But...But...the world wants the One.
 

Generally, Americans resent it when other countries try to tell us what is in our best interests. Because, other countries don't have our best interests at heart. For what it's worth, the world wants us to put Mr. Obama in office, because it's the right thing to do.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/09/09/2360240.htm?section=world

"US Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama may be struggling to nudge ahead of his Republican rival in polls at home, but people across the world want him in the White House, a BBC poll said.

All 22 countries covered in the poll would prefer to see Senator Obama elected US president ahead of Republican John McCain.

In 17 of the 22 nations, people expect relations between the US and the rest of the world to improve if Senator Obama wins.

More than 22,000 people were questioned by pollster GlobeScan in countries ranging from Australia to India and across Africa, Europe and South America.

The margin in favour of Senator Obama ranged from 9 per cent in India to 82 per cent in Kenya, while an average of 49 per cent across the 22 countries preferred Senator Obama compared with 12 per cent preferring Senator McCain. Some four in 10 did not take a view.

"Large numbers of people around the world clearly like what Barack Obama represents," GlobeScan chairman Doug Miller said."

Pardon me, I wish the world would let me in one the this one-"Large numbers of people around the world clearly like what Barack Obama represents," Hookay, what is it today tax hikes-no tax hikes?

I guess come November it will seen as to whether Barack should of confined his campaigning to the US instead of Europe.

89% in Kenya?! I can't imagine why..........:rolleyes:

Well, count me in with the group that could care less what the rest of the world wants for us. I'm sure they do want Obama, he's spent his time kissing the ass of foreign leaders and denouncing America. 22 countries?! Maybe they should change their name to RegionScan as opposed to GlobeScan. I'm don't think they can really represent that as a global survey, and it sure would be easy to inject bias.

No, the rest of the world likes pretty speeches with no actions. They know with Obama as president they could walk all over us consequence-free. In fact, he'd probably put together a package of "incentives" for anyone that violated any sort of agreement with the U.S.. Of course they love him, he will give them U.S. taxpayer money as a reward for breaking treaties and such.

If I had any doubt, I'd see this report and automatically vote for McCain.

The "world" likes leaders such as Castro, Arafat, Mugabe, Saddam, Chavez, and Jimmy Carter.

so countries that are either in the sh8tter, almost there ,soon to be crap...want us to follow their example..
Right.......
like Rick said..

Rika

For Labor Day Weekend I visted my aunt and uncle in Yuma. They are hardcore Christian conservatives. Their son-in-law is to the left of Kucinich and can't go a minute without vocalizing it. The next morning, somewhat hurt by all the politcal arguing the previous night, my uncle lamented to me, "You know. He doesn't approve of anything we do." I replied, "Then you should take comfort in knowing that you're always doing the right thing."

That's how I see it when the rest of the world gets on the bandwagon about what the U.S. should do. Whatever they want is the opposite of the right path for the U.S.

They're welcome to him!

People in other countries generally like Obama for the same reasons that about half of your country does:

- Some of them are aware of the issues, and identify with his political ideology (much of the world is generally to the left of the "American center").

- The remainder however are quite ignorant of the issues, and probably just go for the more charismatic guy.

For what it's worth, I think a lot of foreigners are responding to the question based on the candidate they actually prefer, rather than on self interest. In Canada, which is generally to the left of the "American center", I think a lot of people would answer the question in favor of Obama. However, as a huge trading partner with the US that benefits from the heavy lifting done by its military, we would generally benefit more with McCain.

But would any of them let Obama rule their country, oh hell no.

Perhaps an outsiders perspective:

Whether you or any other country likes it or not, the US economy has a drastic effect on economies of other countries, so don't think for a second that other countries don't have a vested interest in your well being.

The last few years of GWB have seen the American economy go down the crapper, and that's taken a lot of non-US people and companies with it. People oustide the US want that to change. Ergo, a different party.

I can already hear everyone going on about how Obama will run up the deficit worse than GWB, run the country's economy into the ground with his whacko socialist policies, etc etc etc. But the rest of the world sees McCain as a continuation of GWB. True or not, that doesn't matter, that's how he's viewed. You may not like it, you may disagree, but it's true.

Not true. I've read several op-ed columns, letters to the editor, polls, etc. indicating that many Canadians would vote for Obama if he were running in our upcoming federal election. Compared to the alternatives currently with their hat in the ring, I sure would.

If they want him so bad, can we just give him to them? Secretary Generalisimo of the UN, maybe ?

He can"t do anyone more harm there, than anyone else.... :p

the UN is for big time crooks,

their looking for folks that screw their own people..
wait..O does fit the bill

SNL..nevermind

Rika

Please expand on that notion. Let us know what you are refering to when you say that. Specifics please. Maybe you overheard it? Maybe you dreamed it up?


The bottom line is our economy is still very strong, it has not gone down the crapper. It is strong and sucessful and canada is sucking the US's hind teat to survive.
The rest of the world can go pack sand. I don't care what they think, it doesn't matter.
Most of them are either living off of us and still have their hands out, or they hate us and resent our success. Either way, they can go hang out in the sand box unless the cat tries to bury them.

Spot on.

But you are already socialist, not a change for you.

You should know that ROW is stupid...No...?

This is sorta like like asking the the Green Bay Packers who they want to be head coach of the Chicago Bears. They want the worst man for the job!


If Americans could select the next leader of Russia, China, Iran.....

Would they choose strong leaders that would make those countries into economic and military powerhouses.....

Or would they choose weak leaders for those countries ....

Not necessarily, but they certainly don't have our best interests at heart.

Ever hear the saying, "Never take financial advice from anyone who isn't better off than you are."? That's how I feel about other countries telling us what's best for us.

Sometimes it's good to listen...particularly when the economy is KO on the floor...!

The "World" cited contains many of our allies.

They would like us to assume a position of leadership again.

Because if we don't do, who will, France?

"A total of 23,531 people in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Egypt, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Kenya, Lebanon, Mexico, Nigeria, Panama, the Philippines, Poland, Russia, Singapore, Turkey, the UAE, Britain and the United States were interviewed face-to-face or by telephone in July and August 2008 for the poll."

These are major countries, with a major impact and interest in how the future goes.

China population 1.3 B
India 1.1 B
USA 300 M
Indonesia 246 M
Brazil 188 M
Germany 83 M
Egypt 79 M
Philippines 90 M
Australia 20.5 M
UK 61 M
France 61 M
Mexico 107 M
Nigeria 132 M
Canada 33 M
Singapore 5 M
Turkey 70 M
Italy 58 M
Kenya 32 M
Lebanon 4 M
Panama 3.2 M
Poland 39 M
Russia 142 M
UAE 3 M

These countries represent over 4.1 B people, about 2/3 of the world's population (6.6 B).

The countries on this list that receive U.S. economic aid are ...

Egypt, $1.87B
Turkey, $150M
Indonesia $130M
Kenya $130M

Exactly four countries out of the above 22 (not including the U.S.) receive foreign aid, "with their hands out."

This is PEANUTS to the $30B+ we have sent to Iraq every year, not even including the $10B per month we spend waging our war in that country. Also Israel has been by far one of our longest-term receivers of aid: the U.S. sends about $2.5-3B over there every year. George Bush just sent $1B to the country of Georgia. Shame he didn't even care that much about Americans who lived in New Orleans [stupid place to build a city-I agree]...but who were Americans nonetheless...

This is not uncommon to see in other countries:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1221001423.jpg
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1221001441.jpg

The world really doesn't want a bungling old Republican like or GWB or McSame. Do you guys notice that the outstanding National Public Debt is currently over $32,000 per American? [$9.7T/300M people] No sign of that letting up or even slowing down a wink. Government spending is out of control. But, if government spending is out of control, do you really want to be cutting tax revenues??? Yes, Obama has a huge spending plan to modernize old infrastructure and improve our country's efficiency. He has a corresponding plan to pay for it, with everyone that makes above $250,000 taking a larger share of it. Anyone that makes under $250,000 per year is going to see a tax cut.

Question for you guys against Obama, yes or no, Do you make more than $250k per year? If you don't make that much, I'd say you're stupid not to vote for Obama.

http://www.slate.com/id/2198806/

John McCain: “The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should,” he says. “I’ve got Greenspan’s book.” This is who I want overseeing the largest economy in the world. Yea. That's right....

China.
India.
UAE.

We don't trade with any of these countries do we?

So yes, world relations and trade are going to be more important as the US dollar continues to fall due too the massive spending and mess Bush/Cheney have made.

Let's face it...USA can't be everywhere everytime....It take a lot of ressources to do that...It's my 2 cents...but I think you have to be more selective in your interventions.

Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Egypt, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Kenya, Lebanon, Mexico, Nigeria, Panama, the Philippines, Poland, Russia, Singapore, Turkey, the UAE, Britain and the United States were interviewed face-to-face or by telephone in July and August 2008 for the poll."
These are major countries, with a major impact and interest in how the future goes.


No country in this list want the bad for USA...Canadian economy is intimely and directly linked to the US one (like many others). 80 % of our export goes in US. Like I said...it's sometime good to listen what the others have to say.

Who was the limey Brit turd on the MTV Movie Awards...

Put that tard in a missle and shoot his butt back to pikey land.

I agree that the US must "be more selective in [its] interventions" and on how it intervenes.

However, there is an old saying: "Do not wake the sleeping Dragon." Since we are almost on exact anniversary of the Spt. 11th attacks, it is well to bear that in mind.

Yes, France will exercise some degree of leadership. Usually diplomatic.
However, Europe as a hole, has a very poor track record - even at keeping peace on their own continent. Not just WWI and II, but the Bosnian conflict. Right there on European soil - AFTER WWII, AFTER the HOLOCAUST - the Europeans sat there and did nothing in the face of genocide. It took he US to make anything happen.

China and India seem content to concentrate internally. China has an extreme view of sovereignty also (human right s cannot trump what a country does internally).

No one mentioned Russia - I'm sure the World will be thrilled if Putin leads the World...

No. It's us - the US. We are forced into a position of leadership, even if we don't want it. The real question is how to exercise that leadership. Even Bush seems to have wised up recently.

If you think 3.3% GDP growth is "KO on the floor", or that Obama's promised tax hikes and new spending programs would improve that, then that's all the more reason why NO ONE should listen to you.

Hey Rick, can you please find a citation or article for the promised Obama tax hikes? I'd really like to read about that.

[I am not being a jerk-off, I am honestly asking]

Read one of the multitude of threads on Obama. In many of them, we cite the WSJ articles where is is raising taxes.

After eight years of George W. Bush screwing things up, anyone looks good right now!!

And its all bull****.

How many times do I need to post this:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1221005959.jpg

Thats from the Washington Post BTW

There are countless articles on this and most recently Obama's own interview on Bill O'Reilly. If you haven't heard it straight from the horse's mouth by now, you haven't been paying attention. Off the top of my head, I know Obama has promised a capital gains hike, hike in top marginal income tax bracket and hike in Soc. Sec. tax on income above $250k. Of course, he tries to sell this by saying it won't affect 95% of Americans. Nevermind that 95% of Americans (or very close to it) already pay a minority of federal income taxes, which means those affected are already paying way more than their "fair share". He's also promised a windfall profits tax on oil companies. I can't think of a quicker way to make the price of gas go up.

I'm sure there are plenty more, but these are the ones he's talked about the most. And with the Dem majorities he'll have in the House and Senate, the only problem he'll face is deciding how quickly he wants these taxes passed and implemented.

Looks like Obama's raising taxes to me. People who make <40K/yr are not even paying what they consume. Obama himself has stated his goal is income redistribution. When I work my butt off, I don't think it's cool to give my income to some methhead or even a somebody else who is working say a maintenance job, do you? Did they work for grades to get to a decent college, and then go through 10+yrs of post college training?

I saw him with O'Riely talking about taxes and income redistribution, he said Teddy Roosevelt did it,
OK, if he did, how long ago, the world has changed since then Baarraak.

The whole Dem premise is to buy votes by making the masses think the tax hikes won't affect them because they only want to tax rich folks. Well, I've never been hired by a poor person before and I've been laid off a few times. And I fully expect my wife and me to be in the top bracket by within the next four years. Why in the world should I be pay more taxes to pay for more social programs for those who can't take care of themselves?