PDA

View Full Version : Europeans See U.S. as Threat to Global Stability



kams
06 Sep 06,, 20:10
Some adults in five European nations express reservations about the role of the United States in world affairs, according to a poll by Harris Interactive published in the Financial Times. 30 per cent of respondents believe the U.S. is the greatest threat to global stability.

Iran is second on the list with 23 per cent, followed by China with 15 per cent, Iraq with 14 per cent, North Korea with eight per cent, and Russia with two per cent.

In Spain, 44 per cent of respondents place the U.S. as the main perceived threat. 36 per cent of respondents in Britain—and 28 per cent of respondents in France—feel the same way.

In Italy, Iran was the first country on the list with 31 per cent. The U.S. and Iran are tied with 24 per cent in Germany’s sample.

On Aug. 31, U.S. president George W. Bush discussed his foreign policy approach, saying, "America has committed its influence in the world to advancing freedom and democracy as the great alternatives to repression and radicalism. We will take the side of democratic leaders and reformers across the Middle East. We will support the voices of tolerance and moderation in the Muslim world."

After being branded as part of an "axis of evil" by Bush in January 2002, Iran has contended that its nuclear program aims to produce energy, not weapons.

Polling Data

Which one, if any, of the following countries do you think is the greatest threat to global stability?

Overall score
United States 30%
Iran 23%
China 15%
Iraq 14%
North Korea 8%
Russia 2%

p.s - Please refer to the link for countrywide break-up of the table. It's getting jumbled when I post it.
Link - Europeans See U.S. as Threat to Global Stability (http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/13028)

Stumbled on this in Strategypage. LOL who needs enemies, if you have friends like these. ;) (p.s. - It's only a poll).








Source: Harris Interactive / Financial Times
Methodology: Online interviews with 1,936 adults in Britain, 2,050 adults in France, 2,019 adults in Germany, 2,011 adults in Italy and 1,946 adults in Spain, conducted from Aug. 2 to Aug. 11, 2006. Margin of error is 3 per cent.

gunnut
06 Sep 06,, 21:32
Not surprised. Most muslim nations see America as a threat.

kams
07 Sep 06,, 00:03
Not surprised. Most muslim nations see America as a threat.

Oh No, it's the Europeans who are thinking that way. (not a threat to them but to world stability). The table I pasted did not come out right. Please click on the link and check the table.

30% of the people polled felt America is the biggest threat for World stability, followed by Iran :confused:

gunnut
07 Sep 06,, 00:24
Oh No, it's the Europeans who are thinking that way. (not a threat to them but to world stability). The table I pasted did not come out right. Please click on the link and check the table.

30% of the people polled felt America is the biggest threat for World stability, followed by Iran :confused:

If you watch main stream news reports, they never mention the background of terrorists arrested in Europe, or any where in the world. They only refer to them by their nationality rather than religious or ethnic background. Therefore, my statement stands.

Of course I was being tongue in cheek. However, the islamification of Europe is a worry.

Bluesman
07 Sep 06,, 00:25
Oh No, it's the Europeans who are thinking that way. (not a threat to them but to world stability). The table I pasted did not come out right. Please click on the link and check the table.

30% of the people polled felt America is the biggest threat for World stability, followed by Iran :confused:

30% of the people polled is a great big shovelful of dung, it would seem.

Hell with 'em. They're children that just happen to have been on Earth longer than eighteen years, but haven't seemed to have grown wiser as they've gotten older.

Bluesman
07 Sep 06,, 00:30
If you watch main stream news reports, they never mention the background of terrorists arrested in Europe, or any where in the world. They only refer to them by their nationality rather than religious or ethnic background.

You noticed that, too, eh? The 'news' organizations - supposedly charged with informing us clods - never seem to get around to mentioning the religious preference of the guys that yell 'Allahu Akbar!' while they're in the middle of committing mayhem.

Strange. Sometimes, just occasionally, when that happens, the religious affiliation may - just MAY - have some bearing on the story, may just increase a news comsumer's understanding of events a bit.

But, HEY, what do I know? I never went to J-skool.

gunnut
07 Sep 06,, 00:44
You noticed that, too, eh? The 'news' organizations - supposedly charged with informing us clods - never seem to get around to mentioning the religious preference of the guys that yell 'Allahu Akbar!' while they're in the middle of committing mayhem.

Strange. Sometimes, just occasionally, when that happens, the religious affiliation may - just MAY - have some bearing on the story, may just increase a news comsumer's understanding of events a bit.

The lack of any reference to their religious preference is painfully obvious.

I remember when those "Canadians" were arrested under suspicion of terrorism the media didn't even bother to put pictures up. After a while some pictures showed up, and some names. Of course the names are of the "usual suspects." But their religious preference was never, ever discussed.

The funniest story (well, not funny to the victims or their families, but funny for me watching the MSM's reportage) was when that nut shot up the Jewish center in Seattle. I could feel the pain as the MSM reporter just had to put down what that guy said shortly before he shot unarmed women.

"I'm a MUSLIM American..."

They couldn't hide this one. So what they did was to conveniently forget about the follow up stories and development.

Mel Gibson speaking ill about the Jews: 24/7 coverage.

Nutty Muslim killing Jews: 3 hours tops. :rolleyes:

Davis_Chan
07 Sep 06,, 00:54
Europeans See U.S. as Threat to Global Stability

not only Eruo,but ppl in the other parts of the world except US feel the same way.

Bluesman
07 Sep 06,, 01:09
not only Eruo,but ppl in the other parts of the world except US feel the same way.

Which decisively proves how the rest of the world exists in a world devoid of logic and enlightenment.

Here's the truth: what the world needs more of is America, not less. The majority just don't know that.

Davis_Chan
07 Sep 06,, 02:02
Which decisively proves how the rest of the world exists in a world devoid of logic and enlightenment.

Here's the truth: what the world needs more of is America, not less. The majority just don't know that.

monopolization of US in the world makes the world more dangerous than ever before.the principle of liberalism is not only suitable for the domestic politics,but for the international politics as well.

the global monopolization is more harmful than a autarchy. balancing the world powers,a multi-polar world,could bring the peace to the world.

kams
07 Sep 06,, 03:23
It's only a poll and I am really sceptical of most of the polls. However I was shoocked to see the British poll results, 36% felt America is a threat to Global stability. Wonder where all the these guys were polled....Londonistan or Birminghamistan?

Got your drift gunnut (lol stupid me :) )

Well it's the era of political correctness, so religeon of terrorists is never mentioned in TV :mad: but you only need to know the names. ;)

gunnut
07 Sep 06,, 03:46
monopolization of US in the world makes the world more dangerous than ever before.the principle of liberalism is not only suitable for the domestic politics,but for the international politics as well.

the global monopolization is more harmful than a autarchy. balancing the world powers,a multi-polar world,could bring the peace to the world.

For the sake of mankind I hope you pull for the US to come out ahead in the fight against islamonazis. If we fall, who do you think they'll go after next? Europe? They have Europe already. They'll go for the next biggest target/threat they perceive, which is China. Don't think you are outside of this struggle. You are safe now because the US is like a lightning rod, drawing all the strikes. If the lightning rod is gone, the next world power goes on the chopping block.

Parihaka
07 Sep 06,, 03:56
monopolization of US in the world makes the world more dangerous than ever before.the principle of liberalism is not only suitable for the domestic politics,but for the international politics as well.

the global monopolization is more harmful than a autarchy. balancing the world powers,a multi-polar world,could bring the peace to the world.
What makes the world more dangerous is when autocratic murderous regimes are allowed to rise, because those who are free are asleep.

dalem
07 Sep 06,, 04:23
balancing the world powers,a multi-polar world,could bring the peace to the world.

How?

-dale

lwarmonger
07 Sep 06,, 04:35
the global monopolization is more harmful than a autarchy. balancing the world powers,a multi-polar world,could bring the peace to the world.

Like it did just prior to World War I? Perhaps you were thinking about the situation in 1939? Possibly the Cold War (with its resultant conflicts in the third world). I know you couldn't possibly have been thinking of the period from 1815-1890!

BenRoethig
07 Sep 06,, 14:37
The european definition of global stability involves lesser peoples being enslaved and slaughtered as long as they get to live in their socialist utopia. Europe doesn't believe in free rights for all, they just don't want to be bothered with it.

Major Dad
07 Sep 06,, 22:24
the principle of liberalism is not only suitable for the domestic politics,but for the international politics as well.

Is that why your government keeps such a close eye on the Uigurs? Not to mention the Tibetans. And how about those Taiwanese?

Amled
07 Sep 06,, 23:29
If you watch main stream news reports, they never mention the background of terrorists arrested in Europe, or any where in the world. They only refer to them by their nationality rather than religious or ethnic background. Therefore, my statement stands.

Of course I was being tongue in cheek. However, the islamification of Europe is a worry.
Here in Denmark, the two groups of incipient terrorist arrested are referred to as “of other ethnicity then Danish”!
This both by the media and the authorities.
Ain’t PC wonderful!!! :rolleyes:

Bill
07 Sep 06,, 23:33
Europeans See U.S. as Threat to Global Stability
Yet more evidence that Europeans are clueless socialist assclowns.

Amled
07 Sep 06,, 23:45
Yet more evidence that Europeans are clueless socialist assclowns.

I'll accept the clueless and even the assclown...but not the socialist, thank you very much!!!:eek: :biggrin:

BIKEMAN
08 Sep 06,, 01:08
Which decisively proves how the rest of the world exists in a world devoid of logic and enlightenment.

Here's the truth: what the world needs more of is America, not less. The majority just don't know that.

When the President of the US recognizes the leaders of an illegal coup against the democratically elected leader of Venezuela, then the rest of the world and especially South America learns very quickly how shallow are this American administration's claims to support freedom and democracy.

dalem
08 Sep 06,, 01:24
When the President of the US recognizes the leaders of an illegal coup against the democratically elected leader of Venezuela, then the rest of the world and especially South America learns very quickly how shallow are this American administration's claims to support freedom and democracy.

So Chavez turning into an autocrat is acceptable to you instead? Is more supportive of freedom and democracy?

-dale

Bill
08 Sep 06,, 02:10
I'll accept the clueless and even the assclown...but not the socialist, thank you very much!!!:eek: :biggrin:
LOL, hey bro...if the chains fit... ;)

kams
08 Sep 06,, 02:25
Here in Denmark, the two groups of incipient terrorist arrested are referred to as “of other ethnicity then Danish”!
This both by the media and the authorities.
Ain’t PC wonderful!!! :rolleyes:

LOL that's original. Imagine CNN refering to terrorists as "of other ethnicity than Americans". In that case terrorists have to be Martians offcourse:biggrin: (not sure Americans of Martian origin do not exist, proof - MIB 1 and MIB 2)

BIKEMAN
08 Sep 06,, 02:57
So Chavez turning into an autocrat is acceptable to you instead? Is more supportive of freedom and democracy?

-dale

Chavez won in a democratic election. No South American country recognized the coup - they all condemned it. The US has no right to stick its nose in every ones business to serve its own corporate interests. It did show most eloquently Bush's sham and hollow commitment to democracy, however.

Bill
08 Sep 06,, 03:19
Chavez won in a democratic election.
Who cares even if he did?


No South American country recognized the coup - they all condemned it. The US has no right to stick its nose in every ones business to serve its own corporate interests.
Bzzzzzt. The Monroe Doctrine has been US policy for decades(over a century actually).

Monroe clearly states that the US alone has the right to interfere in matters involving the Western Hemisphere.

Whether you agree with it or not, it is long standing US policy.


It did show most eloquently Bush's sham and hollow commitment to democracy, however.
So what's your deal dude?

You live in a stinkin' police-state hereditary monarchy, who the HELL are you to tell us that WE are misguided?

Question, when addressing mayor Daley do you call him "Mr Mayor", or "Emperor"?

Just curious.... (rolling eyes)

gunnut
08 Sep 06,, 03:20
Chavez won in a democratic election. No South American country recognized the coup - they all condemned it. The US has no right to stick its nose in every ones business to serve its own corporate interests. It did show most eloquently Bush's sham and hollow commitment to democracy, however.

There it is!!! I see the key phrase of a leftist. Corporate interest.

The United States government gives very little crap about "corporate interest." Our government acts on national interest, just like any other government. It's just that we have the money and the reach to pull off certain acts that most other governments can't.

I'm against a coup in Venezuela, by the way. Chavez is a commie wannabe but I see him as of little threat to the US. In fact, we like their oil and they need our money. Venezuela is the 3rd or 4th largest foreign oil supplier of the US.

dalem
08 Sep 06,, 03:55
I'm against a coup in Venezuela, by the way. Chavez is a commie wannabe but I see him as of little threat to the US. In fact, we like their oil and they need our money. Venezuela is the 3rd or 4th largest foreign oil supplier of the US.

I agree. Chavez is exactly as much of a problem as we let him be and no more.

-dale

BIKEMAN
08 Sep 06,, 10:37
Bzzzzzt. The Monroe Doctrine has been US policy for decades(over a century actually).

Monroe clearly states that the US alone has the right to interfere in matters involving the Western Hemisphere.

Whether you agree with it or not, it is long standing US policy.


So what's your deal dude?

You live in a stinkin' police-state hereditary monarchy, who the HELL are you to tell us that WE are misguided?

Question, when addressing mayor Daley do you call him "Mr Mayor", or "Emperor"?

Just curious.... (rolling eyes)

The Monroe doctrine has been around nearly 2 centuries, actually. It is just as imperialistic and hegemonistic as when it was written. The South Americans are quite right to despoise it.

Your comments on Chicago are beneath response.

BIKEMAN
08 Sep 06,, 10:39
There it is!!! I see the key phrase of a leftist. Corporate interest.

The United States government gives very little crap about "corporate interest." Our government acts on national interest, just like any other government. It's just that we have the money and the reach to pull off certain acts that most other governments can't.



In Guatemala in 1954 we overthrew the democratic government since they were threatening to nationalize a US corporatiion - the United fruit Company. In 1953 we overthrew the Iranian government to protect US oil interests of oil corporations. And Halliburton is doing great in Iraq.

Parihaka
08 Sep 06,, 10:46
In Guatemala in 1954 we overthrew the democratic government since they were threatening to nationalize a US corporatiion - the United fruit Company. In 1953 we overthrew the Iranian government to protect US oil interests of oil corporations. And Halliburton is doing great in Iraq.I thought Halliburton had just been sacked? Yes, here we go (http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?view=CN&storyID=2006-07-12T223759Z_01_N12292332_RTRIDST_0_ARMS-HALLIBURTON-IRAQ-UPDATE-3.XML&rpc=66&type=qcna), sorry, you'll have to find another corporatiion (sic)! oops, excuse me.

Ray
08 Sep 06,, 12:13
I think you guys are bullying the poor chap.

If one goes by facts and realities, it does make the cry "Freedom and Democracy" a bit too thick to accept. It is just a nice moral high note for activities that are not so moral but in line with the interest of the country and sounds closer to the country's high ideals as enshrined in the Constitution! ;)

Nothing moral and nothing terribly unethical either!

cris29
08 Sep 06,, 12:52
Im british and i see the USA as the most keen nation wanting to stabilise the planet.

China of course is the biggest threat

Ray
08 Sep 06,, 13:19
So, you are a Blairite.

Actually, all these homilies about stabilising the planet and all that is hyperbole and I confess it does warm the cockles of some hearts.

In the effort to stabilise, a whole lot of instability has been churned up and so one has to stabilise this instability too. It is like the debt trap that credit cards invite!

However, what is God's own truth is that the US (notwithstanding the high moral stands) is actually undertaking activities that are totally in the interest of the US. And that is the truth and there is nothing wrong about that either. All countries do what is in their interest and no quibbles on that.

I support whatever the US is doing.

Yet, I don't buy these high moral stands that are trotted out in justification. They are pure hogwash.

So spare us the pious platitudes and bogus homilies.

dalem
08 Sep 06,, 16:09
In Guatemala in 1954 we overthrew the democratic government since they were threatening to nationalize a US corporatiion - the United fruit Company. In 1953 we overthrew the Iranian government to protect US oil interests of oil corporations. And Halliburton is doing great in Iraq.

So stealing our corporations is okay?

-dale

Bill
08 Sep 06,, 17:02
The Monroe doctrine has been around nearly 2 centuries, actually. It is just as imperialistic and hegemonistic as when it was written. The South Americans are quite right to despoise it.
They're also quite stuck with it.

Nobody said life is fair. It's just more fair than death.


Your comments on Chicago are beneath response.
Why's that? Cause you can think of no reasonable defense for why a major US city should be a hereditary monarchy/police state?

As long as you don't mind being a subject, i guess it's no big deal, eh?

Bill
08 Sep 06,, 17:06
In Guatemala in 1954 we overthrew the democratic government since they were threatening to nationalize a US corporatiion - the United fruit Company. In 1953 we overthrew the Iranian government to protect US oil interests of oil corporations(who were being siezed by the Iranian govt).
Why should the US sit back as US citizens are deprived of their (vast holdings of) property by a hostile foriegn gov't? Why should the US sit back and allow it's economy to be de facto stolen by foriegn powers?

It shouldn't.

I reckon if it was your millions of dollars in hard earned property/assets you'd have an entirely different view on the matter. (rolling eyes)


And Halliburton is doing great in Iraq.
Haliburton lost the contract for servicing the US military in Iraq. Or did you miss that?

gunnut
08 Sep 06,, 19:26
In Guatemala in 1954 we overthrew the democratic government since they were threatening to nationalize a US corporatiion - the United fruit Company. In 1953 we overthrew the Iranian government to protect US oil interests of oil corporations. And Halliburton is doing great in Iraq.

You're in Chicago, so I guess you are used to government take-overs of private properties.

Go look up the presidential election of 1960 and Chicago. JFK won that state because of the corruption in Chicago. JFK won the presidency probably because of Chicago.

Do you know anything about the election in the old days? There's a mechanical tabulator which increments the number by 1 every time someone pulls the lever. There's no paper trail. There's no anti-tampering anything, unlike electronic voting machines of today. Corrupt politicians in Chicago ran those machines. You can imagine the result.

Aha, I see another leftist mark: Haliburton. Whenever a discussion pops up, bring up "Corporate Interest" and "Haliburton."

Haliburton usually gets the contract because they can get stuff done. They might steal your money in the process, but they are fast at what they do.

Parihaka
08 Sep 06,, 21:16
I think you guys are bullying the poor chap.


Yes, quite right Ray, he did however bring it on himself somewhat;)

BIKEMAN
08 Sep 06,, 22:35
I thought Halliburton had just been sacked? Yes, here we go (http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?view=CN&storyID=2006-07-12T223759Z_01_N12292332_RTRIDST_0_ARMS-HALLIBURTON-IRAQ-UPDATE-3.XML&rpc=66&type=qcna), sorry, you'll have to find another corporatiion (sic)! oops, excuse me.

Whether they have been sacked or not they have made their billions in profits, and ex-CEO MR. VP, Dick the liar Cheney has made an average of $200,000 per annum from Halliburton these past 5 years although he continually denies any financial connection.

BIKEMAN
08 Sep 06,, 22:37
Yes, quite right Ray, he did however bring it on himself somewhat;)

Not at all, compared to where I have come from you guys and gals are remarkably polite.

gunnut
08 Sep 06,, 23:33
Not at all, compared to where I have come from you guys and gals are remarkably polite.

Is that because we're conservatives and you normally browse liberal sites?:biggrin:

Bill
09 Sep 06,, 00:02
Whether they have been sacked or not they have made their billions in profits, and ex-CEO MR. VP, Dick the liar Cheney has made an average of $200,000 per annum from Halliburton these past 5 years although he continually denies any financial connection.
Dick Cheyney is a whore of a man. You will never see me defend him.

There is your olive branch, and you get to be right for once.


Not at all, compared to where I have come from you guys and gals are remarkably polite.
The day is still young...


Is that because we're conservatives and you normally browse liberal sites?:biggrin:
Most likely. Liberals- the 'tolerant' liberals- do hysteria and branding like no others.
They're tolerant all right. As long as you agree with them.

lwarmonger
09 Sep 06,, 03:18
Yet, I don't buy these high moral stands that are trotted out in justification. They are pure hogwash.

So spare us the pious platitudes and bogus homilies.

Part of American tradition sir. We serve our interest, and then claim it was in the best interests of whomever we had to crush. God bless America!

BIKEMAN
10 Sep 06,, 02:38
If one goes by facts and realities, it does make the cry "Freedom and Democracy" a bit too thick to accept. It is just a nice moral high note for activities that are not so moral but in line with the interest of the country and sounds closer to the country's high ideals as enshrined in the Constitution! ;)

Nothing moral and nothing terribly unethical either!

In Bush's second inaugural address Jan 20th 2005, he used the words free, freedo, liberty (and words derived from them) 49 times (I counted because I wrote a college paper about it). Of course, he could not talk of the economy since his first term had been the first presidency since Hoover 70 plus years ago to actually have fewer people employed at the end than at the beginning. But "freedom" and "liberty" resonate very well in America since Americans know that this is what their country stands for, despite its history of slavery, segregation, and support of foreign dictators. But Bush spoke less about "Democracy" than "freedom" since the latter is more impalpable and harder to measure than the former.

BIKEMAN
10 Sep 06,, 02:43
So stealing our corporations is okay?

-dale

The Guatemalan government offered to pay the value of the company as entered into its tax forms. The company then stated that the real worth was 6 times as much. The company had been stealing from Guatemala!!!

dalem
10 Sep 06,, 03:10
The Guatemalan government offered to pay the value of the company as entered into its tax forms. The company then stated that the real worth was 6 times as much. The company had been stealing from Guatemala!!!

So the Guatemalan government (in whatever example you're talking about now) had the right to force that consideration? Can we do that here with, say, all of Rhone Poulanc's assets (physical and intellectual) here? Just offer them their book value or take them anyway?

-dale

dalem
10 Sep 06,, 03:10
In Bush's second inaugural address Jan 20th 2005, he used the words free, freedo, liberty (and words derived from them) 49 times (I counted because I wrote a college paper about it). Of course, he could not talk of the economy since his first term had been the first presidency since Hoover 70 plus years ago to actually have fewer people employed at the end than at the beginning. But "freedom" and "liberty" resonate very well in America since Americans know that this is what their country stands for, despite its history of slavery, segregation, and support of foreign dictators. But Bush spoke less about "Democracy" than "freedom" since the latter is more impalpable and harder to measure than the former.

Of course he mentioned the economy and he's mentioned it plenty - it's been booming for the last 3 years or so.

-dale

Bill
10 Sep 06,, 03:13
In Bush's second inaugural address Jan 20th 2005, he used the words free, freedo, liberty (and words derived from them) 49 times (I counted because I wrote a college paper about it). Of course, he could not talk of the economy since his first term had been the first presidency since Hoover 70 plus years ago to actually have fewer people employed at the end than at the beginning. But "freedom" and "liberty" resonate very well in America since Americans know that this is what their country stands for, despite its history of slavery, segregation, and support of foreign dictators. But Bush spoke less about "Democracy" than "freedom" since the latter is more impalpable and harder to measure than the former.
LOL, are you really as naive as you appear?

A good word for all that you just described is as follows: Reality.

The world really is a jungle. And it really is survival of the fittest. It is the natural order of things. It's fine to bemoan it, but we'll never change it.

"The very emphasis of the commandment: Thou shalt not kill, makes it certain that we are descended from an endlessly long chain of generations of murderers, whose love of murder was in their blood as it is also in ours."
~ Sigmund Freud

Bluesman
10 Sep 06,, 03:14
LOL, are you really as naive as you appear?

I think he is. Yes. He definitely IS.

Bill
10 Sep 06,, 03:15
So the Guatemalan government (in whatever example you're talking about now) had the right to force that consideration? Can we do that here with, say, all of Rhone Poulanc's assets (physical and intellectual) here? Just offer them their book value or take them anyway?

-dale
How about Soros? Or that Rupert Murdoch character?

Can we just FORCE them to sell us thier US assets at 'face value'?
That's like eminent domain but 10x worse.

No, tis not equitable.

Ray
10 Sep 06,, 06:13
Snipe,

Cheney maybe anything, but he is the one who is running the show.

You chaps don't read.

Please read the Defence Policy Guidelines that Cheney initiated when he was the Secretary of Defence and his National Energy Policy.

Whatever is happening around the world are all in these documents!

He is the BOSS and OK, the Boss is an ********!

Bill
10 Sep 06,, 06:41
Snipe,

Cheney maybe anything, but he is the one who is running the show.

You chaps don't read.

Please read the Defence Policy Guidelines that Cheney initiated when he was the Secretary of Defence and his National Energy Policy.

Whatever is happening around the world are all in these documents!

He is the BOSS and OK, the Boss is an ********!
Cheyney is not my favorite person to say the least.

gunnut
10 Sep 06,, 10:25
Of course, he could not talk of the economy since his first term had been the first presidency since Hoover 70 plus years ago to actually have fewer people employed at the end than at the beginning.

Where have I heard that before? Let's see...ah yes, the party line espoused by Hillary and the Democrats.

"This is the worst economy since Herbert Hoover!!!" -- Hillary Clinton

Please analyse the facts and put things into context before stating "the first presidency since Hoover 70 plus years ago to actually have fewer people employed at the end than at the beginning."

America was attacked. It was the end of the Dot Com Boom. It was also the end of a business cycle. Leading economists had moved the beginning of the recession to the last half year of the Clinton presidency. These weren't Bush's fault or Clinton's fault. The economy expanded too much and need a correction. The remarkable thing was how Bush was able to keep the correction period relatively short and painless while simultaneously fight a war.



But "freedom" and "liberty" resonate very well in America since Americans know that this is what their country stands for, despite its history of slavery, segregation, and support of foreign dictators. But Bush spoke less about "Democracy" than "freedom" since the latter is more impalpable and harder to measure than the former.

That's extremely disrespecful to the men and women who fought and died to free the slaves, end segregation, defeat Nazism and the Cold War. We aren't perfect. But when we see something's wrong, we'll fix it. That's more than what I can say about the socialists in this country.

Bluesman
10 Sep 06,, 10:33
Excellent post, gunnut.

BIKEMAN
10 Sep 06,, 16:09
You're in Chicago, so I guess you are used to government take-overs of private properties.


Aha, I see another leftist mark: Haliburton. Whenever a discussion pops up, bring up "Corporate Interest" and "Haliburton."

Haliburton usually gets the contract because they can get stuff done. They might steal your money in the process, but they are fast at what they do.

Chicago is a very corrupt place. I do not defend it. But so is the rest of America. Look at the vote fraud in Ohio; the racist exclusionary voting practices in Florida; the absurd aristocratic electoral college; the racist voter Id laws in the south ; the non-representation of DC residents. Yes, America is a very questionable democracy.

As for Halliburton they made a fortune in Iraq and Xheney averaged $200,000 a year from them while being VP while mendaciiously claiming he had no financial interest in the company. It is not they "might steal". It is that they did steal.

As for corporations they run this country; the fundies are nowhere. With 18 years of Republican presidents Reagan + Bush I + Bush II abortion is still legal and corporate profits as a share of the economy; CEO salries and the inequyality index in the US have gone through the roof.

BIKEMAN
10 Sep 06,, 16:14
Please analyse the facts and put things into context before stating "the first presidency since Hoover 70 plus years ago to actually have fewer people employed at the end than at the beginning."

America was attacked. It was the end of the Dot Com Boom.


That's extremely disrespecful to the men and women who fought and died to free the slaves, end segregation, defeat Nazism and the Cold War. We aren't perfect. But when we see something's wrong, we'll fix it. That's more than what I can say about the socialists in this country.

America was attacked before wityhout job loss. bush also promised his tax cuts of May 2001 would expand the econiomy within months. 9/11 did not have such a big impact on the national economy; manly New Yprk was affected.

My comments on slavery are not disrespectful at all. Even Jefferson and John Adams abhorred slavery (though they benefited from it). But they recognized that slavery stood in direct contradiction to the Bill of Rights. But it took 90 years and a horrible war to fix. Afterwards, we had segregation. I admire those who fought it ; but abhor those who supported slavery and segregation = they were Americans also.

Confed999
10 Sep 06,, 16:14
the racist exclusionary voting practices in Florida

Huh? What practices are those?

BIKEMAN
10 Sep 06,, 16:19
Huh? What practices are those?

The Floria law on exclusion of voting on ex-felons was manipulated by a computer program to match residential address of ex-felon suspect with prison record. The match criteria were written based on a match of name plus address plus ethnicity i.e. ll three had to match to identify an ex-felon. On the surface a reasonable prgram sdesign. However, the authors knew that on ethnicity in both residential and prioson records blacks would nearly always be entered as blacks; Hispanics would often leave ethnicity blank. So the program "found" black ex-felons at a rate of six times those of Hispanics. As you know, blacks vote 80% plus Democrat while Hispanics vote 60% plus republican.

the program worked very well for Republicans.

This was documented in a NY Times article a few years ago.

Confed999
10 Sep 06,, 16:30
The Floria law on exclusion of voting on ex-felons was manipulated by a computer program to match residential address of ex-felon suspect with prison record. The match criteria were written based on a match of name plus address plus ethnicity i.e. ll three had to match to identify an ex-felon. On the surface a reasonable prgram sdesign. However, the authors knew that on ethnicity in both residential and prioson records blacks would nearly always be entered as blacks; Hispanics would often leave ethnicity blank. So the program "found" black ex-felons at a rate of six times those of Hispanics. As you know, blacks vote 80% plus Democrat while Hispanics vote 60% plus republican.

the program worked very well for Republicans.

This was documented in a NY Times article a few years ago.

So you're blaming decades of bad paperwork on Republicans? LOL :)

BTW, in states where felons can vote, they vote between 80 and 90% Democrat. ;)

Bill
10 Sep 06,, 17:16
Chicago is a very corrupt place. I do not defend it. But so is the rest of America. Look at the vote fraud in Ohio; the racist exclusionary voting practices in Florida; the absurd aristocratic electoral college; the racist voter Id laws in the south ; the non-representation of DC residents. Yes, America is a very questionable democracy.

As for Halliburton they made a fortune in Iraq and Xheney averaged $200,000 a year from them while being VP while mendaciiously claiming he had no financial interest in the company. It is not they "might steal". It is that they did steal.

As for corporations they run this country; the fundies are nowhere. With 18 years of Republican presidents Reagan + Bush I + Bush II abortion is still legal and corporate profits as a share of the economy; CEO salries and the inequyality index in the US have gone through the roof.
Dude, you are a flaming leftist loon without a single redeeming quality that i can detect.

Tell us about this military service during time of war of yours. This is the 4th time you're being asked. The longer you ignore the question, the more volume with which it will be asked, and by more mouths. The more you duck the question, the more convinced i and others will become that you are no more than a trolling liar.

Bill
10 Sep 06,, 17:18
The Floria law on exclusion of voting on ex-felons was manipulated by a computer program to match residential address of ex-felon suspect with prison record. The match criteria were written based on a match of name plus address plus ethnicity i.e. ll three had to match to identify an ex-felon. On the surface a reasonable prgram sdesign. However, the authors knew that on ethnicity in both residential and prioson records blacks would nearly always be entered as blacks; Hispanics would often leave ethnicity blank. So the program "found" black ex-felons at a rate of six times those of Hispanics. As you know, blacks vote 80% plus Democrat while Hispanics vote 60% plus republican.

the program worked very well for Republicans.

This was documented in a NY Times article a few years ago.
Shhhhh...........

The Illuminati are watching.

Bluesman
10 Sep 06,, 17:26
Not at all, compared to where I have come from you guys and gals are remarkably polite.

I sense that's all about to change.

dalem
10 Sep 06,, 20:05
Chicago is a very corrupt place. I do not defend it. But so is the rest of America. Look at the vote fraud in Ohio; the racist exclusionary voting practices in Florida; the absurd aristocratic electoral college; the racist voter Id laws in the south ; the non-representation of DC residents. Yes, America is a very questionable democracy.

Oh wow, you are a True Believer.



As for Halliburton they made a fortune in Iraq and Xheney averaged $200,000 a year from them while being VP while mendaciiously claiming he had no financial interest in the company. It is not they "might steal". It is that they did steal.

As for corporations they run this country; the fundies are nowhere. With 18 years of Republican presidents Reagan + Bush I + Bush II abortion is still legal and corporate profits as a share of the economy; CEO salries and the inequyality index in the US have gone through the roof.

The inequality index? What kind of hippie crap is that? Things are DESIGNED to be unequal in this country - he who works hardest gets the most wampum.

-dale

BIKEMAN
10 Sep 06,, 23:53
Dude, you are a flaming leftist loon without a single redeeming quality that i can detect.

Tell us about this military service during time of war of yours. This is the 4th time you're being asked. The longer you ignore the question, the more volume with which it will be asked, and by more mouths. The more you duck the question, the more convinced i and others will become that you are no more than a trolling liar.

You think that anyway. I will wait a week and if I am still around then I will tell you - remind me on sept 17th. I put in my profile that I was from Chicago which, naturally, caused all sorts of negative comments in my direction. So if you are still interested and i am still around a week from now, I will answer then.

But if I have no redeeming quality for you, then, surely, I must be on the correct track.

BIKEMAN
10 Sep 06,, 23:55
Oh wow, you are a True Believer.



The inequality index? What kind of hippie crap is that? Things are DESIGNED to be unequal in this country - he who works hardest gets the most wampum.

-dale

It is caLLED THE GINI INDEX OF INEQUALITY. America has the highest GINI index of any developed democracy. But the world record is Sierra Leone which has a GINI of about 57. America is about 10, Britain about 6 and W Europe about 4 to 5, as I recall. Google it.

BIKEMAN
10 Sep 06,, 23:58
Things are DESIGNED to be unequal in this country - he who works hardest gets the most wampum.

-dale

You really believe that nonsense? Like Bush, Cheney, and Kerry, huh?

The latest surveys show that a poor Swede or poor German has more chance making it to the top 10% of their respective societies than a poor American does. The very idea that most people get rich through hard work - what a joke!!!

lwarmonger
11 Sep 06,, 00:16
You really believe that nonsense? Like Bush, Cheney, and Kerry, huh?

The latest surveys show that a poor Swede or poor German has more chance making it to the top 10% of their respective societies than a poor American does. The very idea that most people get rich through hard work - what a joke!!!

And the top 10% of their society in terms of monetary wealth is about the median for ours. You are talking to members of the 3rd richest country on earth (we are behind only Norway and Luxembourg, and that is because Norway has a lot of oil spread out among a small but educated population). The reason we are so wealthy is because we get rewarded for our hard work. Supply and demand buddy. Econ 101.

dalem
11 Sep 06,, 00:42
You really believe that nonsense? Like Bush, Cheney, and Kerry, huh?

The latest surveys show that a poor Swede or poor German has more chance making it to the top 10% of their respective societies than a poor American does. The very idea that most people get rich through hard work - what a joke!!!

Yeah, I do believe it. And let's take your second graf apart for you:


The latest surveys

What surveys? By whom? Surveying whom?



show that a poor Swede or poor German

How are you (or the surveys) defining "poor"?



has more chance making it to the top 10% of their respective societies

"top 10%" of what? Income? Tax bracket? Net worth? Happiness? Satisfaction?



than a poor American does.

Again, what is "poor", etc.?



The very idea that most people get rich through hard work - what a joke!!!

So how do you think most people get rich?

-dale

Bill
11 Sep 06,, 08:53
No wonder everyone was so rude to him at the last board...
this guy is a genuine mouth-frothing moonbatting koolaid drinking tinfoil beanie wearing nutcase of the first order.

I say we all just point our fingers at him and laugh.

Bluesman
11 Sep 06,, 09:50
No wonder everyone was so rude to him at the last board...
this guy is a genuine mouth-frothing moonbatting koolaid drinking tinfoil beanie wearing nutcase of the first order.

I say we all just point our fingers at him and laugh.

Waaaay ahead of you...

Bill
11 Sep 06,, 09:56
Hehehehehe...

JBG
11 Sep 06,, 10:14
"this guy is a genuine mouth-frothing moonbatting koolaid drinking tinfoil beanie wearing nutcase of the first order." Add "sandal wearing and basket weaving".

Sniper, you really have a way with words.

Jonathan

Parihaka
11 Sep 06,, 10:41
I say we all just point our fingers at him and laugh.
is this too mean?

Bill
11 Sep 06,, 14:26
"this guy is a genuine mouth-frothing moonbatting koolaid drinking tinfoil beanie wearing nutcase of the first order." Add "sandal wearing and basket weaving".

Sniper, you really have a way with words.

Jonathan
LOL, why thank you good fellow, that would no doubt make my ole' Drill, Plt, 1st, and Sgt Maj's proud, as it was they that taught me the fine art of "the verbal frontal assault."

LOL...

PS: I like your modifications to my original observation. :biggrin:


is this too mean?
LOL, i like it just fine...but as you may recall, i have my own fave "LOL" pic too:

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/m21sniper/LOL.jpg

Dreadnought
11 Sep 06,, 17:29
Maybe they see us this way because we are less debateable and more willing to dispense with the concessions then other countries are. Is it because of comparrison to other countries "laxed" state that we are so dangerous? America didnt remain a superpower by rolling out the red carpet to appeasement and giving door prizes as a bonus.

gunnut
11 Sep 06,, 20:06
Look at the vote fraud in Ohio

Please elaborate.


the racist exclusionary voting practices in Florida

So there are laws in Florida that excludes certain ethnic groups from voting?


the absurd aristocratic electoral college

It's a brilliant system that gives us our federalized government rather than a system like the European democracy.

America is first a federal system. The federal government derives power from the states. The states derive power from the people. The electoral college is to make sure each state's voice is heard. In this manner, the people of the state act as a single voice.

For example, 51% of the people in Utah prefer Candidate A. In essense, Utah elects A. Utah's consolidated voice is reflected in the electoral college by it's entire membership voting for A. It doesn't matter how much this state prefers A, it votes for A. Think of it as a single person. He may strongly agree with A, or he may prefer A over B because he doesn't like B. Either way he's voting for A.


the racist voter Id laws in the south

So there are laws that only give IDs to people of a certain ethnic group in the south, so they can vote?


the non-representation of DC residents

Then don't live there.


Yes, America is a very questionable democracy.

Sadly, this is the best form of government we have today. Everything else sucks.


As for Halliburton they made a fortune in Iraq and Xheney averaged $200,000 a year from them while being VP while mendaciiously claiming he had no financial interest in the company. It is not they "might steal". It is that they did steal.

That's why we have to watch them carefully. If we find out someone is stealing from the government, then we can it and find another company.


As for corporations they run this country

So what? What's the alternative? Ever thought of that? What was the world like before corporations? Everyone farmed their own land and worked in very small communities where very large projects were not possible. Technology was horribly expensive because there was no mass production. Life expectancy was short. Improvements were slow to come.

Besides, how would you make a living if there were no corporations? Most of us would be farmers. Up until the first decade of 20th century 30% of Americans were farmers, or worked on the farm, just to make ends meet.


With 18 years of Republican presidents Reagan + Bush I + Bush II abortion is still legal

Too legal.


and corporate profits as a share of the economy; CEO salries and the inequyality index in the US have gone through the roof.

Corporate profits should be higher. That means we are making money. Making money means we have excess capacity, which means we are more productive.

CEO salaries are exceedingly high in some cases. But that's brought about by the board of directors of each company. They choose to divert huge profits to the CEO then that's their business. CEOs also don't have job security. They can be fired whenever the company fails to perform. Rarely do you see a CEO working the same job for 10 years or more.

And what's the "inequity index" I hear about? Who makes it up and why is it bad? We have high inequity index because we reward hard working people. People with a good idea and the drive to market it get rewarded handsomely. Low inequity index is bad. It doesn't mean everyone is well off. It means everyone is equally miserable.

Confed999
12 Sep 06,, 01:54
It is caLLED THE GINI INDEX OF INEQUALITY. America has the highest GINI index of any developed democracy. But the world record is Sierra Leone which has a GINI of about 57. America is about 10, Britain about 6 and W Europe about 4 to 5, as I recall. Google it.

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

Timeseer
12 Sep 06,, 16:54
Did it took them this long to realize that?

The problem with the United States is that it is too focused on foreign affairs and should be focusing more on Domestic Affairs.

But most Americans are just so paranoid and umm illogical, they fear if they don't anger the Muslims communities even more so that these communities will come and attack them like they did in September 11, 2001.

What the United States should do is get over it's paranoid craze and focus on Domestic Issues and allow the UN to do it's job.

The United States should create an Amendment that focuses on creating an Intelligence Examination to promote intelligent voting on Presidential Candidates. The United States, while we are at it should focus on creating a new government that will insure that there will be no more "Bush Presidents."

Officer of Engineers
12 Sep 06,, 17:01
Hello, Mr Orwell.

Dreadnought
12 Sep 06,, 17:18
Did it took them this long to realize that?

The problem with the United States is that it is too focused on foreign affairs and should be focusing more on Domestic Affairs.

But most Americans are just so paranoid and umm illogical, they fear if they don't anger the Muslims communities even more so that these communities will come and attack them like they did in September 11, 2001.

What the United States should do is get over it's paranoid craze and focus on Domestic Issues and allow the UN to do it's job.

The United States should create an Amendment that focuses on creating an Intelligence Examination to promote intelligent voting on Presidential Candidates. The United States, while we are at it should focus on creating a new government that will insure that there will be no more "Bush Presidents."

1) The majority of Americans arent paranoid nor do they fear muslims.( Those would be your cut and run types that would make it that much more dangerous for US troops and citizens everywhere.)
2) When the U.N. starts to act like the World organization they were created to be perhaps the world would be a safer and better place to live in. Kofi Annan has no teeth and is reluctant to use force when all other alleyes have been exausted profusely. The U.N. is corrupt and the "Oil for Food" agreement showed this as clear as glass this does not take into account their progress since then which is less then acceptable given the current conflicts at hand.
3) Bush may not be the best but the man has "stones" something that all presidents need to defend a country such as the U.S. and its policies and its citizens.
4)Do I believe in more Domestic spending absolutely. But cut and run and walk away from the "chess" game..certainly not we would be fools to even consider the idea.
5) So you are proposing more Clinton,Kerry presidents to solve this problem?

Like the man said last night "Not on our watch".:rolleyes:

Timeseer
12 Sep 06,, 17:38
1) The majority of Americans arent paranoid nor do they fear muslims.

Yes but a good majority of them feel it is their duty to go and fight terrorists. But this in turn, just angers more Muslim Communities. It's paranoia, because these Americans feel if they don't do something, they'll just get attacked again. Unfortunately, it looks more like they will get attacked if they do something at all.




2) When the U.N. starts to act like the World organization they were created to be perhaps the world would be a safer and better place to live in.

Actually they were created to stop or dispromote conflict between other countries.

But do you honestly think the UN would have any power over the United States?



Kofi Annan has no teeth and is reluctant to use force when all other leyes have been exausted profusely. The U.N. is corrupt and the "Oil for Food" agreement showed this as clear as glass this does not take into account their progress since then which is less then acceptable given the current conflicts at hand.

Actually it would be the members in the UN that are corrupt. If that's the case then there should be a new UN comprise of the actual Country leader's thenselves or represenatives choosen by those leaders.



3) Bush may not be the best but the man has "stones" something that all presidents need to defend a country such as the U.S. and its policies and its citizens.

But how is the United States defending its own citizens by attacking Iraq? What has Iraq done to endanger the United States's citizens so greatly? Promoting Terrorism? Well North Korea has nukes and we aren't doing a thing to stop them.



4) So you are proposing more Clinton,Gore,Kerry presidents to solve this problem?

Since when has Kerry or Gore ever been President of the United States? What I'm proposing is more Roosevelt like Presidents.

Why should the United States have another President like Bush who is now getting sued by Congress for doing such a horrible job as President?



Like the man said last night "Not on our watch".:rolleyes:

Well Bush is by far worst than Clinton. Therefore, I don't see why you have such a problem with liberals.

Dreadnought
12 Sep 06,, 18:00
Yes but a good majority of them feel it is their duty to go and fight terrorists. But this in turn, just angers more Muslim Communities. It's paranoia, because these Americans feel if they don't do something, they'll just get attacked again. Unfortunately, it looks more like they will get attacked if they do something at all.




Actually they were created to stop or dispromote conflict between other countries.

But do you honestly think the UN would have any power over the United States?



Actually it would be the members in the UN that are corrupt. If that's the case then there should be a new UN comprise of the actual Country leader's thenselves or represenatives choosen by those leaders.



But how is the United States defending its own citizens by attacking Iraq? What has Iraq done to endanger the United States's citizens so greatly? Promoting Terrorism? Well North Korea has nukes and we aren't doing a thing to stop them.



Since when has Kerry or Gore ever been President of the United States? What I'm proposing is more Roosevelt like Presidents.

Why should the United States have another President like Bush who is now getting sued by Congress for doing such a horrible job as President?



Well Bush is by far worst than Clinton. Therefore, I don't see why you have such a problem with liberals.

Clinton was one of the worst and embarrasing presidents this nation ever had beyond a doubt. Should I list the reasons why? I think most people already know why.

Kerry would have been the worst choice we could have made.

Gore was a vice president and trust me he will NEVER become president.

Kofi Annans own family (son) was also tied to the scandal not just the members of the U.N.

Is there any questions as to why the US circumvents the UN so much because they cannot be trusted with being straight forward or not living up to what they stand for.

Clinton is by NO stretch even in the same list as Roosevelt. Your insulting Roosevelt with that statement. Clinton wasnt half the man Teddy was. Clinton made many mistakes but the Dems and the left seem to forget this when they blame Bush for whats going on in Iraq. Clinton knew and did very little outside of bringing it to light aka mentioning it. Something we already knew and he did nothing. All of Clintons screw ups were covered up by the less of the evils....Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky, Their real estate dealings. There was much not revealed about his foreign policy during the time everybody focused on those particulars. Meanwhile it was building and taking shape.

Teddy promoted and engineered the Great White Fleet the pride of America's Naval might.

Clinton promoted the Great white dress smear and the entire embarassesment of the Oval office and the US.

Needless to say not even on the same list.

So who do you propose we let have the White House this election?

And if need be would you elect a woman president whome and why?

Officer of Engineers
12 Sep 06,, 18:00
Yes but a good majority of them feel it is their duty to go and fight terrorists. But this in turn, just angers more Muslim Communities. It's paranoia, because these Americans feel if they don't do something, they'll just get attacked again. Unfortunately, it looks more like they will get attacked if they do something at all.

On the contrary, the present course has resulted in NO attacks on American civilian institutions. In case you've forgotten, more likely ignored, doing nothing is exactly what got the Americans 11 Sept. The WTC bombings (I'm talking about the truck bomb in the garage), the African Embassy bombings, the USS Cole. Since the US have taken action, not one American civilian target has been attacked.


Actually they were created to stop or dispromote conflict between other countries.

Doing a fantastic job right there.


But do you honestly think the UN would have any power over the United States?

They would like to. The flak over the Kosovo and Iraq Wars have not ended. At the very least, it has created a whole of headaches and heartaches for the US.


Actually it would be the members in the UN that are corrupt.

HORSE PUCKY! Kofi Annan was the one who counter-manned then MGen Dallaire's pre-emptive raid against the Rwandan Genocide consipirators. He did not answer for that walking clusterf*ck of a disaster.


If that's the case then there should be a new UN comprise of the actual Country leader's thenselves or represenatives choosen by those leaders.

New UN. Yeah, right. How long has the US pushed for reforms?


But how is the United States defending its own citizens by attacking Iraq? What has Iraq done to endanger the United States's citizens so greatly?

I suggest you look at Saddam's history and why after 11 Sept, it became a strategic imperative to remove him. Yes, it was a strategic imperative.


Promoting Terrorism? Well North Korea has nukes and we aren't doing a thing to stop them.

They are stopped.


Since when has Kerry or Gore ever been President of the United States? What I'm proposing is more Roosevelt like Presidents.

Wait one second here. The PEOPLE decides the President. Not you.


Why should the United States have another President like Bush who is now getting sued by Congress for doing such a horrible job as President?

BECAUSE THE PEOPLE DECIDED!


Well Bush is by far worst than Clinton. Therefore, I don't see why you have such a problem with liberals.

EXCUSE ME! Clinton started a war in support of Al Qeida allies just because he can't keep his pants on.

dalem
12 Sep 06,, 18:18
Yes but a good majority of them feel it is their duty to go and fight terrorists. But this in turn, just angers more Muslim Communities.

Why would a desire to go fight terrorists anger Muslims? Shouldn't all good men want to fight terrorism?

-dale

Bill
12 Sep 06,, 18:29
What the United States should do is get over it's paranoid craze and focus on Domestic Issues and allow the UN to do it's job.
If you said that to my face i'd laugh in yours. :biggrin:



The United States should create an Amendment that focuses on creating an Intelligence Examination to promote intelligent voting on Presidential Candidates.
Elitist POS. :mad:

Dreadnought
12 Sep 06,, 18:37
Sir,
No disrepect intended but those words make the hair on the back of my neck stand up.... "strategic imperative" :biggrin: The man has a way with words.

gunnut
12 Sep 06,, 18:48
The problem with the United States is that it is too focused on foreign affairs and should be focusing more on Domestic Affairs.

I agree. We need to trim welfare, cut taxes and tax rates, outlaw public employees unions, and shift all functions not delegated to the federal governments by the Constitution back to the states. You do remember the Cosntitution, do you?


What the United States should do is get over it's paranoid craze and focus on Domestic Issues and allow the UN to do it's job.

What does the UN do? How would you like to see the UN function?


The United States should create an Amendment that focuses on creating an Intelligence Examination to promote intelligent voting on Presidential Candidates. The United States, while we are at it should focus on creating a new government that will insure that there will be no more "Bush Presidents."

Yes, all stupid liberals should not be allowed to vote. We can ill afford another Johnson or Carter.