What the Rest of The World Thinks of America

[ruaidhri]

All Americans are related! Or, so it appears.

Just heard on the news today that VP Cheney and Senator Obama are cousins. According to Cheney’s wife they’re 8th Cousins, which, assuming 20 years for each generation puts the link in the later part of the 18th century.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7048325.stm

Then, looking at news articles on the matter it appears the Chicago News Times wrote about the connection back in September. They report that, Obama is a 9th Cousin (once removed) with Cheney and a 11th Cousin with the man himself, George W. Bush.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/10/16/414460.aspx

Obama’s spokesperson reportedly noted: "Every family has a black sheep."

Just for information:

You are first cousins with people with whom you share a grandparent.
You are second cousins with people with whom you share a great grandparent.
You re third cousins with people that share a great-great grandparent.
etc.

When your first cousin has a child that child is a first cousin once removed, not a second cousin. But, your children and the children of your first cousin have a common great grandparent and are thereby second cousins.

Confusing, isn’t it?

[Trump]

Heh, I just say "cousin" and don't worry about it. Family is family to me!

[ruaidhri]

Democracy in action!

I live in Wisconsin, a state that used to be known for its La Follette progressiveness. Of course that was a long time ago as fighting Bob LaFollette died in 1925, but, over the years, Wisconsin voters retained much of his concern for people over corporations.

Today, it’s all about money and taxes. Republicans don’t want to pay any new or increase any existing taxes. But, costs go up and more people are needing help from the state. So, the options are to cut services or increase taxes. Guess which side the Democrats and Republicans represent?

Our problem is that today our State Assembly can’t seem to get together long enough to even fulfill the basic function for which we, the voters, elected them. They can’t pass a budget. You see the Assembly is controlled by the Republicans while the Senate is held by the Democrats. We also have a Democrat for our Governor. The Governor has offered several compromises but the Republicans aren’t listening. It’s their way or the highway.

Meanwhile students can’t get loans and state services are held at last years levels despite higher costs. Public school districts do have the option of using local property taxes to cover the difference, which will be very unpopular with both Republicans and Democrats if it happens.

My position is that the two sides should work to find a solution, not to win a battle. I emailed my Republican State Assemblyperson. She left a phone message for me. She wants to talk to me about the issue. Interesting! Does she want to actually listen or does she merely want to “justify” her holding firm with a single word answer to any compromise, “No”.

Personally, I’m willing to pay higher taxes if it allows the state to provide needed services. I don’t like the idea of cutting needed services. Still, my major concern is that we have a new budget, not if its the Democrats or the Republicans that win. My call was for the two sides to find common ground.

We’ll see what my representative will say when I talk to her.

[Trump]

Isn't that the current trend in politics? It is always a "battle" against the other side and unless a "compromise" can be used to make the other side look bad, compromise is a bad thing. I really don't understand or even like politics, but it seems like it has become even more important recently. For example Florida is a hot seat right now. Just this weekend there was a GOP candidate debate here in Orlando and there is a big stink about the Democrats making their Florida primaries earlier. I just wish it didn't take so much time to keep up with it all.

[ruaidhri]

Trump, while I consider myself a Liberal with a definite capital “L”, I am an unapologetic capitalist. I appreciate that America needs industry, profit and jobs to remain “the land we love”. A substantial portion of my retirement income comes from prudent investments. Obviously, It’s important to me that these investments continue to produce income. At the same time, I believe that the wealth, health and future opportunity for workers both blue and white collar is equally necessary for America’s future. That’s why I am a Liberal.

Like you, I do not believe compromise is a bad word. From my perspective, compromise introduces reason and caution into the prescription. You are correct, both sides appear more interested in winning and making the other side look bad than actually doing what is best for our nation.

Why do so many politicos, intent on climbing the ladder of success, find it necessary to push others down? Certainly this is not a new phenomena and it persists because winning gives accreditation, perceived strength and justness of position while losing only spells failure. The truth is voters react more to negative statements and created impressions than they do to reasoned arguments. The former takes little effort while the latter serious thought and consideration.

I’ve always preferred positive statements. Using negative words only entrenches the other side into a win/lose trap. Sensing they don’t want to lose, they go on the offensive throwing out their own charges against the other side. In the end, true meaningful compromise is impossible and we all suffer the consequences.

So, what about Wisconsin’s budget battle? Perhaps, we have witnessed a bit of reason. The leaders from the two side got together and hammered out a solution. Both sides won some and lost some. While the end result certainly won’t satisfy everyone it was done in the best interest of the state as a whole. I am satisfied with the results and I appreciate the efforts of the party leaders who, with the encouragement of the many voters that expressed their displeasure with the bickering, made it happen. All that remains now is for the actual approval by the Wisconsin State Assembly.

In many ways, I dread the upcoming primaries and Presidential election. The mud slinging truly gets me down. At times I don’t feel like voting for anyone, not because I believe the dirt received but rather because of the dirt flung. I am far more likely to support a candidate that tells me something good about themselves and their position than spends all their effort in criticizing the person and position of their opponent.

[Anders]

Compromise. One of bush jr.'s four letter words. I know that the United States government was built on compromise, but today, I think the idea for and need for compromise has been ignored and worse, forgotten. While I'd like to place full blame on the republican party, we're all responsible for how we react to change.

This morning I tuned into a right wing radio show that centered around a discussion about how evil and wrong our elected officials are for voting for and against the same issue. I remember with no small measure of bitterness how John Kerry was painted as an indecisive man who changed his mind and his vote on issue after issue. Republicans called him a flip-flopper and showed bush jr. as this incredible President who never changed his views on any issue. Bush jr. won re-election, probably with a large part of the credit going to people believing that consistency in voting/beliefs is essential to running the country. During this morning's radio show, the hosts sought to glorify republican leaders who remained steadfast in their beliefs, and demonized the republican leaders who changed their votes- even once- on "important issues".

What is more important in our leaders? Should they vote the same way Wednesday as they did Monday regardless of what happens Tuesday? (The new motto of the republican party) Or should they allow themselves to adapt to change and learn from their previous mistakes, which could mean changing their votes?

Personally? I would rather have someone who can think about what they're doing, not just raise their hand when told.

[manrush]

I may soon start a new thread here devoted to a certain blogger and his rants about the "evil muzzies invading Europe and turning it into Eurabia with the help of dhimmi political quislings"

I have something to admit. Despite not being a right-wing conservative (I consider myself a centre-libertarian leaning towards European-style social liberalism), I actually supported the Iraq war on the basis that it would free the Iraqi people from Saddam and bring an end to tyranny and bloodshed in Iraq. I was wrong to think that the war would be over so quickly.

[Roxie]

Bush hates children. Very, very much.

[Trump]

I think my biggest problem with politics is that I continue to ask why even though no one ever plans on answering.

[ruaidhri]

As if there weren’t enough problems in Iraq, now Turkey is on their northern border threatening a military incursion to remove Turkish Kurds associated with the PKK Kurdish independence movement. This threatened action is in response to a terrorist attack by the PKK on Turkish soldiers and civilians. Following the attack in Turkey, the PKK fled back to safety across the border into Iraq.

Turkish soldiers crossing the border threatens the fragile stability in Northern Iraq. This would have serious consequences for everyone, including the Turks, the Iraqis, the other nations of the Persian Gulf and the United States and coalition countries. Amazingly, it is the PKK that seeks the Turkish incursion. Somehow they mistakenly believe when push comes to shove the Iraqi Kurds would back them and the United States would take their side against Turkey. Their ultimate goal is a free and independent Kurdistan.

So, what’s going to happen? What would we, the mighty United States, do if say Mexican rebels or bandits crossed our border and attacked our soldiers and civilians only to flee back across the border. Let’s also suppose that the Mexican government wouldn’t or couldn’t stop the attacks. What would we do?

Oops, that did happen. On March 19, 1916, under Pancho Villa’s orders over 500 of his paramilitary forces crossed the border into the United States and attacked the village of Columbus, New Mexico seizing 100 horses and mules, burning the town, killing 14 soldiers of the U. S. 13th Calvary Regiment and 10 local civilians, before retreating back across the border to the safety of Mexico. The U.S. President, Woodrow Wilson, immediately reacted by ordering 10,000 U.S. troops into Mexico to capture Villa. Not amazingly, Villa escaped and the U.S withdrew from Mexico the following January.

But, that was then and this is now. The U.S. does not want Turkey to invade Iraq. Turkey does not want to invade Iraq. The question is how far can the PKK push the Turks and how many troops will the U.S. reassign from Southern Iraq to prevent further attacks by the PKK.

Raise your hand if you believe the U.S. made a colossal mistake by invading Iraq and becoming embroiled in the local messed up politics, nationalist aspirations and religious fervor of the many warring tribes throughout the Persian Gulf.

[erbiumfiber]

So much for the one bright spot in Iraq. From what I've read, the Kurdish regions were relatively peaceful and stable.

I've said it before but one of the worst days of my life was when Colin Powell went to the UN to present the flimsy "evidence" of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. I believe that if Powell had resigned in protest, Congress would not have voted for the war. He had that much credibility. But when Powell fell, the road to war was inevitable (pretty much inevitable anyway, but I really believe he was in a position to make a difference).

I was once in a similar position and resigned, leaving a lot of money in stock options. I have never once regretted that decision (and I've had over 10 years to think about it now). Powell was too much of the "loyal soldier." I believe he's speaking out against the war these days but it's too little, too late.

I read the weekly political comic "This Modern World." It accurately predicted everything would happened and joked about the inevitablity of the war as early as mid-2002. I imagine it's a bit like how the German educated classes felt as they saw Hitler taking control. At first they didn't take him seriously. Then, the sickly realization came over them. No, I'm not comparing Bush to Hitler, just talking about the reaction of thinking people to a rabble-rouser.

[Trump]

The only way I can think to resolve this situation is for Iraq (and I guess that means the US) to actively pursue the PKK group responsible. Regardless of the politics involved, they killed people and need to be apprehended and punished.

[Black Dog]

WE ALL LIVE IN AMERICA !!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4w9EksAo5hY

[rl*united]

WE ALL LIVE IN AMERICA !!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4w9EksAo5hY

That`s so old dude... old as the interwebs. Try Sonne instead it`s so much more awesomer.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mfHlA3fmJG0

[ZaichikArky]

oh actually i never watched that Rammstein video. I really like it. I'm a fan of them, but I've only listened to their old stuff.

[ruaidhri]

Black Dog, I really enjoyed We All Live in America.

It's very appropriate for this thread.

America, the land I love. Don't thread on me, or else.

Is George W. beating the war drums again? Many believe he is preparing to go to war with Iran. The signs are there. Some Republicans in Congress are even suggesting it would be a good thing, better they say than allowing Iran to become a nuclear power. What do you think?

[stsparky]

... Is George W. beating the war drums again? Many believe he is preparing to go to war with Iran. The signs are there. Some Republicans in Congress are even suggesting it would be a good thing, better they say than allowing Iran to become a nuclear power. What do you think?
They are a nuclear power, they simply haven't weaponized it yet.

And it seems Israel did take down a nuclear bomb making facility in Syria last month. If we didn't have a secret 'black' CIA torture 'prison' there as well it would be a bigger news story.

[Black Dog]

That`s so old dude... old as the interwebs. Try Sonne instead it`s so much more awesomer.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mfHlA3fmJG0

Some of my favorite music was composed long before I was ever born! Hell, even the rap I like dates back to the early 90's and 80's. Boy, have I gotten old ! where has my youth gone ?

[Black Dog]

Black Dog, I really enjoyed We All Live in America.

It's very appropriate for this thread.

America, the land I love. Don't thread on me, or else.

Is George W. beating the war drums again? Many believe he is preparing to go to war with Iran. The signs are there. Some Republicans in Congress are even suggesting it would be a good thing, better they say than allowing Iran to become a nuclear power. What do you think?

Didn't they say the samething about Iraq? Don't let a mushroom cloud be the Smoking gun and all that ! Correct me, if I'm wrong.

Well, I guess that depends on thier intentions. Wouldn't an invasion of Iran be a bit much the American Military at the moment ? Iraqi is big enough mess as it is, Should finish what they start first ! one thing at a time ! Afganistan has become the forgotten war for American soldiers fighting there. The Canadian army is playing a bigger row there now. One my on gaming buddies is there right now. He English soldier, though ! It has messed him up pretty bad.

Overall, I don't like war ! Should atleast try to give a deplomacy a chance. War may only create new problems down the road. The road to hell is pathed with good intentions.

I need to read into this more !

[Trump]

Well, going into Iran would make people forget about Iraq. But that is the only real advantage I see (and I'm not really calling that an advantage).

And really, I think it is only a matter of time before someone we hate gets nuclear weapons. I think they should be focusing on the 'when' and not on the 'if.'

[ruaidhri]

Trump, yes, yes, yes! You are absolutely correct. Already, the nuclear club is not exclusive to world powers. Already, eleven countries have nuclear weapons, including seven signatories of the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty:

The United States
The old Soviet Union (now Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan & Ukraine*)
United Kingdom
France
China

* Ukraine transferred their weapons to Russia

There are three other countries known to have nuclear weapons:

Pakistan
North Korea
India

In addition Israel is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons while refusing to confirm or deny they are a nuclear power.

Countries that are actively seeking nuclear weapons include:

Syria
Iran

South Africa had been a nuclear power but disassembled their nuclear weapons in the early 1990's.

information from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons

It certainly is time that we started focusing more on the "when" rather than the "if".

[Trump]

It doesn't even matter whether Israel has nuclear weapons. I believe using a nuke would doom them faster than the armies of all the Arab countries combined.

[erbiumfiber]

I predict Bush will do some "strategic bombing" of Iran to get the ball rolling. Something where he doesn't need approval of Congress first.

Then, as things get worse (e.g., more Iranians in Iraq after said bombings) we will "have to" attack Iran.

They're making all the same noises they did before Iraq. It's sickening to see history repeating itself...

[ruaidhri]

My big question is: Why? Why would Bush further endanger the U.S by expanding the war in the Persian Gulf when we're already stretched to the limit? Really, what does he have to gain?

I honestly can't come up with a good answer.

I'm not saying this couldn't happen; I'm merely scratching my head as to why.

[erbiumfiber]

He's obsessed with his "legacy" as all second-term presidents are.

If the next president, likely a Democrat, pulls all the troops out of Iraq as job one, then Bush goes down in history as having caused a pointless war.

If things are SO BAD in the region that even a new Democratic president can't pull the troops out (and we're on our way to the "Korea 50-year model"), then he looks like a visionary and history will gloss over the fact that he started a war on baseless allegations (hey, just where ARE all those WMDs?).

Yes, I'm THAT cynical.

[SlickWilly440]

All Americans are related! Or, so it appears.

Just heard on the news today that VP Cheney and Senator Obama are cousins. According to Cheney’s wife they’re 8th Cousins, which, assuming 20 years for each generation puts the link in the later part of the 18th century.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7048325.stm

Well then I assume that Cheny's great great great great+.....+ n -1 slave owning grandfather had "adulterated consensual sex" with Obama great great great great+....+n-1 grandmother then. How else could this have happened?

[erbiumfiber]

Obama's mother is white. From her looks, 100% white. His father is African (Kenyan). So Cheney's ancestors are off the hook.

Not that I would normally pass up an opportunity to think bad thoughts about Dick Cheney, but this time, he's in the clear.

[Roxie]

How is he in the clear? His mother could be related to Cheney

[erbiumfiber]

Cheney's ancestors: white

Obama's mother: white

I don't know whether Cheney's ancestors did or did not have sex with slaves but there is no proof based on the (very white) color of Obama's mother.

[Roxie]

OH, I see what you mean, now.

[Jetsetlemming]

http://www.local12.com/content/breaking_news/story.aspx?content_id=cbe0b3e6-9c37-46aa-983e-7d86833d4415

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) - Paul Tibbets, who piloted the B-29 bomber Enola Gay that dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, died Thursday. He was 92 and insisted almost to his dying day that he had no regrets about the mission and slept just fine at night.

Tibbets died at his Columbus home, said Gerry Newhouse, a longtime friend. He suffered from a variety of health problems and had been in decline for two months.

Tibbets had requested no funeral and no headstone, fearing it would provide his detractors with a place to protest, Newhouse said.

Tibbets' historic mission in the plane named for his mother marked the beginning of the end of World War II and eliminated the need for what military planners feared would have been an extraordinarily bloody invasion of Japan. It was the first use of a nuclear weapon in wartime.

The plane and its crew of 14 dropped the five-ton "Little Boy" bomb on the morning of Aug. 6, 1945. The blast killed 70,000 to 100,000 people and injured countless others. Three days later, the United States dropped a second nuclear bomb on Nagasaki, Japan, killing an estimated 40,000 people. Tibbets did not fly in that mission. The Japanese surrendered a few days later, ending the war.

"I knew when I got the assignment it was going to be an emotional thing," Tibbets told The Columbus Dispatch for a story on Aug. 6, 2005, the 60th anniversary of the bomb. "We had feelings, but we had to put them in the background. We knew it was going to kill people right and left. But my one driving interest was to do the best job I could so that we could end the killing as quickly as possible."

Tibbets, then a 30-year-old colonel, never expressed regret over his role. He said it was his patriotic duty and the right thing to do.

"I'm not proud that I killed 80,000 people, but I'm proud that I was able to start with nothing, plan it and have it work as perfectly as it did," he said in a 1975 interview. "You've got to take stock and assess the situation at that time. We were at war. ... You use anything at your disposal." He added: "I sleep clearly every night."

Paul Warfield Tibbets Jr. was born Feb. 23, 1915, in Quincy, Ill., and spent most of his boyhood in Miami. He was a student at the University of Cincinnati's medical school when he decided to withdraw in 1937 to enlist in the Army Air Corps.

After the war, Tibbets said in 2005, he was dogged by rumors claiming he was in prison or had committed suicide. "They said I was crazy, said I was a drunkard, in and out of institutions," he said. "At the time, I was running the National Crisis Center at the Pentagon."

Tibbets retired from the Air Force as a brigadier general in 1966. He later moved to Columbus, where he ran an air taxi service until he retired in 1985. But his role in the bombing brought him fame - and infamy - throughout his life.

In 1976, he was criticized for re-enacting the bombing during an appearance at a Harlingen, Texas, air show. As he flew a B-29 Superfortress over the show, a bomb set off on the runway below created a mushroom cloud. He said the display "was not intended to insult anybody," but the Japanese were outraged. The U.S. government later issued a formal apology.

Tibbets again defended the bombing in 1995, when an outcry erupted over a planned 50th anniversary exhibit of the Enola Gay at the Smithsonian Institution. The museum had planned to mount an exhibit that would have examined the context of the bombing, including the discussion within the Truman administration of whether to use the bomb, the rejection of a demonstration bombing and the selection of the target. Veterans groups objected that it paid too much attention to Japan's suffering and too little to Japan's brutality during and before World War II, and that it underestimated the number of Americans who would have perished in an invasion. They said the bombing of Japan was an unmitigated blessing for the United States and its fighting men and the exhibit should say so. Tibbets denounced it as "a damn big insult." The museum changed its plan, and agreed to display the fuselage of the Enola Gay without commentary, context or analysis.

He told the Dispatch in 2005 he wanted his ashes scattered over the English Channel, where he loved to fly during the war.
The pilot of the Enola Gay, the plane that dropped the Little Boy nuclear bomb at the end of World War 2, died of natural causes. It's kinda sad how he was hounded and insulted all his life, while being a perfectly sane, normal guy, and especially how he requested not to have a funeral or headstone so jerks wouldn't have a place to deface. No matter what your opinion of the bombings, there's no excuse for attacking this guy. I'm glad he had a good life and lived a good, long time.

[ruaidhri]

I agree!

[stsparky]

Tibbets did the job he had to do. He saved more lives than the bomb stole. He deserves a proper memorial.

[ruaidhri]

Tibbets did nothing more than follow orders issued by the President of the United States. He certainly had only a vague understanding of the extend of the damage and death the bomb would have on the citizens of Hiroshima. Regardless, as stsparky noted, dropping the bomb saved more lives than it took. If we had invaded Japan the loss of life for both the Japanese and the Americans would have been many times that lost as a result of America's dropping both Atomic Bombs on Japan.

While I do believe Tibbets was insensitive and foolish to have participated in the 1976 airshow celebrating the bombing of Hiroshima I recognize that he and many other Americans WWII Veterans considered the dropping of those bombs as their tickets home alive and uninjured.

I understand his reason for not wanting a headstone.

[ruaidhri]

We American all abhor how other countries can engage in genocide. We're so pure, Or, are we?

A comment from a folk singer I loved listening to so many years ago singing about our American Indians.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tl08n8_b3Sw

What do you think?

[Black Dog]

We American all abhor how other countries can engage in genocide. We're so pure, Or, are we?

A comment from a folk singer I loved listening to so many years ago singing about our American Indians.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tl08n8_b3Sw

What do you think?

Every country proberly has a few skeletons in the closest

[ruaidhri]

Yes, I absolutely agree. But, it is we Americans that put ourselves so high above the plane.

We have a tendency to gloss over our own faults.

Do I believe we're a good country? Yes, I do. Do I believe we're the most powerful country the world has ever seen? Yes, I do. But, do I believe we are the greatest and the best country in the world to live? Well, I believe that's a bit presumptuous.

[Jetsetlemming]

I'd say we're the best country to live in. There aren't too many other countries that don't have something about them that I, personally, would shy away from, such as government censorship, language barriers, cost of living, availability of modern conveniences, how likely your neighbor is likely to blow himself and you up, etc, etc, etc....

[rl*united]

We all have our skeletons. Although yours is stretching over a whole continent. Maybe that`s why it`s catching the "World`s" eye more than the skeletons of other countries.

And you`re the most powerful country. You do things to go places. Try to get your own out of any situation. We can`t say we don`t do that. But for those of us who are stuck with being nice to our neighbors going through tough changes to meet higher standards it`s kinda unnerving to watch you plough through other nation`s natural resources on behalf of your war on terrorism or whatever the current prerogative for hate against a third world country is.

If we look into how you got to be the strongest country in the world one might say you plain didn`t have any reservations towards employing militaristic tactics against other nations. And yet you claim to be the proudest people, country of God and a moral standard for the whole world. That duality is what brings a lot of people around the world to the conclusion that America is full of shit and should be under the control of international organizations so it doesn`t spill it outside its borders. Hence the United Nations, Red Cross, the NATO alliance.

I can`t say that covers exactly my opinion but it`s the most common opinion based on simple logic and short history of cause and effect. Hence it might not be the most truthful of all but where is truth in an international argument covering history politics and morals (arranged left to right starting from the least subjective).

[Karthak]

We American all abhor how other countries can engage in genocide. We're so pure, Or, are we?

A comment from a folk singer I loved listening to so many years ago singing about our American Indians.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tl08n8_b3Sw

What do you think?
My school has an american teacher lecturing for a year. He says that the United States was founded on genocide.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

We American all abhor how other countries can engage in genocide. We're so pure, Or, are we?
No, we aren't. I don't like that statement though because it seems you're comparing how we feel about genocide now to what the government did many many years ago. If our current generation condemns genocide, is that making them hypocritical because a past generation they had no control over did horrible things?

Yes, I absolutely agree. But, it is we Americans that put ourselves so high above the plane.

We have a tendency to gloss over our own faults.

Do I believe we're a good country? Yes, I do. Do I believe we're the most powerful country the world has ever seen? Yes, I do. But, do I believe we are the greatest and the best country in the world to live? Well, I believe that's a bit presumptuous.
I'm only 19, but I can tell you for certain that when I was in high school learning about US history, as well as college in a required US history course, we learned plenty about the atrocities that were committed against the Indians. So if we were to use my example as what the norm is for other schools/colleges in the United States (Which is a bit of a generalization, I'm sure), at which point will you consider us acknowledging what we did and accepting it rather than glossing over it? I think we gloss over stuff all the time, but I think a more current (And therefore better) example would be the quality of the Indian reservations today. When was the last time you met someone who knew just how shitty they are?

My school has an american teacher lecturing for a year. He says that the United States was founded on genocide.
How? Was he speaking of the government? The cultural extension? If he didn't elaborate in detail as to why he believes that then I'm calling into question the validity of his statements, whether he's American or not.

[rl*united]

Oh you just went there murdered the majority of the local population and settled in.There`s no rocket science in that I believe. Only difference between you and the Nazis in that respect is there was no one to call bullshit on your behavior at that time. So your country`s founded on killing innocent people - what else is new.

It was the same in south and central America but because of the tougher climate conditions the native population managed to hold off at least some of it`s villages and land from the conquistadors. Sure nobody would go through the trouble of slaughtering women and children for a few peaces of unusable bogs and swamps.

But when it`s about profitable lands the country of God puts on the white pointed hoodie and sets sail towards higher income per head of population. Don`t think the same thing isn`t happening in Iraq now. America is getting contracts for Iraqi petrol supplies completely legally at penny-worth prices per barrel. You also had the fine opportunity to give a much needed boost to the weapon industries - cuz those desert eagles and M60s can`t be sold on the internal market only. I wonder to how many third world countries in conflict are they selling through trusted people who would never admit they have something in common with the President.

Link somewhat related :P

http://youtube.com/watch?v=n4jMzKxYB74

http://youtube.com/watch?v=VtN8p9c7Zvk

http://youtube.com/watch?v=AftHOPB3Bqc

[Roxie]

If he didn't elaborate in detail as to why he believes that then I'm calling into question the validity of his statements, whether he's American or not.
Well, his teacher was kinda right. If it wasn't for the "manifest destiny" and the 400 yrs "free labor", we certainly wouldn't have been as "successful" as quickly

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

Well, his teacher was kinda right. If it wasn't for the "manifest destiny" and the 400 yrs "free labor", we certainly wouldn't have been as "successful" as quickly
Yeah, I know all about that, and I don't deny it. But if someone, a scholar, is going to say that, I want more context and elaboration, not a sound byte, that's all. Saying that the United States wouldn't be what it is today without manifest destiny and the obvious consequences from it would have been far better, and it wouldn't be saying that it was what it was "founded on".

Oh you just went there murdered the majority of the local population and settled in.There`s no rocket science in that I believe. Only difference between you and the Nazis in that respect is there was no one to call bullshit on your behavior at that time. So your country`s founded on killing innocent people - what else is new.

...
I'm not going to defend that the US did, but saying that it was no different from what the Nazis did is really pushing it.

[rl*united]

I actually enjoy pushing it. When I hit a wall I pretend there is no wall or I imagine that the wall is made of cardboard so I keep pushing it on a whole new level. I also tend to think that pushing it my way justifies pushing in the first place. Since we are born humans and made to be subjective I realize that attempting to push and be politically correct about it is a waste of time.

We`re not here to be nice to each other. Discussing international issues kinda eliminates that possibility. I say something that sound right to me you prove me wrong if you can - that`s how the pushing works.

Then again it is already one o clock in the better parts of Eastern Europe which is pushing my thoughts towards going to bed reading that immunology pdf I just printed out and then going to sleep until time pushes through the eight hours remaining before I have to leave home in order to push through a whole new Monday afternoon.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

I actually enjoy pushing it.
But in this case, why? "Pushing it" by saying there's no difference between what the United States did to the Indians and what the Nazis did isn't going to make you look like the young academic with a brilliant new idea that goes against all odds with everyone telling you to abandon it (And you prove yourself in the end of the hardship!) No, it's going to make you look like the young academic that goes against his peers to prove that water molecules retain of memory particles that dissolved in it. Uneducated, to say the least.

tl;dr I'm saying there's no point in pushing it in this case.

[rl*united]

But in this case, why? "Pushing it" by saying there's no difference between what the United States did to the Indians and what the Nazis did isn't going to make you look like the young academic with a brilliant new idea that goes against all odds with everyone telling you to abandon it (And you prove yourself in the end of the hardship!) No, it's going to make you look like the young academic that goes against his peers to prove that water molecules retain of memory particles that dissolved in it. Uneducated, to say the least.

tl;dr I'm saying there's no point in pushing it in this case.

Cut me some slack - I`m tired it`s late. I don`t differentiate between different kinds of genocide based on weather the motivation was ideological(Nazis) or economical(American settlers). And frankly you can`t claim to be better just because you weren`t pummeled into submission by other countries in order to stop doing it. Actually you didn`t get anything in return for it. And you can`t claim to have stopped it yourself since you have already destroyed most of the native American population when you decided it`s time to nurture some positive international attention. So why are you better than the Nazis in any other way than that you were able to successfully pull off your little genocide and get away with it?

[ruaidhri]

Doc Doogie Head and Fermented Yeast Paste, I understand how both of you feel. I also am very happy to have been born in the United States. Oh, I criticize my country but that’s what makes America such a great country: It’s people are always striving to be better.

Both of you are very intelligent and astute for being so young, only 19. With time and age you’ll have many times that you’ll be disappointed with the actions of your elected officials be they local, state or national. They all make up the America in which we live. We don’t have to be satisfied. If fact, I believe it’s better if we’re not.

Fermented Yeast Paste, years go by fast. I come from a different time in America’s history. When I was your age, Americans of European decent made life very dangerous for Americans of African decent living in the Southern United States. Conditions were even worse on Indian Reservations than they are today. And, while I also took American History in both High School and in College we didn’t really learn about the atrocities we perpetrated. George Armstrong Custer was still a hero. Yes, if you learn about our faults in school today, that puts your education far ahead of mine. Yet, I continue to believe that history is nothing more than yesterday’s news with a spin.

You didn’t like my criticizing the U.S. genocide against the American Indians. Yes, that was done a long time ago, not by current Americans. But, shouldn’t you say the same about the Germans or any other country that tried to “cleanse” their populations. Will the Germans ever truly be free of the guilt caused by their country’s actions in the 1930’s and 1940’s.

Doc Doogie Head, if you compare similar cultures, I believe you’d discover that if you had been born in many other countries you’d also be free from censorship and language barriers as well as having full access to modern conveniences. In addition, dependent upon the country, you could actually be safer from violence there than in America.

Actually, the America of today is far different from the America that existed when I was born. Back then Americans didn’t stick their noses into other peoples business. Then, the majority of Americans wanted no part of the wars that were raging in Europe and in Asia. While our President actively sought every method possible to support Great Britain against Nazi Germany, the people and the Congress were against our entry into another European War.

In reality, the world is lucky we did enter albeit following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. If we hadn’t, I believe the Soviet Union without the substantial American aid and weapons they received, would have lost the battle against Germany. Further, Germany would have had the opportunity to fully develop their rockets, jet planes and nuclear weapons. Certainly, they wouldn’t have had any qualms against using them against the defiant Soviets and British nor an isolationist America.

But, here we are today. We’re the most powerful country in the world with financial, military and security interests in all parts of the globe. Often, I believe, we consider our interests paramount over all others including the people in the other countries that are directly affected by our decisions. This certainly doesn’t make the rest of the world’s peoples love us as much as we love ourselves. That, after all, is the subject of this thread, what the people of the rest of the world think about America.

rl*united, who, I believe is also 19 and obviously intelligent, has an entirely different view of America than our own. Actually, it’s very important that we understand his position. We don’t have to agree but we should understand and appreciate.

[Jetsetlemming]

I've had plenty of time in order to be disappointed and angered by my local government, surely. The local school board officials especially. I also was effected by No Child Left Behind and got to see firsthand what it did to two highschools and a middle school.
I doubt, however, that other countries could be safer for me than my current area, in which I've experienced exactly 0 violence. Can't go much lower than that. The concept of America being violent is a bit of a dishonest one; the country as a whole has a higher crime rate than most other first world countries, sure, but crime still tends to be localized in certain areas with most others fairly safe and nice and happy. Within the last five years I've lived in inner city Wilmington, out in the far country of Chester County surrounded by farms and Amish, and in the suburbs on the outskirts of Philadelphia, and to say the crime levels and overall safety of each area was different would be a massive understatement.

[rl*united]

That`s good. I haven`t had any problems with violence outside of the regular school stuff. If it works for you and it works for me then everything`s fine I guess.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

Cut me some slack - I`m tired it`s late. I don`t differentiate between different kinds of genocide based on weather the motivation was ideological(Nazis) or economical(American settlers). And frankly you can`t claim to be better just because you weren`t pummeled into submission by other countries in order to stop doing it. Actually you didn`t get anything in return for it. And you can`t claim to have stopped it yourself since you have already destroyed most of the native American population when you decided it`s time to nurture some positive international attention. So why are you better than the Nazis in any other way than that you were able to successfully pull off your little genocide and get away with it?
Well I think that it is important to differentiate between the different kinds of genocide that has occurred. Of course I believe that it's all bad, but I think that if someone is going to lump it all together then they are perpetuating that it isn't necessary to know the context of how it happened, and why, etc. Knowing all that I believe is important in understanding history, that's all.

Also, what's with this "you" crap? I don't represent all of America; I'm just someone who happened to be born here (And I'm glad about that compared to other places). I had nothing to do with any of that.

You didn’t like my criticizing the U.S. genocide against the American Indians. Yes, that was done a long time ago, not by current Americans. But, shouldn’t you say the same about the Germans or any other country that tried to “cleanse” their populations. Will the Germans ever truly be free of the guilt caused by their country’s actions in the 1930’s and 1940’s.
You're misunderstanding me if you think I didn't like your criticizing of the US government against American Indians. I thought it was fine, and deserved, because the US did really nasty things to them. I just didn't like that you seemed to imply that if Americans of today (To give more context, I meant the younger generations) condemn acts of genocide, then they are somehow hypocritical because of what the government did before any of them were born.

And actually, your subject of the Germans was exactly what I was thinking of when I typed up my reply. I think that they can be free of the guilt now, at least the ones who had nothing to do with it and they condemn the actions of the Nazi government. Whether or not society (and the world in general) lets them be free of that guilt is another matter, but I think the ones I mentioned should be.

[Roxie]

I doubt, however, that other countries could be safer for me than my current area, in which I've experienced exactly 0 violence.
Wait, what about all those inner city kids that harass that you're always talking about?

Also, define "safe". Do you mean from violent crime? Or from things like dying during childbirth? Are you accounting for attempts or just completions? There are safer places to be.

Just as there are much, much less safer places to be (by all standards of "safe")

[rl*united]

Well I think that it is important to differentiate between the different kinds of genocide that has occurred. Of course I believe that it's all bad, but I think that if someone is going to lump it all together then they are perpetuating that it isn't necessary to know the context of how it happened, and why, etc. Knowing all that I believe is important in understanding history, that's all.

Also, what's with this "you" crap? I don't represent all of America; I'm just someone who happened to be born here (And I'm glad about that compared to other places). I had nothing to do with any of that.

I know how it happened. It was based on misunderstanding, the cultural barrier between European settlers and indians and the fact that the latter had many fruitful lands and gold and barely even used it for anything. Again I don`t think that`s any rocket science compared to modern history. At least there`s hardly anything ambiguous in the motive of going in and taking what you can claim by force.

You`re in your right to want to know more about history. But when you`re running away from the consequences for the sake of meaningless understanding of unimportant details - then that`s something I don`t agree with. What do you expect to find - a genuine document that stated that indians poisoned the fresh water sources of whole ships of settlers which sparked off the killing of the native population? There aren`t always simple easy and painless explanations as to why humans do horrible things as they do.

For the Nazis you might say that Hitler was a good obedient child played a musical instrument and painted (although poorly) and all his motives towards the jews (he thought they were secretly ruling the country) were based on the fact that when he was a soldier the government abandoned him and a thousand others to fight on the battlefield with nearly no hope of survival. Later on in prison he finished his ideology and when he came out he had the life experience and extreme ideas to make him a very persuasive man. All these may not complement as to the image of pure evil we have now but that`s the truth about him.

And frankly I`m satisfied with knowing just as much about these two topics to move on to other who are of more interest to me.

I`m not accusing you in particular. But it`s not my fault that you don`t have a separate word for 'you' as a whole and 'you' as an individual. :P I can`t be made to add half a line of text to every sentence I write to clearly state that I`m not talking about any particular person. Make up two different words for 'vie' and 'ti' already >:3. Let`s say 'you' is for the general crowd - and if I ever say yo' then I`m referring personally to you, okay?

[Jetsetlemming]

Wait, what about all those inner city kids that harass that you're always talking about?

Also, define "safe". Do you mean from violent crime? Or from things like dying during childbirth? Are you accounting for attempts or just completions? There are safer places to be.

Just as there are much, much less safer places to be (by all standards of "safe")
Huh? I don't live in the inner city. I used to, but that was a couple years ago. I live in the Philadelphia suburbs.
Safe from violent crime, I guess. Childbirth doesn't really endanger me now, though it damn near killed me 19 years ago.
Anyway, I count myself as pretty much 99% safe. Sure, it's possible some random freak decides he's gonna pull a knife on me or something, but it hasn't happened yet, and it hasn't happen to anyone else in the neighborhood. Worst crime in this area is pot dealers and corrupt local politicians embezzling state money. You have to go a bit further inner city to get any real serious crime.

[Karthak]

Yeah, I know all about that, and I don't deny it. But if someone, a scholar, is going to say that, I want more context and elaboration, not a sound byte, that's all. Saying that the United States wouldn't be what it is today without manifest destiny and the obvious consequences from it would have been far better, and it wouldn't be saying that it was what it was "founded on".

He did elaborate. What I said was just a summary.

[Trump]

I really do not understand how you can compare what happened in Germany and what happened during the colonization and expansion periods in North America. Well, OK, you can compare them by saying "people were killed" but beyond that they are totally unrelated in both motive, methods, and outcomes.

In America, there were severe cultural differences between two different cultures (countries, civilizations, whatever you want to call them...) that led to fighting over land rights. There were battles and fighting even to the point of a full war. Guess what, in war people are killed. Furthermore, the colonists did not arrive in North America and simply decide they hated the natives for who and what they were, instead it was a gradual process of rising tensions between the groups that sparked war. I'm not trying to justify what happened or say it was right. Horrible things were performed by both sides in this conflict, but I will argue to the end that it was not genocide, it was war.

Now, think about Germany. Integrated members of society were rounded up and summarily executed for no reason except their religious orientation. There was no war involved, they were all part of the same country, the same culture. Someone decided they needed a scapegoat and started arbitrarily killing people. That is genocide.

So to base your conceptions about a country and its history on something like genocide is ridiculous and misguided at best. I would seriously question the motives and bias of your history teacher and perhaps reexamine many of the other things he said as well.

[Plekto]

I think it's a lot worse than Trump believes, actually. It was clear from day one as soon as we had established colonies(initial doey-eyed settlers aside), that it was ours and the native population was vermin to be dealt with. People from Europe came in with the idea of conquering and killing, plain and simple. You shoudl read some of the propaganda and newspapers of the era. It was aimed at portraying them in the worst light imaginable. Custer, for instance, was the favorite potential next President at the time and thought that killing a few natives would increase his popularity. Way before that, we would purposely do things like take blankets that were used in epedemics and trade them to them. Not to make money, but to make them die off. Of course, we have downplayed it and whitewashed it over the last few generations here in the U.S. But it was the second most brutal event that I can think of in the last thousand or more years in the world.

Oh, and the U.S. did round them up and herd them into death camps(we called them "Reservations"). Of course, they didn't die off as easily as we thought that they would - humans being stubborn and tenacious and all..

If you go back to the initial conquest of the Incas, it was even more brutal. There was no question what it was about. And it continued right through the end of the Missions in California(actually a bit beyond that even in Mexico). That would be #1, though it wasn't much worse than what we did in the U.S.

I can't find it right now, but I found an article about the founder of the California MIssion system and it was nothing like the drivel that we'd been taught in school. Direct quotes and writings that place the man in the same mold as any of human history's worst psychopaths. Everything that Nazi Germany did, you'd think that they were merely copying this man's example.

(this of course came up because they're making my son do a report on it right now - and nobody finds it politically acceptable to label them death camps or to examine what really went on)

[Roxie]

Yeah, trump. I do have to say it was much more deliberate and intentional than you may believe. I mean, "Trail of Tears" much?

[ruaidhri]

Interesting discussion!

First, I want to respond to Trump's post. Here we have one of those rare occasions where we don’t agree.

Yes, what America did to the Indians was genocide. We deliberately set out to remove Indians from their land. They were in our way, we were militarily stronger and we removed them. War? Yes, there were Indian wars because we invaded their lands. They attempted to defend themselves and failed. In fact, even when they adopted our culture, owning and farming land, we removed them and placed them on reservations far from their traditional homes ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Civilized_Tribes ).

Roxie (Toxic Shock Syndrome) referred to the trail of tears ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears ) where in 1838 the Cherokee Indians were forcibly removed from their lands and traded “replacement land” west of the Mississippi. Neither the Cherokee leadership nor a majority of the tribe’s members ever agreed to the land exchange. Still President Andrew Jackson used Federal troops to round up 17,000 Cherokees into Concentration camps where an estimated 4,000 died from disease. With no other option other than to die in the camps the Indians themselves supervised the march west.

What Plekto wrote about America’s purposeful distribution of small pox infected blankets is widely believed but somewhat questionable. Even without that there’s enough to indict us for our attempts to kill off the Indians. Wikipedia has a good, short article I’m quoting below ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States )

In the nineteenth century, the incessant Westward expansion of the United States incrementally compelled large numbers of Native Americans to resettle further west, often by force, almost always reluctantly. Under President Andrew Jackson, Congress passed the Indian Removal Act of 1830, which authorized the President to conduct treaties to exchange Native American land east of the Mississippi River for lands west of the river. As many as 100,000 Native Americans eventually relocated in the West as a result of this Indian Removal policy. In theory, relocation was supposed to be voluntary (and many Native Americans did remain in the East), but in practice great pressure was put on Native American leaders to sign removal treaties. Arguably the most egregious violation of the stated intention of the removal policy was the Treaty of New Echota, which was signed by a dissident faction of Cherokees, but not the elected leadership. The treaty was brutally enforced by President Andrew Jackson, which resulted in the deaths of an estimated four thousand Cherokees on the Trail of Tears.

The explicit policy of Indian Removal forced or coerced the relocation of major Native American groups in both the Southeast and the Northeast United States, resulting directly and indirectly in the deaths of tens of thousands. The subsequent process of assimilations was no less devastating to Native American peoples. Tribes were generally located to reservations on which they could more easily be separated from traditional life and pushed into European-American society. Some Southern states additionally enacted laws in the 19th century forbidding non-Indian settlement on Indian lands, intending to prevent sympathetic white missionaries from aiding the scattered Indian resistance.

At one point, President Jackson told people to kill as many bison as possible in order to cut out the Plains Indian's main source of food. Later in time there were fewer than 500 bison left in the Great Plains.

Conflicts, generally known as "Indian Wars", broke out between U.S. forces and many different tribes. U.S. government authorities entered numerous treaties during this period, but later abrogated many for various reasons. Well-known military engagements include the Native American victory at the Battle of Little Bighorn in 1876 and the massacre of Native Americans at Wounded Knee in 1890. This, together with the near-extinction of the American Bison that many tribes had lived on, set about the downturn of Prairie Culture that had developed around the use of the horse for hunting, travel and trading.

American policy toward Native Americans has been an evolving process. In the late nineteenth century, reformers, in efforts to "civilize" or otherwise assimilate Indians (as opposed to relegating them to reservations), adapted the practice of educating native children in Indian Boarding Schools. These schools, which were primarily run by Christian missionaries, often proved traumatic to Native American children, who were forbidden to speak their native languages, taught Christianity instead of their native religions and in numerous other ways forced to abandon their various Native American identities[24] and adopt European-American culture. There are also many documented cases of sexual, physical and mental abuses occurring at these schools.

The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 gave United States citizenship to Native Americans, in part because of an interest by many to see them merged with the American mainstream, and also because of the heroic service of many Native American veterans in World War I.

Now, to respond to the other recent posts in this thread. We Americans want to believe our country is compassionate. We want to believe that all our international actions are for altruistic purposes. We want to believe we are misunderstood by those that oppose us or just don’t appreciate our actions. And, we want to believe that our past:

Genocide of the American Indians;
Forced slavery of Africans;
Legal segregation of African Americans for most of the 20th Century;
Continued economic segregation of African Americans;
Internment of Japanese Americans during WWII;
My Lai Massacre of Vietnamese civilians;
Kent State shootings;
Detention at Guantanamo Bay;
Waterboarding and other means of torture; and,
The many other examples of the other side of America,

do not reflect who we are today. Actually, like everything in our history, they define exactly who we were and who we are. rl*united knocked the ball right out of the park when he wrote that our actions were economic. Will it make money, will it save money and will it cost money is our primary motivation. I believe we will do whatever it takes to protect that money.

Personally, I do not believe American youth of today are any better than they were at other times in our history. Actually, most are not as involved or aware of the world around them as existed during the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. Then, they had a reason to be concerned, conscription.

How many people in uniform does it take to make a society toe the line. If America suddenly became totalitarian who among us would be willing to speak up if doing so could endanger our freedom and perhaps even that of our family? Certainly, there were people in Germany in the 1930’s that opposed Hitler. They quickly learned to keep their mouths shut and their pens capped.

Our best protection from this fate is simply by being aware, getting involved and by speaking out when we disagree with the actions of our government. If enough people care we have nothing to worry about.

America is a great country. It’s our responsibility to ensure that our government reflects our image of America’s compassion in every action, even when it costs money. That’s why I believe it’s vitally important we recognize how people in other countries and regions of the world view America.

[Roxie]

Also, "Manifest Destiny"....you don't just stumble into genocide.

[rl*united]

Well I was just throwing that away as an example so I had something to compare Nazis and Americans up against (motivation). I consider it a trivial statement since it`s the first thing that comes to mind. Like stop a random person on the street here and ask him why has America been waging wars on and off ever since the WW2. "Za pari..."(pronounced just as if you were reading Japanese romaji - no twists or anything)

ruaidhri It`s funny how you notice that out of the bunch since I don`t even consider it worth while to write a separate paragraph on the topic. Well maybe I really don`t know what parts of our opinion on America you`re interested in. Tough realizations to you may be trivialities to us and the reverse.

I`m suggesting you might as well ask my opinion on specific matters. It`s easier than trying to guess what you`ll enjoy talking about, taking long-shots on every other conversation.

Goes for all of you. :)

[Kleshya]

I have been registering students all day so my brain is a little fried so please excuse me if my words aren't as well put together as they should be.

In history people attack what they don't understand (yes I know that is a generalization, but you get the idea). A. you had a group of people who did not understand the Native Americans. B. you also had a group of people who saw the land and wanted it for their own and would unfortunately do anything to get it.

How many times in a the US's history did we make treaties and promises to the Native Americans and then only break them? I remember having to do a report on President William Henry Harrison and was extremely glad that due to his stupidity in delivering the longest inaugural address outside on a cold and wet day (with no coat on), we were spared his term in office as he was an avid Indian hater. Tippecanoe and Tyler too! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Henry_Harrison#Short_presidency

Anyway, as Ruaidhri pointed out in his examples, the US definitely does not have a squeaky clean background. That does not mean we can't learn from the mistakes we have made in the past. If you don't pay attention to history, you'll be doomed to repeat it.

[Plekto]

Well, if you want just a little bit of what we are currently doing(and which is why our leaders are no different than in the past - just better at hiding it from the public and media):

http://www.projectcensored.org/

[ruaidhri]

Plekto, please clarify something for me.

Occasionally, I focus on what I believe are the United State's past and present mistakes because I truly care about my country and want it to survive and prosper. That's why I believe understanding history, current events and the opinions of others is important.

You, however, often give me the impression that you are filled with hatred for America. You further give me the impression that during the Vietnam War you would have been alongside Jane Fonda when she visited Hanoi. Unless that accurately describes your position, I'd caution you that sometimes it's not just the message but how you present it. Do it wrong and people will not appreciate you message, instead focussing negatively on the message giver.

[Trump]

I guess I was talking about interactions with native americans prior to the revolution, French and Indian war and all that. There was tons of conflict that was more brutal (outright slaughter of entire villages, etc) as compared to later events that involved more relocation type efforts. So when "genocide" was mentioned, that is the first thing that came to mind.

[Plekto]

No, I just have a special place in my heart(not a very nice one as you can imagine) for the whitewashing that our past receives in the press and in our schools. I really do like this country, but I see a whole generation being raised on video games and not on a firm understanding of what we did and what still needs to be done to hopefully fix this country.

Because if they don't know, they'll just repeat the same mistakes with new victims. Or worse, we'll slide down into a dictatorship because everyone is too complacent and distracted to notice. I tend to focus on the media because the cancer is most prevalent there right now. It just happens that most of the sources in the U.S. that aren't part of the current media empires happen to be very small liberal presses. I knew the guy who ran(think he still might) Project Censored, in fact. Very conservative guy with a big problem about how our media operates. You'll note that the list - the website aside, is very close to even-handed. It finds fault with our government no matter which party is in charge.

I'd love to hear this from a conservative perspective, but wow - I don't hear any. It's as if half of the U.S. has just gone home early from the ballgame. When I see a lock-step vote in Congress along party lines, it just reinforces the image. Isn't there a single conservative willing to have the balls to take a stand? This latest nomination is a good example. Watch it be a strict party vote, despite the majority of Americans not supporting torture.

Politically I'm probably closest to being a Libertarian - maybe 2/3 of their ideals I believe in, the rest I don't though - some are outright nutty). Far more conservative than you might think. No, I don't equate Republican and Conservative, either. (far from it) I just can't stand what is being done around the world and also at home in my name. Half of the world I can't travel to right now without wondering if I'm safe because of something I didn't do and never condoned in the first place.

Oh - here's a link. The guy wrote this a decade ago or more and has since turned into a bit of a crackpot, but this *specific* part of the article is all true and documented. Read starting about 1/3 the way down where he starts talking about our colonization and treatment of native peoples. "More Big Lies: History"


Note - it's pretty sobering reading, but everything that he says in this article I can verify(gave up after about a dozen or more). It gives a good insight into what really happened and how ingrained our policies and hatred was.

Oh - especially read up on "Thanksgiving".(being the season and all).

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/lies.htm

P.S. Yes, they forcing my son to do a report on the California Missions did set me off this time. I looked and found my very first report on - the same topic it turns out.(I was also about 8-9 at the time). So it brought up a lot of bad feelings I think.

http://www.uvm.edu/~jloewen/liesmyteachertoldme.php
Here's another good book to read. History education isn't much better in the U.S. schools than it is in Japan.(another reason this comes up for me, since the topic of Japan's view of history comes up a lot here)

[SoulPlay]

Anyway, as Ruaidhri pointed out in his examples, the US definitely does not have a squeaky clean background. That does not mean we can't learn from the mistakes we have made in the past. If you don't pay attention to history, you'll be doomed to repeat it.

I recommend you read this book:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Problem_from_Hell:_America_and_the_Age_of_Genoci de

It talks about mistakes...many..mistakes.

Also, very interesting discussion you guys..all of you!

[Kleshya]

That looks interesting, will have to find that one.

[ruaidhri]

Plekto, quite honestly, that’s how I hoped you’d feel. The problem is that often your responses are so negative that they appear extreme. I believe you would reach more people if you discussed single issues and presented your own position rather than making short general statements and supporting them with direct quotes or by linking voluminous articles.

You frequently gave me the impression that you were angry with the world and saw only doom approaching. Understand that I am an optimist wanting to always believe that good will triumph over evil. Doom and gloom turns me off because it offers no viable solutions. I could not be happy if I always had to look over my shoulder. Try being a little more positive and offer reasonable solutions and people will find it easier to agree with your positions on issues.

[Plekto]

Thanks. I do try, to be honest. I just see the U.S. heading for another Great Depression in the next 10-15 years and it worries me. It's not such a bad thing though if we see ti coming and prepare. And, it's a normal part of the economic cycle) It will be over in a decade or two. Those who plan (note - you don't need a bunker in Wyoming - lol) and save will do just fine.

Hopefully we will be better off in the end, having lost enough power in the world to relegate us to taking our place as a nation amongst many others as opposed to the world's bully. England had the same thing happen as well in the late 1800s/early 1900s and it as rough for a while, but they were better for it I think.

Will "good triumph over evil?" I believe it will. Hopefully my son will see it happen. I just don't like the direction our government is heading right now and I think there's going to be a lot of darkness before we get out of this tunnel.

[Beowulf]

ruaidhri, come back to the rest of the forums. We miss you.

[ruaidhri]

Plekto, Yes, it’s not hard to find similarities between the financial market in the 1920’s and today. But, the world is also a lot different today than it was then. I won’t pretend to be a financial wizard because, God knows, I’m not. Yet, I do believe government intervention would mitigate any recession where it would never reach the level of the Great Depression nor last as long as you suggest. At least, that’s what I want to believe just as I never accepted the need for a fallout shelter in the 1950-60’s.

Certainly, the financial market is something over which I have little control. My availability to personal protection from market fluctuations is limited to the frequent advice I receive from my financial advisor. Oh, I do have a number of gold and silver coins in bank safety deposit boxes but certainly not enough to bail me out of a total collapse lasting years.

I also don’t like the policies of George W. Bush and company. However, I don’t believe he personally is evil incarnate. At least, I wouldn’t want to believe that of an American President. Sure, you can call me naive but if that’s what it takes to remain happy then so be it.

My father’s family were Republicans, while my mother’s, Socialist. My mother was the stronger willed and as a youth I also strongly associated with the far Left. I met many people that were filled with distrust and constantly preached doom. I discovered that extremists only complain and never accomplish anything. Then, with 1960, I joined the Democratic Party and campaigned for JFK and many other Democrats. This was a move to the Right for me. Today, while remaining Liberal in my political philosophy, I do not subscribe to the belief that either our leaders do it my way or the sky will fall. I lived through far too many Presidents I didn’t vote for to accept that conclusion.

What does scare me more is how the United States is viewed by the citizens of the rest of the world. I want to put on a positive front and hope that no frenzied radical extremist will bring death and destruction. I certainly am holding my breath for the next election in hopes that with the change in Presidents will come a change in our image throughout the world. While I don’t believe we can afford to return to the isolationist philosophy of the 1930’s, I do believe we should not let the economic fortunes of large companies dictate our foreign policy. I certainly do not believe we should interfere with the internal affairs of sovereign nations. And, I strongly object to preemptive actions based off of what might happen.

I again am limited to hope when it comes to how our next President will react to foreign governments taking internal actions we determine are not in America’s best financial or security interest. I believe our best course is to keep our hands off how other governments interact with their own populace and the world. It appears that regardless of the side we choose we attract more enemies than friends.

I’m 67 years old. I don’t know how much longer I’ll live. My mother died at 74, my sister at 70, my brother at 77 and my father at 81. I hope I live many more years because inside my head I still want to believe I’m 25. But, the future really does belong to our children. Their best course is to get good educations and be flexible when it comes to earning a living. I just hope that no malcontent succeeds in blowing up the world. That’s where my optimism comes in. It prevents me from worrying too much.

Beowulf, where am I missed? I have been busy with my "job" as a Weight Watcher leader and with converting rooms in my home to accommodate just my wife and myself. We just put in a great library with a wall of books.

[Y.T.]

Ruaidhri, problem with gov't intervention is, that it rarely is wise, and
well planned. More often, it is a matter of expediency. Or good intentions..
or simply trying to play it safe.


Federal Reserve massively intervened post 9/11 by slashing interest rates to..
1-2 percent rates. It created money, and lent it out at those rates..

Now, that has been tried in the past, and always with ugly results (hyperinflation).
Why Fed can get away with it? Because $ were (and still are, though many countries would prefer to buy oil with other currencies. OPEC is already considering pricing its exports against a basket of currencies, not $) are needed to buy oil.

(a good metaphor for oil is, that it's the blood of our economies... it gives us cheap energy to use. Without energy, you can't transport stuff cheaply..
For example, in the middle ages transporting grain a 100 miles was as expensive
as buying that grain in that other place ..
No developed economy can work without it. )

.. Bluntly put, it could more money than other Central Banks could get away with.
A lot of that money was made available to consumers. This helped the US
economy "recover" from the slide, through consumption.
This in turn made investors optimistic. Housing prices are affected by optimism. You are likely to buy if long-term, you'll get your money back...



.. but this kind of thing cannot go on forever. USA cannot go on importing
tangible goods and paying for those by borrowing more money.
It's against common sense, more specifically against the principle of tanstaafl.


These days, value of the dollar is falling. One might say that justly, because
fiat money is just promise. If someone promises and promises and looks that he
won't ever deliver, meanwhile the promises become less and less valuable
($ continues to be worth less and less in buying power), you start to think that giving them more and getting more paper in return is not a good idea anymore.

.....


Too bad I can't express myself more precisely. I think you might know what I mean.
Sometimes when I read about the world economy and financial flows, I begin to glimpse in my mind's eye the principles and flows and connections.. but because I am not
perfectly sure about the concepts and principles, I can't explain it to others.


While I don’t believe we can afford to return to the isolationist philosophy of the 1930’s, I do believe we should not let the economic fortunes of large companies dictate our foreign policy. I certainly do not believe we should interfere with the internal affairs of sovereign nations. And, I strongly object to preemptive actions based off of what might happen.


I am afraid that the gov't and business in the US is just one huge dysfunctional organism. Politicians are rarely far-sighted, or able to decide independently.
They need to get elected, after all...

So, the organism has a short-attention span (4 years), can hardly ever take
strategically sound decisions, or bide its time... and all the time its body
(business) wants more food, more resources.


Organisms get lazy and unhealthy in easy times. All taken together, the 90s were kind to the US. Booming economy, unprecedented profits for businesses..., that influenced politics. Then came 9/11, and the US organism reacted to the threat neurotically.
The individuals who got to control the organism were only capable of thinking in the terms of the cold war, though this time the enemy was everywhere and nowhere...and something had to be done. God of public opinion and defense contractors demanded action.

[Black Dog]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlUyqxmv2DA

I'm suprised I haven't seen any parodies involving G.I. JOE yet. It was one of my favorite cartoons as a kid. I always thought it should be "A REAL CANADIAN HERO" instead! I watched this show from age 4-9.

[ruaidhri]

Perhaps the problem is that the United States has become a living parody of GI Joe. I don't believe there is any doubt that we have the strongest standard military force that can win any battle. The problem is we can't necessarily win the wars, especially wars with enemies that don't follow the rules.

We certainly have lost much of the world's respect. I don't believe we can any longer honestly claim we're a moral leader. Instead, our specialty is gunboat diplomacy. Either do it our way or we'll send in GI Joe.

Yet, I love my country. Perplexing, isn't it? I continue to have hope that things will improve and we can somehow magically withdraw our forces from the Persian Gulf without the entire region erupting into armed conflict with extremest muslims governments taking control. Perhaps, as erbiumfiber suggested earlier in this thread George Bush can mire the United States so deeply into the Persian Gulf that no future President can safely withdraw. Then, our only reaction would be to send in even more GI Joes.

[Black Dog]

Was U.S. truelly ever a moral leader ? Certianly there are those who always try to do good. Of course "the road to hell is pathed with good intentions!" Well.....yo can't judege the people by every action taken by the Government that is surposed to represent the people.

SOme like the U.S. , but others hate the U.S. and those reasons may or not be justified to a certian extent. Sometimes, it depends on which side on !

Nothing wrong as loving your country and pointing out its flaws doesn't make you unpatriotic, in fact maybe true patriot would knowledge thier countries faults, then strive to impove thier country and make better or atleast, that is my opinion. The "if you don't like, then ge tthe hell out" attitude is nonesense in my opinion.

As far as Iraq goes, perhaps the U.S. government has already opened pandoras box and now it's too late. " Damned, if you do! Damned if you don't!"
It's complicated and may be no right or wrong decisions. Perhaps, there is only the lesser of evils type of choices to be made. Certianly, it's not something can be fixed overnight....most likely.

May take several generations to undo all the damage that has already been done and will continue in the future. maybe the real question is...... Are Americans and its government willing to make the effort and sacrifice to succeed in Iraq? Assuming it's possible for the U.S. to succeed. The U.S. was unsuccessful in Vientam and the british failed in Iraq after 30 years of fighting or trying.

Young Americans, don't appear to be interested in fighting wars or nation building. The Canadian army isn't haveing any recruitment problems, nothing like the U.S. at the very least. The U.S. just started accepting foreigners into the thier army. Perhaps that is the solution to the illegal mexican problem. if you get caught crossing the boarder to the army you go ! Send them off to Iraq ! Some prisoners are given that choice. I was joking, becuase that would cause some problems.Although what better way is there to prove your loyalty to a country, than putting your life in harms way for the sake of your future homeland !

I don't believe in Canada's mission in Afganistan. Our government says us Canadians are there on invitation from the U.S. created Afghan government. The drug trade has skyrockted, since the Colition forces invaded Afghanistan. Ironically, the Taliban was better at keeping the drug trade under control. Both our countries have made mistakes in Afghanistan or the forgotten war on terror for the U.S.

I wanted to join the Canadian Army reserves for the Education benefits, dental benefits. Doing so will give me a chance to do things I otherwise would not be able to do. I will have to walk through " Before I can go to heaven, I must walk through Hell."

Any thoughts on life as a soldier ? I always enjoy talking to veterns about thier experiences or former soldiers that do not have status. PM me if you want to ?

When I went to the reserves open house, the average age was 17-23. I am 24.

[Sakari]

Hi, I hope you will forgive me for not reading all the replies, but I thought I would contribute anyway.

At our school, the American exchange student mentioned that the area from where he came from was very anti bush, during an introductory speech he gave to the school along with the other exchange students. The hall instantly burst into applause. That's what Finland thinks of Bush.

It really doesn't change much to know that Americans themselves aren't happy with it either, because it doesn't change the things America has done.

I personally feel quite outraged that America invaded Iraq, really out of blatant greed. It is in no way a realistic way of fighting terror, and the WMD cover story was pretty poor too. It's a bit ridiculous to have these wars to fight terror, especially should you consider how all the casualties compare to the casualties of terror attacks. Perhaps Iraqi lives aren't quite as valuable as the one's lost on 9/11.

Funny how America gets away with it. Anyway, I hope I haven't offended anyone, did not mean to insult America in general ^^

Speaking of the military, It will be interesting for me in a few years when I join the Finnish army for the compulsory national service. ^^ Will let you know about that if you're interested.

[ruaidhri]

Black Dog, you’ve got me. Sometimes I write from the heart more than from fact. The truth is that the United States likes to think of itself as a moral leader. The facts have never truly supported that belief.

Regardless, from the average citizen’s perspective our past has been one of caring about our neighbors whether they live directly to the north or south of us or across an ocean. Sadly, there are people in our government and in business that use our concern for political or financial gain. We’ve discovered that what may be best for American business may not always be best for the people in the affected country.

Certainly, it’s as unreasonable to suggest we are always right as it is to suggest we’re always wrong. We’re neither saints nor devils.

I agree; I believe questioning your own government is patriotic. The phrase “love it or leave it” should never have originated in the U.S. because that assumes a citizen should love everything their country does without question.

Actually, it’s never too late to do the right thing. The question is: What’s right? Should we get out of Iraq or stay the course? I was opposed to the invasion. Once it happened , I originally favored staying the course for fear that a precipitous departure would destabilize the entire Persian Gulf. Now, I’m more afraid of what staying will do to America’s image throughout the world. I even question if we can bring security or more danger as all it takes is a few terrorists to bring disorder, fear and retribution. Sadly, I don’t believe we are the solution. I don’t believe any country, region or people commissioned the United States to be the world’s policeman.

I don’t believe anyone in their right mind would actually relish going to war. Yet, I believe most of the young men and women in Iraq are serious about helping the Iraqis build a sound, secure nation. So far 3,863 U.S. soldiers and sailors have died in Iraq. Britain lost 171 and other nations 134. Iraqi military casualties total between 4,900 and 6,375 while their civilian casualties total an amazing 76,701 to 83,571. Who would want to put themselves in the middle of that conflagration?

As far as military service is concerned, I joined the U.S. Coast Guard in 1962 for a four year enlistment. That fulfilled my military commitment while ensuring that I would not be sent to Vietnam. That’s not to say there wasn’t danger in being a Coastie but our mission was more to save than to take lives.

Sakari, yes, many, many Americans do not like Bush. I actually didn’t vote for him in either election. I even contributed considerable time and money to his opponents. But, he won and he is our President. I respect the office if not the man.

The primary purpose of this thread is to offer people like you the opportunity to voice their opinions of America. We really need to listen to the rest of the world instead of taking unilateral action and then getting upset when other countries don’t salute and fall in lock step behind our lead.

Take some time and read through this thread. You’ll learn a lot about Americans , how the world views us and how we view ourselves.

edited to add missing word

[Trump]

Something has been bothering me recently. I feel like I haven't heard much about Iraq in the news at all recently. Occaisionally we get another repeat of the "roadside bomb kills 2 soldiers" or "death toll for the month" stories, but I really don't know what they are actually doing over there any more. What does that mean?

[Black Dog]

You have become disattached from the war. Out of sight, out of mind!

For me, Canada's role and its Afghan mission is on in the Canadian news all the time. The attacks are starting to pick and become more brutal in Nature. Last week, 0ver 50 children were killed by a suicide bomber. It happened during a cermony, that invovled children. Very sad and a disaplicible act.

youtube has many war related videos. Videos you can't see on tv, for those who are interested. There some good documentries too.

Canadian Soldiers fighting agianst the Taliban.
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=niwF6TEsw5w

Canada: A People's History - Invasion or Liberation
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=TeZcoxCQ1wQ

The Power of Nightmares
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=WFQgXG7-aM8

[Black Dog]

I have been watching documentries....mostly WW2 with my Dad since I was a kid. History Channel is practically a WW 2 history channel ! LMAO!!! When I was 5-7 years old, Tour of Duty was one of my favorite TV shows. I used to watch with my Mom all the time. I watched my dog get hit by a car and die when I was 5.

So, I think, I had better understanding about death than most children my age. One way to teach children about death is through the death of pets or having them speak and spend time with dying family members or so I have heard.

[Black Dog]

[QUOTE=ruaidhri]Black DogRegardless, from the average citizen’s perspective our past has been one of caring about our neighbors whether they live directly to the north or south of us or across an ocean. Sadly, there are people in our government and in business that use our concern for political or financial gain. We’ve discovered that what may be best for American business may not always be best for the people in the affected country.[/UOTE]

Canadians are also guitly of viewing our past through rose coloured glasses. In the past the Canadian government has mistreated the Natives and other groups too. We both live on stolen land, no matter how you paint it! That is the reality, but it's too late now. We have to learn to get along and not repeat the errors of the past.

Capitalism is about making money and becoming the strongest ! In order to succeed one must advance at the expense of another ! Wal-Mart being a good example. Of course, the richer your company becomes, the harder it is for your rivals to compete. It appears U.S. and Canadian companies are willing to do what it takes to succeed and grow. Outsourcing being one method of many to achieve thier goals. China, India and Mexico being one of many countries of choice for outsourcing. LOL!!! I forgot about Canada! I actually worked for Telereseach company that took advantage of the lower Canadian dollar to attract American Companies. Mainly called Texas, New York state and Boston from what I remember!

"It's a dog eat dog world".
"Survival of the fittest."
"The strong eat the weak."
"You will be assimulated or destroyed."

[Ichisan]

Was U.S. truelly ever a moral leader ? Certianly there are those who always try to do good. Of course "the road to hell is pathed with good intentions!" Well.....yo can't judege the people by every action taken by the Government that is surposed to represent the people.

The image of America as a beacon of hope and a land of opportunity and freedom goes back to ... the Revolution I guess.

In the 20th century one thinks of Woodrow Wilson's idealistic foreign policy and the glory days of WW2. America still has moral superiority over most-not-all other nations nowadays too but more from the utter moral repugnancy of, sad to say, so many countries, than from its own moral stance. America has gotten its hands dirty allying with and backing some of these regimes too many times to keep its image untarnished.

[rl*united]

I actually find it appalling to claim something as subjective as moral superiority. And to claim most if not all countries are inferior to you just because of that is idiotic.

Now let me tell you what counts. Most if not all countries haven`t been waging wars on and off since the World War two in order to gain political and financial superiority over the whole world. Most if not all countries aren`t arming themselves to the teeth in a paranoid attempt to protect themselves from threats that do not exist. Most if not all countries aren`t setting up these threats so when they need to expend some of that weapon stock and boost the industry the world opinion is on their side. If you had a bleak reason to invade Iraq it`s because you`ve grown smarter in forging evidence and manipulateing the public opinion through decades of doing it.

In conclusion your morality is a lost ideal. If you had reasons to believe you have saved the world before then that`s ok but more recent American history have proved your world-saving attempts to be egoistic and with the soul purpose of fast economic growth.

Now all you`ve got left is to believe that your morality is better in the area of raising your children educating them in history and culture and generally making better human beings out of them. But let me assure you that`s nothing new or ground braking to the rest of the world. And when you realize that your education, way of raising morally correct people, or morals in general are flawed you turn to extremes in forcing obscure levels of morality whenever possible.

A fine example is that teacher being fired because he recited a kid`s chant used mainly to separate a bunch of kids into two teams when playing football.

It`s funny how you still consider yourselves morally superior when morality is something very different in various cultural settings. It`s funny that your morality is based on false accusations and acts of violence. It`s funny that when you realize you`re nothing special you force bullshit to your people just to make yourselves feel better. Fear is one part of it when the school council is freaked out about parents putting up a law-suit but then your own judicial system allows for such cases to exist. That`s another part of American morality that is absolutely counter productive. You`ve gone to such extremes to censor racism that your system ends up backfiring on innocent people.

In the same way your claims for moral superiority backfire when you try to defend them. It`s just such a long shot to claim you`re better than the rest of the world when the dark side of your attempts at morality is aired on CNN daily.

Disclaimer: I get along fine with foreigners including Americans IRL. There`s a mutual understanding that they don`t claim America>The World vice versa I don`t get on their cases for whatever America has ever been at fault of. What I don`t agree with is posing America as holder of the universal morality of humanity and equality. It`s good that you`re aiming for it. But frankly that day hasn`t come yet when you can claim to have achieved it all. And until then your morality will be as obscure and half-hearted and just as two-sided as that of third world countries. It`s just that morality is an absolute value. If you want to prove that you are better you have to prove that there`s no duality in your actions. I don`t believe any country has the right to claim that.

[Roxie]

What I don`t agree with is posing America as holder of the universal morality of humanity and equality..
But who here has said that we are?!

[rl*united]

But who here has said that we are?!

I agree that I`m pushing it beyond what @Ichisan said so I`m not holding anything against him. If I understand him correctly he`s saying that compared to other countries America has a higher standard for morals. Among other things I wanted to suggest that you shouldn`t get too comfortable with that. But that`s my opinion on the topic.

Certainly the recent foreign politics of America have been led on the morality platform - going there liberating other countries and preventing future terrorism. Morality, religion and higher causes have been a topic way too often in political debates during the war in Iraq and even more so during previous wars. So ,even if neither of you said that, I felt like pointing it out as a way of reasoning that was quite fruitful to fueling the propaganda behind recent events.

My opinion is the shared feeling of American superiority and righteousness helped a lot of people sleep better at night and was a factor in winning the public opinion. And even if that might be pure patriotism I can`t help to think it`s a form of manipulation.

[MNJetter]

But who here has said that we are?!
Ichisan did.

Certainly the recent foreign politics of America have been led on the morality platform - going there liberating other countries and preventing future terrorism.
I dunno, I think the whole War on Terrorism thing is more fear-based than morality based. The president would come on the TV every day for a while, telling us how urgent it was that we take action against potential terrorists before they get a chance to repeat 9/11. Basically, "Take part in our efforts to control the Middle East, or else the Evil Scary Terrorists will come at night to bomb your children and kill us all!"

And it was a pretty scary thing. Back in the days and months following 9/11, terrorism was something that could strike fear in just about anybody. They weren't a normal enemy. They weren't a military bent on conquering America. They were a force of pure evil, obsessed with their ultimate goal of wiping out every man, woman, and child in America, simply because we happened to have been born into this country.

Not that I think that using said fear to justify war is right. But you have to admit it is understandable.

[Roxie]

That's not exactly what Ichisan said.

America still has moral superiority over most-not-all other nations nowadays too but more from the utter moral repugnancy of, sad to say, so many countries, than from its own moral stance.
doesn't read the same (perhaps just for me) as
What I don`t agree with is posing America as holder of the universal morality of humanity and equality..

[ruaidhri]

Ron Paul, is he good for America? If nothing else, he is certainly interesting. His opinions cavort all across the political spectrum. His specialty is in attracting the malcontents, the self-disenfranchised and those that fear the future and wish for a return to the past.

So, he’s running for the Republican nomination for President. He is after all a Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives. But, can he win the nomination? That, in my opinion is highly, highly doubtful. What’s next? Will he continue his struggle to return America to its 18th Century roots? Will he champion a third-party candidacy? Actually, I hope he does because he will steal votes from the more mainstream Republican candidate helping Hillary win the White House.

My interest in the Ron Paul phenomena was piqued by the apparently strong support of some of the members of OP9. Outwardly Ron Paul is a funny looking little man. But then, so am I. Again, like me, he is a senior citizen at 72 years, only 6 years my senior. He, at least for the moment, identifies himself as a Republican while I, a Democrat. Now, I’m not totally opposed to voting for a Republican but certainly not for a national election because like it or not a national candidate needs his political base to accomplish any goals. If (s)he stands too far outside the circle (s)he will accomplish nothing and the country will suffer.

Anyway, I decided to check beyond the physical facts of how he looks and his age and examine his positions on vital issues facing America and the world. Hmmm! We sometimes agree. I’ll admit; sometimes I also wish for a simpler time but the difference is I realize it never existed. The United States was never a Utopia. In truth our past was more dark then resplendent. Despite how much I complain about this or that I believe Americans and the people throughout the world are better off today than they were at the time either I or Ron Paul were born or during the many years preceding our respective births.

But, let’s cut the crap. What are Ron Paul’s positions and how do they differ from mine? Now, time prevents me from responding to each and every position but I’ll start here with a few. As time goes on I’ll add more.

First, and perhaps foremost, Ron Paul is a fundamentalist when it comes to the U.S. Constitution. He literally interprets the Constitution and opposes any legislation not specifically authorized by the Constitution. For him, the Constitution is not a living document; instead, it is set in stone. It makes no difference that it’s base was written 220 year ago. It makes no difference it’s authors could not envision the world as it exists today. From Ron Paul’s perspective, he will not support any legislation unless it is specifically authorized by the Constitution irrespective of the Constitutional authority of the Supreme Court to interpret the “intent” of the Constitution.

Do I agree or disagree? While I am not a fundamentalist, I do highly value the Constitution. I certainly don’t like Congress or the President ignoring what I believe is its “intent”. But, even when the Supreme Court’s position does not agree with my own, I do respect their status as the final and constitutional authority to interpret the “true intent” of the Constitution and it’s amendments.

Ron Paul is a 18th Century man favoring the philosophy of Presidents Washington, Jefferson and Madison in opposition to being drawn into foreign wars not directly related to our national defense. He favors bringing American troops home from any armed conflict as soon as the stated victory has been won. He wants the U.S. to remove troops from Iraq, Korea, Japan, and Europe. He does allow for communicating, trading and travel with other nations.

Do I agree or disagree? Let’s compare the world today with what existed in 18th Century. Then, the Ocean separating the U.S. from the rest of what we considered the civilized world was large and not easily crossed. We were fairly insulated from foreign attack as our distance away from potential adversaries made up for our relative military weaknesses. We were largely self-sufficient with simple trade filling all our desires for luxuries. Primarily we were an agrarian society producing our own food and clothing. Transportation was limited to foot, horse, or boat. Communication was by letter, newspaper or more directly by voice. We didn’t need the rest of the world and we were too costly for them to conquer.

Today, the world is indeed different. We still have an ocean between us but it wouldn’t take long for an ICBM to traverse the globe what less an ocean. Our primary threat is not from other nations but rather from terrorists. And, what happens in the Persian Gulf and the many other parts of the world does impact each and every American here in the United States. We are no longer self-sufficient. We are no longer an agrarian nation. We are dependent on the rest of the world for much of our necessities including the fuel we use to transport us between home and work. The inescapable truth is that the world’s economies are inextricably entangled with each other to the point where when one surges or falters the others follow suit.

But, let’s even look back in history. Had we not entered WWII, I do believe Germany would have eventually won the battle. Without the U.S., Great Britain would have suffocated and fallen. Germany would have had the time to create its own Atom Bomb and would have had no problem using it against any country that opposed them. Eventually, I believe, they would have set their sites on an isolationist America.

Still, with all I wrote above, I do wish the U.S. would get off its high horse and stop trying to be the self-appointed police for the rest of the world. Unlike, Ron Paul, I do believe in the United Nations, NATO and other world alliances but I wish we could follow their lead rather than insisting they follow ours.

Well, I have other things I need to do so I will continue with my assessment of Ron Paul’s candidacy for President in a future posting. I’m sure what I’ve already written will elicit fervent comments from his supporters.

[Beowulf]

words words words
Hell yes. I agree with you about 95%. The only things I don't agree with you on are Hillary (she jumps to whatever issue is currently in the spotlight). And the WW2 thing. If we hadn't entered the war Germany would still have been soundly crushed except that the Soviet Union would then stretch from the shores of Normandy to the Chinese border.

[ruaidhri]

Beowulf, I never expected you to be fooled by Ron Paul. We are indeed of similar minds.

I only mentioned Hillary because she is the leading Democratic contender for the nomination. Personally, I prefer Edwards for the primary but would have no problem voting for Hillary in the general election if she were the nominee.

We do have a disagreement regarding the outcome of WWII had the U.S. not entered the war against Germany. Yes, Russia bore the brunt of the war and did eventually march right into Berlin but, Russia was helped by American armaments and other financial aid not to mention the allies invasions of North Africa, Sicily, Italy and eventually Normandy. Without the Americans, the British and other allied nations, I believe Germany would have been able to hold off the Russians long enough to ensure Germany's further development of their rockets and nuclear bombs.

That, I believe would have been the end of any Russian resistance.

[Plekto]

Actually, Hitler had a standing order to only implement weapons technology that could be deployed in under a year. Long-term research on a nuclear bomb was very much a "back burner" project.

The main reason I'm for Ron Paul is because of this:
http://www.amazon.com/End-America-Letter-Warning-Patriot/dp/1933392797
It's a good book that was written by her due to her friend who survived Nazi Germany's insistence that this had happened before.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16422285
Her talking on her book on NPR. Listen - it's worth the 5 minutes of you time.

It's actually very scary yet absolutely true. They are trying to accomplish a takeover by force. I think to turn this country into a theocracy, but nobody's quite sure what shape it would take.

She explains how, for instance, specific quotes and actions between Germany circa 1930/31 and today. It's freaky how almost word for word, example by example, the same things are being repeated.

Note - there has never been a case in all of human history where a government that creates a system of torture and interrogation for enemies (Guantanimo is a good example of this) hasn't used it against its own people. Not one. What starts out as enemy combatants or spies or whatever... always leads to its use against normal citizens. That is, unless the entire power-grab is stopped.

So when people like Ron Paul get up in front of the camera and say that this is a huge problem and he'll fight to return us to the way to was before Bush started to usurp power from the people... That weighs quite heavily on my mind. Nobody else is saying that they will stop it.

[ruaidhri]

Plekto, your support for Ron Paul neither surprises nor alarms me.

You are, I believe, OP9's resident conspiracy theorist. In your world the sky truly is falling. So you believe Ron Paul can save you and the world. Ok, go for it. Vote for him. Send him all your money. Campaign for him.

But, please consider that he won't get the Republican nomination so if he does run in the general election it would be as an independent and if the impossible does come true and he does win he would be unable to accomplish anything. Why? Because he would have no political support from either party.

Whatever, don't let anything deter you. It's not winning that important when losing gives you more ammunition for predicting disaster.

Personally, I would never be happy living in your world where every action is suspect and there is always a plot to uncover.

[Roxie]

I've already explained the reason why I would never vote for Ron Paul only to have those reasons be called (basically) "secondary" and not as important as others. Only people who feel that they are not truly affected by those issues could possibly feel that way and to tell me they're not as important is belittling at best.

[ruaidhri]

Roxie, while I don't know specifically what you wrote (please reference your post) I have always valued your opinions and would never consider them secondary nor less important than others.

[Roxie]

Ref this post (http://www.outpostnine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=408426&postcount=1)

[Trump]

Ruaidhri,

I've seen a few things about Edwards and I'm trying to remember my history. He was Kerry's running mate right? Then his wife was very ill and fighting breast cancer? He is currently a senator?

We've heard why you dislike Ron Paul, and I happen to agree with you that he just seems disconnected from reality a little bit too much. But now it is only fair to ask why do you like Edwards?

[Plekto]

Go to the link I posted for the book on Amazon.com. Click on the picture and then on the link that has the table of contents. That's the list I'm talking about. It's based upon a study of human history of how dictatorships are started and is generally agreed upon as a valid list by academics. Her book is merely seeing how the list applies to the U.S.

1:Invoke an external or internal threat
2:Establish secret prisons. Arbitrarily detain undesirables.
3: Develop a paramilitary force
4:Set up surveillance on your citizens
5:Infiltrate citizen's groups and meetings.
6:Arbitrarily detain citizens.
7:Target key individuals. First in the press/society and then physically.
8:Restrict the press.
9:Cast dissent and criticism as treason and/or espionage.
10:Overthrow the courts/rule of law.

The scary thing is that we're already up to #5.

You think I'm a conspiracy nut? That's just your being conditioned by our society to see everything that isn't part of the status quo as being as such. Our government has spent an enormous amount of resources in the last century to make anyone who speaks out be seen as a crackpot or to marginalize them, so it's almost a wrote response by most people now to claim anyone who does speak up as being crazy or some "nut".

Now, we're more open-minded here as a rule, but the idea that if it doesn't fit it must be a "conspiracy theory" still seems to have found its way into your thinking.

Yet the reality is the Patriot Act is real. AT&T and Sprint filtering our calls and emails is real. Guantanimo is real. Blackwater and other paramilitary forces are real. Secret prisons are real. Suspension of Habeus Corpus is also unfortunately all too real. Torture is definitely happening as well.

Something is badly wrong with out county's leaders right now and ignoring it won't make it go away.

[Trump]

I'm sure we all believe in some conspiracies. It is just that most of us see your conspiracies as too far fetched to be realistic.

[stsparky]

Sakari, yes, many, many Americans do not like Bush. I actually didn’t vote for him in either election. I even contributed considerable time and money to his opponents. But, he won and he is our President. I respect the office if not the man. ...
Ruaidri:
I know that Bush won neither election.
The Republican biased Supreme Court simply gave him the nod in 2000. The dirty trick in 2000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChoicePoint#Civil_Rights_Commission_Report_on_2000 _Florida_Elections) wasn't just the hanging chads but that thousands of democratic voters of 'color' were wrongly stripped of their right to vote in Florida and Texas. In 2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy_and_ir regularities), Allegations or complaints regarding obstacles to voter registration, improper purges of voter lists, voter suppression, accuracy and reliability of voting machines (especially electronic voting), problems with absentee and provisional ballots, areas with more votes than signatures of voters in election poll books, areas with more votes than registered voters, and possible partisan interference by voting machine companies and election officials. Although a recount was conducted in Ohio, many of the alleged improprieties (such as long lines or tampering) could not be addressed in a recount.
Ron Paul said he wouldn't run as an independent rendering him as moot as Biden.

[Beowulf]

Plekto, your support for Ron Paul neither surprises nor alarms me.

You are, I believe, OP9's resident conspiracy theorist. In your world the sky truly is falling. So you believe Ron Paul can save you and the world. Ok, go for it. Vote for him. Send him all your money. Campaign for him.
I think Plekto ties with stsparky in terms of conspiracy enthusiasm.

And it's not that I'm anti-Ron Paul. I'm anti-Libertarian. Since Ron Paul is a libertarian, this is where my issues with him arise.

Btw: Edwards-Obama 2008.

[Plekto]

They said that it couldn't happen in Italy and Germany and yet it did. We have to remain vigilant to keep ourselves from having the same fate.

- It's no conspiracy that Guantanimo and secret prisons exist. And that we torture prisoners.
- It's not one either that BlackWater was on the ground after Katrina policing U.S. citizens despite having no authority to do so.
- It's not a lie that the President can put anyone in prison that he wants to and strip them of all legal rights.
- The Patriot Act is real last I checked.
- Spying on us by AT&T and other companies is happening. Retroactive immunity will happen and warrants won't be required.
- The Military Commissions Act of 2006 is still in force. Changing the definition from enemy combatants to combatants(including citizens) is only a very very small piece of legislation away.

http://www.gnn.tv/threads/10799/Bush_on_the_Constitution_It_s_just_a_goddamned_pie ce_of_paper
Actual quote from our President.

Oh, but I'm a conspiracy nut because that alarms me...

I'm not making this stuff up. All real and verifiable. It should shock any person that this has gotten as far as it has. I have a bad feeling that history is repeating itself here.

[Beowulf]

Oh, but I'm a conspiracy nut because that alarms me...

I'm not making this stuff up. All real and verifiable. It should shock any person that this has gotten as far as it has. I have a bad feeling that history is repeating itself here.
You need to study up. It isn't that governments turn into fascism, it's economies that turn to fascism. Germany and Italy turned to strong leaders who promised to fix the economies, get everyone jobs, and make their currency worth more then the paper it was printed on. Remember Mussolini got into power in the first place with his declaration that he would "make the trains run on time."

When it takes a wheelbarrow full of US dollars to buy a loaf of bread, then I'll be worried.

[Plekto]

No, but the methods of fascism and dictatorships are very close to each other in how they attain power. And neither is a direction that the U.S. needs to be heading towards - not even in the smallest part or because of the threat of terrorism. History shows that if you give up a right or freedom because of a threat or an emergency, you rarely if ever get it back once it has passed.

It's a slippery slope. Given how our media, our government, and our major industries are all in bed together currently, it's at best heading towards a situation like they have in Mexico and at worst, a total disaster. That is, unless we do everything that we can do slow down and reverse the power grab that they are making.

If you look at how most countries begin the slide from democracy to other forms of government, the signs are usually similar, though obviously somewhat different because every situation isn't an exact repeat of any other naturally. Of course this means that just because it isn't EXACTLY like the past, it isn't happening, either.

"It can't happen here" History is full of examples of people saying exactly that. And history is also full of those who realize that it can happen anywhere. I see no problem with being vigilant about our rights. At best, nothing bad happens and life goes on.

P.S. by the time you need a wheelbarrow of dollars, it'll be far far too late. You don't wait until the house is on fire to fix your fuses.

[Black Dog]

'LIVE FREE OR DIE!" -Taken from the American revolution. 500 points if you can tell me a few what affect the the American revolution had on Canada ! it's huge !!! One man's freedom is another man's pain and suffering at times.

You American imperialist dogs have grown weak and fearful, as a result of your capitallistic and materialistic ways !!!

People only think about money and how to obtain it at all costs. To cetian degree we all do. Like it or not, "Money makes the world go round."

[ruaidhri]

To start off, it’s my wedding anniversary. My wife and I have been married now for 36 years. Today will be a very busy day as will the next couple of days. I don’t really have a lot of time to respond to comments in this thread and will give more detailed responses on Friday.

Anyway, why am I for Edwards? Several reasons. First and foremost, I want a winner. I want a candidate that can not only win the Democratic primary but also the general election. I have doubts about both Hillary and Obama. Second, I like his positions on a number of issues (I’ll go into this in more detail later). And, third, I especially like the fact that he talks to people not at them. Bottom line, for me, he’s believable and the most winnable candidate in the general election.

Now, on the conspiracy fears. Yes, neither I nor anyone else on this thread is blind. Bush, Jr.’s response to 9/11 has not respected the U.S. Constitution. Yes, we do have to be vigilant. But, last I checked we are coming up on an election to select a new President. It’s critically important that we select a (wo)man that respects our Constitution and would best protect our American freedoms both here at home and abroad.

Plekto, what amazes me about you is not that you are vigilant or even that you are sounding the alarm about serious threats to our constitutional freedoms. What does turn me off is that you often appear to find a conspiracy under every rock. If it’s indeed that bad it’s already too late, we’re already fucked. I refuse to believe that.

Another thing, Plekto, you challenge everyone to be aware of the world around them and to protect themselves and their families. Then, you claim you plan to vote
for a candidate that can’t possibly win. How’s that a vote for change? How’s that going to reduce the threats you constantly fear.

And, last, Plekto, in post 852 you linked to an article where President Bush reportedly said the U.S. Constitution was “just a goddamned piece of paper”. Your news source is less than creditable. Quoting such sources is I believe over the edge and doesn’t add to your own creditability.

[Ichisan]

It's good that the Democrats have 3 strong candidates - Edwards, Obama, Clinton - this time around. If Kerry hadn't been such a nonentity Bush might not have won last time.

[Plekto]

Plekto, you challenge everyone to be aware of the world around them and to protect themselves and their families. Then, you claim you plan to vote for a candidate that can’t possibly win. How’s that a vote for change? How’s that going to reduce the threats you constantly fear.

Such is our system. I plan to do my part to help each party to have as good a primary outcome as possible. Who I vote for in the election... we'll see who is the candidate in a few months, won't we?


"Then, you claim you plan to vote for a candidate that can’t possibly win."


I really hate the "your vote is wasted - he can't possibly win" nonsense. Look, in California, with a 60% Democratic majority, my vote is already moot because of the winner take all setup we currently operate under. And, if I don't want to vote for the lesser of two evils, I shouldn't have to.

So I should just be a sheep and suck it up and vote Democrat? Hillary will probably win anyways - so I guess in a year or so, we'll get to see the glorious outcome she'll have on our nation. I bet you $20 right now that she turns out to be a disaster. How's voting for Hillary a vote for change?

Great. We substituted Arsenic for Mercury. One just kills you slower than the other is all.


And, last, Plekto, in post 852 you linked to an article where President Bush reportedly said the U.S. Constitution was “just a goddamned piece of paper”. Your news source is less than creditable. Quoting such sources is I believe over the edge and doesn’t add to your own creditability.


That's as good as I could find. The quote is in various sources online. Of course he's not going to be on video tape saying it, but honestly, even if he was, I think most Americans would ignore it or claim it was fake. Given Bush's general psychology and lack of respect for the rule of law, it seems to be a perfectly reasonable thing to believe the reporter in this case.

But there are hundreds more that are equally upsetting.
Here's a favorite few of mine:
"I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job."
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."
"I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace."
"I'm the commander — see, I don't need to explain — I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being president."

The man is a nutter and worries me every day. Just how many times does our government have to assault our rights before people start believing something is wrong?

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/20/1458214
Today's news. They are starting to infiltrate groups like they did in the 60s - or trying to find a way to do so.

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3388/examining_the_homegrown_terrorism_prevention_act/
A good article on it(the bill itself is typical legalese doublespeak)

I picked this up on the news feeds as well today.

Freedom's Watch Test Markets Language to Sell War With Iran

Mother Jones magazine is reporting a hawkish advocacy group connected to the White House has hired a Virginia company to begin test-marketing language that could be used to sell a war with Iran. The group Freedom's Watch first made headlines this summer when it launched a $15 million ad campaign in support of the surge of American troops in Iraq. The group's leadership includes former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer and Bradley Blakeman, a former deputy assistant to President Bush. Freedom Group recently hired the company Martin Focus Groups in Alexandria, Virginia. One participant who was paid to be part of a focus group told Mother Jones: "The whole basis of the whole thing was, "we're going to go into Iran and what do we have to do to get you guys to along with it."
***

Next week it'll be something else equally as bad. Do we see any of the candidates saying that they will change anything? No. We see all but one of them salivating at the prospect of being the next would be king. My vote's for the one who is saying he'll fix the problem.

[Beowulf]

The US cannot possibly go to war with Iran and even Bush + Cheney know it. We simply don't have the troop levels that would be required (for one thing). War with Iran means draft, a draft means the end of US foreign wars. It's all saber-rattling for the benefit of the international community.

[Sakari]

I would have to agree with Plekto on the fact that Bush is a nutter. "WOW" I hear you say. But seriously, it really isn't a matter of opinion any more. I do not know a SINGLE person who supports Bush, online or offline. I really do not. Perhaps someone on this thread does, I don't know. Bush has been such a screw up nobody can pretend they don't realise that. It's just made worse by how he makes an utter fool of himself.

There have been terribly evil men in the world who have convinced the people of their excellence, but Bush is a failure with zero creditability, who has given America an awful reputation. Many I know would liken America to a big strong oaf, blundering about with its military might. People are quite confused as to what the hell is going on there. This eventually reflects badly on Americans in general, who are, perhaps unfairly, charged with voting Bush. This isn't helped when the most read newspaper in Finland publishes an article about how somewhere in the US baggy jeans are banned. Our school trip to a new Mormon Church here (Built by Americans living in Finland) didn't help much either.

In short... America is currently a target befuddlement and ridicule, perhaps summed up well by the abbreviation: "WTF!?"

Personally I don't know what to think about America in general. I don't find Americans who I know any more stupid than others. Some of the ridicule against America is justified, a lot isn't. But I am genuinely confused as to why the situation is such as it is.

Well, there's, from my perspective, how people perceive America.

[stsparky]

My folks assert it will be Clinton-Richardson that runs, I'd like an Edwards ticket though.

[Plekto]

Army Wants Wounded Soldiers to Return Bonuses

The Pentagon is forcing thousands of wounded veterans to return signing bonuses they received for joining the army. The military says the injured soldiers aren’t entitled to the money because they didn’t complete their full tour of duty. Jordan Fox of Pennsylvania left the military three months early after being hit by a roadside bomb in Iraq. He sustained back injuries and lost all vision in his right eye. Earlier this month he received a Pentagon letter asking him to return some three thousand dollars in sign-up bonuses. Fox and his mother had recently started a program to send thousands of care packages to servicemembers in Iraq.

***
I found this in the news today. Pretty much says it all about how our government REALLY views its citizens.

I didn't even have to wait a week to find another example of our government screwing with us. 24 hours was enough.

[Black Dog]

Army Wants Wounded Soldiers to Return Bonuses

The Pentagon is forcing thousands of wounded veterans to return signing bonuses they received for joining the army. The military says the injured soldiers aren’t entitled to the money because they didn’t complete their full tour of duty. Jordan Fox of Pennsylvania left the military three months early after being hit by a roadside bomb in Iraq. He sustained back injuries and lost all vision in his right eye. Earlier this month he received a Pentagon letter asking him to return some three thousand dollars in sign-up bonuses. Fox and his mother had recently started a program to send thousands of care packages to servicemembers in Iraq.

***
I found this in the news today. Pretty much says it all about how our government REALLY views its citizens.

I didn't even have to wait a week to find another example of our government screwing with us. 24 hours was enough.

That is fucked up !!! What more do they want from thier soldiers!!! Seriously, if they need the money that badly, then why don't they start reduce all the piliticians salaries !!! Nothing says you love your country, like taking a paycut for the sake of it's people and goverment !!!

Certianly, these soldiers are far more deserving than any politician, unless they too have put thier life on the line for the sake of the Nation !!! I admire that sort of spirit the most !!! Not to mention all the soldiers are in the U.S. Army by choice, it's not they were drafted !!! If they have served thier country honouribly, then I believe they have earned it !!!

I have cousins that have served in the Air force or Navy and I may do server in the Army one day....Guess that is why this pisses me off !!!

[ruaidhri]

Hmmm. Looks like this was more of a screw-up than any real Army policy.

From NBC’s Domenico Montanaro
Clinton issued a sharp critique of a U.S. Army policy in a letter from her Senate office, requesting “the immediate reversal of an Army policy that requires repayment of enlistment bonuses by medically discharged wounded soldiers.”

The letter is in response to a local TV news report in Pittsburgh yesterday. She calls the policy “outrageous,” that “soldiers have earned their bonuses” and “it shocks the conscience that the Army could demand that wounded soldiers return their enlistment bonuses.” The letter continues, and touts her work on the Armed Services Committee.

But NBC’s Jim Miklaszewski explains to First Read that it is actually already “against Army policy to require repayment for enlistment bonuses from soldiers wounded in service,” said Miklaszewski, NBC News' Pentagon correspondent. “The incident that popped up in a local news story in Pittsburgh, on FOX and on MSNBC last night was the result of bureaucratic confusion over the soldier's wounded status and an incorrect determination of his discharge. The decision to request repayment was in error and has since been reversed.

“The local report from KDKA in Pittsburgh that claimed thousands of medically discharged soldiers are being forced to repay their enlistment bonus is wrong. The KDKA reporter said he got his information from a local congressman, who confused an earlier issue in which 2,005 wounded soldiers did not receive their full pay for a brief period of time. Another typical bureaucratic bungle, which was also corrected. The KDKA reporter never sought any clarification or reaction from either the Army or Pentagon before running the story, according to Army officials."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/11/21/477585.aspx

[Black Dog]

I still think politicians should take a paycut !!! hahahaha!!!

"Even monkeys fall from trees."

[stsparky]

Tomorrow is 11//22/2007.

Nov. 22, 1963: A Magic Bullet, a Grassy Knoll, an Enduring Mystery

By Tony Long 11.22.07 | 12:00 AM
http://www.wired.com/images/article/full/2007/11/kenney_580px.jpg
President John F. Kennedy and Texas Gov. John Connally ride in a motorcade in Dallas Nov. 22, 1963, moments before a "sniper" would shoot the two men, fatally wounding Kennedy. Photo credit: Bettmann/Corbis.

1963: President Kennedy is assassinated as his motorcade passes through Dealey Plaza in downtown Dallas. Texas Gov. John Connally, riding in the same car as Kennedy, is seriously wounded.

The Warren Commission, set up by order of President Johnson to investigate the assassination, concluded that Kennedy was killed by a lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, firing from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. Although the report was widely accepted at first, skepticism grew as more information concerning possible conspiracies leaked out.

Oswald denied having anything to do with the shooting at all, let alone being part of any conspiracy, but he was killed -- and silenced -- two days after the assassination while in the custody of Dallas police.

That, coupled with the FBI's miserable handling of the initial investigation, did nothing to quell the suspicions of those who believed Kennedy's assassination was the work of (pick one, or more than one): the CIA, Johnson, the mob, Fidel Castro, the anti-Castro Cubans, J. Edgar Hoover.
Whether the shooter was acting alone or as part of a bigger conspiracy may never be known. Most of the available evidence, such as the Warren Commission Report, is inconclusive.

But the other big assertion -- that Oswald (or whoever the Book Depository gunman was) had help from shooters on the ground -- has never been adequately supported by hard evidence, either.

The so-called "grassy knoll" theory maintains that there was one, and possibly two, gunmen at ground level in Dealey Plaza. A number of eyewitnesses claimed to have heard gunfire coming from the grassy knoll, but nobody actually saw a gunman and no shells were ever recovered.

The Warren Report, basing its findings on the autopsy and forensics reports, concluded that two bullets struck Kennedy. They came from the same weapon, a bolt-action Mannlicher-Carcano military rifle of Italian manufacture that was later recovered at the Book Depository. Three shots were fired, all from above and behind the target. The first missed. The second, the so-called "magic bullet," passed through Kennedy and tore into Gov. Connally, causing all his wounds. The third shot, the killing one, exploded into the right side of Kennedy’s head.

Conspiracy theorists point to the impossible trajectory of the magic bullet, and to the Zapruder film, which shows Kennedy’s head snapping backwards as the fatal third shot takes off the right side of his head, as evidence that shots came from more than one direction.

Forensics experts disagree, however, arguing that the described path of the second bullet, while improbable, was not impossible and that Kennedy's head snap at the moment of impact suggests a reaction to the first bullet striking him and not the second.

Forty-four years on and we're still not entirely sure what happened in Dallas that day. All we do know is that something changed in an instant and America has never been the same country since. It’s a dark line that grows only more pronounced as the day recedes into history.

Links:
Time: Was There a Conspiracy? (http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1635958_1635999_1634964,00.html)
Warren Commission Report (http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/)
Magic Bullet (http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/issues_and_evidence/single-bullet_theory/The_SBT.html)
Zapruder Film Frame Analysis (http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/)
The Fall of Camelot (http://www.the-tidings.com/2007/101907/difference.htm)

====
Enjoy Turkey Day.

IMO Rusty Harrelson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Harrelson) was one of the tramps and likely one of the 'real triggermen' that day. Harrelson has declared that he was involved in John F. Kennedy's assassination (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1626531.ece).

[Plekto]

There was a recent book about Kennedy's brother published by one of his advisors and friends - after he had passed away that is. And it clearly points out that the FBI hired people to kill him. At the time, Kennedy had stated just a few days beforehand that he was going to get rid of the FBI - literally to the last man. Close it down entirely. They were in a state of panic.

It also goes on to say that Robert Kennedy was a hundred percent convinced that Johnson was himself involved. Not "I think he might be", but "I'll find a way to get this bastard" convinced. But he was essentially stonewalled by the acting President. So they had him killed, too, since he was asking questions and making a lot of noise about it - and surely would have dug forever to figure it out if he was elected(all signs point to his winning by a large margin)

I'll try to find the book. It's an amazing read into one of the darker eras of American politics.

Those three "tramps" are also mentioned in the book - Mob guys that the FBI hired to do the hit. (Harrelson and the others were known mob and ex government employees - all crack shots and without morals.)

Oh - the bullet was fired most likely from a 5.56mm(M16 caliber) a couple of blocks away in the freight yard(300yd shot - not impossible for a trained sniper). The witnesses would have heard it come from the direction of the hill behind them, but the reality is that it likely was a block beyond that or more. I used to post on a few firearms groups on UseNet years ago and the consensus was that the wound was obviously from a small caliber rifle. Given the National Guard presence in the area, a scoped M16 would have been the most likely choice.

The one Oswald had would have punched a clean hole right through his skull, hardly moving his head, in fact. It was a very hard bullet with a solid core. The other bullets that they recovered were essentially not deformed at all they were so hard. Drills a nice, clean hole in things. But a hollowpoint 5.56mm would do exactly what we see in the films. Enough soldiers used them in Vietnam, plus generations of snipers as well to know exactly what the round does in that situation - and it's always the exact same effect.

Kennedy's brain of course dissapeared, so we'll never know. But the book certainly does shed a lot of light on what Kennedy's brother thought at the time.(and I think it's a far more reasonable explaination especially given the scare at the time over Russia and the near fanatical fear in the country over them, plus Kennedy's plan to disaband the FBI and possibly the CIA.)

***
Of course, what I find amazing is that people somehow have managed to become trusting of our government over the last few decades.

[ruaidhri]

Well, it took 866 posts before the thread addressed the assassination of John Kennedy. This has always been very hard for me as the 1960 Wisconsin primary was my first foray into political activity. This was a time when it was easier to really get to know the person behind the face. It was a time when you could sit down and have a conversation about life, not politics. One of those people I met on a personal level was John Kennedy along with his wife and siblings. I even have a book that Kennedy signed for me with just his first name “John”.

Those were wonderful, exciting days. I was 19 years old (not old enough to vote in 1960) but I did help elect Kennedy to the White House and numerous Democrats to state and local offices.

Over the next couple of years I joined the Coast Guard to fulfill my military obligation and do something for my country. On November 22, 1963, I was walking up a staircase at the Coast Guard Training Center in Groton, CT, when one of the students said to me “Did you hear, Kennedy was shot”. I went into a panic. He wasn’t just my President. He was someone I had met, sat down with and talked about life. He was a friend. I spent the day in front of the TV in the instructors lounge. For all practical purposes the Coast Guard Training Center shut down. There were many, many tears throughout the base. I was devastated. The memories still moisten my eyes.

Almost immediately there were conspiracy theories. Personally, I was thankful for the Warren Commission and I respect their findings. I wanted the pain and constant discussion to end. Well, here we are 44 years later and the conspiracy is raised again. Now, I understand, it’s the anniversary of Kennedy’s assassination but sadly that’s the only thing many people know about the man I called “Jack”. Honestly, at this late stage would it make any difference who killed Kennedy? He’s dead. The world changed. We’ll never know what might have been.

[stsparky]

... Honestly, at this late stage would it make any difference who killed Kennedy? He’s dead. The world changed. We’ll never know what might have been.
Some say our American Dream became a nightmare when he died. But Ruaidri - the truth matters. I think Oswald was a patsy who independent witnesses placed in the 2nd floor cafeteria of the Book Depository at the moment of the shooting. So who shot at Kennedy then? Rusty Harrelson admitted to being one of the shooters (and there is film footage of him as one of the tramps). If the ignoble scion of one the planners of this outrage is President now, would you still be resigned to allow the lies of the Warren Commission to stand.
http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/slide/DSC00037.JPG
The smile belongs to Rusty Harrelson. This is from the slideshow linked below.

Poor Secret Service Agent George Hickey's weapon may even have accidentally administered a mercy shot and ended the President's pain. There are many theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_assassination_theories), and we are owed the truth.

The Three Tramps
There is speculation regarding the true identites of the three tramps that were detained from the train. The tramps were taken to the police station. They were never searched or fingerprinted. No record existed of their detainment until a document mysteriously appeared years after the assassination. Many people believe two of the tramps were famous Watergate burglers E. Howard Hunt and Frank Sturgis.

Lois Gibson might be the most respected forensic artist and facial expert in the world. From her analysis, she is certain that the three tramps were Chauncey Holt, Charles Harrelson, and Charles Rogers:
Lois Gibson's slideshow presentation (http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/lois1.htm)

Charles Rogers
Charles Rogers was a CIA assassin/pilot. On June 23, 1965, Roger's parents, Fred and Edwina, were found brutally murdered in their home. The couple's nephew had called the police because he was very concerned about them. After police entered the home, they noticed a lot of food sitting on the counter which appeared to have been moved from the refrigerator. The officers opened the refrigerator to discover something horrific. The elderly couple's bodies had been cut into pieces and placed in the refrigerator and freezer. Charles was nowhere to be found and to this day is the prime suspect in the murders. It is rumored that Rogers was killed in South America during involvement with the Iran-Contra program.

Charles Harrelson
Charles Harrelson, the father of famous actor Woody Harrelson, has been identified by Lois Gibson as the tall tramp in the photo. He became famous after being tried and convicted for killing a U.S. District Judge named John H. Wood, Jr. Right before he was arrested, he made a statement claiming that he was the one who killed JFK. He later retracted his statement saying that he was high on cocaine and he often said things that weren't true while under the influence. Harrelson died March 15, 2007 in a Colorado prison.

Chauncey Holt
Chauncey Holt, the old tramp with the hat, claims to have been a double agent for the CIA and the Mafia. He says that his job in Dallas was to provide fake Secret Service credentials to people in the vicinity. Witness reports state that there were many unidentified men in the area claiming to be Secret Service Agents.

Deathbed confession
Former CIA and Watergate figure E. Howard Hunt wrote a book just before his death implicating Johnson in the assassination. Hunt stated that Johnson may have orchestrated the killing with the help of CIA agents who had been angered by Kennedy's actions in the past, which included an affair that Kennedy had with a wife of one of the agents. An article published in Rolling Stone magazine about the death of E. Howard Hunt reveals his deathbed confessions to his son which names Johnson, CIA agents Cord Meyer, Bill Harvey and David Sánchez Morales, as well as a "French" gunman named Lucien Sarti, who shot at Kennedy from the grassy knoll. Since 1974 it had been speculated that Hunt and CIA agent Frank Sturgis were among the "Three Tramps" who were photographed in Dealey Plaza, and held by the Dallas Police, shortly after the assassination.

Alternatively, other researchers propose to identify as Hunt a figure crossing Dealey Plaza in a raincoat and fedora immediately after the assassination.

----
I think this book resolved the Oswald problem for me:
The Case of the Murdered President (A distinguished historian uses Sherlock Holmes to investigate the assassination of John F. Kennedy.) (http://www.amazon.com/President-distinguished-historian-investigare-assassination/dp/B000IYUDC8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195749960&sr=8-1)

While it is arguably the worst Sherlock Holmes' pastiche ever penned - it is the only book that talks about Naval Intelligence running Oswald as a low level asset. I think it displays the flaws in the Warren Commission well. This is very dry going though.

And I can recommend Richard Belzer's UFOs, JFK, and Elvis: Conspiracies You Don't Have to Be Crazy to Believe (http://www.amazon.com/UFOs-JFK-Elvis-Conspiracies-Believe/dp/0345429184/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195750575&sr=1-1) which is lighter reading. It does have better questions it doesn't pretend to try answer.

[ruaidhri]

I hope you can understand. I don't like conspiracy theories. I don't read them and I don't participate in spreading any of their "facts" or fiction. Most of all, with Kennedy, I don't want to relive those dark days. I accept the Warren Commission's findings. I don't care to go any further.

[stsparky]

I hate being lying to. The Warren Commission lied. I would like to be told the truth. I've read the Warren Commission and the later Assassination Records Review Board. The latter had the new analysis of the shots fired recording.

The trail led me to New Orleans and facts that lead to the involvement of Naval Military Intelligence covering up that Oswald was one of their low level assets that they controlled. You can see why that fact would be covered up.

I don't trust anyone who was an adult from the time of the killing claiming he didn't remember where he was that date and time. Chief among those I suspect is George Herbert Walker Bush.

[rl*united]

Conspiracies are for people who find real life boring. Now that`s all well and good until you become so convinced you try to convince other people. Life is oftentimes trivial in it`s motives and in the way cause and effect work. Explanations can`t be proven wrong just because they don`t involve a twisted evil mastermind or a super high-tech rifle.

If you can live with the fact that history is not always extraordinary you`ll find that there`s a great satisfaction in reading about important events even if they don`t hold any conspiracies in them. When you stop thinking about plots and secret societies you can turn to what`s really important - more than the events themselves history tells us about the people behind those events their motivation and the cultural background of their livelihood.

For the sake of conversation if I was to look at the Kennedy case I`d say if I can`t prove anything definitively I`d leave it be and simply turn to a different topic.

[ruaidhri]

stsparky, you don't understand. I don't care what you or anyone else believes when it comes to how John Kennedy died. I'm simply not interested. As far as I'm concerned Kennedy was killed by a lone gunman, Oswald. There was no conspiracy. The Warren Report is 100 percent accurate. The only people that have lied to you are those that suggest that the Warren Report is anything but totally accurate.

[stsparky]

Ruaidhri:
How did Oswald get from the Sixth Floor sniper's nest to the Second Floor Cafeteria instantaneously at the time of the shooting? We Americans were lied to. Chapter Six of the Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board is very telling. You can plug up your ears and close your eyes but what you were told were facts aren't so. I've no intention of browbeating you more over this though. Have a good night - Sparky

[Digital Masta]

I remember in 11th grade we watched a clip of Kennedy getting shot. Apparently somebody recorded this. The way his head went after getting shot clearly shows he couldn't of been shot by Oswald.

Oswald was also known for being a shitty marksmen and they had professiona sharpshooters go to the same site and they stated that the shot was damn near impossible from there.

We did this whole Kennedy thing in my history class in high school.

Also what's with the whole autospy report being allowed out 50 years after the last kennedy dies?

I don't really care for conspiracy theories and all that but Oswald did sooo not shoot him.

[Trump]

I think you missed Ruaidhri's point. It happened 45 years ago and it today it doesn't really matter any more. It is painful topic for him, so he is just going to accept what has been said and move on. He is not denying anything you guys have said, just that personally, he needs to just accept the published results so he can move on. He doesn't want to discuss it.

[ruaidhri]

Trump, thank you. The 1960's started out so great for me. I was very young, very happy and very enthusiastic about the future. Then, in a moment, assassination robbed my dreams. Soon, there was another and then another and then yet another bullet that robbed dreams as Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King and Malcolm X shared John Kennedy's fate.

I lost my optimism and divorced myself from any political activity outside protesting the Vietnam War. Actually, it was OP9 that awakened those old dreams of a better world where people resolve difference with words, not bullets. What I especially like about OP9 is that its membership spans the globe with a demographic that ranges between the very young to, well, me.

Yes, something within me also died when Kennedy was shot. I don't really wish to relive the pain because it is too personal. I'd really much rather move forward into the future than spend too much time in the past. I have great hopes that the unfettered communication available through the internet will help our future generations resolve problems without bullets. Obviously, I've regained my optimism even if it's now tainted with a hint of skepticism.

Thanks again for understanding.

[rl*united]

The internet is made for alienating people from real life.

http://www.converj.com/blogger/converjed/images/lain-arisu.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/3a/Serial_Experiments_Lain_(TV)_Screenshot_01.jpg/250px-Serial_Experiments_Lain_(TV)_Screenshot_01.jpg

It might not apply to you since you`ve lived a great deal of your life before the inter-tubes were even discovered

http://www.dma.aoba.sendai.jp/~acchan/lain/Denchu.jpg

god, dad left a cigarette on my desk - i just turned my head to see it O_o. Never mind...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/3a/Serial_Experiments_Lain_(TV)_Screenshot_01.jpg/250px-Serial_Experiments_Lain_(TV)_Screenshot_01.jpg

the world will still look the same maybe even more ordinary than today. But the alternative communication will be an even greater deal of our lives and good and evil dragged from the real world to the computer world will be even more contrasting. Think this blog compared to 4chan - the internet is growing at a steady pace taking up more and more functions turning into a virtual image of our society. It`s already a complete functional sub-reality working on the same logical level of everyday life only sped up a hundred times. For example I`m having a conversation with you through a blog but who can tell what do I have in the next tab?

I don`t believe the internet will help change anything - it`s a function of society and a tool and thus just as ambiguous and many sided as anything else. I`ve learned the hard way that the internet can be a sum of all that`s evil and jaded in human psychology.

Given the anime I`m referring to is a work of fiction and a beautiful exaggeration it`s at least one half of the truth. Somewhere between the lines of you saying the internet will bring people closer together and me saying it will take away just as much by making us colder towards each other there`s a truth that best fits our shared reality. Although the other possibilities are worth exploring too if all for the sake of good cinema ;)

*This post is tagged as Off Topic - do read if you`re bored with where the current discussion is going.

[ruaidhri]

rl*united, you are an interesting individual. I respect your intelligence and opinions despite your occasionally letting enthusiasm outpace reason. Age is but one factor in who we are. Yes, I am older than you but does that make me an internet neophyte? That’s a rather biased statement.

I embraced personal computers from their very birth. My first was a Texas Instruments. Next, I purchased an Apple IIC, where, with Apple Works I was able to create my first electronic spreadsheet models and basic algorithms. Later, I purchased a Kaypro 16, with a remarkable 10 MB of hard drive space. This, along with the IBM AT at work and Lotus Symphony software allowed me to create even more complex spreadsheet models and algorithms to examine decision options. With every major improvement, I purchased new computers moving from Symphony to MS Office Professional with its relational database MS Access, which I programmed on a regular basis to do in depth analysis of millions of records on a ODBC connection to mainframe data.

I was there when the internet first became popular. Like everything before it was a primarily a tool for finding information. I certainly am not a gamer nor am I a blogger or a fan of anime or, for that manner, anything Japanese. So, how did I discover OP9? My son told me about it. His age is more normal on the forum. He’s now 28. Actually, I have two sons that are OP9 members, Redbeard and Anders. Anders posts occasionally but Redbeard is way too busy with school and his research and hasn’t posted for quite awhile.

So, do I believe the internet is the God’s answer to mankind’s prayer for world peace? Of course not. It has as much potential for evil as it does for good. But, as I’ve constantly cautioned, I am an optimist. That doesn’t mean I am easily fooled believing that everyone and everything is good. All it means is that I “prefer” to focus on what’s good rather than to gnash my teeth over what’s bad.

What’s good about the internet is that it offers new opportunities for common people throughout the world to discuss common concerns. It makes the world somewhat smaller by proving that there is little difference between you and someone in America or Australia or Finland. Also, you may be surprised that you and I may have more in common than many of the people your own age. Age is, as I opined earlier, nothing more than a single factor that determines who we are.

[stsparky]

Trump? 44 years ago. I'm 49. And I'm skeptical of official Government proclamations as our fearless leaders have admitted they've lied and left us in the dark. And of course it matters, I'll move JFK's assassination as a facet of this ongoing discussion out into its' own thread later this week.
----
Very odd stuff

This morning bringing my nearly two year old daughter back a doctor's trip I found myself hampered getting into my parking space by 3 vehicles. A car ballet happens and I park. The gentleman in one hands an expensive SLR camera to a man in another auto. I have odd thoughts about this. I walk over to the one who handed off the camera to another - suggesting they use another building's guest parking spaces rather than block the alley.

Item one:
All the cars are new and possess paper dealer plates.
Item two:
The men seem to be upper class 'Mid Eastern' types.
Item three:
Exceptionally clean cut.
Item four:
Out of pretense of taking a picture of my wife and daughter - I get a fair photo of two of the cars with my iPhone.
Item five:
One of the men rapidly slapped a leather baseball cap on his head as a quick disguise.
Item six:
My neighbor is just as freaked out as I am; And informs me there were six cars with drivers doing this on Sunday.

I called Homeland Security. Hope this doesn't ever happen to you.

[Beowulf]

This morning bringing my nearly two year old daughter back a doctor's trip I found myself hampered getting into my parking space by 3 vehicles. A car ballet happens and I park. The gentleman in one hands an expensive SLR camera to a man in another auto. I have odd thoughts about this. I walk over to the one who handed off the camera to another - suggesting they use another building's guest parking spaces rather than block the alley.

Item one:
All the cars are new and possess paper dealer plates.
Item two:
The men seem to be upper class 'Mid Eastern' types.
Item three:
Exceptionally clean cut.
Item four:
Out of pretense of taking a picture of my wife and daughter - I get a fair photo of two of the cars with my iPhone.
Item five:
One of the men rapidly slapped a leather baseball cap on his head as a quick disguise.
Item six:
My neighbor is just as freaked out as I am; And informs me there were six cars with drivers doing this on Sunday.

I called Homeland Security. Hope this doesn't ever happen to you.
Oh L O L.

[stsparky]

Oh L O L.
Yeah? Several possible targets nearby. One was a favorite of a beloved past US President. I can see that there may a totally innocent reason for the behavior - why take chances? One of my friends had just left the Kenyan embassy 10 minutes before it was bombed.

[ruaidhri]

stsparky, yes, sometimes it is necessary to be vigilant, especially in today's dangerous world where malcontent individuals or zealots of any persuasion can bring harm. Often, the key is to walk with your head up and your eyes open.

The world, to many people, exists in a small cocoon where they get up, go to work, eat, shop, play and and go sleep. They read or hear about assaults and accidents and hope nothing happens to them or their family that might pierce their protective cocoon. Sadly, their desire to remain uninvolved and anonymous can make them more vulnerable by making them less aware.

What you viewed could be sinister or innocent. Most likely, it was innocent. Yet, I commend you for being aware and not walking around with your eyes closed. We do live in the present and how we react to what's around us does determine our future.

This contrasts with conspiracy theories about past events. Certainly, we need to be cautious, punish and remove dangerous people and groups from our midst but finding a conspiracy or threat under every rock brings to mind the boy that cried “wolf” one too many times. You lose credibility.

You moved, almost in the same breath, from the discussion about Kennedy’s assassination to your strange encounter. That, I believe was a mistake as it suggested that you merely have a vibrant imagination, not a real concern about a present day observance that could be foreboding. Laughter, rather than applause, is the result.

[stsparky]

Ruaidhri?

I met Jackie when she was the editor (http://www.amazon.com/Cartoon-History-Universe-Vol-1-7/dp/0385265204/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196295327&sr=8-2) of a friend (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/102-1266600-0491349?%5Fencoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Larry%20Gonick). At the time I was much younger and then too angry at her 2nd marriage that I just acted civil saying very little. I regret it now.

The Homeland Security Agent and I initially agreed it was likely innocent — but I don't want to risk it wasn't. And it is Sparky.

[Black Dog]

one of the main reasons I voted was because I got to shake my Canadiate's hand. Hell, if she can come to my door and say hi, then that is worth avote. More than I can say for her rivals. She comes every year and she is a liberal lesbian! LOL !!! My Mom is a lesbian, so I vote Lesbian !!!

Obliviously, I can never vote for the right without going agianst my Mother...."honour thy Mother and Father" or something like that.

[ruaidhri]

stsparky, we all do things we later regret. When I met Jackie it was during the Wisconsin primaries and she was nothing more than the wife of the candidate, totally out of her element and very uncomfortable with the intensity of the campaign. She was definitely not an attention hound.

Yes, I also was upset when she married Onassis. I guess I thought she should stay a sorrowful widow for the remainder of her days forever honoring the sainted memory of her husband. Well, we learned she wasn't a saint and neither was her husband. None of us are so why should we expect our leaders (or their spouses) to be any better.

Black Dog, interesting admission. Actually, that's why candidates shake so many hands; it wins many votes. I have always been liberal in my political philosophy. I believe in an involved government that provides for and protects all its citizens, not just the wealthy. I certainly welcome your vote for liberals but suggest you take a step farther and actually examine the philosophical differences between liberals and conservatives. Please consider that sometimes the label is not enough to define the candidate. Certainly, a handshake and a mother's sexual orientation is a weak reason to vote for anyone. But, again, I welcome your vote for liberal causes.

[Black Dog]

It's actually a very strong reason to vote for liberal!would you vote for a racist canadiate if you weren't ?

[Beowulf]

Jon Stewart denounces American involvement in Iraq. In 1996. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjxYPMm4Ru4)

[Roxie]

He is still so HAWT *rawr*

[stsparky]

Oh L O L.
The cops got them! Shame they claimed to be paparazzis aiming for shots of someone called Lohan. Brilliant cover story if false.

[damican]

A little off topic, but I hope to all hell that this election isn't won on either side by the creative use of buzz words.

One thing that can help restore the American image around the world is electing a good leader. Good leaders wont be chosen through 1 issue voting. I still wonder how Bush was elected for the second time, and all that comes to mind is this: I'm a Christian! I hate homosexuals and gay marriage! And buzz words.

I truly hope for the sake of our country the best man or woman wins, be it republican or democrat, simply because if the BEST wins, and not the person who can spin facts the best, America might a little better off.

Oh yeah, first post here. Hello everyone! I've liked this thread a lot, as it has made me think A LOT.

Did you know, according to a Michal Moore documentary (sicko) that Hillary has been bought off by the drug companies and HMO's and what not? I was a strong supporter of her, mainly for her strong work in Uni. Health Care, but after seeing that, I changed my view on her 180 degrees, THOUGH I know Michal Moore can tend to be a little... Extreme, so the validity of the claim may be a little off.

EDIT: Also, because the Democrats couldn't seem to find someone better then Kerry >.>

[ruaidhri]

damican, glad to have you join the discussion on America. Yes, I agree the U.S. needs a leader that has the respect of people throughout the world. Perhaps people in other countries get more factual news while we get just the spin.

It seems that politicians are so afraid of saying the wrong thing they never say the right thing. There's always some group that's insulted resulting in the 15 second infomercial with the negative spin that's hard to shake off. Then, the media won’t let go because bad news attracts more interest than good. And, the public quickly forgets the positive and never lets go of the negative.

You brought up the question: How could the Democrats nominate John Kerry? He certainly wasn't my first choice. Obviously, he wasn’t yours. So, what happened? First, let’s consider who makes up the Democratic Party. It’s truly the party of many constituencies, some large, others small. It’s very hard for a Democratic candidate to please all constituencies. In many ways, I believe the attempt lessens the viability of the candidate in the general election.

Personally, I believe the parties made a serious mistake when they took the selection process away from the leaders and gave it to the people through state primary elections . The party leaders know that to win their candidate must appeal to the greatest number of all voters, not just Democrats or Republicans. I believe they would nominate the most electable candidate that best represents the interests of the entire country. But then I might be totally wrong. They could just as easily become power brokers.

Today, we’re so inundated with negative spin about all the candidates, especially the front runners, that it’s hard not to be influenced by the suggestions if not the facts. So, if we’re so negative and we end up not truly liking anyone what should we do, just not vote? Should we accept that we have to vote for the “lesser of two evils?” Should we vote for a third party candidate that has no real chance of winning? That’s a decision each voter has to make each time they walk into the voting booth. Personally, I’ve voted for the “lesser of two evils” more times than not. That’s what I did when I voted for Kerry in the last election.

Being a Democrat would I vote for Hillary if nominated, Yes. Obama, yes. Edwards, of course, he’s the candidate I believe is the most electable in the general election. Joe Biden, I like him and of course I’d vote for him if he were nominated. Bill Richardson, well, maybe and maybe not. I don’t like his suggestion about draining the Great Lakes to help the Southwest’s water problems. True, it’s a single issue but considering I live in Wisconsin it’s very important to me.

Bottom line is that I’ll vote and chances are I’ll vote for a Democrat in the general election. As far as the primary is concerned my vote’s going for Edwards.

Again, damican. I’m very glad you joined the discussion.

Black Dog, I apologize if I insulted you. Obviously, you have considered more than just a handshake. No, of course I wouldn't vote for a racist candidate.

[damican]

As of now, while I like to call myself a Democrat, I am actually wondering for this election. Health care is a very serious concern to me, as I cannot afford health care, my father cannot either and he's to young for medicare/medicade(I forget which provides the health coverage). But then again, I also care about the immigration issue, then comes enviroment, and a whole slew of other issues.

If Hillary were nominated, I just dont think I could trust her. I honestly am feeling at this point that she's just out for a buck now, and that nothing very productive would get done. I truly wish Edwards was nominated, as I feel he can be trusted the most, AND his views almost ALL his policy. Unfortunatly, I think Hillary is going to be the one nominated. The other candidates I have opinions on, but I don't really feel like typing that much for now. :)

Now on the republican side, it would depend on who is nominated to determine who I would vote for, if Edwards is not on the ticket. I like hucklebee just because he SEEMS like a generally good person, though he better break out SERIOUSNESS by the time the general election comes around because this whole comedy take on campaigning will fall apart for him then.

Biggest beefs with the republicans are that generally it seems the rich will keep getting their tax cuts, and poor people will keep getting a stick in the eye. No health care plan will EVER end up getting passed with a republican president, and we'll be stuck in Iraq until I'm in the grave. But, I think OUR FIRST 4 years after bush should not be decided by partisan politics, but by who is the best leader in general. Even though I don't agree with a lot of republican philosophy, or their ideas, I truly believe it will come down to who is nominated by both parties until I Decide who I'll be voting for.

I wish I could be sure to vote for a Democrat, but the state of the party, and it's politicians are in such a sad state I cannot.

[Trump]

It is a discouraging situation isn't it? I know I will not be voting for Clinton in the primaries, but it seems like she has a commanding lead. Well, CNN this morning said a recent poll gave her 40% of the popular vote (between all candidates) with Obama second and Edwards third. I'm not sure of the details, but it is not a comforting thought for me. However, this will be the first primary I have participated in.

BTW, draining the great lakes is the most unenvironmental, ecologically destructive, and just plain ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

[ruaidhri]

Trump, perhaps I should clarify "draining". Obviously, Richardson does not suggest draining the Great Lakes bone dry. Yet, he proposes diverting large amounts of water from the lakes. The problem is that the lakes are already low. One of the reasons is the warmer winters and resulting greater evaporation. We have also had much less snow over the winters which greatly adds to the volume in the lakes. Put that together with large water diversions. the ecology of the Great Lakes would definitely be in danger.

Hillary is definitely not my first choice. Like you, I will not vote for her in the Wisconsin primary. At this point, I believe she has only one direction, down. I doubt she will win the nomination.

[Trump]

I just want some political news I look forward to hearing instead of everything I don't want to happen. Ah well, at least this weekend I'm going to play the more fun version of politics... Die Macher (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/1)

[ruaidhri]

The topic of this thread is what the rest of the world thinks of America. This could be explanded to: Do America’s actions or lack of actions impact the world?

U.S. wars and troop deployments
Unwise mortgage lending
Refusal to be a part of the the Kyoto Agreement

The list could go on an on but this is a start. Do you believe Americans any more selfish than people anywhere else in the world? And, do you honestly believe that any new President, regardless of party, could/will change any deep seated impressions of America and Americans?

[Trump]

a) Americans are not more selfish than any other people, we just live in a society where it is more... I don't want to say encouraged, but more acceptable to show selfishness. I mean, look at China. If the people there weren't selfish we wouldn't be having all the trouble with their products. Also consider that Americans tend to be very generous (donations after the tsunamis and earth quakes around the world, etc).

b) I think a different president could begin the process of changing many views about America, but like all mindsets it will not be quick to change.

[ruaidhri]

I also do not believe Americans are more selfish than any other people, yet I also believe many people throughout the world have forgotten the many times we, both as a nation and as a people, have stepped forward to help others.

[Black Dog]

I also do not believe Americans are more selfish than any other people, yet I also believe many people throughout the world have forgotten the many times we, both as a nation and as a people, have stepped forward to help others.

"One step forward two steps back" The bad can outweigh the good! unfornately, the actions of a few can undo all the good the many have done....:gloomy:

The strong eat the weak and the U.S. is the strongest kid on the block....for now! How does one become powerful ? One becomes powerful by stepping on the backs of the weak! In order for me to become rich, someone has to be poor!

[Black Dog]

a) Americans are not more selfish than any other people, we just live in a society where it is more... I don't want to say encouraged, but more acceptable to show selfishness. I mean, look at China. If the people there weren't selfish we wouldn't be having all the trouble with their products. Also consider that Americans tend to be very generous (donations after the tsunamis and earth quakes around the world, etc).

b) I think a different president could begin the process of changing many views about America, but like all mindsets it will not be quick to change.

It's becuase American companies own selfiness and pursuit of profit that cause those problems. Having factories in China means the companies can avoid American safety standards and cut cost, thus earning more profit.

Change is slow, considering all the damage that has been done already !

[Y.T.]

What the Rest of The World Thinks of America?


Right now, I think that US is about to enter very interesting times...
Maybe as interesting as the 1930's, and maybe even more so.
No doubt rest of the world will be affected, but others don't have that much to lose.

Google "credit bubble" and "federal reserve" ..
Here's a lengthy article about what'll happen.
http://www.rgemonitor.com/blog/roubini/208166/

This year, I've read a novel that was, in part, a lament for America.
- Black Man by Richard K. Morgan (spineless cowards didn't dare to publish it under that name in the US, so it's sold as "thirteen" in the US))

Ruiadhri has written a lot about how much the US has changed during his life.
It may even split in the coming years, if the economic recession combined with other blows* get to be severe enough. People will be looking for someone to blame, and maybe the blame will stick to the federal gov't and the whole clique of politicians who run it.

*without dollar as a reserve currency, it will become hard for the US to maintain its political power through force in other parts of the world. You can't finance state by printing money. That doesn't stop politicians from trying, but result is inflation..

[Plekto]

Make that impossible.

Control of oil and foreign currency markets and exchanges accounts for 30% of the U.S. dollar's value. It also is the reason we have any say in the U.N. and internationally.

The second it switches to something else - most likely Euros, the value will drop to its actual hard currency value(about 70 cents) and then the debtors will start calling in their loans to at least get some of their money back.

Net result: 50% of the dollar's value lost in as little as five years and nothing in the world can stop it once it starts.

At that point we become just another player in the world as we don't have the economic power or the military either to do anything. Bush is a real fool because he's spending our military into a debt it can't recover from. When the money stops, we'll have the highest tech and largest military in the world with nobody to repair or maintain any of it.(see Soviet Union circa 1990 for reference)

Knowing what to do, though, is easy - batten down the hatches as it were, get rid of your debts and credit, and weather out the storm. Oh - and invest in hard currency - it'll save your bacon 20 years from now.(gold is a bit inflated now, but silver, and other things can be had for a reasonable price)

[Trump]

That's just too much. All the doomspeak is just ridiculous!

a) The US is the third most populous country in the world after China and India. We have over double the population of the next major world players (Russia and Japan) and over 5 times the population of any European country. We have abundant natural resources and land area. Yet we are going to fade into mediocrity just like thate? I disagree....

b) The economy. Why do you place such a high value on the value of our currency? I know it is important, but you act like it will be the end of the world of it drops in value. Let's think about some things that may happen... Jobs may be brought back to the US from India and China because it will be cheaper here. We will likely start producing more goods domestically and exporting them, improving our trade situation with most of the world. Consider that we purchase many of our raw resources internationally right now because it is cheaper, but if it swings the other way we'll just start using our domestic resources. Also, more tourists will visit the US and spend money here since their money will go further (the British already do this). I really don't see how any of this is bad!!

So what do you do? For gods sake, do NOT take the advice and invest everything into hard currency. You must still act responsibly with your money and diversify. Invest some internationally, invest some domestically, and invest a little in currency.

You are obviously intelligent and put thought into your viewpoints, but please please please open your eyes and look at more than just the view you want to see.

[Plekto]

a) - population actually makes it worse. The problems we face with a large population of lower class and working poor people make any recession that we suffer that much worse. And it's not just borders - it's economics. The E.U. has as much combined money, people, and resources as the U.S. China easily towers over us right now - they just are biding their time until they can buy us out. The 5 billion they spent to buy out a chunk of one of our largest financial firms yesterday shows their intent(and unlike a year ago, this deal went through without a blip). We take over the world and they buy us out for pennies when we can't keep up the momentum.

And don't think most U.S. companies won't sell out when they're facing bankruptcy. The E.U. and China are practically salivating over the impending going out of business sale in the U.S.(and it's a good reason they still have a lot of U.S. dollars they are holding onto - it's their slush fund to buy us out)

b) It's unfortunately not "doomspeak" if it's really going to happen. And it will, just like it happened to every other empire in the past that grew beyond its means. Rosy pictures on the wall and nationalistic pride don't count in the end as much as the entire past five thousand years of human history. There always comes a day of reckoning.

The money is the key, though. Our value is based upon a vicious cycle of control over the world money and exchange markets and the power and harrassment that we can manage because of it. We currently have the entire U.N. basically unable to do anything about us because we have control over a large chunk of the world's economy.

When that changes, the ability to force other countries to do our bidding will evaporate.

1 - we will have to convert OUR money into Euros or Won to buy anything overseas. This is a substantial loss as we don't suffer conversion fees right now as oil is traded in dollars(oil being the big, important item). 1-3% loss to convert is a big problem that hits our currency's value directly. Also, if you go overseas, imagine nobody accepting dollars. You'd have to convert to Euros or the local currency before leaving the U.S. or face really stiff conversion fees.

2 - we won't have control of the world's purse strings and our money will deflate to its real value, which is about 70% of its current worth. Our world credit rating is actually quite bad right now, but this control over all of this foreign money and transactions makes everyone keep giving us money and not calling in their debts. When they start calling debts, it will deflate our value even more.

3 - Eventually in history, valuing money, stocks, or other assets off of anything other than hard currency and resources leads to a disaster. 30% of our dollar's value is based upon credit and good will and not on what we actually can back it up with. The recent downturn in the dollar's value based upon a few fears overseas about our stability is a real life example of how quickly it can change when your money isn't based upon hard assets. When the Canadian dollar is worth more than the U.S. dollar - it's a giant red flag that something's seriously wrong. We dwarf Canada in every economic and physical sense and yet their money is worth more? Ouch.

4 - Jobs will never be cheaper in the U.S. than overseas. The Gap was paying people in India something like ten cents an hour. We're outsourcing everything to keep our current overinflated consumerist lifestyle running. Basically we're living a plastic existance. We have the same possessions that we had a decade or two ago, but it's all make in China or some third world country. This is bad, because if our economy drops, since we're already making things as cheaply as we can manage, that means that the prices for these items will skyrocket. Then again, we buy and buy and buy and waste and waste and waste. Most peolpe honestly can and deserve to live without all of this junk. It's their own fault when it gets bad that they didn't live more within their means.

It's hard to explain in easy language, but our lifestyle is leveraged out to where it's riding a razor thin line between working and completely falling apart.

Oh, and I'm not alone - in a recent poll, the economy has overtaken our foriegn wars as American's greatest fear. A large number of Americans think that we're heading for another Great Depression and so far, most of the signs point to it coming.

We pissed off too much of the world. We stretched outselves too thin. We failed to protect our industrial base or maintain our infrastructure. We're living on speculation and credit. We waste and consume at a frightening rate that our environment can't sustain. We have a military that is running us trillions into debt and gaining us very little in return. We have no health care system for the poor, and very little in the way of a safety net for them. And to top it all off, the people in control seem more interested in spending money than cutting expenses.

BTW,

Hard currency doesn't just mean gold. It could be uranium or gems or any other finite resources that have a tangeable value. Put half into those sorts of things, and half into Euros and more stable foreign companies. Stocks and anything U.S. related just won't retain its value when this looming mess hits us.

[Y.T.]

I would like to add that this problem with housing being overpriced because of easy availability of credit is not just American. Similar situation is in the UK, Spain , and elsewhere. If this weblog is not an elaborate psyop..
http://ukhousebubble.blogspot.com/

US is in an unenviable position, but there is hardly a place in the world where economic trouble won't exacerbate existing problems.

US might have an almost failed state next door, but Europe is right next to Russia and the whole stinking middle East mess.

United States also have much smaller population density, more coal reserves..
(which will be eventually used to make fuel, as Germans and South Africans have done in the past).

EU is much more dependent on other regions for energy.. and right now blackmailing by energy producers seems to be getting very popular.

_______________

Gold overpriced? Some say that that isn't true. Mining costs are poised to rise with energy prices, there is not that much chance of finding new huge deposits, lot of demand from everywhere (gold used as store of value all around the world, and to boot it is used in electronic).

From the American perspective, gold may seem overpriced because $ fell in value while gold rised. If you view the data in euros, the rise is not so impressive.

[Trump]

That was comical... really it was (Pletko's post).

BTW. Counties only abandoned the gold standard AFTER the great depression hit (early 30s). Today we are in the opposite situation, yet it is supposed to lead to the same result? I think not...

Second, why would people hold on to dollars if they are losing value? The smart businessman would convert them over, wait for things to be right, the convert back and buy things.

Third, we ALREADY convert money whenever we go overseas. I've never heard of people going to France, England, Japan, or anywhere else and pay in US dollars. The only exceptions may be the southern portions of Canada, northern Mexico, and the Carribean.

The EU is NOT one unified political or economic force yet. They won't be for a long time. The process to create a Europe-wide currency began in the Early 90's and there are still many countries no where near joining the system (the UK, and 50% of Eastern Europe). So even this process has taken over 15 years? And that is the easy part! To think that European political views will converge in the next 50 years is just plain lunacy.

Your comments are very frustrating because you simply can't explain anything. You have wild claims with no possible way to back them up without saying "Just wait!!!" as you shake your fist at the sky. You bring up trends to justify your theories but it is just as easy to come up with trends to debunk those theories. You try to take hugely complex systems that lead up to catastrophic events like a depression and then simplify them down to a few trends while ignoring ones that don't fit your theories. That is perhaps why you find it so difficult to explain.

[Plekto]

Making light of the situation doesn't change the facts.

Our economy is leveraged to an incredible degree and we're living on loans and credit. Major sections of our industries are moving to other countries as we outsource. Our military spending is at an astounding level - in fact, with the new bill just passed, our standing military will be larger than any time since WWII by next year. More than 500,000 active troops. The entire country is running full throttle with nothing to fall back on when this bubble stops.

The real problem is that since it started in the 80s, it's been long enough that an entire generation or two of people have grown to see this bubble as a normal thing, when it's really not. There will be an adjustment back down and it's going to hit a lot of people hard.

- Our money was based upon hard currency until the mid 60s, actually. We went off of silver and gold and changed to fake money. Our government prints billions and billions and because of our leverage over world currency markets the value doesn't drop very much. If we lose that leverage by them moving to Euros, the entire thing crumbles. That's a fact.

- They hold onto dollars if they are losing value because they want to buy things from us with cash and not credit. This is tricky, though. China keeps debating dumping their dollars, as do a lot of countries - just nobody has yet decided to do so. Of course, when one does, they likely all will. China of course seems to have an interesting "solution" - and is spending the money now to buy up parts in large corporations. That 5 billion dollar deal was just the start.

- I'm not talking about tourists so much as world monetary funds. What I'm talking about is us taking a double hit on conversions. That 1-2% will magnify to at least double that in terms of making our money's value drop. 1-2% in lending rates and so on is enormous - we're talking about billions of dollars lost.

- The current EU has a combined economic and resource base that equals ours. That's a fact. Eventually they will get their act together. and we're not talking about political power - it's businesses and trade and so on, and their unified currency basically makes them in business terms the same as the U.S.

ie - their countries act a lot now like our states do. They have different "governors" as it were and bicker amongst themselves, but like our original 13 states, they have a unified power as well. When the world starts trading in Euros for oil, it's going to solidify this and cause us a great deal of distress as we'll cease to be #1.

As for my claims, do some research yourself on world monetary funds and banking. It's a very ugly picture of what happens if they all decide to drop dollars and move to a more stable currency. And that's not even touching on any internal problems!

[darighaz]

Plekto. You're a dumbass. No further response to your arguments is warranted.

[Kusoyaro]

Wow, you guys are fucking stupid.
Plekto is right, anyone with any modicum of sense and a grasp of economics that wasn't at an infantile grade could understand what he/she is saying. They teach economics in high-school in the states, too, don't they? And I mean, EVERYONE IN THE WORLD knows that the US is screwed except, apparently, the people living in the US. Don't you fucking read?
Seriously, it's you guys who're 'shaking your fists at the sky' and telling yourselves it's gonna be fine. Listen, it's gonna happen. 1+1=2. Not anyone's problem but yours and your governments'.

[Y.T.]

"We lie the loudest when we lie to ourselves."
-Eric Hoffer


You can't have your cake and eat it.
You can't create money out of thin air and inflate the money supply, while holding interest rates low, and except for the currency to remain valuable.

That's what the Federal Reserve has been doing...
(and I get the impression that ECB is not much better .. )

Here is an even more apocalyptic article ...
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_sharon_k_071117_hey_buddy_2c_can_you_s.htm

Here is another saying basically the same thing ..
http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewarticle.asp?id=32949

[darighaz]

Libertarian Screenwriter, philosopher, owner of moneyfiles.org in support of The Gold Action Anti-Trust Committee (gata.org) and a hard currencies advocate. Currently involved in the promotion of the documentary by Danny Schechter "in Debt We Trust" (www.indebtwetrust.com/media.php). She is currently final polishing a screenplay titled "D.E.B.T" which exposes world economic serfdom. Seeking a producer!


Wow what a credible source

1+1=2. Not anyone's problem but yours and your governments'.

What the hell did that even mean. Your arguments are boiling down to basically this. US is dumb. If you were smart you'd know that like us. We're smart. 1+1=2. Milkshake. Hotdogs.

[Y.T.]

About the Author
JAMES CUMES: Dr James Cumes, B.A. (Q'land), Graduate of School of Diplomatic Studies (Canberra), Ph.D (London). Born Rosewood, Queensland, Edu. Wooloowin SS & Brisbane Grammar, Served with Australian Army in Papua & Dutch New Guinea 1942-4, Dept. External/Foreign Affairs Canberra from 1944, Diplomatic Postings Paris, London, Bonn, Berlin; Chargé d'Affaires Bonn 1955-6 and Brussels 1961-5; Head, Australian Military Mission, Berlin 1956-8; High Commissioner, Nigeria, Ambassador to European Union and several individual European capitals, Permanent Representative to United Nations Vienna and UNIDO, Governor on Board of IAEA, Australian Representative at United Nations and other international conferences around the world, etc. Author of a dozen books on economics, history, government and human behaviour; and four novels, including 'Haverleigh' a story of young Australians in the Second World War and afterwards. Married to Heide Schulte von Bäuminghaus, 1 daughter (Kim Alexandra Sarah). Homes in Australia, Vienna, Monaco and Cannes.


darighaz ..

I take you have more experience in judging the state of the world than Dr. Cumes..

Or Stanley Roach(former chief economist at Morgan Stanley) here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/opinion/16roach.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[Kusoyaro]

What the hell did that even mean. Your arguments are boiling down to basically this. US is dumb. If you were smart you'd know that like us. We're smart. 1+1=2. Milkshake. Hotdogs.

The US isn't dumb; a hell of a lot of people in it are. I know the States gets a lot of grief, but maybe you should think why. The fact remains that the outcome of the current economic crisis that is taking place in the US is very, very easy to predict. If you inflate your economy, spend with little possibility of returns, and create a market where collapse is the only likely scenario, such as the current situation in the States, what possible results could there be?
And what I meant by "it's no one's problem but yours and your governments" was that if the people of the US are too ignorant too keep up with the most basic of fiscal models, too apathetic to give a shit about their own economy, and the government, enabled by the lack of caring by the people, piss away your greatness, whose fault is that?

[Plekto]

Compared to those experts, I'm actually quite the optimist in that I think people can actually weather it out if they get rid of debt and start saving now.

A worldwide depression that will undoubtedly have major consequences ranging from riots and panic to all out wars for resources, coups and revolutions, and so on is coming. We are actually fairly safe in the U.S. and will only fall about as far as most 2nd world nations are now. Very much like what happened in the 1930s. It was tough but those who prepared survived and came out stronger(and maybe a bit wiser).

P.S. all of the major economists also see hard resources as a way to remain stable. Say Gold is at X per ounce. If the dollar deflates to half its value, gold will jump to 2x. The purchasing power remains nearly the same. For most families living withing their means, we're talking about 2 ounces of gold per month being cashed out to remain solvent for possibly decades.(this assumes you're also working at least some job as well)

That's quite doable if you're smart and start now, since we have 5-10 years before the whole thing starts to implode. 2 ounces a month. Drive a used car and so on. 120 months later, you've got enough saved to weather out a decade or two. That's a bit over 13 pounds of gold, today, between you and surviving the impending crisis. ($60,000 in today's money) Most people can get that much out of a house if they sell now and trade down a bit and/or waste at least $5000 a year as it is on car payments, cell phone(s), pizza, and all the other nonsense that they overspend on.

ie - you don't have to totally cash out - you could switch your retirement fund into gold or silver in most cases or sell some assets after you get your debt load to 0. For a lot of elderly people, this could be not even half of their total portfolio - just enough to act as a buffer in case it all goes south.

Oh - and get a fixed interest loan now before you die a horrible death. This housing mess we're having now is just the start. Expect 15-20% interest rates on loans 4-5 years from now. 7-8% will seem like a distant dream at that time.

[Trump]

A worldwide depression that will undoubtedly have major consequences ranging from riots and panic to all out wars for resources, coups and revolutions, and so on is coming.

It is not what you are saying, it is how you are saying it...
An economic downturn is very possible in the near future, but to put it on that scale is outright ridiculous and makes you sound like Chicken Little.

[Kag]

We are actually fairly safe in the U.S. and will only fall about as far as most 2nd world nations are now.

Not that anyone doesn't know what you're trying to say, but that statement does not make any sense.

[Plekto]

I thought it made perfect sense. The U.S. will be about where Mexico is now. Not great, but not some cesspool, either. A place like India(too many people) or Argentenia(unstable politically) will all but implode as a result of a worldwide depression.

10-20 years later, though, it'll be mostly over and things will be better. The trick is to survive until then without losing your home or job.

Oh - the scale IS that large. 600 trillion right now and growing. That's literally 20 years of the U.S.'s entire yearly GNP in credit that's not going to be paid back. Read that link a few posts above. It's expected to be 1 quadrillion dollars in excess debt worldwide by the time it implodes. That's... yes, it sounds like something out of some Twilight Zone episode. It's far too much for any TEN countries to absorb and will tank the entire planet's economy. 1,000,000 BILLION in overspending and credit.

Those who plan and live frugally and don't have any debt will do fine. The others will be in a very bad situation.

Thankfully we have ten years or more, so it's not impossible by any means for any of us if we start now. $500 a month for ten years towards paying off your loans, debts, and putting money away in hard assets. One car payment less, no cable TV, and half as much eating out per month for the average family in the U.S. is what I'm talking about. Not building some fallout shelter in Wyoming and putting barbed wire around the place.

[Kag]

I thought it made perfect sense. The U.S. will be about where Mexico is now.

Sorry, I should have been more clear.

The first world, second world, third world terminology evolved during the Cold War, First World refers to America and its allies, Second World is countries under the influence of the USSR, Third World is everybody else.

Therefore, we can't fall as far as most second world countries, since there is no standard, the second world includes countries on both ends of the spectrum. China and Cuba, for instance.

Incidentally, Mexico is a third world country.

So, like I said, I think everyone understood, I just thought you should know the correct use of the terminology. It's really not all that relevant, to be honest...

Edit: wiki says, "Alternatively, First World countries may be defined as having developed market economies, Second World as having developed planned economies, and Third World as having developing economies that may follow either the market or the planned model. The fall of communism and the end of most planned economics has also made this distinction largely moot."

[Plekto]

When it hits the fan, we may still be "first world" by definition, but we'll economically and politically be reduced to where Mexico is. Of course, Mexico will be ever worse - so I guess we'll still be "on top"...

[volomavi]

Well apparently, Americans are getting shorter (http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewFeature8.cfm?REF=6). In my recent visit to NY, living in Vancouver, I've noticed that the people on the streets are a bit shorter than what I am used to.

[Roxie]

I am so moving someday.

[volomavi]

Why's that?

[Ichisan]

The US may have enormous debts but it's holding huge resources, real estate, intellectual property, and, of course, military power over everyone else in the world. Who's going to come in and claim all that debt? Of course, the US is on the surface all for maintaining an international system of trade where businesses can cross national boundaries freely for profit, but it seems willing and able to ignore international trade rules, not to say international law, when it wants to. The truth is international businesses will continue to support the system and the international financial organisations that underly business will continue to allow US debt to balloon for as long as they can because it pays everyone to do so.

And that may be good news, or otherwise perhaps, without strong nation states like the US, we really will all end up under the thumb of international corporates.

I guess the problem lies in the phrase 'as long as they can'. How long is the current situation sustainable?

[Plekto]

The answer? 10-15 years at most.

Thankfully, that is plenty of time to get your finances in order and prepare.

[Ichisan]

The answer? 10-15 years at most.

Thankfully, that is plenty of time to get your finances in order and prepare.

You mean sell everything you own and buy euros?

[Plekto]

No.

1: Get rid of all of your loans and credit.

2: Pay off your car and don't buy another one. Repair it and drive it - or buy one and keep it for 15-20 years. Hint - classic cars are a fantastic hedge agsint inflation as they don't lose value and are simple to repair.

3: Pay off your home no matter what you do. It's better to have a smaller paid off house than one you lose. Values are going down to 1990s levels in the next 2-3 years. For people like my parents, it makes no difference becasue they didn't buy it to make a profit but live there forever. For most people, though, there will be no profit. In fact, if you are young, you are better off selling the thing NOW - and I mean right NOW. Rent for 2-3 years and buy back in after it hits bottom.

4: Save $500 a month in hard currency and put it away. Euros and such of course are a slightly better hedge but when it goes south, the whole world will suffer in short order. But the U.S. will go first and that gives you a few weeks or months to convert the investments into hard currency.
(note - this can be anything tradeable - it doesn't have to be gold or silver)

[Roxie]

I wish I had a job where saving $500 a month wasn't totally laughable.

[Trump]

Saving cash is retarded since inflation will destroy it. You would need to invest in hard assets whether that is gold or real estate. Real estate prices are falling, so buying extra property (property you won't be living on) isn't a good idea, but all houses go up and down together for the most part. So if your house loses 25% so do all the other houses and you can still afford to move.

I am not advocating taking the drastic measures espoused by Pletko, just that there are reasons for doing things. Make sure those reasons match your goals.

[Plekto]

I did say to invest in hard assets or (hard) currency. You don't gain interest on it, but the worse the economy and housing market gets, the more gold, silver, titanium, and so on will rise in value relative to the dollar.

In short, you don't get ahead, but since the economy is negative and you would have lost your shirt anyways, you at least hold more or less even.

Note - an interesting thing: If you have a good chunk of money set aside in 401Ks, savings, or whatnot, converting it to hard currency/etc and renting for a couple of years can find you looking at the same house you were owning for say, 300K now selling for 200K and that 100K in gold you bought being worth 200K due to inflation and the lower dollar. ie - done at the right time, you can pay off your house with cash(or at least buy in when it's low and not lose a ton of money).

Trust me on this - sell now before it gets ugly and wait for the thing to hit bottom, then jump back in at a lower price(obviously taking any equity you have and putting it into gold/etc for a year or two). Doubly so if it's a Clinton/McCain lineup after tomorrow. Obama's trickier to figure out, but McCain is going to make bush look like, well, a bumbling simpleton, since he literally thinks everything can be solved with enough military force, the same as Teddy Roosevelt did) Clinton... No hope for avoiding a depression with her. She'll be exactly like Coolidge. Sound good in public and looks good on paper, but the sort of person who would search for five minutes looking for new batteries for the remote than getting up and manually changing the channel. Too slow to fix anything in time.( gosh - the dam is leaking - let's assign 4 groups to study the rate of loss and ways to fix it and..)

Meanwhile, they don't warn the city sitting downstream from it.

[Vic_Rattlehead]

About to open a big can of worms:

What's with the whole "suing (that's just an ugly looking verb!) culture" I hear about America so much? I'm gonna omit the televised 'court shows' such as Joe Brown and Judy; but what are the main triggers of the amount of people being sued in America? Lack of a healthcare system like the NHS here? Mentality that someone else is to blame? What?

Just to clarify though; got nothing personal against you guys. Just curiosity regarding this phenomenom.

[Trump]

I don't know. People will do almost anything to get money without working for it. The court system at least makes it appear easy to do, so people think they can just sue anyone for anything.

[Y.T.]

Why is it that in a such devoutly Christian nation greed is so endemic?

I mean, I am a heretical non-believer, and I think greed does not pay off, if you take a long term view.

St.Augustine said, "What use is it to conquer the world and lose one's soul in the process?"

[Roxie]

Why is it that in a such devoutly Christian nation greed is so endemic?

I mean, I am a heretical non-believer, and I think greed does not pay off, if you take a long term view.

St.Augustine said, "What use is it to conquer the world and lose one's soul in the process?"
Gosh, I can't remember which sociologist it was right now, but his idea about capitalism was that it was the beliefs of the Protestant church that allowed it to flourish.

Beliefs like hard work is rewarded and those rewards prove that you are favored by God and that all should work....Here we Go, it's was Max Weber's
The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protestant_Ethic_and_the_Spirit_of_Capitalism)

[Trump]

Why is it that in a such devoutly Christian nation greed is so endemic?

Well, history of the Christian Church has been littered with evidence of greed, whether it was for land or money or relics or whatever.

[Swede]

Roxie has a point on the Weber thing, which you would think should be in contrast to the sue happy culture we live in... Cause iirc, the whole idea was basically that, since Protestants didn't have the belief that whether or not they go to heaven/hell was pre-decided, they looked for signs of success in the world around them to find out if they would go to heaven... One of those ways was through success in their trade, or career. And since they still believed in living a life without excesses, they reinvested their money rather than using it to make their lives more comfortable....

This seems like kind of the opposite of the suing culture. To me, one possibility seems that since we're so individualistic, people have a hard time reconciling differences amongst each other... and people like money. I dunno, this is all just armchair psychology, someone else probably has a better understanding of it then I do. I know that other cultures, particularly collectivist ones, really frown upon people who choose to sue another as a means to solve a dispute rather than working it out with the other party personally. That type of mentality doesn't exist, or at the least isn't nearly as prevalent in America. :watson:

[haterllnation]

About to open a big can of worms:

What's with the whole "suing (that's just an ugly looking verb!) culture" I hear about America so much? I'm gonna omit the televised 'court shows' such as Joe Brown and Judy; but what are the main triggers of the amount of people being sued in America?


I just ran across this article randomly. Now, I agree about suing in general being a cheap shot to someone needing a quick buck; something like this would warrant a person or persons to be sued.
Cars Stolen, Cops Don't Look (http://www.myfoxny.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=5770011&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1):cop:

[stsparky]

Some teen who thought he was he gay is now braindead after being shot by classmate. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/14/gay-teen-shot-by-classmat_n_86632.html)

Intolerance is bad.

[Y.T.]

Intolerance is bad?

Yeah, maybe it is, but how bad is tolerating intolerance? Because, if you are intolerant of intolerance you are intolerant. That makes you bad, at least, that's what I think certain individuals in EU think. Not me, though.

US? This chart says it all..
http://www.eatliver.com/img/2008/2904.jpg

[Vic_Rattlehead]

Haha, backfired!

[Haussmann]

What chart was up there? .. Hmm..

Anyway, here's a nice one about mis-allocation of resources..

http://www.solarpowerrocks.com/fun/suckfiles/image006.gif

[Black Dog]

At the moment....I love America ! WOOT! WOOT ! I still love you baby!

[Plekto]

Of course, Bush is doing the single worst policy move of the last 50+ years right now.

Giving Saudi Arabia nuclear weapons technology not even a week after he was holding hands with Israel, their sworn enemy. All on a pledge to give us lower cost oil. God, how stupid can he be?

I wonder what the fallout this next week will be once the Israeli... well, pretty much every Jewish person in power anywhere in D.C. comes pounding on the Oval Office door asking for a rational explanation. This just might actually get him impeached, it's so mind-bogglingly stupid.

"Hey - we're getting crushed on oil because China has more money and is outbidding us. I know! Let's give Saudi Arabia nukes for oil!"

[Mechs]

I don't know about you guys, but I love the government at the moment. The military is getting pay raises up the butt.

Come on Iraq and a non-taxed paycheck! Daddy needs a new car!

[Plekto]

Those pay raises are merely adjusting for our looming hyper inflation.

eg: 2009 - Gold is $1000/ounce. Loaf of bread = $2 Pay =1x
2012 - Gold is $3000/ounce. Loaf of bread = $6 Pay =2.5x

The same thing happened in the 70s. The trick is to get your house and car loans locked in long-term and ride it out any way you can. Then you'll be making $100K a year, paying $5000 a month in rent, and $1000 a month for food... because the dollar is so devalued... but your old house loan will be still at a puny $400K.

Now is the time to buy. When nobody wants to and right before a major price/inflation adjustment. The trick is to be able to survive in the 3-4 years that it takes for wages to adjust. Those people who are losing their homes? They don't know how good they had it. Work another job. Or TWO. Make it happen, because when the dollar is readjusted to silly levels it'll cost them a million+ for that same house, and interest rates will be a more reasonable 10-12%.

[Jetsetlemming]

A loaf of bread is 75 cents right now, at least at my local grocery.

[Trump]

Well, give him a break... you *can* pay $2 for a loaf of bread. You by no means have to!

[Mechs]

Those pay raises are merely adjusting for our looming hyper inflation.

:( What the fuck. And here I thought that was extra money in my pocket.

[ruaidhri]

Here’s a question for members living outside of the United States:
Do the people where you live have any preference between Barrack Obama and John McCain?

[mugen]

Here’s a question for members living outside of the United States:
Do the people where you live have any preference between Barrack Obama and John McCain?
As far as I know most people had a preference for either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Even the right-wing people. I suppose now that Hillary dropped out of the race her Dutch "supporters" are now rooting for Obama.

[ruaidhri]

Yesterday, I asked this question:

Here’s a question for members living outside of the United States:
Do the people where you live have any preference between Barrack Obama and John McCain?

Adding to the question: What are the most critical issues people in other countries believe the U.S. must resolve?

[Plekto]

What I get from my friends overseas is mostly that they wish that the U.S. would stop being a complete a-hole to the rest of the world and acting like they own it all. They honestly see little difference between our government and Nazi Germany. (though I think ancient Rome would be more apt) Except that we are using dollars and our corporations to do most of the dirty work.(Iraq changed that, of course - now we are using bullets as well)

Over 700 military bases around the world. Hardly any nation on the planet doesn't have a military base of ours in it or some agreement to let us have access to their airspace. Soon to be 1000. Like a giant cancerous growth that is slowly trying to engulf the world. If we can't buy it, influence it, or make it subservient, we bomb it.

Changing this is the #1 thing that I hear from my friends. Getting us back on track as a decent player in the world instead of the domineering imperialist with a gun in your face.

McCain of course, he thinks that every solution can be solved with force. It's what he learned growing up surrounded by military generals and the like, after all.

Obama, well, he at worst would give us a Carter like breather to get things a bit under control or at least slow down the madness to a speed where the press and public can get involved, maybe. At best, he dismantles a lot of our forces overseas and starts us concentrating on the problems facing us at home.

[jariten]

Just got off the phone with my brother. He just got back from one of his regular trips to France (he certifies helicopter simulators for most of the world's militaries and pilot agencies) so I figured I'd ask him this since I haven't been there for about 10 years. Sounds like it's pretty much the same. Older and affluent people for the most part love America/Americans as a whole (not too enamored with the Bush white house though) while the younger generation hates/despises/wants nothing to do with America or Americans.

Fun little story. I got back from a deployment a few years ago and there was the bizarre, cute message in heavily French accented English on my phone. It was from my brother's phone number so I was really confused. All the lady said was "I want to thank you, your university, and your country for all that it does and will do for the world." Called up my brother to see what it was all about. Apparently the owner of a bar he frequents mother was freed from Nazi captivity by an officer that attended Texas A&M. When she found out that I had attended that school she insisted she call and leave me a message even though he ensured her that I couldn't get it because I was underwater. I had him take her a small A&M flag next time he went and it apparently now hangs next to a Paris Saint-Germain flag behind the bar (That's a pretty big deal if you've ever met their fans...they're insane X.x). She's made me swear that if I ever make it back to Paris that I'll allow her to treat me to a homecooked French dinner.

[Trump]

homecooked French dinner??

Now that sounds pretty damn good!

[ruaidhri]

I love my country, the USA. I guess you could say I’m patriotic. I love America because it’s my home. It’s what I’m comfortable with. I love America because of the good it’s attempted and despite the bad it’s accomplished.

Is the USA the best country with the best workers, the best economy and the best government? Are Americans the smartest and most innovative people in the world? Do we work harder than others and do we accomplish more than other peoples throughout the world?

That’s what John McCain appears to tell us with each breath. There’s no problem that, with his leadership, Americans can’t solve. He constantly tells us that he has a plan. But, what is his plan? Apparently, it’s more of the same. How’s that going to fix anything?

Well, I’m going to vote for Obama because I believe he has a better chance of making a difference. I desperately hope he can actually inspire Americans to fix what appears to be broken. Still, I fear whomever wins this election will face an insurmountable task with lots of blame and few solutions that work.

If our new President can’t stop the steamroller of economic depression, I question how familiar our country will be following the hard times. These may be interesting and exciting times but, I believe, they are equally scary and dangerous.

[Darth_E_]

I love my country, the USA. I guess you could say I’m patriotic. I love America because it’s my home. It’s what I’m comfortable with. I love America because of the good it’s attempted and despite the bad it’s accomplished.

Is the USA the best country with the best workers, the best economy and the best government? Are Americans the smartest and most innovative people in the world? Do we work harder than others and do we accomplish more than other peoples throughout the world?

That’s what John McCain appears to tell us with each breath. There’s no problem that, with his leadership, Americans can’t solve. He constantly tells us that he has a plan. But, what is his plan? Apparently, it’s more of the same. How’s that going to fix anything?

Well, I’m going to vote for Obama because I believe he has a better chance of making a difference. I desperately hope he can actually inspire Americans to fix what appears to be broken. Still, I fear whomever wins this election will face an insurmountable task with lots of blame and few solutions that work.

If our new President can’t stop the steamroller of economic depression, I question how familiar our country will be following the hard times. These may be interesting and exciting times but, I believe, they are equally scary and dangerous.

I think patriotism could be a lovely thing, so long as its not blind or arrogant. I believe everyone loves the land he/she was born and raised on. At the very least, we all have bonds to the land that we walked on when we were little.

That being said, I am not an American. I am Canadian. The way I see people looking at America (and Americans) in general is that they label America (and consequently, Americans) as arrogant, self-centered and not very smart. While I may not necessarily agree with that view, I can see where they come from. People in America, it seems, are easily swayed by the media and stereotypes. The moment a few extremists hijacked a few planes and rammed them onto the WTC eventually engraved the word "terrorist" on all middle-easterns; just like how blacks are stereotyped as criminals. The fact that some can't locate iraq on a map is an alarming sign on how self-enveloped that nation is. America is also seen as a consumer nation, a kin to a parasite. Comparing production and consumerism annual rates reveal that the U.S consumes more than half of what it produces. And where do the additional goods come from? From the rest of the world.

My personal experience on the other hand was that Americans are pretty much like us, one can become their "best friends" in a matter of minutes :D The things I outlined before are much present in my country as well (ours is probably to a lower extent though, but they're still there). I just count myself being one of the lucky ones that got to live overseas and experience the world outside the North American "cocoon".

[Trump]

Ruaidhri. I think to claim any country in this world has "the best" anything, hands down, is ridiculous and sensationalist. However, I would argue that Americans can be everything Mccain says. Just as the British and Canadians and Russians and Chinese and Japanese and .... etc can be the best. Are we the best all the time? Of course not. Are we the best sometimes? Sure. At this point I believe you are right. It doesn't matter who is elected. The country will suffer under both leaders, they will just suffer differently. One will spend us into oblivian in a failed attempt to fix everything. The other will try to cut taxes to the point where the government can't do anything if it tries. Neither of them understand the economy, how to fix it, or have any plans to deal with the major issues that actually matter to people. Sigh...

Darth E. I find it intersting you say that. Do you believe Americans are different than any other nation? Do you think other countries citizens are swayed less by the media? Do you believe other countries with comparable economic or military strength are any less arrogant or self-centered? Do you think the media ever reports on average Joe or always focuses on the idiots? I think America is just like every other country out there. The only difference is that we have resources and technology and a culture that gives us a slight edge on ecomonic issues and standard of living. Other than that, we really are the same as everyone else, no better no worse, just people who like to make friends =)

[Darth_E_]

Darth E. I find it intersting you say that. Do you believe Americans are different than any other nation? Do you think other countries citizens are swayed less by the media? Do you believe other countries with comparable economic or military strength are any less arrogant or self-centered? Do you think the media ever reports on average Joe or always focuses on the idiots? I think America is just like every other country out there. The only difference is that we have resources and technology and a culture that gives us a slight edge on ecomonic issues and standard of living. Other than that, we really are the same as everyone else, no better no worse, just people who like to make friends =)

I think Americans are just victims of their own success. Due to the collapse of the USSR and globalization, everyone in this world got to look up to the United States as the sole world leader. In that sense, everything Americans do or say got to be more into the spotlight. That, along side the internet which made the unseen/unheard out everywhere. So essentially, you guys exposed your flaws to the rest of the world with the "Americanization movement" in the past decade or so.

Personally, I don't believe the American nation is much different from the rest of the world. Despite different traditions and cultures, we're all people really. The things that might "separate" you guys from the rest would be the conditions you guys live in. When it comes to your media, it seems like to be running on its own brainwashing agenda. For instance, I remember the time when I was witnessing how a typical American joe would be fed useless stories of how britney spears tried to take her kids 24/7 when much more important economical/political stuff was going on. The fact that many Americans aren't getting decent education and aren't encouraged to seek education (wanna be a bookworm nerd? naah, so uncool :P) makes the biased media the only source of information, which leads to ignorance. News outlets around the globe are biased in their own way as well, don't get me wrong. But you don't see that brain-dumbing, strong emphasis on pop-culture as one would see in American media; or the neo-conservative "hawkish" media as in fox (faux) news. Speaking about fox news, the problem with those "hawkish" channels is that a significant portion of the populace readily accepts what they will hear on it before they actually listen. So when the world sees a bigot such as Ann Coulter spouting racist remarks on TV or when they see a fox news report stating an outrageous lie as fact, you couldn't help but think that people like her and channels like that is part of what gives Americans a bad name.

As for arrogance, I think that is something inherently found in all nations. For instance, when China was at the peak of its civilization, they considered everyone outside of China as barbarian :D Perhaps the recent military adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan and the (upcoming?) one in Iran under the disastrous leadership of G.W Bush is what makes the world view such arrogance in a much more negative light.

I think the United States should get back to its core values; for that is what will make it shine again. That war on invisible targets (war on terror) really tarnished its reputation. What your forefathers envisioned as an ideal nation is probably the answers to your current problems. A country based on freedom, democracy and justice for all. Lets hope the next election would at least correct the economical and political problems. :)

[Trump]

Well, I don't consider it brainwashing, I just consider it part of our culture that people like watching all that crap news about Brittany Spears. They only put it on the news because it gets good ratings. It's kinda like all those stupid reality shows I just can't stand! Personally, I wish they would stop talking about this Casey Anthony crap. It's not even a celebrity thing, but they can't stop talking about it!! And she lives in the same city as me, I drove by the jail on my way home from work one day and there were news vans and crap everywhere in my way. It's pissing me off =/ Heh, education... my brain is telling me it is not thinking about that right now, but it sure is screwed up!

[ruaidhri]

My wife and I saw Arlo Guthrie last night. The show was fantastic. That man can still sing 40 years later. He sang his father's song with the whole audience joining in. It made me feel good in these bad times.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSIy0wq_-8A&feature=related

He also sang this song which tells it all

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAG0XMRty5Y

[Plekto]

I found this online today. Police state is happening, bit by bit. Draw a 100 mile ring around the U.S.(this also includes coast lines and such - not just land borders!).

****
ACLU: Border Guard Powers Undermining Privacy Rights

The American Civil Liberties Union says the expansive powers of border guards is creating what it calls a “Constitution-free Zone” for large swaths of the US. The ACLU says because the government is claiming border and customs powers extend 100 miles inland, many Americans are being subjected to privacy invasions that wouldn’t normally be allowed. The so-called 100-mile “border region” includes nine out of the top ten major metro areas and two-thirds of the US population.

[haterllnation]

A link to what Plekto is mentioning with some more info and a picture for you visual folk out there.

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/10/aclu-assails-10.html

[TygressVirgo]

Wow, that covers so much land. My mind is simply boggled on how many people this will affect.

[ruaidhri]

What do you think about America now that we’ve completed a tough and historic election?

For me, this has been a tough election. Obama won. I’m relieved he did. I seriously doubt McCain and (God forbid) Palin could bring about the changes necessary to save the U.S. from itself. There’s no guarantee that even Obama will be successful.

I’m a partisan. I’ve always been a Democrat. Like many of my generation I mainly vote for the party’s candidates rather than the individual. I believe, when joining a party, candidates identify themselves with that party’s history, philosophy and associations. While I’m not always proud of the Democratic party’s history, don’t always agree with its philosophy and am sometimes ashamed of its associations, the Democrats are, I believe, the better overall choice. The Republicans have always impressed me with their desire for unfettered capitalism, which, from my perspective, culminates in larger and larger corporations, less competition, and greater riches concentrated in the pockets of the extremely wealthy. Also, I dislike their mean spirited tactics.

As far as this past election, I did not expect Obama had any chance of winning. I did not support him in the primaries for that very reason. Initially, I supported Edwards and later switched to Hillary. I believed Obama had too many strikes against him to win any general election. He had little actual experience in government and no executive experience. Mostly, I feared the racism that does still exist in the United States. When the religious right and older white males were thrown in along with the racists, I held little hope for an Obama victory. I certainly didn’t believe young and first time voters would actually become involved to the extent they would actually go to the polls and encourage others to do the same.

I was also surprised by McCain’s primary victories. Generally I considered McCain somewhat of an exception to my disdain for candidates that associate themselves with Republicans. I liked him and although I didn’t always agree with his policies I believed he had far more experience in government and in executive leadership. Factor in my wife’s extreme anger at Hillary’s primary loss and the blacks abandoning the Clintons, when they had been their greatest supporter, there was little opportunity for me to jump on the Obama bandwagon. I even considered the possibility that we would all vote for McCain. Sometimes peace in the home is far more important than world peace.

Then, as the campaign progressed and McCain selected Palin as his running mate I was flabbergasted. Heaven forbid she would actually ever assume the office of President. Then, McCain crossed over to the dark side and embraced the Republican game plan of character assassination. I lost respect for the man and began to look at him in a new light.

Still, I expected the old Republican constituency would trump Obama’s youthful and black supporters. Many women we knew remained pissed at Hillary’s loss and vowed to not vote for Obama. My contemporaries (old white men) were predictably for McCain. Obama had strong support but not enough.

Then, the economies and fortunes of the world collapsed affecting both large and small. Crisis woke up the electorate. The election became important for them, their investments, their future and even their current jobs. Amazingly, old, traditionally Republican, upper middle and wealthy suburban enclaves did an about face and increased their support for a Democrat for President. My own bastion of Republican might saw one in three voters selecting Obama. That, McCain could not overcome.

Yes, I’m happy and hopeful. Let’s all hope that Obama can provide the spark that will lift us out of constant crisis.

[Trump]

I'm in the US, but right now I would say the world must think we are all totally insane. The election became more about fear and media brainwashing than it was about the issues. It was "change" vs. "inexperience", where were the issues? They spent ridiculous sums of money on their campaign and it was fiasco after fiasco. I really don't understand how our election process is not the laughing stock of the world.

[h2orowe]

Good job at posting more or less the same rant in every political thread on the first page, Trump.

[mugen]

He has a point though. Most people I know (in the Netherlands) do actually think the American election process is ridiculous, and I'm sure it's the same in most other functioning democracies.

[ruaidhri]

Trump,

I agree! Political campaigns in the U.S. are centered around the 30 second commercial. They are mostly about creating impressions both good and bad. Mostly, they play on emotions, particularly fear. Real issues are rarely mentioned in any detail.

Honestly, I've been around and aware for every election since 1960 and I can't remember it being any different. The only thing that's changed is how vitriolic campaigns have become. Innuendoes, half truths, outright lies and character assassinations have become commonplace. That's what I hate.

I was never ecstatic about Obama. I don't believe he was the best possible candidate. In the end, I and my entire family, including my wife, did vote for Obama primarily because we didn't want Palin, because we were disillusioned with McCain and because we believed Obama had a fair chance of appealing to the American people to accept change.

Obama is kind of like a preacher calling his flock up to be saved. I hope he's successful. We need confidence and pride and action to get us out of the mess we're in.

Right now I plan to become a big supporter of Obama. He's really our only hope. The election is over. The name calling must be forgotten and we must start working together.

And, it wouldn't hurt to keep our fingers crossed that we all prosper from Obama's leadership over the next four years.

[h2orowe]

IRT Mugen: I think all the mud slinging and stuff is ridiculous, too, but he's just whining in every thread about it. "Think of all the money they have spent." blahhhh blahhhh blahhhh.

That's how I sort of viewed this election, too, Ruaidhri. Especially when there was the very start of the primaries races. I liked Gravel a lot. Then I liked Ron Paul. Then I settled for Obama.

[japanat]

I like Obama. I liked Hillary more. C'est la vie.

Gotta admit, I am tired of the mudslinging. Every election, they say they won't do it. Every election, they do it (usually the Republicans lead off, but the Democrats certainly don't hesitate to join in).

If there is a real issue with a candidate's background, then it should be brought up: if they were involved in a scandal, were arrested for something, were selling drugs but never got caught. But without proof, it's a waste of time, and should be left out. You can't just level a charge of drugdealing, for example, without pictures or documentary proof. If you do, there has to be a reason to believe you. Like 'Troopergate', where there was an issue to be investigated. It didn't turn out to be a big enough issue to affect the election, so they reported the findings, then rightly dropped it.

And the hate and invective of Palin supporters really disgusted me. "Obama Sin Laden" "He's an A-rab" and all that shit was just way out of line, and should have been stomped on from the start. I'm glad McCain corrected that woman who said he was an arab, but Palin would just smirk and subtly encourage the craziness. More than any other factor, this is what scared me about her: it was like watching a beauty contest headgame rolled up with the worst back-biting office politics of the worst supervisor you've ever had.

It's time to debate the issues and germane character or history, and leave the rest of the shit out of it. And I really think there should be a campaign time limit. Announcing 18-24 months before the election is bullshit. Limit campaigning to 6 months before the election (I love the Japanese's 3-week limit, even if they do use those damned loudspeaker trucks!), hold 3 major Super Tuesdays in July/August, the conventions in August/September, then run up to the election. If the candidate can't prove their platform in 6 weeks of stumping, they can't prove it in 16 months (note that the campaign limit wouldn't prevent them from doing their homework beforehand). This would have the added side-benefit of reducing the importance of a candidate's war-chest, and would allow less well-financed candidates a more even platform.

[Trump]

Overall, I just call it like I see it. If something I say is wrong, please correct me. I think what frustrates me the most is that nothing has changed in so long. Obviously the politicians in charge have no intent on changing the system, so I doubt it will change. So all I can do is complain about it, and complain I will. The only way things will ever change is if enough people complain about it.

[Urameshi YuSooKey]

Overall, I just call it like I see it. If something I say is wrong, please correct me. I think what frustrates me the most is that nothing has changed in so long. Obviously the politicians in charge have no intent on changing the system, so I doubt it will change. So all I can do is complain about it, and complain I will. The only way things will ever change is if enough people complain about it.
What exactly is this change you so desperately want?

[h2orowe]

About 'tree fitty.

http://i287.photobucket.com/albums/ll127/fairlanex63/Ineedabouttreefitty.jpg

[archdukezeb]

What's with all this foreign people probably think this "blah blah blah" in the thread called what the world thinks of America. You're just applying your own opinions to the world.

Here's a quote from the presidential thread from a Finnish board member.

All i can say is, wow. I dont know much about US politics, or how much salt i should take while watching that. But thats what i would want to see in the politics in my country. No wishes, no dreams, but saying "I would do this", "this is my solution". Though while watching that, i became greatful for living where i live. I'm from the lower middle class, and i couldnt relate to any of the problems in that video.

[ruaidhri]

archdukezeb, last I checked the U.S. is part of the world, but yes, the original intent of this thread was for members from countries other than the U.S. to comment and for U.S. members to respond. Obviously, over its long life this thread has evolved into a discussion of all things associated with the United States. Who better to comment than the people who live here every day. Nobody is forcing you to read this thread. If you don't wish to participate, don't.

The Presidential election is over. The U.S. and the world will change over the next four years especially now that we all are responding to a colossal economic crisis. What happens here in the U.S. will affect everyone. How we think and how we react and why we do what we do is important to everyone's future. Remember, the last great depression ended with a World War. Threads like this allow us to consider other's impressions and opinions and just maybe will bring us together and not at each other's throats.

Also, take the time to read Trump's posts and truly consider his position. How much does the average citizen really know about the candidates when they vote? How often is the campaign based on the dry mechanics of how the individual candidates will actually effect the changes they propose? What percentage of the campaign is against the opposition?

Every four years following an election, we breath a sigh of relief that's it's all over, including the telephone calls, the constant nasty ads on T.V., the hostility among neighbors with different signs on their lawns. With so much at state, there must be a better way for the U.S. to elect their President. I understand Trump's disgust.

[Kleshya]

Out of curiosity, how many people ACTUALLY watch the campaign ads? Are the candidates spending their money wisely, so to speak, in using the tv for the ads we saw for months on end?

Speaking for myself and my husband, I can say that the answer to the first question would be no, we didn't. Anytime a campaign ad came on, even if it was for the candidate we backed, we usually either muted it or changed the channel during the commercials. A lot of the commercials I did sit and watch (for as long as I could stand them) did exactly what japanat is refering to, i.e. level charges at the other candidate with no attempt at proof. In my world, if you are going to accuse someone of doing or not doing something, then you better give me some proof or I will think you are just blowing a lot of invective smoke.

So...what it boils down to, is that no I do not think the candidates are/were spending their money wisely on ads such as these. I think it's a big turnoff for most people. It must be reachign some people though, or otherwise they wouldn't show them.

[Trump]

What exactly is this change you so desperately want?

Hmm... the change I was referring to was change in the election process to give it value to the country instead of the person and party running for office.

Ruaidhri, I actually did not receive one phone call this year! I'm still not sure how I pulled that off. I guess I don't have a house phone any more and only use my cell. I wonder if that has something to do with it? On the other hand, I definately remember pulling political ads out of the mailbox and dropping them into the recycle bin though, even after I had voted.

Kleshya, unfortunately the ads on TV were not aimed at educated people who will consider the issues when voting (like us). Actually, I can't remember one time when they aimed their campaign at that audience. They were entirely focused on "the masses" for lack of a better term (not trying to be derogatory). I don't know whether it is true or not, but this demographic definately feels like it is a relatively small percentage of the voting population. It makes me sad.

Here's another waste of money (in my opinion). Campaign signs.
http://www.sitemason.com/files/e4Vd5u/signs.jpg
http://blog.mlive.com/chronicle/2008/08/01campaign_signs.jpg
I mean, nothing but name recognition. No message or any reason to vote for that person. I can understand a sign at your house or business showing who you support, but it has gotten to the point of insanity.

[stsparky]

I live in a Blue state. I remain a Blue Dog Democrat. I was pro-Edwards at first. I simply wanted someone smart in the White House. I want to see the crimes Bush and his cronies committed brought to light so they can be punished for them.

http://s3.moveon.org/images/shep_large.gif
http://pol.moveon.org/shepstickers/?id=-10588856-QTmtWUx&rc=
http://pol.moveon.org/shepposters/
__________________________________________________ ____
McCain had problems, and now one of them — the incurious superego Palin —will continue to pester us. I hope she splits the base of the GOP and leaves the party crippled.
__________________________________________________ ____
This seems intriguing:
Are the Dems Plotting to Hush Rush? (http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/11/democrats-rushlimbaugh-fairnessdoctrine.html)
http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/11/no-rush-limbaugh-250x200.jpg
“Will the Obama administration force Rush Limbaugh off the air? Some conservative activists are claiming such a tragedy is nearly at hand, and they've been trying to whip up a frenzy. Limbaugh and his brethren believe Democrats are plotting a revival of the Fairness Doctrine, a controversial policy once enforced by the Federal Communications Commission to ensure broadcasters presented balanced views in their coverage of controversial subjects. While perhaps well intended, the Truman-era rule ultimately encouraged broadcasters to avoid touchy topics altogether, rather than seek out contrasting viewpoints. Many broadcast journalists saw the rule as a major violation of their free-speech rights. The FCC voted to abolish it in 1987. Democrats attempted to revive the rule, but President George H.W. Bush threatened to veto the legislation (as Ronald Reagan had in 1987), and those efforts failed. Since then, the Fairness Doctrine has largely been relegated to textbooks on media law—that is, until it was resurrected as the latest conservative bugaboo. ... Really, though, the conservative drumbeat over the Fairness Doctrine is much ado about nothing. It's fearmongering—which may be good for fund-raising. Conservatives claiming that the Obama administration will mean the death of right-wing radio seem to forget this fact: Limbaugh and other conservative talkers thrived during the Clinton years. ”

[archdukezeb]

post
Yes I was basically responding to this I'm in the US, but right now I would say the world must think we are all totally insane. The election became more about fear and media brainwashing than it was about the issues. It was "change" vs. "inexperience", where were the issues? They spent ridiculous sums of money on their campaign and it was fiasco after fiasco. I really don't understand how our election process is not the laughing stock of the world. For one I was replying to the fact that he's extrapolating his own dissatisfaction with the election to what the world thinks about America and so I posted a quote from a boar member about the election that was contradictory to that which I think holds more weight for what the rest of the world thinks about our election process. Also politicians always pander to idiots and have to come up with a simple way to get their ideas across or when behind to dissuade them away from their opponent by elaborating their negatives. That's how a democracy works. It's the same in every country to different degrees and it will pretty much always be that way. Just feel blessed that their is a (mostly) fair election process in this country

[glowinthedarkcheese]

Obama is president elect. The United States as we know it won't ever be the same:gloomy: .Time to move to Canada,eh?

[Urameshi YuSooKey]

Obama is president elect. The United States as we know it won't ever be the same:gloomy: .Time to move to Canada,eh?
Yeah. Hurry up and go then. :innocent:

Might I suggest Nova Scotia.

[Dresh]

Obama is president elect. The United States as we know it won't ever be the same:gloomy: .Time to move to Canada,eh?

Yes, because Canada is the best place to go for anyone disillusioned with a liberal leaning government. This plan is flawless.

[mugen]

Time for the good ol' bindle stick.

also
Yes, because Canada is the best place to go for anyone disillusioned with a liberal leaning government. This plan is flawless.
lol

[ruaidhri]

Is there a better way to get attention on OP9 than to make a statement like glowinthedarkcheese’s?

“Obama is president elect. The United States as we know it won't ever be the same .Time to move to Canada,eh?”

Blindness is a definite prerequisite to be unaware that the members of this forum are decidedly liberal. So, either glowinthedarkcheese is pulling our leg or is unabashedly oblivious.

Regardless, I agree, people that don’t like liberal governments should definitely move where right-wingers reign, Canada.

Has anyone else noted that in another land way up there, Alaska, to be specific, the electorate has elected a new Senator, a Democrat, Mark Begich.

http://news.google.com/news?client=safari&rls=en&q=alaska%20senator&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1&sa=N&tab=wn

I guess this ruins Sarah’s opportunity to move from Governor of Alaska to Senator. I’m sure that most everyone on OP9 is saddened by the loss of her conservative approach and a clear pathway to the Presidency.

[Plekto]

Trust me... She'll find a way to rise to the top like all scum does...

[ruaidhri]

You know, the more I look at glowinthedarkcheese’s comment the more I believe he was not serious but rather being deliberately facetious to make his point.

Plekto, I don't know if I'd elevate Sarah to the level of scum. She hasn't got the credentials for that, yet. What I hoping is that without a clear path to federal prominence she will just fade away.

[glowinthedarkcheese]

I may not have been serious with the whole Canada thing, but if the U.S becomes what educated people believe it will be because of Obama, that may not be such a bad idea. Of course, Obama plans to make anyone that moves out of the U.S have to give up half of their belongings, that may NOT be a good idea...:bored:
Also, do you know why the fairness doctrine would make conservatives be forced to leave the radio? It's because they say good things about republicans and bad things about democrats and be honest, while the only way to make a succesful liberal radio talk show, they'd have to lie, and that typically doesn't work very well.

[Karthak]

I would like to know why so many people in the US seem to believe their country was founded as a christian nation. That line of thinking doesn't make ant sense to me because even though I'm not an american I know precisely what some of the founding fathers thought about religion and state. Here's Thomas Jefferson:
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."-TJ Dec. 6, 1813.

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."-TJ February 10, 1814

"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own." -TJ Mar 17, 1814

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus."-TJ30 July, 1816


Any American here who can enlighten an ignorant foreigner?

[Urameshi YuSooKey]

I'm not biting the same lure again. :bang:

[h2orowe]

I would like to know why so many people in the US seem to believe their country was founded as a christian nation. That line of thinking doesn't make ant sense to me because even though I'm not an american I know precisely what some of the founding fathers thought about religion and state. Here's Thomas Jefferson:
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."-TJ Dec. 6, 1813.

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."-TJ February 10, 1814

"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own." -TJ Mar 17, 1814

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus."-TJ30 July, 1816


Any American here who can enlighten an ignorant foreigner?
For a failed attempt at the discussion of this topic, see:
http://www.outpostnine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11944

[ruaidhri]

No!

The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a jewish, muslim, or atheist nation. We are a nation of many religions and no religion. Still, there is a rather strong political lobby within the U.S. that would like to make America conform to Christian doctrine, which is based on faith in a 2000 year old story that is unprovable. Personally, I have no objection to any person having their individual beliefs. Where I object is where any religion attempts to codify their beliefs into our laws.

The influence of a single religion's beliefs on American laws is a legitimate topic for this thread. It does somewhat define who we are and the risks our democracy faces.

[riona]

The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a jewish, muslim, or atheist nation. We are a nation of many religions and no religion. Still, there is a rather strong political lobby within the U.S. that would like to make America conform to Christian doctrine, which is based on faith in a 2000 year old story that is unprovable. Personally, I have no objection to any person having their individual beliefs. Where I object is where any religion attempts to codify their beliefs into our laws.

Wow, that is beautiful. Precisely.

The influence of a single religion's beliefs on American laws is a legitimate topic for this thread. It does somewhat define who we are and the risks our democracy faces.
It's a legitimate topic, sure, but the main issue from the last thread we had on it was that people were taking things personally. It's a good topic to be discussed from an intellectual perspective, but (usually) religion is deeply personal. It's very hard to talk about it without someone getting offended, as evidenced in the previous thread, and it just turning into a pissing match.

[ruaidhri]

Yes, religious discussions can get personal and vicious because they are based on faith which the individual either accepts or rejects.

I agree this thread is not the place for a discussion on the merits of any religion or lack of religion. Where I do believe a discussion would be appropriate is in regard to the strong Christian lobbies in the U.S. that want to elect sympathetic representatives and change laws to conform to their specific beliefs.

For example: Do you support a woman's right to choose? If not, why not? If your reason is because you believe your God opposes abortion you are imposing your God on people who don't hold the same beliefs.

Personally, I don't like the idea of abortion. I like babies. I find it hard to separate fetus from child. Still, that's my opinion and I don't believe I should impose it on others.

I would prefer complete separation of church and state. I don't believe religion should have any role in government and should not be restricted nor supported. That includes tax exemptions or state subsidies for education in religious schools.

[glowinthedarkcheese]

I support ruaidhri's view that America was not meant to be religously governed, and should never be governed based on religion. However, there is a fairly large rumor that it is a mainly Catholic government. As I recall, there have only been two presidents of the Catholic religion.

[Kannon]

I'm curious as to what you (everyone reading this thread) and the world thinks of Obama's choices so far for his supporting roles... Most definitely surprising.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

I'm curious as to what you (everyone reading this thread) and the world thinks of Obama's choices so far for his supporting roles... Most definitely surprising.
Largely I've been pleased with his choices so far, but I wouldn't say that they've been too surprising, except for Hillary's. I can understand his reasons for appointing her as Sec State but she still rubs me the wrong way. Really though, on other forums I go to there has been a LOT of hand-wringing going on, and while there are legitimate criticisms of his appointments, so far he hasn't picked any where I'm not willing to see how they do once he's actually president.

[Kannon]

Sec of Defense? Fucking shocker. Many repubs I know were surprised, and actually given hope from this (myself included, although I supported his election in the first place). I just hope the aggressive SoD and Pres-Elect Obama can work together to find a happy medium for our international military affairs.

[Trump]

Shocking? Nothing shocking, we've just got Clinton administration 2008 with one exception. He pretty much had to make that pick for defense or the entire armed forces would be against him. At least this way he only has to convince 1 person instead of every high ranking officer in the pentagon.

[Kannon]

I wouldn't say the entire armed forces would've been against him with another choice. Many of the armed forces (at least many of them that I run in to on a daily basis) blindly followed Obama as many as blindly followed Bush for the last 8 years and McCain in this election. I don't think the selection changes THAT many minds, just gave a few of us that pay attention to that kind of thing a little hope that our livelyhood wouldn't be completely obliterated come February. Like I said, hopefully his input can keep the US Armed Forces strong, while dialing back on the "smash anything we want" mentality, finishing up in Afganistan, and helping those in need.

[Trump]

Well, by "entire armed forces" I guess I meant the ones who actually make decisions. All I know is my company is hiring a lot of people right now. Defense contractor? Hmm...