Bully Losing Popularity Contest - Page 4

KrazyHorse · August 18, 2002, 13:32

Luckily India has stronger traditions of parliamentary democracy. Unfortunately, that's no guarantee...

Kramerman · August 18, 2002, 15:02

Quote:

Originally posted by uh Clem
India's government is already thoroughly riddled with religious/nationalist crackpots (although India is no doubt a more diverse society than Pakistan, thus diluting the crackpots' influence somewhat). Hindu nationalists have never made any secret of their desire to destroy Pakistan, forcibly convert it to Hinduism, and reabsorb it into India.

The world rightly pays attention when Christian churches are attacked in Pakistan. When Hindu mobs kill hundreds of Muslims in India, the act is less newsworthy, at least in the US. Mass murder is a very serious matter, when Muslims do it.

I dont remember seeing Christian churches being attacked. But I remember much news coverage on muslims and hindues killing each other, the whole Kashmir border dispute, and I really remember seeing alot of coverage when the Indian Parliament was attacked by militants. But I like to watch BBC news for my world news, though at my fathers (he has cabel television

) I enjoy MSNBC, which gives pretty good news coverage about everything, since it runs around the clock.

Quote:

Mass murder is a very serious matter, when Muslims do it.

well it grabs peoples attention in the US because of the generalization here of arab/islam/terrorists. Its good for news businesses, which always blow things out of proportion for ratings, which is unfortunate. I remember this progrm I was watching till I got sick from its ridiculousness, called "ROAD RAGE, YOU COULD BE NEXT"

. It talked about how road rage is becoming epedimic in AMerica and its rate of occurance is skyrocketting, yet it never gave any statistics. All it did was have scary interviews with people and reenactments.

CyberGnu · August 20, 2002, 02:41

Ned, this is your statement:

Quote:

Gore has supported Bush's foreign policy save for Kyoto.

Three times I have now asked what exactly it is they agree on, apart from afganistan? Or are you saying that Bush's foregin policy consists of afganistan and nothing else?

Ned · August 20, 2002, 11:38

Well, CyberGnu, of course not. However, the Steel Tarrifs and Farm Subsidies are both Democrat ideas. I have also said that Gore has yet to speak on Iraq because Bush has not said what he intends to do. In fact, I suspect Bush will first consult with Gore - to seek a united front on whatever we do.

CyberGnu · August 20, 2002, 13:52

Ned, many political analysts blame Gore loosing West Virginia to the Clinton/Gore policy of refusing steel tariffs. I would be very suprised if Gore turned 180 degrees on this issue AFTER the election.

I don't think farm subsidies qualifies as 'foreign policy'. It is a domestic issue with some international impact, bu no president will take that impact into consideration - it is a question of votes vs cost.

So we are back to them agreeing on one single issue...

Ned · August 21, 2002, 18:01

Well, Gore didn't say anything at all for a year except to comment on 9/11 and the war on terror. I don't know his position on steel tarrifs, but this was largely promoted by steel unions, who are typically Democrats.

As I said earlier as well, Democrats tend to be more pro-Israel than Republicans. I don't think Gore will come out and critize Bush on the ME crisis.

So the bottom line, to the extent that Gore has spoken, he has been supportive. We of course know he would strongly disagree on Kyoto.

I was just watching CNN. Bush has again reiterated that he fully intends to consult our allies on whatever we do on Iraq. I don't think Gore will say that this is a bad idea.