Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by klichey82)
    Hello.
    I'm a 19 year old American studying Sociology in London. And I have a question directed toward the citizens of the UK. Why do most UK residents dislike America? And what are your views towards Americans in general?? Ever since I came to your country, I have had a blast. However, I've noticed 2 very distinct reactions from the citizens of London. Most have been friendly, and sometimes I get stereotypical comments when I am out in the city, sometimes hostile, and I just want to say this:

    1. Most Americans my age are not concerned with the war, personally I wish everyone just get along. I'm really not concerned with getting oil, or stealing resources from another country. I'm just trying to better myself.

    2. Americans are intrigued by your country and culture. We in general are outgoing, sometimes boisterous group, who sometimes tend to annoy the British, who I noticed are a little more reserved than most Americans

    3. We are not all fat and lazy, in fact, I am in excellent shape. My generation of Americans have grown up with money, and It appears that we are uneducated and dumb. I was accepted into this school amid fierce competition, and my parents are paying for this education. I cant help what my family has, and that is the case with most Americans.

    I didn't mean for this to be a topic of my venting, but I've been here for 2 years and I just wanted to get this off my chest. I also feel that the media does not help to project a "true image" of our country. I wish that everyone in the UK could really see how America is, from the average teenager's point of view. Also, don't use the past to substaniate your opinions, The Revolution happened over a hundred years ago, and none of us were alive to see it.

    Your comments are appreciated.
    I'm gonna try hard to keep 'on thread' here. Put simply, in America, there are places and people i will like, and people i dislike. This is the same in Britain, and is not the issue. The fact is, I like Americans. I like their attitudes to promoting sucess in the world, i like the fact that you are called 'Sir or madam' and that you always here a 'Good morning'. I respect that you have a constitution that maps a future for yourselves. I know that you are sometimes louder and brasher than UK citizens, but I respect your right to hold an opinion and make it clear.

    however, whilst i have all the time in the world for American citizens, sometimes you are blinded by all sorts of things and this allows you to be goaded into supporting rash policy decisions. But that's a different issue. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I like Americans - they are not to blame for the current affairs taking place.
    I thought Bill Clinton was a good President for the US, and promoted the country far better than the current President. I will not make public what I think of George Bush, as it may be regarded offensive to say the slightest. :eek:
    One thing that does annoy me though is the accent of Texas, Louisiana etc! don't ask me why! :rolleyes:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Why is the UK used as an adjective when it is a proper noun?

    Do I say France citizens?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Misbah Imtiaz)
    I like Americans - they are not to blame for the current affairs taking place.
    I thought Bill Clinton was a good President for the US, and promoted the country far better than the current President. I will not make public what I think of George Bush, as it may be regarded offensive to say the slightest. :eek:
    One thing that does annoy me though is the accent of Texas, Louisiana etc! don't ask me why! :rolleyes:
    Why did you think Bill Clinton was a good president? I didn't think he was. He was charming and was good at telling people what they wanted to hear, that's all.

    I always find it interesting how US presidents are perceived in other countries. I wonder if his positive image is a result of the media giving a pass to liberal politicians.

    Clinton was arguably the most unethical president ever. Here is a list of some (but probably not all) of the things that he and his administration did that I find appalling:

    Federal law provides that ex-presidents may have the costs of an office paid for by taxpayers. Clinton abused that law when he got an office that cost 650,000 dollars a year in rent. That's more than Ford, Carter, Regan, and Bush combined.

    Manhattan lawyer Harvey Weinig, sentenced in 1996 to 11 years in prison for facilitating an extortion-kidnapping scheme and helping launder at least $19 million for the Cali cocaine cartel, was granted clemency. President Clinton quietly extended an offer of clemency to 16 jailed members of the Armed Forces of National Liberation (FALN). The silence from the media was deafening. This group is a military organization working toward Puerto Rican independence mostly through bombings and murders. Based on recorded conversations when they were talking amongst themselves, these people have not changed their ways. Their sentences were anywhere from 35-90 years. It was most likely done to help Hillary Clinton get more votes from Puerto-ricans in NY.

    President Clinton granted a presidential pardon to Marc Rich, a businessman who had been in exile in Switzerland since being accused of rigging oil prices and avoiding taxes. Many believe that it was because his ex-wife gave $400,000 to Clinton Library. Other pardons included the pardons of four Hasidic Jews convicted of defrauding the government, and Mel Reynolds, a man convicted of statutory rape, .

    Clinton became the first president ever sued for sexual harassment

    Clinton admits to lying under oath: 'I tried to walk a fine line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, but I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish this goal and that certain of my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false.'

    The White House was vandelized by outgoing Clinton Employees. There were cut telephone lines, trashed offices, graffiti-sprayed walls, overturned desks, mutilated computer keyboards (said to have had the "W" keys pulled off), glued-shut cabinets and closets and removal of labels on thousands of phones, rendering them inoperable.

    Then there is his personal behavior. Newsmax has a lot of articles on this and I have heard most of these women interviewed on radio shows. Clinton is a sexual predator, or all these people have to be lying:
    Juanita Broaddrick (AR)- rape
    Eileen Wellstone (Oxford) - rape
    Elizabeth Ward Gracen - rape - quid pro quo, post incident intimidation
    Regina Hopper Blakely - "forced himself on her, biting, bruising her"
    Kathleen Willey (WH) - sexual assault, intimidations, threats
    Sandra Allen James (DC) - sexual assault
    22 Year Old 1972 (Yale) - sexual assault
    Kathy Bradshaw (AK) - sexual assault
    Cristy Zercher - unwelcomed sexual advance, intimidations
    Paula Jones (AR) - unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
    Carolyn Moffet -unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
    1974 student at University of Arkansas - unwelcomed physical contact
    1978-1980 - seven complaints per Arkansas state troopers
    Monica Lewinsky - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
    Gennifer Flowers - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
    Dolly Kyle Browning - post incident character assault
    Betty Dalton - rebuffed his advances, married to one of his supporters

    IRS audits were used as weapons against political opponents when Clinton was in office.

    I could go on and on. The list is endless.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah, the info you have given on Billy-boy is quite shocking! :eek: But the fact is the people in this country do not hear about these things - hence we do not have a bad image of him. We only heard about the Monica Lewinsky case....
    I think he is percieved as a better President - because of his successor.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Clinton also admitted to committing perjury in 1998 before the jury on the Lewinsky case.

    edit - Made In America: ahh i see youve mentioned that.

    "In his August 1998 grand jury testimony, Clinton said he began an inappropriate sexual relationship with Monica S. Lewinsky in "early 1996." His testimony, as was widely noted at the time, was in conflict with Lewinsky's story: She testified the relationship began on Nov. 15, 1995, in the midst of a government shutdown.
    Starr's prosecutors, in their report to Congress, accused Clinton of lying about the date of their relationship in order to avoid admitting that he had sexual relations with an intern, as Lewinsky still was in the fall of 1995 before being hired for a paying job in the winter.
    Without explanation, in his memoir Clinton departs from his grand jury testimony and corroborates her version: "During the government shutdown in late 1995, when very few people were allowed to come to work in the White House, and those who were there were working late, I'd had an inappropriate encounter with Monica Lewinsky and would do so again on other occasions between November and April, when she left the White House for the Pentagon." - Washington Post
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn1)
    babyballerina asks "Why do Americans talk so loudly?"

    I reckon it's due to untreated 'glue ear' and they are left with residual deafness. Hence, they can't hear their own voices.
    That's a bit stereotypical and just out of curiosity, how many americans do you know? We just had a guy from new york start work at my old job and he was wa quieter than the rest of us.

    Back to the original post, a lot of UK citizens don't like anyone that isn't a UK citizen. Not quite sure why. I told my dad I was going to emigrate to the states when I finish uni and he said he'd never come and visit.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    Clinton also admitted to committing perjury in 1998 before the jury on the Lewinsky case.

    edit - Made In America: ahh i see youve mentioned that.

    "In his August 1998 grand jury testimony, Clinton said he began an inappropriate sexual relationship with Monica S. Lewinsky in "early 1996." His testimony, as was widely noted at the time, was in conflict with Lewinsky's story: She testified the relationship began on Nov. 15, 1995, in the midst of a government shutdown.
    Starr's prosecutors, in their report to Congress, accused Clinton of lying about the date of their relationship in order to avoid admitting that he had sexual relations with an intern, as Lewinsky still was in the fall of 1995 before being hired for a paying job in the winter.
    Without explanation, in his memoir Clinton departs from his grand jury testimony and corroborates her version: "During the government shutdown in late 1995, when very few people were allowed to come to work in the White House, and those who were there were working late, I'd had an inappropriate encounter with Monica Lewinsky and would do so again on other occasions between November and April, when she left the White House for the Pentagon." - Washington Post
    My cousin in Greece was asking me why anyone cared who Clinton had sex with. A lot of Clinton supporters dismissed the whole Lewinsky affair by saying "it's all about sex", but was really more about perjury and obstruction of justice

    I'm sure there is a lot more that I left out. I wanted get to scandals involving fund raising, but I was about to fall asleep on my keyboard.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Misbah Imtiaz)
    Yeah, the info you have given on Billy-boy is quite shocking! :eek: But the fact is the people in this country do not hear about these things - hence we do not have a bad image of him. We only heard about the Monica Lewinsky case....
    I think he is percieved as a better President - because of his successor.
    If Bush had done even one those things, I guarantee you would have heard about it. The media is, unfortunately, one of the only sources of information people have regarding other countries and their leaders. The mainstream media is bent on making Bush look like a fool at every opportunity, but Clinton had to work very hard at getting the media to level any criticism at him. The impeachment wasn't just about perjury and the obstruction of justice pertaining to the Lewinsky affair. It was cumulative effect of a series of systemic abuses of power, most of which the public did not know about because the media did not do its job.

    The reason the media does not treat politicians like Bush and Clinton with evenhandedness is because Clinton is a socialist and Bush isn't. It's really that simple.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    If Bush had done even one those things, I guarantee you would have heard about it. The media is, unfortunately, one of the only sources of information people have regarding other countries and their leaders. The mainstream media is bent on making Bush look like a fool at every opportunity, but Clinton had to work very hard at getting the media to level any criticism at him. The impeachment wasn't just about perjury and the obstruction of justice pertaining to the Lewinsky affair. It was cumulative effect of a series of systemic abuses of power, most of which the public did not know about because the media did not do its job.

    The reason the media does not treat politicians like Bush and Clinton with evenhandedness is because Clinton is a socialist and Bush isn't. It's really that simple.
    your posting keeps getting better and better.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    If Bush had done even one those things, I guarantee you would have heard about it. The media is, unfortunately, one of the only sources of information people have regarding other countries and their leaders. The mainstream media is bent on making Bush look like a fool at every opportunity, but Clinton had to work very hard at getting the media to level any criticism at him. The impeachment wasn't just about perjury and the obstruction of justice pertaining to the Lewinsky affair. It was cumulative effect of a series of systemic abuses of power, most of which the public did not know about because the media did not do its job.

    The reason the media does not treat politicians like Bush and Clinton with evenhandedness is because Clinton is a socialist and Bush isn't. It's really that simple.
    The reason that Clinton recieved less negative press coverage than Bush is simple - his policies where better and his acheivments tangible.

    Whilst Bush sees his main goal as winning the war on terror, Clinton was able to create the longest economic boom in US History,

    Bush has created the largest ever current account deficit, Clinton had a $400,000,000 budget surplus,

    Clinton was able to play a key role in organsing the Camp David talks that led to what appeaered to be a historic agreement in the middle east, Bush has invaded two middle eastern countries and antagonised the Islamic world for four years,

    Under Clinton the GDP rose on real terms by 50%, During the first three years of the Bush Adminsitraton unemployment rose by a third and wth 2.2 million jobs being lost, including for the first time in over four decades the first period of femal emplyment decline.

    One the eve of the 2000 election the US had a budget surplus of $281 million dollars and after three years of compassionate conservatsism the budget deficit stands at $521 millon.

    A poll conducted by the Pew Reserch Centre has shown that only 14 per cent of Germans, 15 per cent of french 28 per cent of Russians and 7 per cent of Pakstanis view Bush favourably, this is in contrast wth the figures released in 1994 when 75 per cent of Germans and 72 per cent of Russians had a favourable view of Clinton - after 9/11 the Bush had the sympathy of the world, and he has managed to turn this around full circle.

    Rightly or wrongly the media now has a negative opinon of Bush, this is not becasue he is a conservative but because it is difficult to identify any of his achievments and far easier to point out his failings and shortcomings.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cossack)
    The reason that Clinton recieved less negative press coverage than Bush is simple - his policies where better and his acheivments tangible.

    Whilst Bush sees his main goal as winning the war on terror, Clinton was able to create the longest economic boom in US History,

    Bush has created the largest ever current account deficit, Clinton had a $400,000,000 budget surplus,
    you are very aware that the financial state of the US economy is particuarly healthy at the moment and also aware that this has nothing to do with liberal bias against Bush.

    Clinton was able to play a key role in organsing the Camp David talks that led to what appeaered to be a historic agreement in the middle east, Bush has invaded two middle eastern countries and antagonised the Islamic world for four years,
    hmm, Bush is the first president to recognise a 2-state plan for peace in the Israel/Palestine conflict and make a genuine effort to create a legitimate Palestinian stae. he also had to deal with a terrorist threat that grew and grew under Clinton. a terrorist threat rooted in the middle east and around states such as Afghanistan, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria. each of those countries has received measured attention from US foreign policy. yes, the Islamic world may be antagonised, but appeasement at the cost to security is not an option as Clinton seemed to believe.

    Under Clinton the GDP rose on real terms by 50%, During the first three years of the Bush Adminsitraton unemployment rose by a third and wth 2.2 million jobs being lost, including for the first time in over four decades the first period of femal emplyment decline.
    which doesnt explain why, as the economy grows at a faster rate than the average for the last 3 decades, unemployment has fallen to approximately 5% and GDP/capita is at its highest level, a percentage defecit inferior to the Eurozone, Bush is receiving the same press, the same international dislike. its irrelevant.

    One the eve of the 2000 election the US had a budget surplus of $281 million dollars and after three years of compassionate conservatsism the budget deficit stands at $521 millon.
    for circumstances, some not totally unrelated to Clinton.

    A poll conducted by the Pew Reserch Centre has shown that only 14 per cent of Germans, 15 per cent of french 28 per cent of Russians and 7 per cent of Pakstanis view Bush favourably, this is in contrast wth the figures released in 1994 when 75 per cent of Germans and 72 per cent of Russians had a favourable view of Clinton - after 9/11 the Bush had the sympathy of the world, and he has managed to turn this around full circle.
    i dont know how this tells us why Bush is disliked. and youre telling me these people have issues with Bush's economic policy?

    Rightly or wrongly the media now has a negative opinon of Bush, this is not becasue he is a conservative but because it is difficult to identify any of his achievments and far easier to point out his failings and shortcomings.
    of course, you cant say how many terrorist attacks have been prevented, how many lives have been saved, what state the economy would be in if he hadnt inherited a recession and been forced into a state of war at the same time, and yet you make no mention of the low taxes that are overwhelmingly popular, his education reforms, the most pro-palestinian policy ive yet to witness or two democracies and one less dictator in the middle east. but hey, GDP is what gets the average frenchman out in the street and turns the Boston Globe reporter into a state of hate.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    clinton was the closest were probably gona get for a african american president. he was cool. he was at least down to earth- so he flerted and cheeted on his wife, its not our fault and its realy none of our business, he didnt take us to war because of a posible "family obligation", if you get me.
    he was cool, thats all you got ot say, him and kennedy, they were cool.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    but the most worring thing is, if they call up the draft in america- is great britian going to cut off any possible way for people to move there? not dodge the draft, but a temporary resetlement in the UK?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    like a really really long holiday, lol
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    you are very aware that the financial state of the US economy is particuarly healthy at the moment and also aware that this has nothing to do with liberal bias against Bush.
    Apart from this making little sense, of course there will be some liberal bias because what he stands for is at odds wth the majorirty of liberals views just as, there is conservative bias against the democrats, a good leader is able to turn around the bias and make indisputable achievements, something Bush has not done.

    (Original post by vienna95)
    hmm, Bush is the first president to recognise a 2-state plan for peace in the Israel/Palestine conflict and make a genuine effort to create a legitimate Palestinian stae. he also had to deal with a terrorist threat that grew and grew under Clinton. a terrorist threat rooted in the middle east and around states such as Afghanistan, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria. each of those countries has received measured attention from US foreign policy. yes, the Islamic world may be antagonised, but appeasement at the cost to security is not an option as Clinton seemed to believe.
    Bush has refused to condemn the Israeli abuses, thus seperating his views from the rest of the world, what makes America so special that they cannot condemn these action? How did Clinton appease the terrorists, I do believe he attempted to bomb Bin Laden in 1998. Pre 2001 what had Bush done by way of capturing Bin Laden or bringing down the Al'Queda network if what you say is true that terrorism grew and grew under Clinton?
    (Original post by vienna95)
    which doesnt explain why, as the economy grows at a faster rate than the average for the last 3 decades, unemployment has fallen to approximately 5% and GDP/capita is at its highest level, a percentage defecit inferior to the Eurozone, Bush is receiving the same press, the same international dislike. its irrelevant.
    1. The economy is not growing at a faster rate in 'real' termss. 2.Under Clinton unemplyment fell by 3.9million, under Bush how many jobs have been created compared to how many have been lost? GDP/Capita is the highest it has ever been - correct, it is also now increasing at a far lower level than it had been for the preceeding 12 years, economic slowdown is not something Bush should be particularly proud of!! Not a single country in the Eurozone has a budget deficit percentage anywhere near that of the US, you can stroke the figured as much as you like they will not lie, as a group of course the percentage will be higher - how coult they not be???

    (Original post by vienna95)
    of course, you cant say how many terrorist attacks have been prevented, how many lives have been saved,
    Indeed so completely intangible and not possible to compare to anyone else - bravo
    (Original post by vienna95)
    what state the economy would be in if he hadnt inherited a recession
    f we are still making comparisons with Clinton I thnk you'll agree he inherited a far worse recession and managed to turn it around
    (Original post by vienna95)
    and been forced into a state of war at the same time,
    Forced? By whom, even if it was the correct decision nobody could claim that he was forced to invade Iraq
    (Original post by vienna95)
    and yet you make no mention of the low taxes that are overwhelmingly popular, his education reforms, the most pro-palestinian policy ive yet to witness or two democracies and one less dictator in the middle east.
    Low taxes are popualr with the wealthy and those who aspire to become wealthy, unemployment is popular with no one. His education reforms are indeed unfairly overlooked in many ways, and if he wins the next electon i hope he doesnt see these as one of the first things that'll need to be cut back to reduce his spending - pro-palestnian whilst supporting the wall, selling wesapons to Israel and having made no positive differnce to the process whatsoever....
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    your posting keeps getting better and better.
    Thanks, Vienna

    I feel like we're the lone voices in the wilderness sometimes. It's a necessary voice that needs to be heard to offer some balance. I'm not as eloquent as you are, but I hope I can get some people to question what they hear in the media instead of taking it at face value.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chellie)
    That's a bit stereotypical and just out of curiosity, how many americans do you know? We just had a guy from new york start work at my old job and he was wa quieter than the rest of us.

    Back to the original post, a lot of UK citizens don't like anyone that isn't a UK citizen. Not quite sure why. I told my dad I was going to emigrate to the states when I finish uni and he said he'd never come and visit.
    I was being ironic in response to the poster's opinion that all Americans have loud voices - you missed the moment!

    And to satisfy your curiosity I have lived in America and know many, many Americans and certainly enough to say that they don't all have loud voices, that they are extremely hospitable and that I like them!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    If Bush had done even one those things, I guarantee you would have heard about it. The media is, unfortunately, one of the only sources of information people have regarding other countries and their leaders. The mainstream media is bent on making Bush look like a fool at every opportunity, but Clinton had to work very hard at getting the media to level any criticism at him. The impeachment wasn't just about perjury and the obstruction of justice pertaining to the Lewinsky affair. It was cumulative effect of a series of systemic abuses of power, most of which the public did not know about because the media did not do its job.

    The reason the media does not treat politicians like Bush and Clinton with evenhandedness is because Clinton is a socialist and Bush isn't. It's really that simple.
    The media does not treat Bush and Clinton the same because;

    Clinton is charismatic and comes across as caring and intelligent, albeit 'a bit of a boy' whereas Bush is perceived as non-caring, a recovering alcoholic, war crazy and a buffoon - hence, not to be trusted.

    He may not be those things but that is how he is seen.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cossack)
    The reason that Clinton recieved less negative press coverage than Bush is simple - his policies where better and his acheivments tangible.

    Whilst Bush sees his main goal as winning the war on terror, Clinton was able to create the longest economic boom in US History,
    Can you name one thing Clinton did to create what you think is the largest economic boom in US history? The economy is now growing at a faster rate than what we experienced when Clinton was in office. Unemployment and taxes are lower than when Clinton was running for his second term.

    (Original post by Cossack)
    Bush has created the largest ever current account deficit, Clinton had a $400,000,000 budget surplus,
    Most of your message is based on the false premise that a surplus is always a good thing and seeing it disappear is a bad thing.

    A surplus usually means you are being overtaxed by your goverment. Think of it as a vacuum-cleaner, sucking money out of the economy. That money should be in the private sector. In the last 12 months of Clinton's administration, our stock market was in a tailspin and a recession was on the horizon.

    I don't know of any reputable economist today that would advocate running a surplus in a recession.
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.