Exactly. Democrats know that people wouldn't help the less-fortunate if not for their social programs such as welfare, social security, and medicare. THIS is where conservative allure lies- the ability to look out for only one's self rather than one's poor neighbor. Money- basically.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok, here's where our difference lies. I don't think there is anything wrong with caring about myself and telling someone else to "get a job." You feel a responsability for all people that you are not required to feel. And I respect people that think like that but I will never be one of them.
Ok, here's where our difference lies. I don't think there is anything wrong with caring about myself and telling someone else to "get a job." You feel a responsability for all people that you are not required to feel. And I respect people that think like that but I will never be one of them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>The US is a great country to live in but it is not perfect. there is a lot of problems like the ones you mentioned but you cannot compare it to a small country like the netherlands.
US population: 278,212,552
Netherlands population: 15,983,682
The US has 17 times the population to contend with.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The U.S is also far bigger than the Netherlands which leaves it with more room for industry. It has more natural resources as well.
Anyway, I said percentagewise. Percentages have nothing to do with the size of the population.
If you want to know the reason for extremists flying planes in to your buildings. Look no further than your continued aid to Israel.<
The reason for the extremists flying planes into our buildings is because they are freaks. Subhuman freaks who tried as hard as they could to make sure thousands of innocent men, women, and children(many of whom weren't American) as possible would die a horrible death. There are other ways to disagree with a country's foreign policy. I am Jewish, and I don't agree with France's anti-Israeli policies, so I'm going to go over there and exterminate a few hundred civilians. How about Germany? Maybe the Netherlands? Now, would that seem like a rational response to Europe's policies? No, didn't think so. But you go right on rationalizing Arabs killing Americans. Go right ahead. Listen here-some day the cavalry may stop coming over to save the day. Some day we may just say the hell with it and to go fight your own battles. We spend billions on defense not only to save our necks but the necks of our 'friends' as well. Israel is a better and more faithful ally than any European country other than Britain. Go ahead-stay in your nice, secure country without having to spend billions on your own defense. You KNOW we are there if trouble should occur. You KNOW we would be the first country to call upon when Europe freezes in inaction and confusion. We are the glue that holds the democracies together because even though you protest in the streets against some of our policies, even though you fear our willingness to use military might, you KNOW we are the one country the world trusts to try to do the right thing.
And one last thing, even though I would think you would know this if you read any newspapers at all-Bin Laden ordered the terrorist attack because the US has military bases in Saudi Arabia, NOT because of Israel. And why shouldn't we continue to give aid to Israel? They are an ally, they are our friend, and even though we don't agree with everything their government does-name one country where we agree 100% with what they do. Do we stop giving aid to any of them? Of course not-Israel isn't our 51st State-they will do what they feel is in their best interests, just like any other country. When you're friends with America, you've got a friend for life.............................................. ......</strong><hr></blockquote>
So, basically, what you´re implying is that these people one day woke up, decided to fly a plane in to a building and made up a reason for doing so?
I never said anything about America being right or wrong for financially and militarily supporting Israel. I said that the reason why you´re a target for Muslim extremists is your continued aid to Israel. On top of your continued military presence in other areas of the Middle East.
I´m sorry but I find it quite naive that you think that a country can do these things and get away with it. Intervention always brings the risk of becoming a target. So don´t moan when someone shoots at the target.
I also never said Muslim extremists are right to fly planes in to buildings nor am I making up excuses. I gave you the reason. Which has nothing to do with your own economy or the way you run your country.
You´re not a target for what you do in your country, you´re a target for what you do in the country of others. Right or wrong.
PS. Before you start telling people how hopeless they would be without the U.S I would consider the fact that without European expansionism there would be no U.S
On top of that, yes a lot of European countries can save on their military because the U.S spends a lot on it. Don´t forget though that during the cold war we were acting as a buffer for the U.S. Do you really think WWIII would have been fought in your country? Central Europe, that´s where. I never saw Europeans going around boasting about that to the U.S.
1. Who the hell is talking about your country? I am talking about nations that have oppresive military regimes without any personal or religious freedoms. I did say I think we are the "best" nation. I stand firm on that. There is no other place in the world I'd rather live. That's just my opinion.
2. I do love democracy, freedom of speech, New York, the grand canyon, etc. That IS WHY I love America.
3. I never said you should lose your national pride. Not once.
4. The Israel comment was absurd. No one has a right to hijack a jetliner and plunge it into a building. I don't care what the reason is.
If you had made that comment to my face, I would seriously consider punching you in the mouth.
----Wrong. Europe might not. Islamic extremeists and those under their influence might not. But, tell me: Why do MILLIONS of Mexicans, Cubans, and other ethnic groups risk their lives trying to get here each year? Why was there mass immigration to the US in the late 1800's and early 1900's? Answer: Because those people knew there may be a better life here, or at least a chance for it. Also, tell me why Boris Yeltsin, on his first trip to the US, walked into a supermarket, saw all the glistening produce and aisles of food, and almost fell to his knees....crying out "what have they done to mother Russia"? Tell me he didn't envy the US and I'll eat my hat. And tell me there aren't a bunch of entire nations out there that truly, deeply hate America and its power and I'll eat another.
ad1. Exactly. When you say you are the best nation it does involve my country as well.
ad2. Well done, now that´s patriotic.
ad3. You said that maybe other countries should try it your way. That reeks, nay stinks, of arrogance. Maybe you should not make comments like that.
ad4. Like I said just now, I never said I agree with the reason. It is the reason. That´s a fact.
You´re punching in the face comment just shows that your anger keeps you from having a discussion on a high level. You should be able to defend your convictions without having to resort to violence. Just like the Arabs and the Israelis should. (I admit that sounds a bit belittling but I´ll stand by it)
ad5. There is mass imigration to the Netherlands, Germany and other countries as well. So how are you the best? How are you better than these other countries that have exactly the same?
By the way, I really don´t find someone else´s misfortune something you should pride yourself for not having.
I will tell you once again that there are no nations or entire countries that hate the U.S. There may be governments/regimes that do and there are individuals that do. But not for it´s might and money. For the way it uses that might against these countries and for the way it doesn´t share that wealth with everyone.
ad1. Exactly. When you say you are the best nation it does involve my country as well.
ad2. Well done, now that´s patriotic.
ad3. You said that maybe other countries should try it your way. That reeks, nay stinks, of arrogance. Maybe you should not make comments like that.
ad4. Like I said just now, I never said I agree with the reason. It is the reason. That´s a fact.
You´re punching in the face comment just shows that your anger keeps you from having a discussion on a high level. You should be able to defend your convictions without having to resort to violence. Just like the Arabs and the Israelis should. (I admit that sounds a bit belittling but I´ll stand by it)
ad5. There is mass imigration to the Netherlands, Germany and other countries as well. So how are you the best? How are you better than these other countries that have exactly the same?
By the way, I really don´t find someone else´s misfortune something you should pride yourself for not having.
I will tell you once again that there are no nations or entire countries that hate the U.S. There may be governments/regimes that do and there are individuals that do. But not for it´s might and money. For the way it uses that might against these countries and for the way it doesn´t share that wealth with everyone.
Would you like fries with that hat?</strong><hr></blockquote>
1. Sorry you take offense to my "best" nation comment. That is just the way I feel.
2. OK....
3. What's wrong with suggesting that other countries try it our way? It has to be better than what some of them are doing now. Don't you think? I didn't say "try it Great Britain's way", because we truly were the first modern democracy. It wasn't our idea, but we are the first modern implementation of it. That's why I said "our way". Believe it or not, the Dutch, French, British, etc were not the first modern democracies.
4. Fair enough.
5. Unlike some, my anger makes me more committed to winning an argument. I don't apologize for feeling that strongly. Anyone who says things like "you can't expect to get away with it" just shows the huge anti-semitic undercurrent present in the world. How dare we support a democracy surrounded by nations that truly DO hate it? (I assume even you agree that Israel is surrounded by nations that hate it). Can't get away with it? What is there to get away with? And I have a right to be pissed off about 3,000 Americans being murdered in cold blood.
6. We disagree about the hatred and/or envy of the US. Perhaps less envy than hatred......what do you base your assertion on? You are honestly telling me some governments don't envy and/or hate the US for their power and might? Give me a break.
7. Share the wealth? . This is truly the most unreasonable, ultra-liberal thing you have said. We are the single largest provider of foreign aid in the world.
And don't get me started on "share the wealth". The reasons I am conservative are pretty simple: I believe in limited government, local control, lower taxes, that religion DOES have some place in public places, that lowering taxes on corporations, to an extent, DOES help the overall economy, that lower taxes eventually create more revenue and growth, that some types of abortion are murder, and that there is a clear difference in most cases between right and wrong. I also don't subscribe to affirmative action, more social programs and so forth.
It is my belief that liberalism doesn't work; especially extreme liberalism (though obviously extreme conservatism, i.e. facisim, doesn't either). Every great "share the wealth" program in history has failed. The Great Society was a distaster. The only successful liberal programs came out of the Great Depression, and that was a very different time.
And please folks, don't paint conservatism as a "me" concept. I supoort it because I truly believe it works better. I give to charity, support a child through Christian Children's Fund, and try to help others. But, I don't believe I should pay 50-60% of my income to a government agency, which is what I do now by the time I'm done. And I truly believe that too many social programs create sloth, and that "rewarding failure and punishing success" creates more failure.
<strong>The goverment of the United States of America, like any other ?offical? goverments in the world, are merely just puppets controlled by the same puppeter.
This puppeter, created, divided, and ended a goverment as he wish.
Puppets are played to fight against other puppets, and in the same time some puppets are played to make peace with other puppets.
People who aren't in the know, thought that the puppets are acting on their own.
Imagine a puppet beat you up regulary, at some point, you will harbor an animosity toward the puppet. But unknown to you, the puppet is merely just controlled by the puppeter. Even if you destroyed the puppet, the puppeter will just use another puppet to fool you, and even worse, you too can be played by the puppeter like a puppet.
Folks... Our true enemy is currently hiding and using puppets so that we will fight against each other.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is my third day resisting to comment on this puppetry.
If we were to puppeting puppet this puppetry, then the whole puppetry will be so puppeted!
That is not to mention that puppetation these days is so puppetaited that you can not puppeting puppetically puppet a puppet from a puppet! I can not inpuppet such dispuppeted depuppetation based on the fact that there is no puppetess. Now how can you puppet a puppet by a puppeter without a puppeting puppetess?
<strong>We are the single largest provider of foreign aid in the world. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Woopedidooo.
US: $6.9 billion out of $9.963 trillion (GDP) = 0,07%. Population 278,058,881
Denmark: $1.63 billion out of $136.2 billion (GDP) = 1,2% (last year it was actually 1,9%). Population 5,352,815
Norway: $1.4 billion out of $124.1 billion (GDP) = 1,1%. Population 4,503,440
Nederlands: $3.5 billion out of $388.4 billion (GDP) = 0,9%. Population 15,981,472
Sweden: $1.7 billion out of $197 billion (GDP) = 0,8%. Population 8,875,053
Before we add the 2% to the Denmarks numbers for "East-Help" (for enviromental purposes in former eastern europe) and before we substract US help to Israel this is what we get
Denmark-Norway-Sweden-Nederlands:
$8.23 billion in foreign aid out of a GDP of $845.7 billion equals 0.97% of a population of 34.712.780
US
$6.9 billion in foreign aid out of a GDP of $9.963 trillion equals = 0,07%. of a population of 278,058,881
In other words: You (US) are eight times more people making almost 12 times as much but are giving 16% less than we are.
[quote]This kind of ends the debate on this point, no?<hr></blockquote>
About stronger growth? For 2000. yogisfunhouse is obviously dead wrong about the overall strength of the economies and I doubt that Canada surpasses the US in growth through history, either. Canada has always had a more conservative economy than the US.
of course you want to remain in America... you are American. Just be assured that most people from other countries feel the way you do... meaning that they too want you to remain in America
and [quote] What's wrong with suggesting that other countries try it our way? <hr></blockquote>
what's wrong is not necessarily that democracy wouldn't be good where it doesn't exist, what's wrong is the simplistic attitude that is an idealistically ignorant excuse for pushing our way of life onto others and saying that we are right. One person's diet might make another person sick.
Its especially exhibited by the attitude of "best" . . . what the hell does that mean . . the "best"? Its as if we are fans of some high school football game rooting for the school colors.
And the real appeal of conservatism is that it is, in most aspects, simplistic. It renders all the worlds complexities to simple slogans such as "free trade" (as if the American (world bank, IMF) crow-bar actions to the world's markets were ever "free" of coercion <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> ) Conservatism, as a self-identity, is grasped onto because it pretends that all the details don't exist... they all dissapear under the blinding light of "common sense". A common sense that is really just a scant and cursory missreading of real historical complexities... if any historical understanding exists at all(SDW)) Conservatism believes in the "literal reading is all that is needed" approach... which simplifies by denying the complexity of multiple perspectives in a very complex world.
or to quote you SDW
[quote] The reasons I am conservative are pretty simple <hr></blockquote>..shouldn't it read simplistic.
and the worst simplification on the part of self-described conservatives is the way they characterize liberals . .. .
(don't get me wrong, self-described liberals also sinplify as a matter of course . .. .)
also of note for its stupidity, is the whole idea that a huge corporate industry, which thrives on the advertizing money from the other richest of corporations would not be for its own interests.. interests: which are to maximize their profits ; in other words, the media is by no means "liberal" unless by that you mean that they are mainstream . . . .
which is silly to equate mainstream with anything left . . ..
in the eighties, the right moved the parameters of the debate so far to the right that what is now called liberal by the frothy mouthed masses was once considered squarely conservative . . . this has closed down perceptual options for many people now the options are completely defined by the pundits, meaning: the cadre of conservative celebrity hosts, Limbaugh et al . . . who are just the tip of the corporate media, and who pretend to be up against some none existent "liberal media"
Anyway, the media is what it is . . . a corporate phenomena whose content is conditioned by the need to make money . . . meaningthat its content (other than advertizing) tries to appeal to the largest proportion of viewers... the lowest common denominator (which is why Limbaugh was so popular) meaning it too simplifies in order to sell.
But the real message of the medium of television isn't the content of any of the shows on TV but is rather two things:
1. advertizing itself: meaning... not just the content of adds but the constant exposure of individuals to the implied imparative of "BUY THIS NOW" after all the ratio of time for ads versus televisions shows is almost one -one.
and
2. (as the Canadian McLuhan stated) the message is the media itself. meaning that the impact of TV is not so much its content but how it changes audience's perceptions of space and time and the world of objects. This takes place because TV errases space and conditions our perceptions of time
(consider the rise of technology and how it is not only changing the west, which has gone through industrialism and post industrialism and had its cataclismic reactions to these changes (WW1 and WW2)but is simultaneously changing the mid-east, which is at the same time as feeling electronic technological change but also going through its versions of industrial and post-industrial change . . . . no wonder its in such turmoil . . . we had WWars to deal with the shock... what will they do?)
Anyway, I hate to bring this discussion into the continual Right-vs-left debate which is so trite, and predescribed for us ... but I had to point out some perpetual simplisms
And they wonder if aliens are out there why don't they show themselves and come and visit.
One thing in the history of the world has always lead to another. Saying one country is responsible for how things have turned out is just monumentally STUPID.
Humans really need to get with the program if they are going to survive. We aren't just americans, canadians, british, or french. We are more importantly from this world. You know, the only place we can live on for now.
When you go back to this " we're better than you " crap you harken back to a time when men stood on the battle field and beat their sheilds with their swords to intimidate the other tribe.
What's wrong with this incredibly primative way of thinking is that we aren't there in those times any more. That kind of thinking can ( now ) only lead to our own self destruction. We are human beings first.
I can see if there are aliens out there capable of coming here they would also be capable of observing us. We can't even live together like adults on our own little planet. Why would they want to have anything to do with us?
For those dunderheads who might want to make fun of this because I used aliens as an example......it's just a way to present an objective viewpoint.
You can sit back and say the worlds ills are because of this group or that. What you have presented here in microcosm is a very accurate picture of what's really wrong. It's us. We really need to do something about that.
[quote]-----What? the NORTH betrayed the constitution? What an interesting version of history! My friend, it was the SOUTH who tried to secede from the Union, which the Northern, Union states prevented. THE SOUTHERN STATES were the ones who were acting improperly. <hr></blockquote>
This is steering off topic, but the right to secede was guaranteed in the constitution. The South had the right to Succeed.
The North acted illegally. Check your history books.
of course you want to remain in America... you are American. Just be assured that most people from other countries feel the way you do... meaning that they too want you to remain in America
and ..shouldn't it read simplistic.
and the worst simplification on the part of self-described conservatives is the way they characterize liberals . .. .
(don't get me wrong, self-described liberals also sinplify as a matter of course . .. .)
also of note for its stupidity, is the whole idea that a huge corporate industry, which thrives on the advertizing money from the other richest of corporations would not be for its own interests.. interests: which are to maximize their profits ; in other words, the media is by no means "liberal" unless by that you mean that they are mainstream . . . .
which is silly to equate mainstream with anything left . . ..
in the eighties, the right moved the parameters of the debate so far to the right that what is now called liberal by the frothy mouthed masses was once considered squarely conservative . . . this has closed down perceptual options for many people now the options are completely defined by the pundits, meaning: the cadre of conservative celebrity hosts, Limbaugh et al . . . who are just the tip of the corporate media, and who pretend to be up against some none existent "liberal media"
Anyway, the media is what it is . . . a corporate phenomena whose content is conditioned by the need to make money . . . meaningthat its content (other than advertizing) tries to appeal to the largest proportion of viewers... the lowest common denominator (which is why Limbaugh was so popular) meaning it too simplifies in order to sell.
But the real message of the medium of television isn't the content of any of the shows on TV but is rather two things:
1. advertizing itself: meaning... not just the content of adds but the constant exposure of individuals to the implied imparative of "BUY THIS NOW" after all the ratio of time for ads versus televisions shows is almost one -one.
and
2. (as the Canadian McLuhan stated) the message is the media itself. meaning that the impact of TV is not so much its content but how it changes audience's perceptions of space and time and the world of objects. This takes place because TV errases space and conditions our perceptions of time
(consider the rise of technology and how it is not only changing the west, which has gone through industrialism and post industrialism and had its cataclismic reactions to these changes (WW1 and WW2)but is simultaneously changing the mid-east, which is at the same time as feeling electronic technological change but also going through its versions of industrial and post-industrial change . . . . no wonder its in such turmoil . . . we had WWars to deal with the shock... what will they do?)
Anyway, I hate to bring this discussion into the continual Right-vs-left debate which is so trite, and predescribed for us ... but I had to point out some perpetual simplisms
But there are a lot of things that shake down to the really simple, whether you choose to admit that or not. One of the reasons that MY world-view is filled with simple choices is that principles are involved. One choice violates my principles and the other does not -- simple. It's much easier to declare that decisions are too complex and then never make them; no judgement and therefore no responsibility.
I'd argue that many topics come down to simple, binary choices if they're analyzed correctly. Would you want to drive across a bridge built by someone who didn't understand the fundamental (read: simple) nature of mechanics? (Simple: it stands OR it falls) Would you want a doctor who didn't understand the fundamentals of his discipline? (Simple: you live OR you die). At any point in time, these individuals have to exercise judgement and that depends upon simple choices. Let's hope those choices are made using and understanding of principles.
It's amazing, maybe, but the smartest folks I've ever met, throughout my life, thought in terms of principles as well. Most of them are very successful because of it.
>So, basically, what you´re implying is that these people one day woke up, decided to fly a plane in to a building and made up a reason for doing so?
I never said anything about America being right or wrong for financially and militarily supporting Israel. I said that the reason why you´re a target for Muslim extremists is your continued aid to Israel. On top of your continued military presence in other areas of the Middle East.<
There is no valid reason to be a 'target'. We can support any country we please and if there is a disagreement about it, then go to the UN. Muslim extremists are subhuman freaks who need to be extinguished from the face of this Earth.
>I´m sorry but I find it quite naive that you think that a country can do these things and get away with it. Intervention always brings the risk of becoming a target. So don´t moan when someone shoots at the target.<
Do what things? Support an ally? What if we supported the Netherlands if you were targeted by a hostile country-would it be then not OK for terrorists to attack us? They are not shooting at a target-they are purposely attacking innocent civilians-not the military.
>I also never said Muslim extremists are right to fly planes in to buildings nor am I making up excuses. I gave you the reason. Which has nothing to do with your own economy or the way you run your country.
You´re not a target for what you do in your country, you´re a target for what you do in the country of others. Right or wrong.<
What you are doing is rationalizing terrorism, which makes you no better than they are. You have no moral base with which to guide your life. How sad that you can't see this.
>PS. Before you start telling people how hopeless they would be without the U.S I would consider the fact that without European expansionism there would be no U.S<
Without Britain there would be no US-I don't consider Britain to be a part of Europe, and many British feel the same way.
>On top of that, yes a lot of European countries can save on their military because the U.S spends a lot on it. Don´t forget though that during the cold war we were acting as a buffer for the U.S. Do you really think WWIII would have been fought in your country? Central Europe, that´s where. I never saw Europeans going around boasting about that to the U.S.<
Just existing doesn't make you much of a buffer. Continue to sit on your collective asses while the US and Britain do the dirty work...............................
Whenever I am in the states, I make it a point to watch the TV there. I watched several different newsreports and I thought they were of centre-right to right leaning. In Canada, we have the CBC, which is the national public network, that is enough to the left for a mainstream station. All of the others, however, are horrible. They have been bought or merged with the tabloids or right-wing eliteist newspapers. Eg. Global/National Post, CTV/Bell GlobeMedia (Globe and Mail), CITY TV draws direct comparisons witht the Toronto Sun as well.
When I talked about economic strength, I was clearly referring to 2001-2002.
I also think that in Canada, the general view on right v.s left is far different than in the USA. The left is much further to the left and the right is closer to centrist American policies.
On the IMF/World Bank/G8/WTO/NAFTA/FTAA...
Give me some solid examples of how they have helped the economy, protected the rights of the under priveliged, not infringed upon government's law making power, and the list goes on.
NAFTA panels have ruled that a a ban on a particularly harmful pesticide in Canada is not allowable under Chapter 7 of NAFTA and so a decision made by the federal government in the interest of protecting its own citizens was ruled down by a tribunal that is only concerned about business' right to profitabilty! The IMF/World Bank always does more damage than good. Look at the current situation is Jamaica for a good example of how the IMFs policies and horrible economics have destroyed what was once a strong economy. The IMF was also responsible for the South-East Asian recession of 1998. 3rd world debt is also the responsibility of the IMF/World Bank as its interest rates are too exorbitant for any nation to consider. Mozambique cannot afford to pay for education because the money that would go towards public schooling is now being used to pay off huge debt to already rich creditor nations.
And SDW - Don't laugh at the concept of police agitators until you actually attend a protest. I'm serious - even if you don't believe in why you are there, just go so you have some experience in the field. Watch the video shot about the G8 meetings in Genoa - The secret military police was beating the hell out of journalists! And not your "criminal liberal" ones either - I'm talking about ones for stations like CNN, etc. There was a night time raid to carry off protstors who were sleeping in a building where once they were in jail they were:
1) pissed on
2) theatened with rape
3) spat on
4) beaten relentlessly
5) tortured
6) denied basic human rights
These are just ordinary citizens who are expressing their democratic right to protest. This sort of thing has happened in Canada and the United States, so don't go spurting off about how just and free your society is just yet.
<strong>Whenever I am in the states, I make it a point to watch the TV there. I watched several different newsreports and I thought they were of centre-right to right leaning. In Canada, we have the CBC, which is the national public network, that is enough to the left for a mainstream station. All of the others, however, are horrible. They have been bought or merged with the tabloids or right-wing eliteist newspapers. Eg. Global/National Post, CTV/Bell GlobeMedia (Globe and Mail), CITY TV draws direct comparisons witht the Toronto Sun as well.
When I talked about economic strength, I was clearly referring to 2001-2002.
I also think that in Canada, the general view on right v.s left is far different than in the USA. The left is much further to the left and the right is closer to centrist American policies.
On the IMF/World Bank/G8/WTO/NAFTA/FTAA...
Give me some solid examples of how they have helped the economy, protected the rights of the under priveliged, not infringed upon government's law making power, and the list goes on.
NAFTA panels have ruled that a a ban on a particularly harmful pesticide in Canada is not allowable under Chapter 7 of NAFTA and so a decision made by the federal government in the interest of protecting its own citizens was ruled down by a tribunal that is only concerned about business' right to profitabilty! The IMF/World Bank always does more damage than good. Look at the current situation is Jamaica for a good example of how the IMFs policies and horrible economics have destroyed what was once a strong economy. The IMF was also responsible for the South-East Asian recession of 1998. 3rd world debt is also the responsibility of the IMF/World Bank as its interest rates are too exorbitant for any nation to consider. Mozambique cannot afford to pay for education because the money that would go towards public schooling is now being used to pay off huge debt to already rich creditor nations.
And SDW - Don't laugh at the concept of police agitators until you actually attend a protest. I'm serious - even if you don't believe in why you are there, just go so you have some experience in the field. Watch the video shot about the G8 meetings in Genoa - The secret military police was beating the hell out of journalists! And not your "criminal liberal" ones either - I'm talking about ones for stations like CNN, etc. There was a night time raid to carry off protstors who were sleeping in a building where once they were in jail they were:
1) pissed on
2) theatened with rape
3) spat on
4) beaten relentlessly
5) tortured
6) denied basic human rights
These are just ordinary citizens who are expressing their democratic right to protest. This sort of thing has happened in Canada and the United States, so don't go spurting off about how just and free your society is just yet.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are hopeless. That entire post is hopeless.
And Pflam: You are less hopeless, but much more boring. Sometimes things ARE simple.
Oh, and I never said that everyone should want to live here. Never.
This is steering off topic, but the right to secede was guaranteed in the constitution. The South had the right to Succeed.
The North acted illegally. Check your history books.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Article One, Section Ten of the US constitution reads:
"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;...."
Clearly the South violated this clause by forming the confederacy.
Later, the section reads:
"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay"
Again, the South clearly violated this part of the clause by entering into a compact with other states.
In any case, I assume we agree the war was generally over the states right to secede. The war did, in fact, settle this point, by force.
Oh, could you show me where the constitution guarantees the right to secede?
[quote] You are hopeless. That entire post is hopeless. <hr></blockquote>
Could you please explain to me why I am so?
See, I haven't resorted to personal attacks because I think we should be able to have a reasonable discussion like regular people. You, however, seem to attack me personally ant my opinions. You never actually gave me some solid evidence against my case - attacking me works just as well right?
You do not have a right to be discussing this sensitive topic since you seems to base all of your opinions of sterotypes and generalizations and when someone can prove you wrong you resort to personal attacks. So please, shut the FUC.K up.
Comments
<strong>
Exactly. Democrats know that people wouldn't help the less-fortunate if not for their social programs such as welfare, social security, and medicare. THIS is where conservative allure lies- the ability to look out for only one's self rather than one's poor neighbor. Money- basically.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok, here's where our difference lies. I don't think there is anything wrong with caring about myself and telling someone else to "get a job." You feel a responsability for all people that you are not required to feel. And I respect people that think like that but I will never be one of them.
<strong>
Ok, here's where our difference lies. I don't think there is anything wrong with caring about myself and telling someone else to "get a job." You feel a responsability for all people that you are not required to feel. And I respect people that think like that but I will never be one of them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Fair Enough.
<strong>The US is a great country to live in but it is not perfect. there is a lot of problems like the ones you mentioned but you cannot compare it to a small country like the netherlands.
US population: 278,212,552
Netherlands population: 15,983,682
The US has 17 times the population to contend with.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The U.S is also far bigger than the Netherlands which leaves it with more room for industry. It has more natural resources as well.
Anyway, I said percentagewise. Percentages have nothing to do with the size of the population.
<strong>macvasco(xander?):
>
If you want to know the reason for extremists flying planes in to your buildings. Look no further than your continued aid to Israel.<
The reason for the extremists flying planes into our buildings is because they are freaks. Subhuman freaks who tried as hard as they could to make sure thousands of innocent men, women, and children(many of whom weren't American) as possible would die a horrible death. There are other ways to disagree with a country's foreign policy. I am Jewish, and I don't agree with France's anti-Israeli policies, so I'm going to go over there and exterminate a few hundred civilians. How about Germany? Maybe the Netherlands? Now, would that seem like a rational response to Europe's policies? No, didn't think so. But you go right on rationalizing Arabs killing Americans. Go right ahead. Listen here-some day the cavalry may stop coming over to save the day. Some day we may just say the hell with it and to go fight your own battles. We spend billions on defense not only to save our necks but the necks of our 'friends' as well. Israel is a better and more faithful ally than any European country other than Britain. Go ahead-stay in your nice, secure country without having to spend billions on your own defense. You KNOW we are there if trouble should occur. You KNOW we would be the first country to call upon when Europe freezes in inaction and confusion. We are the glue that holds the democracies together because even though you protest in the streets against some of our policies, even though you fear our willingness to use military might, you KNOW we are the one country the world trusts to try to do the right thing.
And one last thing, even though I would think you would know this if you read any newspapers at all-Bin Laden ordered the terrorist attack because the US has military bases in Saudi Arabia, NOT because of Israel. And why shouldn't we continue to give aid to Israel? They are an ally, they are our friend, and even though we don't agree with everything their government does-name one country where we agree 100% with what they do. Do we stop giving aid to any of them? Of course not-Israel isn't our 51st State-they will do what they feel is in their best interests, just like any other country. When you're friends with America, you've got a friend for life.............................................. ......</strong><hr></blockquote>
So, basically, what you´re implying is that these people one day woke up, decided to fly a plane in to a building and made up a reason for doing so?
I never said anything about America being right or wrong for financially and militarily supporting Israel. I said that the reason why you´re a target for Muslim extremists is your continued aid to Israel. On top of your continued military presence in other areas of the Middle East.
I´m sorry but I find it quite naive that you think that a country can do these things and get away with it. Intervention always brings the risk of becoming a target. So don´t moan when someone shoots at the target.
I also never said Muslim extremists are right to fly planes in to buildings nor am I making up excuses. I gave you the reason. Which has nothing to do with your own economy or the way you run your country.
You´re not a target for what you do in your country, you´re a target for what you do in the country of others. Right or wrong.
PS. Before you start telling people how hopeless they would be without the U.S I would consider the fact that without European expansionism there would be no U.S
On top of that, yes a lot of European countries can save on their military because the U.S spends a lot on it. Don´t forget though that during the cold war we were acting as a buffer for the U.S. Do you really think WWIII would have been fought in your country? Central Europe, that´s where. I never saw Europeans going around boasting about that to the U.S.
[ 06-04-2002: Message edited by: macvasco ]</p>
<strong>
1. Who the hell is talking about your country? I am talking about nations that have oppresive military regimes without any personal or religious freedoms. I did say I think we are the "best" nation. I stand firm on that. There is no other place in the world I'd rather live. That's just my opinion.
2. I do love democracy, freedom of speech, New York, the grand canyon, etc. That IS WHY I love America.
3. I never said you should lose your national pride. Not once.
4. The Israel comment was absurd. No one has a right to hijack a jetliner and plunge it into a building. I don't care what the reason is.
If you had made that comment to my face, I would seriously consider punching you in the mouth.
5.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trust me, the general population of the world does not hate or envy your country.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----Wrong. Europe might not. Islamic extremeists and those under their influence might not. But, tell me: Why do MILLIONS of Mexicans, Cubans, and other ethnic groups risk their lives trying to get here each year? Why was there mass immigration to the US in the late 1800's and early 1900's? Answer: Because those people knew there may be a better life here, or at least a chance for it. Also, tell me why Boris Yeltsin, on his first trip to the US, walked into a supermarket, saw all the glistening produce and aisles of food, and almost fell to his knees....crying out "what have they done to mother Russia"? Tell me he didn't envy the US and I'll eat my hat. And tell me there aren't a bunch of entire nations out there that truly, deeply hate America and its power and I'll eat another.
Finally,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think the U.S should be more like the Netherlands in it´s policies regarding these issues?[
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps....it depends on the policy.
Perhaps....it depends on the policy.
[ 06-03-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
ad1. Exactly. When you say you are the best nation it does involve my country as well.
ad2. Well done, now that´s patriotic.
ad3. You said that maybe other countries should try it your way. That reeks, nay stinks, of arrogance. Maybe you should not make comments like that.
ad4. Like I said just now, I never said I agree with the reason. It is the reason. That´s a fact.
You´re punching in the face comment just shows that your anger keeps you from having a discussion on a high level. You should be able to defend your convictions without having to resort to violence. Just like the Arabs and the Israelis should. (I admit that sounds a bit belittling but I´ll stand by it)
ad5. There is mass imigration to the Netherlands, Germany and other countries as well. So how are you the best? How are you better than these other countries that have exactly the same?
By the way, I really don´t find someone else´s misfortune something you should pride yourself for not having.
I will tell you once again that there are no nations or entire countries that hate the U.S. There may be governments/regimes that do and there are individuals that do. But not for it´s might and money. For the way it uses that might against these countries and for the way it doesn´t share that wealth with everyone.
Would you like fries with that hat?
<strong>
ad1. Exactly. When you say you are the best nation it does involve my country as well.
ad2. Well done, now that´s patriotic.
ad3. You said that maybe other countries should try it your way. That reeks, nay stinks, of arrogance. Maybe you should not make comments like that.
ad4. Like I said just now, I never said I agree with the reason. It is the reason. That´s a fact.
You´re punching in the face comment just shows that your anger keeps you from having a discussion on a high level. You should be able to defend your convictions without having to resort to violence. Just like the Arabs and the Israelis should. (I admit that sounds a bit belittling but I´ll stand by it)
ad5. There is mass imigration to the Netherlands, Germany and other countries as well. So how are you the best? How are you better than these other countries that have exactly the same?
By the way, I really don´t find someone else´s misfortune something you should pride yourself for not having.
I will tell you once again that there are no nations or entire countries that hate the U.S. There may be governments/regimes that do and there are individuals that do. But not for it´s might and money. For the way it uses that might against these countries and for the way it doesn´t share that wealth with everyone.
Would you like fries with that hat?</strong><hr></blockquote>
1. Sorry you take offense to my "best" nation comment. That is just the way I feel.
2. OK....
3. What's wrong with suggesting that other countries try it our way? It has to be better than what some of them are doing now. Don't you think? I didn't say "try it Great Britain's way", because we truly were the first modern democracy. It wasn't our idea, but we are the first modern implementation of it. That's why I said "our way". Believe it or not, the Dutch, French, British, etc were not the first modern democracies.
4. Fair enough.
5. Unlike some, my anger makes me more committed to winning an argument. I don't apologize for feeling that strongly. Anyone who says things like "you can't expect to get away with it" just shows the huge anti-semitic undercurrent present in the world. How dare we support a democracy surrounded by nations that truly DO hate it? (I assume even you agree that Israel is surrounded by nations that hate it). Can't get away with it? What is there to get away with? And I have a right to be pissed off about 3,000 Americans being murdered in cold blood.
6. We disagree about the hatred and/or envy of the US. Perhaps less envy than hatred......what do you base your assertion on? You are honestly telling me some governments don't envy and/or hate the US for their power and might? Give me a break.
7. Share the wealth? . This is truly the most unreasonable, ultra-liberal thing you have said. We are the single largest provider of foreign aid in the world.
And don't get me started on "share the wealth". The reasons I am conservative are pretty simple: I believe in limited government, local control, lower taxes, that religion DOES have some place in public places, that lowering taxes on corporations, to an extent, DOES help the overall economy, that lower taxes eventually create more revenue and growth, that some types of abortion are murder, and that there is a clear difference in most cases between right and wrong. I also don't subscribe to affirmative action, more social programs and so forth.
It is my belief that liberalism doesn't work; especially extreme liberalism (though obviously extreme conservatism, i.e. facisim, doesn't either). Every great "share the wealth" program in history has failed. The Great Society was a distaster. The only successful liberal programs came out of the Great Depression, and that was a very different time.
And please folks, don't paint conservatism as a "me" concept. I supoort it because I truly believe it works better. I give to charity, support a child through Christian Children's Fund, and try to help others. But, I don't believe I should pay 50-60% of my income to a government agency, which is what I do now by the time I'm done. And I truly believe that too many social programs create sloth, and that "rewarding failure and punishing success" creates more failure.
[ 06-04-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]
[ 06-04-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
"The US has the largest and most technologically powerful economy in the world, with a per capita GDP of $36,200."
"GDP
GDP - real growth rate
GDP - per capita
Canada:
" Real rates of growth have averaged nearly 3.0% since 1993"
GDP
GDP - real growth rate
GDP - per capita
Though Canada is certainly smaller population-wise and does have a highly advanced economy. This kind of ends the debate on this point, no?
<strong>The goverment of the United States of America, like any other ?offical? goverments in the world, are merely just puppets controlled by the same puppeter.
This puppeter, created, divided, and ended a goverment as he wish.
Puppets are played to fight against other puppets, and in the same time some puppets are played to make peace with other puppets.
People who aren't in the know, thought that the puppets are acting on their own.
Imagine a puppet beat you up regulary, at some point, you will harbor an animosity toward the puppet. But unknown to you, the puppet is merely just controlled by the puppeter. Even if you destroyed the puppet, the puppeter will just use another puppet to fool you, and even worse, you too can be played by the puppeter like a puppet.
Folks... Our true enemy is currently hiding and using puppets so that we will fight against each other.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is my third day resisting to comment on this puppetry.
If we were to puppeting puppet this puppetry, then the whole puppetry will be so puppeted!
That is not to mention that puppetation these days is so puppetaited that you can not puppeting puppetically puppet a puppet from a puppet! I can not inpuppet such dispuppeted depuppetation based on the fact that there is no puppetess. Now how can you puppet a puppet by a puppeter without a puppeting puppetess?
<strong>We are the single largest provider of foreign aid in the world. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Woopedidooo.
US: $6.9 billion out of $9.963 trillion (GDP) = 0,07%. Population 278,058,881
Denmark: $1.63 billion out of $136.2 billion (GDP) = 1,2% (last year it was actually 1,9%). Population 5,352,815
Norway: $1.4 billion out of $124.1 billion (GDP) = 1,1%. Population 4,503,440
Nederlands: $3.5 billion out of $388.4 billion (GDP) = 0,9%. Population 15,981,472
Sweden: $1.7 billion out of $197 billion (GDP) = 0,8%. Population 8,875,053
Before we add the 2% to the Denmarks numbers for "East-Help" (for enviromental purposes in former eastern europe) and before we substract US help to Israel this is what we get
Denmark-Norway-Sweden-Nederlands:
$8.23 billion in foreign aid out of a GDP of $845.7 billion equals 0.97% of a population of 34.712.780
US
$6.9 billion in foreign aid out of a GDP of $9.963 trillion equals = 0,07%. of a population of 278,058,881
In other words: You (US) are eight times more people making almost 12 times as much but are giving 16% less than we are.
<strong>
Woopedidooo.
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> you're great.
About stronger growth? For 2000. yogisfunhouse is obviously dead wrong about the overall strength of the economies and I doubt that Canada surpasses the US in growth through history, either. Canada has always had a more conservative economy than the US.
of course you want to remain in America... you are American. Just be assured that most people from other countries feel the way you do... meaning that they too want you to remain in America
and [quote] What's wrong with suggesting that other countries try it our way? <hr></blockquote>
what's wrong is not necessarily that democracy wouldn't be good where it doesn't exist, what's wrong is the simplistic attitude that is an idealistically ignorant excuse for pushing our way of life onto others and saying that we are right. One person's diet might make another person sick.
Its especially exhibited by the attitude of "best" . . . what the hell does that mean . . the "best"? Its as if we are fans of some high school football game rooting for the school colors.
And the real appeal of conservatism is that it is, in most aspects, simplistic. It renders all the worlds complexities to simple slogans such as "free trade" (as if the American (world bank, IMF) crow-bar actions to the world's markets were ever "free" of coercion <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> ) Conservatism, as a self-identity, is grasped onto because it pretends that all the details don't exist... they all dissapear under the blinding light of "common sense". A common sense that is really just a scant and cursory missreading of real historical complexities... if any historical understanding exists at all(SDW)) Conservatism believes in the "literal reading is all that is needed" approach... which simplifies by denying the complexity of multiple perspectives in a very complex world.
or to quote you SDW
[quote] The reasons I am conservative are pretty simple <hr></blockquote>..shouldn't it read simplistic.
and the worst simplification on the part of self-described conservatives is the way they characterize liberals . .. .
(don't get me wrong, self-described liberals also sinplify as a matter of course . .. .)
also of note for its stupidity, is the whole idea that a huge corporate industry, which thrives on the advertizing money from the other richest of corporations would not be for its own interests.. interests: which are to maximize their profits ; in other words, the media is by no means "liberal" unless by that you mean that they are mainstream . . . .
which is silly to equate mainstream with anything left . . ..
in the eighties, the right moved the parameters of the debate so far to the right that what is now called liberal by the frothy mouthed masses was once considered squarely conservative . . . this has closed down perceptual options for many people now the options are completely defined by the pundits, meaning: the cadre of conservative celebrity hosts, Limbaugh et al . . . who are just the tip of the corporate media, and who pretend to be up against some none existent "liberal media"
Anyway, the media is what it is . . . a corporate phenomena whose content is conditioned by the need to make money . . . meaningthat its content (other than advertizing) tries to appeal to the largest proportion of viewers... the lowest common denominator (which is why Limbaugh was so popular) meaning it too simplifies in order to sell.
But the real message of the medium of television isn't the content of any of the shows on TV but is rather two things:
1. advertizing itself: meaning... not just the content of adds but the constant exposure of individuals to the implied imparative of "BUY THIS NOW" after all the ratio of time for ads versus televisions shows is almost one -one.
and
2. (as the Canadian McLuhan stated) the message is the media itself. meaning that the impact of TV is not so much its content but how it changes audience's perceptions of space and time and the world of objects. This takes place because TV errases space and conditions our perceptions of time
(consider the rise of technology and how it is not only changing the west, which has gone through industrialism and post industrialism and had its cataclismic reactions to these changes (WW1 and WW2)but is simultaneously changing the mid-east, which is at the same time as feeling electronic technological change but also going through its versions of industrial and post-industrial change . . . . no wonder its in such turmoil . . . we had WWars to deal with the shock... what will they do?)
Anyway, I hate to bring this discussion into the continual Right-vs-left debate which is so trite, and predescribed for us ... but I had to point out some perpetual simplisms
.
[ 06-04-2002: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
One thing in the history of the world has always lead to another. Saying one country is responsible for how things have turned out is just monumentally STUPID.
Humans really need to get with the program if they are going to survive. We aren't just americans, canadians, british, or french. We are more importantly from this world. You know, the only place we can live on for now.
When you go back to this " we're better than you " crap you harken back to a time when men stood on the battle field and beat their sheilds with their swords to intimidate the other tribe.
What's wrong with this incredibly primative way of thinking is that we aren't there in those times any more. That kind of thinking can ( now ) only lead to our own self destruction. We are human beings first.
I can see if there are aliens out there capable of coming here they would also be capable of observing us. We can't even live together like adults on our own little planet. Why would they want to have anything to do with us?
For those dunderheads who might want to make fun of this because I used aliens as an example......it's just a way to present an objective viewpoint.
You can sit back and say the worlds ills are because of this group or that. What you have presented here in microcosm is a very accurate picture of what's really wrong. It's us. We really need to do something about that.
[ 06-04-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
This is steering off topic, but the right to secede was guaranteed in the constitution. The South had the right to Succeed.
The North acted illegally. Check your history books.
<strong>SDW..
of course you want to remain in America... you are American. Just be assured that most people from other countries feel the way you do... meaning that they too want you to remain in America
and ..shouldn't it read simplistic.
and the worst simplification on the part of self-described conservatives is the way they characterize liberals . .. .
(don't get me wrong, self-described liberals also sinplify as a matter of course . .. .)
also of note for its stupidity, is the whole idea that a huge corporate industry, which thrives on the advertizing money from the other richest of corporations would not be for its own interests.. interests: which are to maximize their profits ; in other words, the media is by no means "liberal" unless by that you mean that they are mainstream . . . .
which is silly to equate mainstream with anything left . . ..
in the eighties, the right moved the parameters of the debate so far to the right that what is now called liberal by the frothy mouthed masses was once considered squarely conservative . . . this has closed down perceptual options for many people now the options are completely defined by the pundits, meaning: the cadre of conservative celebrity hosts, Limbaugh et al . . . who are just the tip of the corporate media, and who pretend to be up against some none existent "liberal media"
Anyway, the media is what it is . . . a corporate phenomena whose content is conditioned by the need to make money . . . meaningthat its content (other than advertizing) tries to appeal to the largest proportion of viewers... the lowest common denominator (which is why Limbaugh was so popular) meaning it too simplifies in order to sell.
But the real message of the medium of television isn't the content of any of the shows on TV but is rather two things:
1. advertizing itself: meaning... not just the content of adds but the constant exposure of individuals to the implied imparative of "BUY THIS NOW" after all the ratio of time for ads versus televisions shows is almost one -one.
and
2. (as the Canadian McLuhan stated) the message is the media itself. meaning that the impact of TV is not so much its content but how it changes audience's perceptions of space and time and the world of objects. This takes place because TV errases space and conditions our perceptions of time
(consider the rise of technology and how it is not only changing the west, which has gone through industrialism and post industrialism and had its cataclismic reactions to these changes (WW1 and WW2)but is simultaneously changing the mid-east, which is at the same time as feeling electronic technological change but also going through its versions of industrial and post-industrial change . . . . no wonder its in such turmoil . . . we had WWars to deal with the shock... what will they do?)
Anyway, I hate to bring this discussion into the continual Right-vs-left debate which is so trite, and predescribed for us ... but I had to point out some perpetual simplisms
.
[ 06-04-2002: Message edited by: pfflam ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
But there are a lot of things that shake down to the really simple, whether you choose to admit that or not. One of the reasons that MY world-view is filled with simple choices is that principles are involved. One choice violates my principles and the other does not -- simple. It's much easier to declare that decisions are too complex and then never make them; no judgement and therefore no responsibility.
I'd argue that many topics come down to simple, binary choices if they're analyzed correctly. Would you want to drive across a bridge built by someone who didn't understand the fundamental (read: simple) nature of mechanics? (Simple: it stands OR it falls) Would you want a doctor who didn't understand the fundamentals of his discipline? (Simple: you live OR you die). At any point in time, these individuals have to exercise judgement and that depends upon simple choices. Let's hope those choices are made using and understanding of principles.
It's amazing, maybe, but the smartest folks I've ever met, throughout my life, thought in terms of principles as well. Most of them are very successful because of it.
[ 06-04-2002: Message edited by: finboy ]</p>
>So, basically, what you´re implying is that these people one day woke up, decided to fly a plane in to a building and made up a reason for doing so?
I never said anything about America being right or wrong for financially and militarily supporting Israel. I said that the reason why you´re a target for Muslim extremists is your continued aid to Israel. On top of your continued military presence in other areas of the Middle East.<
There is no valid reason to be a 'target'. We can support any country we please and if there is a disagreement about it, then go to the UN. Muslim extremists are subhuman freaks who need to be extinguished from the face of this Earth.
>I´m sorry but I find it quite naive that you think that a country can do these things and get away with it. Intervention always brings the risk of becoming a target. So don´t moan when someone shoots at the target.<
Do what things? Support an ally? What if we supported the Netherlands if you were targeted by a hostile country-would it be then not OK for terrorists to attack us? They are not shooting at a target-they are purposely attacking innocent civilians-not the military.
>I also never said Muslim extremists are right to fly planes in to buildings nor am I making up excuses. I gave you the reason. Which has nothing to do with your own economy or the way you run your country.
You´re not a target for what you do in your country, you´re a target for what you do in the country of others. Right or wrong.<
What you are doing is rationalizing terrorism, which makes you no better than they are. You have no moral base with which to guide your life. How sad that you can't see this.
>PS. Before you start telling people how hopeless they would be without the U.S I would consider the fact that without European expansionism there would be no U.S<
Without Britain there would be no US-I don't consider Britain to be a part of Europe, and many British feel the same way.
>On top of that, yes a lot of European countries can save on their military because the U.S spends a lot on it. Don´t forget though that during the cold war we were acting as a buffer for the U.S. Do you really think WWIII would have been fought in your country? Central Europe, that´s where. I never saw Europeans going around boasting about that to the U.S.<
Just existing doesn't make you much of a buffer. Continue to sit on your collective asses while the US and Britain do the dirty work...............................
When I talked about economic strength, I was clearly referring to 2001-2002.
I also think that in Canada, the general view on right v.s left is far different than in the USA. The left is much further to the left and the right is closer to centrist American policies.
On the IMF/World Bank/G8/WTO/NAFTA/FTAA...
Give me some solid examples of how they have helped the economy, protected the rights of the under priveliged, not infringed upon government's law making power, and the list goes on.
NAFTA panels have ruled that a a ban on a particularly harmful pesticide in Canada is not allowable under Chapter 7 of NAFTA and so a decision made by the federal government in the interest of protecting its own citizens was ruled down by a tribunal that is only concerned about business' right to profitabilty! The IMF/World Bank always does more damage than good. Look at the current situation is Jamaica for a good example of how the IMFs policies and horrible economics have destroyed what was once a strong economy. The IMF was also responsible for the South-East Asian recession of 1998. 3rd world debt is also the responsibility of the IMF/World Bank as its interest rates are too exorbitant for any nation to consider. Mozambique cannot afford to pay for education because the money that would go towards public schooling is now being used to pay off huge debt to already rich creditor nations.
And SDW - Don't laugh at the concept of police agitators until you actually attend a protest. I'm serious - even if you don't believe in why you are there, just go so you have some experience in the field. Watch the video shot about the G8 meetings in Genoa - The secret military police was beating the hell out of journalists! And not your "criminal liberal" ones either - I'm talking about ones for stations like CNN, etc. There was a night time raid to carry off protstors who were sleeping in a building where once they were in jail they were:
1) pissed on
2) theatened with rape
3) spat on
4) beaten relentlessly
5) tortured
6) denied basic human rights
These are just ordinary citizens who are expressing their democratic right to protest. This sort of thing has happened in Canada and the United States, so don't go spurting off about how just and free your society is just yet.
<strong>Whenever I am in the states, I make it a point to watch the TV there. I watched several different newsreports and I thought they were of centre-right to right leaning. In Canada, we have the CBC, which is the national public network, that is enough to the left for a mainstream station. All of the others, however, are horrible. They have been bought or merged with the tabloids or right-wing eliteist newspapers. Eg. Global/National Post, CTV/Bell GlobeMedia (Globe and Mail), CITY TV draws direct comparisons witht the Toronto Sun as well.
When I talked about economic strength, I was clearly referring to 2001-2002.
I also think that in Canada, the general view on right v.s left is far different than in the USA. The left is much further to the left and the right is closer to centrist American policies.
On the IMF/World Bank/G8/WTO/NAFTA/FTAA...
Give me some solid examples of how they have helped the economy, protected the rights of the under priveliged, not infringed upon government's law making power, and the list goes on.
NAFTA panels have ruled that a a ban on a particularly harmful pesticide in Canada is not allowable under Chapter 7 of NAFTA and so a decision made by the federal government in the interest of protecting its own citizens was ruled down by a tribunal that is only concerned about business' right to profitabilty! The IMF/World Bank always does more damage than good. Look at the current situation is Jamaica for a good example of how the IMFs policies and horrible economics have destroyed what was once a strong economy. The IMF was also responsible for the South-East Asian recession of 1998. 3rd world debt is also the responsibility of the IMF/World Bank as its interest rates are too exorbitant for any nation to consider. Mozambique cannot afford to pay for education because the money that would go towards public schooling is now being used to pay off huge debt to already rich creditor nations.
And SDW - Don't laugh at the concept of police agitators until you actually attend a protest. I'm serious - even if you don't believe in why you are there, just go so you have some experience in the field. Watch the video shot about the G8 meetings in Genoa - The secret military police was beating the hell out of journalists! And not your "criminal liberal" ones either - I'm talking about ones for stations like CNN, etc. There was a night time raid to carry off protstors who were sleeping in a building where once they were in jail they were:
1) pissed on
2) theatened with rape
3) spat on
4) beaten relentlessly
5) tortured
6) denied basic human rights
These are just ordinary citizens who are expressing their democratic right to protest. This sort of thing has happened in Canada and the United States, so don't go spurting off about how just and free your society is just yet.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are hopeless. That entire post is hopeless.
And Pflam: You are less hopeless, but much more boring. Sometimes things ARE simple.
Oh, and I never said that everyone should want to live here. Never.
<strong>
This is steering off topic, but the right to secede was guaranteed in the constitution. The South had the right to Succeed.
The North acted illegally. Check your history books.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Article One, Section Ten of the US constitution reads:
"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;...."
Clearly the South violated this clause by forming the confederacy.
Later, the section reads:
"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay"
Again, the South clearly violated this part of the clause by entering into a compact with other states.
In any case, I assume we agree the war was generally over the states right to secede. The war did, in fact, settle this point, by force.
Oh, could you show me where the constitution guarantees the right to secede?
And its S-E-C-E-D-E....not, S-U-C-C-E-D-E.
Class dismissed.
[ 06-04-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
Could you please explain to me why I am so?
See, I haven't resorted to personal attacks because I think we should be able to have a reasonable discussion like regular people. You, however, seem to attack me personally ant my opinions. You never actually gave me some solid evidence against my case - attacking me works just as well right?
You do not have a right to be discussing this sensitive topic since you seems to base all of your opinions of sterotypes and generalizations and when someone can prove you wrong you resort to personal attacks. So please, shut the FUC.K up.