Are you a citizen of the world?
- Thread starter Recon7
- Start date
Unregistered
Moderator
Oh yes you have set up another Obama bashing thread quite nicely by carefully excerpting the "citizen of the world" comment. Perhaps before people vote in your poll they could actually consider what Obama said.
Obama said: "Tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for President, but as a citizen – a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world. "
Why did you leave out the "proud citizen of the United States" part?
Why deliberately mislead people?
There are plenty of reasons not to vote for Obama. He is a liberal extraordinaire. He wants to raise taxes. He wants to cut and run in the War on Terror. He wants to take your guns.
Why not attack Obama on the issues, rather than deliberately misleading people with a carefully edited sound bite?
No, I wont be voting for Obama, but I see no reason why we need to resort to distortions to fight him.
Obama said: "Tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for President, but as a citizen – a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world. "
Why did you leave out the "proud citizen of the United States" part?
Why deliberately mislead people?
There are plenty of reasons not to vote for Obama. He is a liberal extraordinaire. He wants to raise taxes. He wants to cut and run in the War on Terror. He wants to take your guns.
Why not attack Obama on the issues, rather than deliberately misleading people with a carefully edited sound bite?
No, I wont be voting for Obama, but I see no reason why we need to resort to distortions to fight him.
The USA is the last great hope for mankind. I am an American and proud of it. I cannot support Obama who states that he will take into consideration what the rest of the world wants when he makes a decision as the Commander in Chief. God help us all. I used to tell folks that I am a Conservative, but that doesn't seem to mean much anymore. Now I call myself a Nationalist. I want a President who thinks about what is best for this country, and then move full speed ahead. Our European "friends" (including the United Kingdom) is rapidly acquiesing to Muslin demands under the insanity called political correctness. Israel seems to have lost its nerve and its will to survive. Canada and even Australia are becoming jokes as far as standing up for western civilization. If America falls, the world as we know it is over. I love my grandkids too much to passively let this happen. The day may be coming when all of us will have to stand up to be counted, and this old man who wore the uniform for 24 years will not go down quietly into the darkness of the coming Dark Ages.
guntotinguy
New member
NO, I am an American...and very proud of it!
Just a note: "American" and "citizen of the world" are not mutually exclusive terms and they aren't even in the same ballpark of terminology. You can't get a passport from "the world". Being a citizen of the world just means you are well-traveled and enjoy other nations besides the one you live in. I fit into that classification pretty well, but I'm really both.
Bumming around Europe and enjoying it doesn't make you any less patriotic or any less of an American.
Bumming around Europe and enjoying it doesn't make you any less patriotic or any less of an American.
Unregistered, I am not trying to start an Obama bashing thread. I had this discussion with a friend who is a citizen of the world. I don't like the term myself I am an American. My question was not about Obama or should the president be a citizen of the world, I was really just curious as to how TFLers here see themselves and what you all have to say. Thanks for putting up the whole quote, I did not feel it was necessary because I wasn't trying to start an Obama thread.
TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
I am a citizen of heaven, sojourning in this world; and blessed to be living in the promised land! 
-Dave
-Dave
Unregistered
Moderator
I have never travelled outside the US, yet I consider myself a citizen of the world. If you are not a citizen of the world, you are an isolationist.
Dude is bananas. Nations exist for the premise that persons included in the nation are stronger together than as individuals. That necessitates exclusion of those not contributing to the nation. As a leader of a nation, you go beyond your borders to the extent that it benefits your citizens. Obama is absolutely drunk on celebrity and counting an awful lot of chickens before they hatch. That's not to say that nations in concert can't realize mutual benefits, but it's a big assumption for a yet unelected campaigner to pursue.
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
I am a citizen of Ohio
I am a Citizen of The United States of America
I am a citizen of the Americas
I am a citizen of the world
I am a Citizen of The United States of America
I am a citizen of the Americas
I am a citizen of the world
B. Lahey, you're right they are not mutually exclusive, this is also a convenience sampling of people, so the poll means exactly jack. I was just wondering if you apply the term citizen of the world to yourself or not. if you look at the poll options 1 works for people who define themselves as citizens of the world AND America. 3 works for citizens of America who do not define themselves as citizens of the world. I could have worded it more precisely, but then I would need more poll options like "citizen of the world, citizen of Mexico, live in America."
Just do you apply that term to yourself or not. I was not trying to imply Obama or anybody else is not a citizen of America because of labeling themselves as a citizen of the world.
Just do you apply that term to yourself or not. I was not trying to imply Obama or anybody else is not a citizen of America because of labeling themselves as a citizen of the world.
JuanCarlos
New member
Because the latter works better than the former with the average slack-jawed voter, of course.
And yes, I consider myself a citizen of the world in addition to a proud American.
HarrySchell
New member
I have not read all the posts here, so I apologize if I repeat things already said.
The "citizen of the world" mantle is George Soros' explanation for his funding of leftist political efforts in the US and other places. That Barry O and Soros are connected, through ACORN and directly, is a matter of simple fact. That is to say, even the simple, presented with the facts, can agree the two are "fellow travelers".
I am unsure when this grandiose appellation came into use, but it appears to me the mantle of "citizen of the world" is an Orwellian joke.
There is no world to be a citizen of, unless one flatters oneself with the idea they understand what "the world" and "the people" need, that they first understand that totality and second care enough to lay down their lives for that cause.
My problem is, to take a recent example, I cannot imagine Barry O missing a meal so a waitress oppressed by an oil company can eat. It's a great line, that he's going to fight for the waitress agaonst the oil company, but reduce his lifestyle as a result? I think not. He is not of the same class as that waitress, if in fact he really knows one.
Anybody who represents they understand the needs of billions of people and should be entrusted with the mechanisms to see their vision to fruition has a self-approval rating that constantly exceeds 100%. Whether they are certifiable and should be confined is a consideration, but such hubris does raise the question of mental balance, the firmness of a grasp on reality. Theatre is nice, but it isn't where the rest of us live.
I would further state that every despot has always presented his reign as something for the betterment of "the people", almost universally despised by the despot but for whom he acts in benevolence. Look at Robert Mugabe. Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Ho, Pol Pot. Humanitarians all, at least by their own humble admissions.
The hard data are that the only people who have laid claim to such enlightenment are the most vicious butchers of their fellow man, against those who didn't go along with the vision, or simply got in the way, as in Mao's Great Leap Forward. Are such "enlightened" or "progressive" people those who we should allow to chart our personal futures?
The 20th century saw about a hundred million souls killed for such messianic visions, mostly in the last half and as historian Paul Johnson would say when "the power of the state to help the governed increased little, but the power to hurt the governed increased exponentially" (that is my recollection of the substance of the quote from Modern Times; we can debate the exact words if you wish).
What will we see in this century? And how do you think we can make this century better than the last? I don't think the path is through emoting about "change".
I don't think the path is through restricting choices so that people have nothing to do but make the "right" choices about diet, the car they drive, how they get to work, the work they choose by omission or comission.
Maybe some savants on this site can re-educate me about my views. Certainly open to discussion.
The "citizen of the world" mantle is George Soros' explanation for his funding of leftist political efforts in the US and other places. That Barry O and Soros are connected, through ACORN and directly, is a matter of simple fact. That is to say, even the simple, presented with the facts, can agree the two are "fellow travelers".
I am unsure when this grandiose appellation came into use, but it appears to me the mantle of "citizen of the world" is an Orwellian joke.
There is no world to be a citizen of, unless one flatters oneself with the idea they understand what "the world" and "the people" need, that they first understand that totality and second care enough to lay down their lives for that cause.
My problem is, to take a recent example, I cannot imagine Barry O missing a meal so a waitress oppressed by an oil company can eat. It's a great line, that he's going to fight for the waitress agaonst the oil company, but reduce his lifestyle as a result? I think not. He is not of the same class as that waitress, if in fact he really knows one.
Anybody who represents they understand the needs of billions of people and should be entrusted with the mechanisms to see their vision to fruition has a self-approval rating that constantly exceeds 100%. Whether they are certifiable and should be confined is a consideration, but such hubris does raise the question of mental balance, the firmness of a grasp on reality. Theatre is nice, but it isn't where the rest of us live.
I would further state that every despot has always presented his reign as something for the betterment of "the people", almost universally despised by the despot but for whom he acts in benevolence. Look at Robert Mugabe. Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Ho, Pol Pot. Humanitarians all, at least by their own humble admissions.
The hard data are that the only people who have laid claim to such enlightenment are the most vicious butchers of their fellow man, against those who didn't go along with the vision, or simply got in the way, as in Mao's Great Leap Forward. Are such "enlightened" or "progressive" people those who we should allow to chart our personal futures?
The 20th century saw about a hundred million souls killed for such messianic visions, mostly in the last half and as historian Paul Johnson would say when "the power of the state to help the governed increased little, but the power to hurt the governed increased exponentially" (that is my recollection of the substance of the quote from Modern Times; we can debate the exact words if you wish).
What will we see in this century? And how do you think we can make this century better than the last? I don't think the path is through emoting about "change".
I don't think the path is through restricting choices so that people have nothing to do but make the "right" choices about diet, the car they drive, how they get to work, the work they choose by omission or comission.
Maybe some savants on this site can re-educate me about my views. Certainly open to discussion.