Do Americans get poorly treated in Ireland?

L31mr0d · 06-11-2006 01:16AM

to me the US is like that precocious kid in school who aces all the exams and wins all the races in PE, and sticks his thumb to his nose and waggles his fingers singing "na na nana na i'm better than you". Even though technically they should be applauded for their achievements, its the fact that they KNOW they should which gets my goat. You just get this feeling like americans are plodding around this planet in various countries thinking "yep, if we wanted we could obliterate this country over the weekend, but look at those neato castles, I think we'll keep yous for now"

There is a certain feeling that the world is living in the shadow of the US and I feel a lot of the animosity americans will get here will be out of jealousy for their countries position in the world. Plus, Irish people like negativity, we feel most comfortable when we can complain about something as a whole. Americans, however, like positivity. I personally find when i'm with a bunch of americans and they are talking about how wonderful their lives are, and how awesome everthing is i'll bring up Dubya just to have something negative to talk about in agreement.

lostexpectation · 06-11-2006 01:40AM

SteveS wrote:

You would think I would learn not to do this, but I guess I just can't avoid some arguments.

One point I was trying to raise was that voters are looking at many issues, not just foreign policy. I am not saying that is not important, but just that it is not the only issue.

Gore and Kerry have a terrible record, as far as I am concerned. They have consistently taken positions that I have disagreed with over their careers, so maybe I won't question their competence, but I will certainly question their

but why vote for bush?

county · 06-11-2006 01:53AM

lostexpectation wrote:

record.but why vote for bush?

because he`s such a nice person:rolleyes:

rogue-entity · 06-11-2006 03:29AM

Steyr wrote:

Im an Irishman and proud of it but this Anti Americanism really gets my goat, The Americans are not stupid whatsoever they have massive technological prowess and some of the finest minds on the Planet. I love the Americans as much as anybody else...

I love the Americans myself. I am no fan of Bush or the fact that some of the biggest corporations there seem to have a lot of influence in the government.. and in some cases monopolise the market through means that would never have been allowed here. Things like that wont stop me moving over there for a while or working for those same corporations.

Lirange · 06-11-2006 04:38AM

SteveS wrote:

One point I was trying to raise was that voters are looking at many issues, not just foreign policy. I am not saying that is not important, but just that it is not the only issue.

Fair enough.

Question though, just on foreign policy alone ... Kerry or Bush? Even more consequential: Gore or Bush?

SteveS wrote:

Gore and Kerry have a terrible record, as far as I am concerned. They have consistently taken positions that I have disagreed with over their careers, so maybe I won't question their competence, but I will certainly question their record.

What are some things that Bush has done that you agree with?

SteveS wrote:

It little matters where I am from. I certainly wouldn't feel obligated to vote for someone just because everyone else in my area was voting for them.

Some people are born and bred with certain values. Especially in the Bible Belt. Never underestimate the power of one's social environment. It does have some measure of influence on everyone whether they are conscientious of it or not.

SteveS wrote:

As for my independent credentials, you'll just have to take my word for them. I am certainly not a moderate, I just find problems with both party platforms and would prefer some candidate from the Libertarian Party if they would ever make a serious effort to appeal to a broad group.

Bush is the diametric opposite of a libertarian. Aren't they supposed to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal? Bush expanded the federal government to unprecendeted levels. He was heading in that direction before the 11th of September attacks. Outside war expenditures he still exhibits a lack of budgetary restraint. Moreover, he wants to legislate morality and much of his domestic legislation panders to the Christian right. Not to mention all the recent intrusions into privacy and civil liberties in the wake of the 11th of Sept. I would think Bush would be an affront to a libertarian. The Clinton and Carter adminstrations exercised more fiscal responsibilitiy than Reagan and Bush.

SteveS wrote:

I don't think voting for one party over another shows a lack of open mindedness, or are you saying a refusal to vote democrat shows a lack of open mindedness?

That is not what I said.

My comment only questioned the fidelity of those that claim to consider candidates of all political persuasions in political discussions so as to make themselves come across as reasonable and level headed in the conversation. Too often they're just partisan poseurs. Of course I do not know you. You claim to be open to considering Democrats. Maybe you are ... but this is the internet. So it remains just that. A claim. I've seen too many erstwhile moderate posters extoll certain candidates. But often it doesn't concord with their general rhetoric.

SteveS wrote:

I wish you could see the ads we are subjected to during the elections. All candidates promise everything to all groups (jobs, social security, funding for education, lowering crime) and blast their opponent. Some how these promises seldom materialize, though to be fair, some are not possible.

Of course this reality does not apply any more or less to Bush and tactician Karl Rove. Does it? I don't think I would suggest you vote for a candidate based upon promises. You claim it's their record and your values and Bush still comes out ahead ... correct?

SteveS wrote:

I honestly don't know how different things would have been with Kerry in charge, nor do you.

We can't know all the specifics and the extent. But things would certainly be different. Even moreso with Gore. We can know this by looking at their records, the interest groups that plump for them, and their history of advocacy.

Not all can be known. But it is not all a mystery.

SteveS wrote:

I am sure you'd like to believe he would have done exactly what he said he would do, but I just don't have any more faith in him as I do in Bush. I suppose I have some regrets.

Do you still harbour reserves of faith in Bush after all this time?

Faith and politician in the same sentences again. *shudder*

I read today that only 40% or less of Americans vote in general elections outside Presidential years. Appalling.

Ickle Magoo · 06-11-2006 07:27AM

rogue-entity wrote:

.. and in some cases monopolise the market through means that would never have been allowed here.

Liking buying off politicians disguised as loans for instance? Stupidity related to politics would be corrupt politicians going UP in the popularity stakes? Or despite declaring themselves neutral allowing refueling on Irish soil? Lets not kid ourselves that silly voters or bad politicians are purely an American issue - you get them in every country.

I agree it's not just Americans that can get a hard time...for badly travelled, ignorant, self-opinionated zealots you hardly need to cross the Atlantic now do you?!

A particular sector of the Irish population are just as bad as any in the ultra-Christian American South.

Hobbes · 06-11-2006 08:20AM

Renata Kind Second wrote:

I've seen loads of Americans blaming the fact the country is so big or whatever on their ignorance. There's no excuse.

Can you tell me the prime minister of Belgium without googling for it? How about the last law enacted in Portugal that was in the news there? Who won the last local elections in Spain?

There's no excuse.

L31mr0d wrote:

Even though technically they should be applauded for their achievements

That may of been the case 6 or 7 years ago, but it is now far from the leader of the world in a lot of things.

johnnyrotten · 06-11-2006 11:36AM

No

06-11-2006 12:18PM

There's hope for America yet! Soon the People's Republic of China will surpass the USA in GDP and other things economic (and associated military prowess) and they will become the big bully on the street corner. Then the Americans can join everyone else in badmouthing the new Chinese superpower.

MrJoeSoap · 06-11-2006 12:31PM

Blue_Lagoon wrote:

There's hope for America yet! Soon the People's Republic of China will surpass the USA in GDP and other things economic (and associated military prowess) and they will become the big bully on the street corner. Then the Americans can join everyone else in badmouthing the new Chinese superpower.

Would we rather have China or the US running the world?

eirmail · 06-11-2006 12:37PM

Steyr wrote:

Guantanamo Bay is actually US Soil, Theres a USAF base there for God sake. You nonce.

It s not US soil , they rent it off Cuba. If it was US soil it would be subject to US law , which it is not.

That is why they keep the prisoners there as it is not US soil and the prisoners are not treated as though they are on US soil

MrJoeSoap · 06-11-2006 12:42PM

eirmail wrote:

It s not US soil , they rent it off Cuba.

Its a "perpetual lease", not really "rented". A few thousand dollars a year (which Castro has refused to accept since taking office), and can only be broken if...

A/ The US abandons it, or
B/ Both countries opt out of it.

eirmail wrote:

That is why they keep the prisoners there as it is not US soil and the prisoners are not treated as though they are on US soil

Also, as far as I know, Gitmo prisoners "have been imprisoned in territory over which the United States exercises exclusive jurisdiction and control." which entitles them to the right to due process under the Fifth Amendment

06-11-2006 12:45PM

The only problem I have with americans is that they don't get our humour(taking the piss)
There was a joke in the lit n deb book in NUIG.It was about all the americans living in one student village(gort na coiribe)Basically the article said that if you liked americans,that you would like Gort ie them complaing about your loud music as they had to finish their "term paper".It even said at the bottom of the article"In case any americans don't get this,we are taking the piss"!
Cue 90% of the americans I know saying that it was racist and xenophobic.

I hope to God we never lose our humour.

06-11-2006 12:47PM

Hobbes wrote:

Can you tell me the prime minister of Belgium without googling for it?

There's no excuse.

.

Is it guy verstadthof?

MrJoeSoap · 06-11-2006 12:50PM

Deleted User wrote:

Is it guy verstadthof?

No, he was replaced by Jean Claude van Damme in a Coup D'Etat in July 2004. Close though.

06-11-2006 12:53PM

Can you tell me the prime minister of Belgium without googling for it? How about the last law enacted in Portugal that was in the news there? Who won the last local elections in Spain?

There's no excuse.

Actually, I can. I used to live in Spain and I do Spanish and Portuguese studies with French, so you asked the wrong person. But anyway, comparing the last law enacted in Portugal with knowing what the capital of Ireland is, or what language they speak in Scotland is ridiculous. It's not comparing like with like. Most people I know would have a pretty good idea of where countries are on a map, their capital cities and the languages spoken, so why can't Americans? What's the excuse for not knowing where Australia is, or India? They're hardly on our doorstep either.

I agree with the not understanding our humour thing. They take everything so literally/seriously! (disclaimer: at least the ones I know) You have to spell everything out. I know this girl who gets offended every time someone says "I hate X", and asks why we have to be so negative. It's actually normal to say "I hate this lecture", or whatever and nobody from here bats an eyelid. It's kind of obvious you don't mean you hate it so much you're going to go home and slit your wrists, it's just an expression. They have a thing about generalising as well. The other day I said to this girl, I hate going to X cafe, it's always really crowded and people push and shove. She said "well that's a generalisation, not everyone does." Really??! Did I say *everyone* does? And if I had, would I have meant literally every last person? No. How is that not obvious?

MrJoeSoap · 06-11-2006 12:54PM

Renata Kind Second wrote:

Most people I know would have a pretty good idea of where countries are on a map, their capital cities and the languages spoken, so why can't Americans?

Who says they can't? Where are you getting this from?

Renata Kind Second wrote:

What's the excuse for not knowing where Australia is, or India? They're hardly on our doorstep either.

Ignorance? Lack of education?

06-11-2006 01:22PM

I'm talking about Americans who use their geographical situation as an excuse for being ignorant about the rest of the world, both on this site and others I visit.

Dan133269 · 06-11-2006 02:03PM

MrJoeSoap wrote:

Imagine you met an American person in Ireland and he happened to mention he was from Baton Rouge, or something similar. You're initial response might sound equally as ignorant as his probably did.

Baton Rouge is not a country, Ireland is.

Dan133269 · 06-11-2006 02:17PM

cushtac wrote:

Substitute and Irishman for the American and an Englishman for the driver, now have the driver suggest that the passenger apologise for the IRA - is it still only a joke?

First of all the IRA are an illegal terrorist organisation, George Bush is not.
Secondly George Bush was democratially elected by the American electorate.
Sinn Féin have less than 10% of the Irish electorate and are rightly scorned by all law abiding political parties in Ireland.
Comparing George Bush with the IRA is ridiculous

MrJoeSoap · 06-11-2006 02:40PM

Dan133269 wrote:

Baton Rouge is not a country, Ireland is.

Thanks.for.that.

Dan133269 · 06-11-2006 03:12PM

MrJoeSoap wrote:

Thanks.for.that.

no problem

ScumLord · 06-11-2006 04:59PM

Americas a big country and it seems to me they don't look outside their own citys or enviorment nevermind overseas, this means they haven't a clue whats happening in the world or what other cultures are like. We get to met the best America has to offer those that do travel tend to be a bit more worldly than those that don't. Allot have told me that the steriotype of dumb uncultured yanks is true to a certian extent especially in the bible belt.

It's hard not to judge a nation by it's actions and arts (Hollywood) Bush was supposedly elected by a majority of the population, that says allot about Americans in my book. I'd blame their media, their government and that top 1% that are in charge rather than the general public I don't think they get the full storey they can only work off what their told.

Of course you can't say all are like that, some of the greatest ideas and art has come out of that country in the last 60 years, we all copy them.

I see America as family most of us have family over there so I'm more annoyed by them than anything, they have a government that doesn't look after it's citizens, they pump billons into war, there's so much they could do but they constantly seem distracted by their own greed.

SteveS · 06-11-2006 05:19PM

Lirange wrote:

Question though, just on foreign policy alone ... Kerry or Bush? Even more consequential: Gore or Bush?

Between Kerry and Bush, it is hard to say. I seriously doubt he would have moved up the timetable for withdrawl and he probably would have been stuck with many of the same generals as Bush has.

In hindsight, I think that Gore/Lieberman would have done a better job in terms of foreign policy.

Lirange wrote:

What are some things that Bush has done that you agree with?

The list is getting smaller and smaller. I thought he did a decent job in the months after 9/11, though that did last all that long. I agree with his position on changing the inheritance tax, and most of his across the boards tax cuts. I agree with giving some kind of amnesty to illegal immigrants. I agree with his position on firearms laws.

THe list of things I do not agree with is longer.

Lirange wrote:

Some people are born and bred with certain values. Especially in the Bible Belt. Never underestimate the power of one's social environment. It does have some measure of influence on everyone whether they are conscientious of it or not.

True. I live in the Rust belt, though I didn't grow up with the fanatical, pro-union, auto industry beliefs that many in my state have. I am sure that my environment has had an influence, though to what extent, I do not know. My grandfather was a long-time contributor to the republican party. My father, OTOH, consistently votes democrat, as he thinks the republican party has moved in the wrong direction.

Lirange wrote:

Bush is the diametric opposite of a libertarian. Aren't they supposed to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal? Bush expanded the federal government to unprecendeted levels. He was heading in that direction before the 11th of September attacks. Outside war expenditures he still exhibits a lack of budgetary restraint. Moreover, he wants to legislate morality and much of his domestic legislation panders to the Christian right. Not to mention all the recent intrusions into privacy and civil liberties in the wake of the 11th of Sept. I would think Bush would be an affront to a libertarian. The Clinton and Carter adminstrations exercised more fiscal responsibilitiy than Reagan and Bush.

I should have emphasized I would consider myself a small "l" libertarian. I certainly don't agree with all of their platforms. That being said, Bush's (and Congress) fiscal policies have been terrible, as has his expansion of the federal government. The Department of Homeland Security reminds me of some Soviet era secret police (and has acted like them in some ways). The Patriot Act is a load of crap and there is nothing patriotic about it.

Clinton (and Congress) certainly exercised more fiscal responsibility than Bush, though I wouldn't put him ahead of Reagan or Bush I. Carter was a decent man, but I certainly don't miss the economy of the late 1970's.

Lirange wrote:

My comment only questioned the fidelity of those that claim to consider candidates of all political persuasions in political discussions so as to make themselves come across as reasonable and level headed in the conversation. Too often they're just partisan poseurs. Of course I do not know you. You claim to be open to considering Democrats. Maybe you are ... but this is the internet. So it remains just that. A claim. I've seen too many erstwhile moderate posters extoll certain candidates. But often it doesn't concord with their general rhetoric.

Fair enough.

Lirange wrote:

Of course this reality does not apply any more or less to Bush and tactician Karl Rove. Does it? I don't think I would suggest you vote for a candidate based upon promises. You claim it's their record and your values and Bush still comes out ahead ... correct?

Yes. Sometimes it comes down to one or two deciding issues, as in the case of Bush v. Kerry.

Lirange wrote:

Do you still harbour reserves of faith in Bush after all this time?

Faith and politician in the same sentences again. *shudder*

I read today that only 40% or less of Americans vote in general elections outside Presidential years. Appalling.

No, and though I will defend my votes, I am certainly not a Bush fan nor am I a Bush apologist. I still have less faith in Kerry.

The low voter turnout rate is appalling, as is the fact that many people know nothing about the people they vote for and vote based on what other people tell them to.

pvt. joker · 06-11-2006 08:38PM

i find it hillariously ironic that Bush is the bad guy for disposing of Saddam Hussein. I don't defend everything that occurs in this country, but Saddam Hussein was responsible for the deaths of over 1 MILLION of his own people during his reign. George Bush on the other hand is responsible for 3000 soldiers dying.

metrovelvet · 06-11-2006 08:42PM

The reality is that Europeans are pissed off that we acted unilaterally without asking for their permission first. This George Bush hatred is simply and outlet for their feelings of jealousy and disenfranchisement.

MrJoeSoap · 06-11-2006 08:42PM

pvt. joker wrote:

i find it hillariously ironic that Bush is the bad guy for disposing of Saddam Hussein.

Who said this? Bush is a "bad guy" for leading an illegal war on false allegations, not for removing, and now ultimately killing Saddam.

I don't defend everything that occurs in this country, but Saddam Hussein was responsible for the deaths of over 1 MILLION of his own people during his reign. George Bush on the other hand is responsible for 3000 soldiers dying.

Its not as if there is a leaderboard, and whoever has the most is automatically the worst. Saddam was obviously a horribly evil man, and his death won't harm the world, but this is a thread about how Americans are treated in Ireland and this particularly discussion isn't entirely relevant.

Mr.Nice Guy · 06-11-2006 09:41PM

pvt. joker wrote:

George Bush on the other hand is responsible for 3000 soldiers dying.

And there was me thinking it was the terrorists who shot at them and bombed them who were responsible...

MrJoeSoap · 06-11-2006 09:55PM

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

And there was me thinking it was the terrorists who shot at them and bombed them who were responsible...

By that logic, Saddam probably isn't responsible for very many of the deaths attributed to him either.

pvt. joker · 06-11-2006 10:28PM

MrJoeSoap wrote:

Who said this? Bush is a "bad guy" for leading an illegal war on false allegations, not for removing, and now ultimately killing Saddam.

an illegal war, lol. The UN signed off on it eventually.

Its not as if there is a leaderboard, and whoever has the most is automatically the worst. Saddam was obviously a horribly evil man, and his death won't harm the world, but this is a thread about how Americans are treated in Ireland and this particularly discussion isn't entirely relevant.[/QUOTE]

It's pretty relevant based on the posts on page 1 alone. I used to think americans had a pretty high level of ignorance, but now i see otherwise.

Do Americans get poorly treated in Ireland?

Comments