A Message From PepsiCo’s President & CFO, Indra Nooyi(America Basher Responds To Pressure)

A big part of my disagreement with her is that her analogy was flawed from the start! America can and frequently does act unilaterally, or in partnership with one or two allies, with great success. One of the most recent examples is the tsunami aid. The US and Australia were able to perform far more effectively than the dysfunctional UN. The input of three or four other nations was not a requirement for the USA to become effective, as the hand analogy would suggest.

Her attitude sounds like just another "get permission from France and Germany" job.

Well, you don't have to sell jack to the PRC if you don't want to. In fact, in order to show your disapproval you should consider shorting their stocks and hope the prices wouldn't go up.

Well bluefish? Your circular rhetoric is finished? You couldn't debate your way out of a paper bag, and you know it. My post was irony and sarcasm, it's all part of the debate, professor.

That being said, I still believe Indra Nooyi's speech was anti-American, and I apparently have neither the vocabulary nor education to convince you otherwise.

I just read your post and was prepared to man up and make apologies for a few comments myself. It wouldn't have even been sarcasm either. Luckily, I read your follow-up post where you essentially admitted that you had decided to remain thick.

A new lesson from the professor for you grasshopper:

Read what I quoted from your post again. It is clear that you believe the speech was anti-American. So, why on earth would you want to "convince me otherwise?" That makes no sense. Perhaps you need to slow down.

You see, your problem is that you type too fast and you read too fast. You lose meaning when trying to comprehend and you fail to communicate when trying to post. You merely wish to spout off in response to incorrect assumptions.

Again, you have failed to address the core issue that I raised - which is that there is little purpose in hypersensitivity and acting like a crybaby. That is for the Libs.

You apparently decided that the primary thrust of my commment was that the speech was *not* anti-American. I can see where you might determine that, especially when that is what you are looking to respond to Intentionally ignoring everything else is what gets you into hot water.

Now, please show me where I have engaged in "circular rhetoric." That is a mighty important sounding phrase for you. Are you trying to impress the Professor? If you can show me an instance of circular reasoning on my part, I will admit my error.

I suspect that you will continue to be thick, ignore this question, along with the original point that you took issue with and continue embarrassing yourself.

Keep trying though grasshopper. The Professor will one day, show you the way.

I just read your post and was prepared to man up and make apologies for a few comments myself. It wouldn't have even been sarcasm either. Luckily, I read your follow-up post where you essentially admitted that you had decided to remain thick.

The apology was sincere, the last sentence was the "irony and sarcasm" part. You are are tenacious as a bulldog and extremely articulate, but for the life of me, I can't understand why you are defending this women's comments.

Read what I quoted from your post again. It is clear that you believe the speech was anti-American. So, why on earth would you want to "convince me otherwise?" That makes no sense. Perhaps you need to slow down..

Yes, you're correct. 264 posts later and you and I are the only posters on the thread. I believed I owned the high ground, but was overrun by precsion verbal strikes to my flanks.

You apparently decided that the primary thrust of my commment was that the speech was *not* anti-American. I can see where you might determine that, especially when that is what you are looking to respond to Intentionally ignoring everything else is what gets you into hot water.

Holy moly BF, the entire thrust of the thread was that this womens speech was anti-American and you stated "However, I don't see an insult to the U.S. there when interpreted as the speech-giver intended." That is circular rhetoric, at least in my book.

Keep trying though grasshopper. The Professor will one day, show you the way.

LOL, I think "The Professor" suits you. I'm seriously considering changing my tagline to "grasshopper", Lord knows that I apparently have to learn every lesson the hard way.

Well, I don't know what else to say other than if I came off as arrogant, harsh or as a jerk, it was primarily out of frustration in that my primary concern wasn't getting across.

I have this problem in places other than the message boards, so I admit that the problem is mine to bear, not the general recipient of my lengthy posts.

You would think that after years on FR, I would learn how to issue a short, pithy statement that gets my point across quite clearly - but what I lack is true whit. I really do wish I had it, but I don't.

I do apologize and any harsh statements were not meant to be taken personally.

For the record, I do think the speech was stupid. I was rolling my eyes while reading it. I thought America had to be the "good and bad" middle finger for the analogy to work. However, the point was rather inane and the analogy itself was a bad one for obvious reasons (opposable thumb).

The issue I personally chose to raise was a fear that we are getting hot and bothered over relatively unimportant things. There are more important things to worry about.

Further, we must be careful not seek out reasons to be "offended" and go on warpath over silly things, lest we create our own PC set of rules, which serve little purpose other than to drive people away from the ideals that we are attempting to promote.

Take care.