>>>>>>This is a sick title. Need I say more?
>>>>>
>>>>>Newspaper over here today say that there is still a lot of people from USA that don't believe that a black person can be president. So whatever Mr. Obama is doing they will find a way to put a bad side to it.
>>>>>
>>>>>This remark is in no way directed at you Kevin. You probably have good reasons to be against some of the things that Mr. Obama wants to put forward. I don't understand why you feel so strongly against him but I guess that I don't have enough information to really understand.
>>>>>
>>>>>I wonder how the rest of the world sees Mr. Obama after that period spent as the president of the USA.
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't think that it changed a lot over here in Canada. What is it like in the Netherlands Peter?
>>>>
>>>>According to a poll in july Obama is more popular than our own political leaders (our 3 (vice) prime ministers). The Dutch pain-in-the-*ss politician Geert Wilders criticized Obama in an interview yesterday for his attitude towards Islam. This weekend Obama received our prince Willem-Alexander and princess Máxima in the White House. They also talked about the Healthcare plans and Obama told them he liked the Dutch healthcare system.
>>>>
>>>>Some translated (by me) paragraphs from a fine (imo) article from Ductch columnist Arie Elshout in my daily newspaper (The Volkskrant):
>>>>
>>>>
Barack Obama is too civilized. In order to break the resistance against his healthcare plan he should not hesitate to "keep your foot on your opponent's neck. [It's] good if people in the way [...] fear you." This is the advice he got from Maureen Dowd, columnist of the The New York Times. Reading those words during my breakfast I was astonished about this harsh 'proposal'. [...] Of course, Dowd doesn't mean this litterally. Her message is clear: Fight back, do what you have to do, if people are not willing to cooperate then force to cooperate unwillingly. [...] Obama is a phenomenom. He sincerely wants to do things in a descent way and wants to be/become known as a reasonable man. [...] But will he succeed in that mission? He is a good speaker. However, Dowd now wants more result. [...] In the end it will be his ability, or lack of it, to get things done, that will determine whether or not he was a successful president. [...] It is apparent that Obama has a brilliant ghostwriter, but now it is time to give room to some street fighters to get promissed things indeed done. [..] Obama stretched out his hands to Russia, Iran, Islam, South-America etc. No such party has reacted in a similar, reciprocal way. [...] Apparently friendly words are not enough. It is quite possible that he may actually gonna fail as a president. What he should do now is use some of his POWER to MAKE things happen.>>>>
>>>>Dowd's article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/opinion/09dowd.html>>>
>>>Does she want another Mussolini or something? And you wonder why people are afraid of a government takeover when they read this kind of crap.
>>
>>(Note: It was my translation of the Dutch article in which you made a portion bold. If your reaction is about Maureen Dowd, I presume you did read the linked article.)
>>
>>It is not crap and it is not a plea for a Mussolini type of dictatorship at all. You are playing the mussolini-card, only one step further and you are playing the nazi-card and hitlerizing Maureen Dowd. How come you Americans are so sensitive when it is about freedom? In a truly and omnipresent free environment (that is, in an anarchistic environment) not many of us would have survived this long. Perhaps even more important than freedom is civilization. I prefer to live in a civilized world over a completely free world.
>
> A civilized world? No on is advocating freedom to physically harm or take away the rights of others. Where does the concept of 'a civilized world' end and who decides what is civilized behavior and what is not? What if the majority thought it was 'civilized' to attend church every Sunday or to dress fully clothed from head to toe and down your arms? What if the majority thought it was civilized to cover your head or for women to not speak unless spoken too? I have seen examples of 'civilized' society in many countries and the thought of it going to extremes is terrifying. The enforcement of 'civilizied behavior' would be taking away freedoms that it has taken centuries to gain. You would prefer to have your right to free speech taken away in order to feel comfortable? Freedom of speech is worth defending vigorously even when you hate what is being said. That includes stupid and annoying comments and comments that might make you feel uncomfortable. I think what you are missing here is that freedom of speech matters so much because freedom matters.
Hi Tc :)
I find little bit funny this fixation on 'freedom of speech'. It is presented as major major right, whereas it is actually very marginal
freedom nowdays. Freedom of speech got sort of overvalued by years of cold war, where they really tried to supress it
but nowdays everybody says whatever they want almost everywhere, so 'Freedom of speech' becoming slowly one empty soundbite.
What does 'Free speech' really does for you ? Fact that some idiots can shout whatever they want at townhall meeting wearing
(not so)funny t-shirts and riffle-guns ? That is not what I considr 'free speech' anyway.
What ever happen to (truly) Free Press which is almost extinct nowdays ? You could easily brand majority of global news-networks nowadays something like (silly but illustrative) 'MantraWorx Entertainment'. This is how real 'freedom of speech' is being taken away from you (and everybody else for that matter). Population hears very biased, controled news all the time. This is if you ask me very close to wearing 'burga' aganst your own choice. It is just that 'burga' is not really obvious - it is mental constrain imposed on population.
Loss of free press is IMHO much more damaging to freedom then if someone would actually ban/fine people wearing Obama with mustashes. I don't remember public protesting against guys like Rupert Murdoch over this... why ?
Because, this freedom (to write freely / be informed properly) was not taken away by some dictator, but instead by spoils of 'free market', so it is somehow considered ok. I got news some for you {g} - IT IS NOT! :)
(Here btw is something to read on this subject;
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104810/ )
People frawn/react on Obama trying to sort of motivate/energise nation in some ways for doing good things at the end.
Whatever happened to complete euphoria (almost maddness) on 9/12 2001 where it took some little hours to decide
on invading foreign country ? What are we talking about here ? Then another in 2003.
I am VERY skeptic and afraid from ANYTHING that involves (over)energising entire population, but hey what Obama does is much less harmfull then what Bush/Chaney/MantraWorx did in 2001/2002.
I do think that he should leave general population out of being in every day politics.
Public can give a push or stop on some very hot issues, but on the long run populist policies always decay into something
undesireable. Also, agree with this lady that he have to govern by his own muscles. I am sure he is capable of doing so.
