German's Boo at U.S. Anthem

[quote]lixy wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
Bush Junior failed to catch Ben Laden despite killing hundreds of thousands and wrecking countries.

Now, maybe it’s due to the fact that I just returned from a GREAT Clutch concert, and possibly I’m QUITE drunk, but I’m sure that was what you wrote. Yea, I checked, that’s the bullshit you wrote alright.

Say what you mean, mean what you say asshole.

Been under a rock the past four years? What part of “ruined Iraq” don’t you understand?

I’ll overlook the insult 'cause of the booze and all…[/quote]

America has spent a ton of money and lives trying to fix Iraq.

Iraq has been ruined by years of tyrannical rule, radical Islam and sectarian violence.

[quote]lixy wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
Bush Junior failed to catch Ben Laden despite killing hundreds of thousands and wrecking countries.

Now, maybe it’s due to the fact that I just returned from a GREAT Clutch concert, and possibly I’m QUITE drunk, but I’m sure that was what you wrote. Yea, I checked, that’s the bullshit you wrote alright.

Say what you mean, mean what you say asshole.

Been under a rock the past four years? What part of “ruined Iraq” don’t you understand?

I’ll overlook the insult 'cause of the booze and all…[/quote]

No, I’ve actually been paying attention. You however, are being quite evasive in your responses, and just a little bit dishonest.

A brief synopsis:

You stated, [quote]Bush Junior failed to catch Ben Laden despite killing hundreds of thousands and wrecking countries.[/quote]

I then replied with, [quote]Bush wrecking countries?[/quote]

To which you then embarrassed yourself with this response, [quote]That would be Reagan. Read more carefully.

El Salvador? Nicaragua? Grenada?[/quote]

Now, clearly you were implying that Bush Jr. was “destroying countries”. I then called your statement bullshit, you then attempted to deflect and say that you actually stated it was Reagan. Now, either you’re being dishonest, or you can’t even follow your own argument, which is it.

I particularly like the fact that you have the balls to attack my reading comprehension, when clearly you’re struggling to even follow you own argument. You’re funny.

On to your bullshit statement that the U.S. “wrecked” Iraq. The U.S. has done more for the infrastructure of that country, than Saddam had done in decades. You, and many in the european community, are sold on this idea that Iraqi’s were somehow better off under Saddam’s rule. This, is pure bullshit.

There have been significant improvements to that countries infrastructure. These improvements are especially significant when you consider how hard the terrorists are working to stop them.

Now, go sit in the corner, and hang your head in abject shame.

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Now, clearly you were implying that Bush Jr. was “destroying countries”. I then called your statement bullshit, you then attempted to deflect and say that you actually stated it was Reagan. Now, either you’re being dishonest, or you can’t even follow your own argument, which is it.[/quote]

There was a misunderstanding about which Bush it was. Nothing to make a fuss about. My point was that Bush senior did things quietly. And I stand by the spoiled brat Dubya wrecking countries.

I’ll take it as a compliment. Seriously though, it was a misunderstanding on my part.

When you say the US, you mean Halliburton, right?

I, along with not only the European community, but the world altogether, are evidently not the only ones thinking US troops should get their asses out of there. If I’m not mistaken, the majority of Americans share the same views.

Most importantly, how about looking at the opinion of the primary concerned: Iraqis. They are obviously best suited to judge. Well, every single poll taken over the last 4 years concurs with my thesis that you are viewed as an occupation force there and they want you out of their lands.

Yes, some of the trouble makers there are indeed terrorists and share Ben Laden’s fanatic views. However, some attacks are just indigenous resistance to the occupation.

[quote]superpimp wrote:
That Bush’s trip to South America and people starting riots (even though half would give their right hand to live here) it get’s so an American wants to be an isolationist[/quote]

Why do you think they are booing? Maybe it has something to do with American intervention? Contras, Haiti and Pinochet. Do these things ring a bell? And they are but a short list of U.S. intervention and it’s disasterous efects on the general population!

So your national anthem got booed eh?

Now now,

here here,

there there,

Yes, you can use this hankie.

Feel better now?

And you can boo our anthem anytime you feel like it. We’re grown men, we can take it.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
America has spent a ton of money and lives trying to fix Iraq. [/quote]

Yeah, it’s been quite profitable for some people.

But maybe America didn’t need to destroy Iraq’s infrastructure in the first place.

Think of how much better that money could have been spent here in the US, on our own infrastructure.

What a stupid waste.

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
So your national anthem got booed eh?

Now now,

here here,

there there,

Yes, you can use this hankie.

Feel better now?

And you can boo our anthem anytime you feel like it. We’re grown men, we can take it.[/quote]

You wouldn’t have any choice but to take it, since we aren’t aboriginals armed with spears that you can massacre. We have seen in the past 1000 years how well you fight against armed men that know their business. I could light your flag on fire and piss on it in the middle of your town square and be fine since you fruitcakes would just sniff and pretend nothing was wrong.

Besides who in the hell knows what the Belgian national anthem sounds like? I can’t remember ever hearing it played at the Olympics… other than that you “guys” are probably too sensitive to play it around others, or you might be afraid that you will offend the Germans and get conquered in a day or two.

[quote]lixy wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
Now, clearly you were implying that Bush Jr. was “destroying countries”. I then called your statement bullshit, you then attempted to deflect and say that you actually stated it was Reagan. Now, either you’re being dishonest, or you can’t even follow your own argument, which is it.

There was a misunderstanding about which Bush it was. Nothing to make a fuss about. My point was that Bush senior did things quietly. And I stand by the spoiled brat Dubya wrecking countries.

I particularly like the fact that you have the balls to attack my reading comprehension, when clearly you’re struggling to even follow you own argument. You’re funny.

I’ll take it as a compliment. Seriously though, it was a misunderstanding on my part.

On to your bullshit statement that the U.S. “wrecked” Iraq. The U.S. has done more for the infrastructure of that country, than Saddam had done in decades. You, and many in the european community, are sold on this idea that Iraqi’s were somehow better off under Saddam’s rule. This, is pure bullshit.

When you say the US, you mean Halliburton, right?

I, along with not only the European community, but the world altogether, are evidently not the only ones thinking US troops should get their asses out of there. If I’m not mistaken, the majority of Americans share the same views.

Most importantly, how about looking at the opinion of the primary concerned: Iraqis. They are obviously best suited to judge. Well, every single poll taken over the last 4 years concurs with my thesis that you are viewed as an occupation force there and they want you out of their lands.

There have been significant improvements to that countries infrastructure. These improvements are especially significant when you consider how hard the terrorists are working to stop them.

Yes, some of the trouble makers there are indeed terrorists and share Ben Laden’s fanatic views. However, some attacks are just indigenous resistance to the occupation.[/quote]

Lixy,

Thanks for your bullshit european response. I don’t buy into any of it however.

Your post, along with bradley’s, illustrates some peoples contempt for a private company making a good profit. Well, here’s a newsflash, here in America, we’re capitalists.

Now, I know the the word capitalist makes you and bradley feel all dirty and gross, but the fact of the matter is that the U.S. does actually contract out alot of work to private companies, and yes, one of them is Haliburtan.

Ours is not the socialist economy that yours is, or the leftists here wish it was. Don’t worry though, the way we’re going, we’ll be just as socialistic as europe in about a decade, maybe sooner.

Have a nice day Lixie.

btw, I apoligize for the a-hole comment, doesn’t make for a good exchange of ideas. :-]

[quote]ChuckyT wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
So your national anthem got booed eh?

Now now,

here here,

there there,

Yes, you can use this hankie.

Feel better now?

And you can boo our anthem anytime you feel like it. We’re grown men, we can take it.

You wouldn’t have any choice but to take it, since we aren’t aboriginals armed with spears that you can massacre. We have seen in the past 1000 years how well you fight against armed men that know their business. [/quote]
If I were living in the US, a country built on the genocide of the original inhabitants, I wouldn’t have mentioned that.

[quote]
I could light your flag on fire and piss on it in the middle of your town square and be fine since you fruitcakes would just sniff and pretend nothing was wrong. [/quote]

You sure could. You’d probably get a few worried looks from people that might question your mental state. But I’m sure you get that a lot everywhere.

Well, you can’t blame us for your failing educational system.

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
lixy wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
Now, clearly you were implying that Bush Jr. was “destroying countries”. I then called your statement bullshit, you then attempted to deflect and say that you actually stated it was Reagan. Now, either you’re being dishonest, or you can’t even follow your own argument, which is it.

There was a misunderstanding about which Bush it was. Nothing to make a fuss about. My point was that Bush senior did things quietly. And I stand by the spoiled brat Dubya wrecking countries.

I particularly like the fact that you have the balls to attack my reading comprehension, when clearly you’re struggling to even follow you own argument. You’re funny.

I’ll take it as a compliment. Seriously though, it was a misunderstanding on my part.

On to your bullshit statement that the U.S. “wrecked” Iraq. The U.S. has done more for the infrastructure of that country, than Saddam had done in decades. You, and many in the european community, are sold on this idea that Iraqi’s were somehow better off under Saddam’s rule. This, is pure bullshit.

When you say the US, you mean Halliburton, right?

I, along with not only the European community, but the world altogether, are evidently not the only ones thinking US troops should get their asses out of there. If I’m not mistaken, the majority of Americans share the same views.

Most importantly, how about looking at the opinion of the primary concerned: Iraqis. They are obviously best suited to judge. Well, every single poll taken over the last 4 years concurs with my thesis that you are viewed as an occupation force there and they want you out of their lands.

There have been significant improvements to that countries infrastructure. These improvements are especially significant when you consider how hard the terrorists are working to stop them.

Yes, some of the trouble makers there are indeed terrorists and share Ben Laden’s fanatic views. However, some attacks are just indigenous resistance to the occupation.

Lixy,

Thanks for your bullshit european response. I don’t buy into any of it however.

Your post, along with bradley’s, illustrates some peoples contempt for a private company making a good profit. Well, here’s a newsflash, here in America, we’re capitalists.

Now, I know the the word capitalist makes you and bradley feel all dirty and gross, but the fact of the matter is that the U.S. does actually contract out alot of work to private companies, and yes, one of them is Haliburtan.

Ours is not the socialist economy that yours is, or the leftists here wish it was. Don’t worry though, the way we’re going, we’ll be just as socialistic as europe in about a decade, maybe sooner.

Have a nice day Lixie.

btw, I apoligize for the a-hole comment, doesn’t make for a good exchange of ideas. :-]

[/quote]

So you’re not at least concerned that, while one part of the US population does the fighting and the dying, another part does the “making a good profit” part?

How many major shareholders of Haliburton send their sons to Iraq wearing a uniform you think?

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

Now, I know the the word capitalist makes you and bradley feel all dirty and gross, but the fact of the matter is that the U.S. does actually contract out alot of work to private companies, and yes, one of them is Haliburtan.

Ours is not the socialist economy that yours is, or the leftists here wish it was. Don’t worry though, the way we’re going, we’ll be just as socialistic as europe in about a decade, maybe sooner.

[/quote]

If you give companies contracts without a bidding process and without any oversight on how they spend that money, you might as well be socialists.

It does not matter how you piss on the market forces, if you piss on them you are not a free market capitalist.

[quote]orion wrote:
If you give companies contracts without a bidding process and without any oversight on how they spend that money, you might as well be socialists.

It does not matter how you piss on the market forces, if you piss on them you are not a free market capitalist.[/quote]

I think you are going to be causing cognitive dissonance with this type of thing.

[quote]vroom wrote:
orion wrote:
If you give companies contracts without a bidding process and without any oversight on how they spend that money, you might as well be socialists.

It does not matter how you piss on the market forces, if you piss on them you are not a free market capitalist.

I think you are going to be causing cognitive dissonance with this type of thing.[/quote]

This is when people that are not used to it, try to handle two competing ideas at once in their mind?

Now I am curious - of those saying this is no big deal, would your response be the same if a US crowd was booing a different country’s anthem?

Or would the disdain rain down?

And I have a serious question - does the EU have its own separate anthem outside of the inidividual nations?

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Now I am curious - of those saying this is no big deal, would your response be the same if a US crowd was booing a different country’s anthem?

Or would the disdain rain down?

And I have a serious question - does the EU have its own separate anthem outside of the inidividual nations?[/quote]

Its the Beethoven piece Schiller wrote the text to.

Google says it is the ninth symphonie, ode to joy.

I dare you to handle that amount of kitsch!

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
.
How many major shareholders of Haliburton send their sons to Iraq wearing a uniform you think?[/quote]

How many major stockholders in Halliburton fund anti-war efforts such as moveon.org and similar groups?

From The TimesMarch 21, 2007

Now you?re grown up, make friends with America

The EU at 50 should look to a far wider single market

Rosemary Righter

The European Union, which turns 50 this Sunday, is America?s pampered godchild. You won?t find people saying that at the birthday fling that Angela Merkel is throwing in Berlin.

Praise will instead be lavished on the two European luminaries, Robert Schuman and Jean Monnet, whose vision of reconciliation through pooled endeavours created the European Steel and Coal Community and led, in 1957, to the Treaty of Rome. The European Economic Community was unquestionably ?made in Europe?. But it would have been a sickly infant had it not been for America?s unflinching strategic and financial support for European recovery, and for the idea of European unity.

The extraordinary Marshall Plan, whose 60th anniversary this year is likely to get somewhat less attention than the EU?s half-centenary, rained American taxpayer?s money on the stricken continent ? always with the proviso that the Europeans must themselves first agree where the funds were to be allocated.

Coupled with America?s ?open door? to trade, Marshall aid speeded up postwar recovery, laid the foundations for decades of bounding growth in Germany, France and even Italy, and helped to give the EEC the early aura of success that made admission to the club a prize to be fought for. The EU?s chroniclers, historians and hagiographers alike, claim that its greatest achievement is to have made war between France and Germany impossible, and by extension, war in Europe. Yet it was Nato, another instance of American statesmanship, that guarded the gates of Europe?s zone of peace against the Soviet threat. If the European Venus had not had Mars at her side in those years of now mostly forgotten danger, Europeans would be nothing like as rich today; nor would they, perhaps, be so smugly self-righteous about their streak of pacifism.

?Forgiveness to the injured does belong,? wrote Dryden, ?but they ne?er pardon, who have done the wrong.? The child was no sooner on its feet than it started to resent its godparent?s attentions, its teenage years were studded with rebellion and by the time it came of age as the European Union, it was itching to tell the US where to get off. It was with the words ?L?heure de l?Europe a sonn馲dquo; that Jacques Poos, then the Foreign Minister of Luxembourg, informed Washington on behalf of the EU that Europe could handle the flaring wars in the Balkans alone.

Disaster ensued. Thousands were butchered before the muscle of Nato and US diplomacy was brought to bear. But politically, the die was cast. The EU is committed to a common defence policy, has got itself a military planning staff and is ready for anything ? except the spending required to make a stand-alone capability militarily credible.

More than that, it is now dogma that, with a population of nearly 500 million, the enlarged EU is more than a match for America. The flavour of this week?s birthday celebrations, to judge by some of the supercilious rubbish already written, is to dwell on the EU?s superiority as a social, even moral, model for the world, compared with the raw brashness of American power. To a great extent, the EU defines itself by what it is not: it is not America.

It is hard to say how well the EU ?model? sells abroad, though it shows no sign of being copied. But it is embarrassingly clear that the EU is not selling well at home. Europeans take peace for granted (not that most people really look on Brussels as their staff and shield) and, after a decade of high joblessness and low growth, Spain and the Irish Republic are the only ?old? EU members who now associate the EU with prosperity. The switch to the euro sent prices rocketing from Palermo to Paris and Potsdam; the single currency for many means lower living standards. Business has embraced the single market but many voters see it as a threat, not an opportunity because whenever politicians cut subsidies or break up national monopolies, they load the blame on Brussels.

Europe?s eastward enlargement in 2004 was a political triumph that is also being crowned by economic success; it has spurred growth in both the old and new EU members. But even here, the ?Polish plumber? backlash has sent politicians running for cover: ?Europe whole and free? has fallen out of political fashion.

The sad truth is that the punters will barely notice this EU birthday, or care if they do. The EU brings to mind two things: politicians arguing over such impenetrable legal texts as the late unlamented EU constitution; and endless, irksome EU regulations governing slaughterhouse, shop, even the fabric that covers your sofa. They are not wrong about the red tape; if the Commission met its pledge to cut company regulation by 25 per cent by 2012, that would add 1.5 per cent to the EU?s growth potential.

Excessive regulation also means that people associate the EU with less, not more, democracy. Their votes have no impact on the EU; most laws come from Brussels, not the governments they elect. And this had bred a general disaffection with politics. No wonder then that politicians are desperate to get voters to love the EU, or at least to dislike it a bit less. But they do not know how to change the conversation. Thus, Mrs Merkel harps on about resurrecting the EU constitution, while, lamenting its rejection, its author Val鲹 Giscard d?Estaing moans in a recent Newsweek interview that ?when the state isn?t visionary, the people have no vision?. If you said something like that in the States, your career would be toast.

Ask not what the people can do for the EU: ask what the EU can do for the people. Helping Europe to compete in a global economy tops the list. That will mean joining forces with America. Now could hardly be a worse time to venture such thoughts. It is open season on the US, even in Britain. The merest nod to America?s innovative, flexible economy, let alone its strong sense of national identity, can be bad for your political health. Yet the best thing the EU could do for European prosperity would be to work with the US on creating a single market spanning the Atlantic. Mrs Merkel is keen. She should forget about the constitution and concentrate on this alone.

At the age of 50, the EU should at last be able to shed its childishly defensive attitude to the US. So, even, should France. For only by pooling the skills and talents of Europe and America, will the European Union achieve its true international potential.

In regard to the OP…German’s booing who cares?

There are so many things wrong with that article, I really don’t know where to start.

I was surprised to see the US portrayed as the wise, generous older brother and Europe as the rebellious teenager. Perhaps she’s looking to win a medal in originality?

And the crap she’s peddling about Europe might sell well in the US, where people don’t know any better, but her shit won’t fly over here in Europe. The prices have NOT skyrocketed after the introduction of the euro. And that’s just one of the long list of mistakes this stupid chick makes all over the article.

[quote]hedo wrote:

[/quote]

Might as well be quoting Fox.

Criticism of the Marshall Plan, however, became prominent among historians of the revisionist school, such as Walter LaFeber, during the 1960s and 1970s. They argued that the plan was American economic imperialism, and that it was an attempt to gain control over Western Europe just as the Soviets controlled Eastern Europe. Far from generosity, critics argued, the plan was the result of the United States’ geopolitical goals.

Other historians emphasize the benefits of the plan to U.S. industry. One result of the destruction in Europe as a result of two world wars was that U.S. farming and industry had world superiority. American private enterprise thus could only gain financially from opening new markets and free trade policies. Yet while European reconstruction required products from the U.S., the Europeans in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War did not have the dollars to buy these supplies. That was, it is argued, the basic economic problem; essentially European capitalism suffered from a dollar shortage. The U.S. had large balance of trade surpluses, and U.S. reserves were large and increasing. The credit facilities of the IMF and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development could not cope with Western Europe’s large trade deficits, and the IMF was only supposed to grant loans for current-account deficits, not for capital finance and reconstruction purposes. The U.S., therefore, began to create dollar credits in Europe, by various routes of which the Marshall Plan was one.

In the 1980s, a new school developed with some historians arguing that the Marshall Plan might not have played as decisive a role in Europe’s recovery as was previously believed. The first person to make this argument was the economic historian Alan S. Milward and the analysis was developed by the German historian Gerd Hardach in Der Marshall Plan (1994). Such critics have pointed out that economic growth in many European countries revived before the large-scale arrival of U.S. aid, and was fastest among some of the lesser recipients. While aid from the Marshall Plan eased immediate difficulties and contributed to the recovery of some key sectors, growth from the postwar nadir was largely an independent process. (European socialists argue that a similar amount of reconstruction money could have been obtained by nationalizing the holdings of wealthy Europeans who deposited their money in U.S. banks during World War II.)

Tyler Cowen, economist, has stated that nations receiving the most aid from the Marshall Plan (Britain, Sweden, Greece) saw the least returns and grew the least between 1947 and 1955. Those nations who received little (Germany, Austria, and Italy) grew the most. It should be pointed out the latter countries were also the most devastated, and thus had the most potential for recovery.

In 1942 Committee for Economic Development was elevated into a think tank for the economic counterpart to the Council on Foreign Relations. The founders were heads of the steel, automotive, and electric industries in America who had benefitted from New Deal corporate subsidies and special wartime production subsidies. They owed their profit margins to government subsidies provided by the New Deal and wartime production subsidies. Faced with peace, they feared being forced to compete in a free-market basis.

Corporate economic interests, then, overlapped with President Truman’s political interests (those often criticized leanings towards a “big-government”), and an alliance between business and government was born.

[quote]lixy wrote:
hedo wrote:

Might as well be quoting Fox.

The extraordinary Marshall Plan, whose 60th anniversary this year is likely to get somewhat less attention than the EU?s half-centenary, rained American taxpayer?s money on the stricken continent ? always with the proviso that the Europeans must themselves first agree where the funds were to be allocated.

Criticism of the Marshall Plan, however, became prominent among historians of the revisionist school, such as Walter LaFeber, during the 1960s and 1970s. They argued that the plan was American economic imperialism, and that it was an attempt to gain control over Western Europe just as the Soviets controlled Eastern Europe. Far from generosity, critics argued, the plan was the result of the United States’ geopolitical goals.

Other historians emphasize the benefits of the plan to U.S. industry. One result of the destruction in Europe as a result of two world wars was that U.S. farming and industry had world superiority. American private enterprise thus could only gain financially from opening new markets and free trade policies. Yet while European reconstruction required products from the U.S., the Europeans in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War did not have the dollars to buy these supplies. That was, it is argued, the basic economic problem; essentially European capitalism suffered from a dollar shortage. The U.S. had large balance of trade surpluses, and U.S. reserves were large and increasing. The credit facilities of the IMF and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development could not cope with Western Europe’s large trade deficits, and the IMF was only supposed to grant loans for current-account deficits, not for capital finance and reconstruction purposes. The U.S., therefore, began to create dollar credits in Europe, by various routes of which the Marshall Plan was one.

In the 1980s, a new school developed with some historians arguing that the Marshall Plan might not have played as decisive a role in Europe’s recovery as was previously believed. The first person to make this argument was the economic historian Alan S. Milward and the analysis was developed by the German historian Gerd Hardach in Der Marshall Plan (1994). Such critics have pointed out that economic growth in many European countries revived before the large-scale arrival of U.S. aid, and was fastest among some of the lesser recipients. While aid from the Marshall Plan eased immediate difficulties and contributed to the recovery of some key sectors, growth from the postwar nadir was largely an independent process. (European socialists argue that a similar amount of reconstruction money could have been obtained by nationalizing the holdings of wealthy Europeans who deposited their money in U.S. banks during World War II.)

Tyler Cowen, economist, has stated that nations receiving the most aid from the Marshall Plan (Britain, Sweden, Greece) saw the least returns and grew the least between 1947 and 1955. Those nations who received little (Germany, Austria, and Italy) grew the most. It should be pointed out the latter countries were also the most devastated, and thus had the most potential for recovery.

In 1942 Committee for Economic Development was elevated into a think tank for the economic counterpart to the Council on Foreign Relations. The founders were heads of the steel, automotive, and electric industries in America who had benefitted from New Deal corporate subsidies and special wartime production subsidies. They owed their profit margins to government subsidies provided by the New Deal and wartime production subsidies. Faced with peace, they feared being forced to compete in a free-market basis.

Corporate economic interests, then, overlapped with President Truman’s political interests (those often criticized leanings towards a “big-government”), and an alliance between business and government was born.

LOL

I’m sure they’d be happy to return the money then.

Perhaps the Soviet plan would have been more beneficial. The East German economic model…Brilliant!