
SCJP1.4, SCWCD
Originally posted by Alfred Neumann:
Shocking isn't it? Particularly given that at current tuition rates of 1100 quid a year that student would need 33 years to run up a debt of that size! Is the interest rate 20% or something?
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
So I guess the gun ban has been a huge success.
Originally posted by HS Thomas:
The Brits hate pensioners more. It's all relative to how the state manages it's pockets. Well, the Irish love their young and treat their old with respect so we can exclude them on this one.
regards
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Yeah, we know there are a lot of anti-Americans there. Always have been, always will be.
Originally posted by Steve Wink:
Theres a huge difference between no liking your president and being anti-American.
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Ok, let's go from here. For a non-US person (it is different, and yes a double standard, for US citizens), what is the huge difference between not liking Bush and being anti-American?
Originally posted by Steve Wink:
So, you're saying that a non American cannot dislike Bush without disliking the whole of the US?
Originally posted by HS Thomas:
This particular student studied an undergraduate course in physiology and pharmacy followed by a masters degree.That's about 5-6 years IMHO.
For these type of subjects an undergraduate course alone ain't enough. I find that quite credible that debts of this size are run up.I agree that it also suggests the inclusion of living expenses and tution fees not to mention books .
SCJP1.4, SCWCD
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Then what do you dislike? I'm trying to point out the obvious, which is leaders in a democracy don't rule autocratically. "Hating" the leader of a democracy because of his policies doesn't make any sense, unless that hatred is also directed at his supporters. Attacking an individual who happens to be one of the most popular President's ever, whose policies while villified abroad are very popular at home, also doesn't say very much for how you (not you in particular, but in the general sense) feel towards the people of his country.
Theh difference is that Bush is just one person, albeit the most powerful person, whereas the US is hundreds of millions with different views/attitudes/personalities. If 100% of the electorate had voted for him, then I'd agree that he represents the entire US, but thats not the case.
So using that logic, you are saying that Anti-Bushism isn't Anti-Americanism because the Anti-Bush crows is only Anti-Americans-who-support-Bush? That would be the majority of the country, in which case the label can be simplified to anti-American.
Here are two definitions for anti-American, and both of them seem to hold:
1. Opposed or hostile to the government, official policies, or people of the United States.
2. Opposed to the Americans, their aims, or interests, or to the genius of American institutions.
The non-US crowd that refers to themselves mereley as anti-Bush most often shows themselves to be opposed/hostile the government and official policies, at the very least. The second definition would also apply, where this crowd shows themselves to be opposed to the Americans' aims and/or interests, at the very least.
So given the above your response, "because he's only one person", is not sufficient defense for the anti-Bush crowd to claim they are not anti-American. They don't hate the guy because of his personality, they hate him because of what he represents and the policies the US government enacts. And as that is the case, the anger directed at Bush is misplaced as it should be equally directed at all levels of the US government. And in a democracy, we are talking about people who we can assume represent the will of their electorate. You see where I'm going here?
Consider Paul's rocket mass heater. |