Your Jedi tricks don't work on me.

For a Dutch nationalist you're altogether too preoccupied with America.

Putin, why so sour?

Putin, it's more that I am preoccupied with the typical male obsession with "being right." In Europe, I was against Obama when the vast majority of Europeans was still ecstatic (http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/FinancialTimesHarrisPolls/tabid/449/mid/1512/articleId/171/ctl/ReadCustom%20Default/Default.aspx)

I love how he continues to prove me right that he is a bad president and I will gladly bore webdip with that.

I posted this too long link and I spread it over three lines here:
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/
FinancialTimesHarrisPolls/tabid/449/mid/1512/articleId/
171/ctl/ReadCustom%20Default/Default.aspx

And were you for Bush or do you consider him to have been a good President?

Which one? :P

Bush II

But the fact that you consider either of them to be good presidents speaks for itself.

Not gonna do it. Wouldn't be prudent.

Bush Sr did an excellent job overseeing the peaceful transition from a bipolar to a monopolar world order when the USSR, despite all your love for it, crumbled under its own weight.

it didn't crumble under it's own weight - it was gorbachev, i would argue.

I'm sure you would.

It's a bit like how Obama is single-handedly bringing down the US. Ow no wait, the US still has elements of a democracy, not so much power is concentrated in the hands of one man that he can single-handedly bring the country down, unlike the USSR.

Do you not think that a different leader would have resisted more? Andropov, Chernenko perhaps? obama is single handedly bringing down the US according to some? the US has elements of a democracy? The USSR didn't have elements of democracy? I have to say I am slightly confused. Also Obama definitely could bring the country down, if he really really wanted to, but I will try not to get pedantic

I'm not convinced Obama could bring the US down. Don't you have checks and balances to stop that sort of thing? He does seem to be highly ineffective as Presidents go. I can't recall another who ha failed to achieve so much.

Still, in the spirit of the opening post I look forward to seeing millions of American immigrants starting a new life in Holland :). Time to rename Amsterdam "Newer New York" methinks.

I doubt it, democracy survived in the US even when Bush II took-over (supreme court interferes with Florida recount? Why what right, oh yeah they have the right to interpret their rights...) And the country doesn't split apart in a civil war-like fashion...

Rich manipulate the media and thus the poor, get richer - a global financial melt-down hits, and the occupy protesters barely scratch the surface... nope the US seems pretty solid.

i'm not saying he would - but if a president wanted to INTENTIONALLY bring a state down, they certainly could, especially in an age of nuclear bombs. it's obviously not going to happen, but intentionally they certainly could.

and Gorbachev did INTENTIONALLY bring down the USSR, or at least, as it was then known (although it didn't end up how he intended it to)

Newer York.

If you like. I was toying with Old New York, but it sounded wrong. Either way the principle is sound.

Dutch York

Copenyorken ;)

Hahaha ow well played, I love a good cross-thread thread.

Thankyou, sir. Anyway, must get back to work...

GL.

The level of freedom in the United States depends on where you are. In North Dakota or Idaho, you can do basically whatever the fuck you want as long as you don't directly physically harm/jeopardize others or the property of others. In New York or Califoirnia, you can't even take a piss without Big Brother watching and taxing you.

"Bush Sr did an excellent job overseeing the peaceful transition from a bipolar to a monopolar world"

How did he do that exactly? By lying to Gorbachov about NATO expansion, thus perpetuating West-East conflict into the 1990s and beyond? You do realize that Gorbachov proposed a pan-European security arrangement supplanting NATO that would have probably succeeded and thus avoided the kind of political divides we see on global governance today.

But I guess since he had an R next to his name he gets a pass for being a total failure.

"a pan-European security arrangement supplanting NATO"

Why on god's green earth would I want to trade the immense security Dutch participation in NATO guarantees to me for some late Soviet experiment? You're not making sense on any level.

"But I guess since he had an R next to his name he gets a pass for being a total failure."
That's it, actually. I care so much for American distinctions between D/R that I happily judge your Presidents' international records on that basis.

Stop smoking whatever it is you're smoking and join the so many-th self glorifying Dutchie-thread on this forum. It's good folklore.

Holland sounds like a nice place to vacation...Amsterdam and all...

And who doesn't love Rembrandt and Vermeer?

Your whole point for claiming that the invader of Panama was some great President was that he supposedly did well presiding over a transition to unipolarity from the bipolarity of the Cold War. When in fact he did not. He spoiled the opportunity to bring in Russia into collective security and thus avoid the kind of East-West conflict in the post-cold war era. The swindle he presided over was one of the worst in diplomatic history. It turned Gorbachov, who did everything he could to expand understanding and peaceful relations between East and West, into a bitter man, as seen in his polemics in 2008. The man hates Putin, but even he slammed the West for its behavior in 2008.

"That's it, actually. I care so much for American distinctions between D/R that I happily judge your Presidents' international records on that basis."

Well it's either that or because Obama has Hussein as his middle name. I can find no real reason why you think Bush the first was a good president and Obama bad, other than extreme bias of some kind.