Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Presidential Debate-Official and Unofficial

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Presidential Debate-Official and Unofficial

    Food for thought

    Compiled by the Small Planet Institute, created by Frances Moore Lapp.

    Additional info available from:

    http://www.udecide.org

    SNAPSHOT OF OUR LAST FOUR YEARS
    RESULTS OF WAR
    We've spent $151 billion on the war in Iraq - 3 times the original estimate. We've found no weapons of mass destruction and no link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda terrorists. The war has killed over 1,000 Americans and 16,000 - mostly civilian Iraqis. It diverted us from capturing the 9/11 mastermind Osama Bin Laden and has actually "accelerated recruitment" of his terrorist network. The war was declared illegal by the head of the U.N. and has turned many allies against us.

    JOBS AND THE ECONOMY
    We've lost 1 million jobs since President Bush took office, - the only administration to see a net loss since the 1930 s Depression. Home foreclosures jumped 50%, and 4 million Americans sank into poverty. But this administration has reduced the occupations eligible for overtime pay and proposed allowing states to opt out of the Federal minimum wage of $5.15.

    HEALTH CARE ACCESS
    6.3 million fewer people are insured than when Bush took office. Drug prices have risen nearly 3 times faster than inflation.
    But this administration passed a law barring Medicare from negotiating lower prices from drug corporations.

    ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
    Bush's Clear Skies Act would repeal key parts of the Clean Air Act and allow more pollution from coal-fired plants.

    HOMELAND SECURITY
    The Bush administration has proposed cutting funds for firefighters and first responders, and cutting funding for police in half.

    FINANCIAL STABILITY
    President Bush turned a $236 billion annual surplus into a $520 billion deficit - creating the largest national debt in history - by cutting taxes for the wealthy. The interest on this debt costs more than the combined budgets of homeland security, education, transportation, justice and environment.

    WAR IN IRAQ

    NO WMD FOUND
    President Bush took us to war based on an imminent threat from Saddam Hussein s weapons of mass destruction. None were found.

    IRAQ NOT INVOLVED IN 9/11
    The 9/11 Commission found that Iraq had no role in the 9/11 attacks and no relationship with Al Qaeda. Yet, as early as the day after 9/11, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld urged President Bush to bomb Iraq - against the advice of his counterterrorism officials.

    SPAWNING MORE TERRORISTS
    A military think tank found that the Iraq War "accelerated recruitment" for Al Qaeda - an estimated 18,000 active members are now part of this terrorist network.

    DIVERSION FROM OSAMA BIN LADEN
    After only 4 months searching for Osama bin Laden -- reports General Tommy Franks -- President Bush pulled crucial resources out of Afghanistan to prepare for the Iraq war. That was 8 months before the Senate had approved the war on Iraq.
    The CIA has fewer experienced case officers in its headquarters unit assigned to capturing Osama bin Laden than before 9/11.
    The Bush administration put Pakistan in charge of finding Osama bin Laden, even though its military is known to have members sympathetic to his radical Islamist agenda.

    JOBS AND ECONOMY

    LOST JOBS -- A FIRST FOR ANY PRESIDENT IN 60 YEARS
    We've lost nearly a million jobs, making Bush's administration the first since the 1930s to lose rather than gain jobs.
    Bush promised his 2003 tax cuts would create jobs, but they have produced 2.7 million fewer jobs than his administration had predicted - not enough to keep up with new people entering the work force each month.

    FULL-TIMERS SETTLE FOR PART-TIME WORK
    On Bush's watch, the number of Americans who say they are working part-time because they can't find full-time jobs has increased 35%.
    The largest increase for any president on record.

    MANUFACTURING WORKERS HIT HARDEST
    Between 2001 and 2003, almost 1 in 10 manufacturing workers were laid-off from a job they had held for at least 3 years.
    By the beginning of 2004, 33% of displaced manufacturing workers had still not returned to work; and when they did, 73% of them had to take a pay cut

    RECOVERY HELPS CORPORATE PROFITS
    Of the economic gains in the last 3 years, only 15% has gone to wages and salaries, the smallest share in 50 years. 47% has gone to corporate profits, more than in any period since World War II.

    RECORD TRADE DEFICIT MAKES US DEPENDENT
    Under President Bush the U.S. has experienced the largest trade deficit in history, making us dependent on foreign countries, especially China and Japan. They loan the United States 87% of the dollars needed to cover the gap between what we import and export.

    HEALTH

    MORE AMERICANS LACK ACCESS
    6.3 million fewer people are insured than when Bush took office - now 45 million. About 1 in 3 under age 65 lacked insurance for some time in 2002-2003. We're the only industrialized country failing to cover all its citizens.

    SPENDING ON HEALTH CARE SOARS
    Under Bush, health care spending climbed 4 times faster than inflation. America spends far more per person on health care than any other nation, yet our medical system ranks 37th.
    Citizens of 23 countries live longer on average than Americans.

    HEALTH CARE PREMIUMS RISE SHARPLY
    Under Bush's watch, health insurance premiums have risen to their highest rate in 13 years.

    PRESCRIPTION DRUG PRICES CONTINUE TO RISE
    Drug prices have risen nearly 3 times faster than inflation under Bush, but his Medicare plan bars the government from negotiating lower prices with drug companies.
    The result? $139 billion in new profits for drug companies over the next 8 years.

    RECORD MEDICARE PREMIUM INCREASE
    Medicare health insurance premiums will rise by 17.5% in 2005. The largest Medicare premium increase in history.

    POOREST ELDERLY LOSE IMPORTANT COVERAGE
    Bush's new Medicare legislation strips the poorest 6 million elderly Americans of eligibility for joint coverage by Medicare and Medicaid.

    ENVIRONMENT

    DIRTIER, TOXIC WATER
    Bush's appointees changed the Clean Water Act so it no longer applies to up to 60% of our rivers, lakes and streams - permitting industries to pollute these waterways.

    CITIZENS NOW PAY FOR CLEAN-UP
    The Bush administration has shifted the environmental clean-up burden from the polluter to the taxpayer. One in 4 Americans lives within 4 miles of a toxic "Superfund" site. In 1995, taxpayers paid 18% of the cost to clean up toxic waste sites - now we pay all of the cost.

    VULNERABLE TO OIL PRICE HIKES
    Bush's energy plan ignores renewable energy - instead giving over $40 billion in tax credits and subsidies to coal, oil and nuclear corporations. The administration let auto fuel efficiency sink to a 22 yr. low. Yet, scientists predict that within 16 years we'll hit "The Big Rollover" - when demand for oil outstrips capacity, leading to massive, permanent price hikes.

    GLOBAL WARMING
    Global warming is a greater threat than terrorism, says the Pentagon. In his 2000 campaign, Bush called for regulating carbon dioxide, the main cause of global warming. But he refused to set limits on this greenhouse gas and pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol, a global-warming prevention treaty signed by 155 countries.

    DEBT IS GETTING WORSE
    Bush turned a $236 billion annual budget surplus into a $422 billion deficit. When he took office the nation's total debt was $5.6 trillion and declining, but Bush has increased it by over 30% -- $1.7 trillion.
    More than any president in history.

    INTEREST PAYMENTS SOARING
    At current rates, by 2009 our government will spend more on interest on debt than on all domestic discretionary programs combined.
    As it is, paying interest on the debt costs us more than homeland security, education, transportation, justice and environment budgets combined.

    TAX CUTS
    Bush's tax cuts resulted in $166 billion less revenue in 2003 or about 44% of our deficit. In 2000, 63% of the nation's corporations paid no federal taxes at all -- yet Bush wants to give companies an additional $119 billion in tax cuts.

    EDUCATION

    SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT GAP GROWS
    Under Bush, the U.S. has continued to fall behind other industrial nations in academic performance. Our high school graduation rate is lower than in countries like France, Germany and Japan.

    BROKEN PROMISE FOR "NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND" ACT
    Bush said the No Child Left Behind Act was designed to close this achievement gap, yet in 2004 his budget provided $9 billion less for the Act than Congress authorized. Bush has never met the level of funding authorized to implement his key education Act.

    SCHOOLS REJECT DEMANDS NOT BACKED WITH FUNDS
    Underfunding the No Child Left Behind Act means that many schools are unable to meet the Act's strict requirements. In Reading, Pennsylvania, the school board has sued the state and federal governments, saying the Act has created an unfair financial burden on the schools.

    NO HELP FOR SOARING COLLEGE COSTS
    College tuition and fees have risen 35% since Bush took office, yet the administration has refused to provide funding that would allow more students to attend college. For 3 straight years, Bush has broken his campaign promise to increase the federal student Pell Grant maximum to $5,100 a year.

    NEW LIMITS ON EARLY EDUCATION
    The country's biggest early education program, Head Start, has proven to help poor children succeed. Yet Bush plans to freeze Head Start enrollment, preventing 40% of children now eligible for Head Start from benefiting from the program.

    http://paradigm.motime.com

  • #2
    food for thought

    Just a small note here...

    The problem of these facts is that everyone who is against Bush already know them.
    Those who support Bush will reject them as propaganda and point out the positive sides of his four years.

    Whatever these positives sides are...

    Comment


    • #3
      Saw the debate last night. I am very sorry, I know I should be respectful of your President, but what a clueless wanker he is. Even if I would be a Republican in America I'd be ashamed of him.

      If Kerry doesn't win points for style alone I don't know how he'll ever get them. I know it's not a guarantee for anything of course, but Kerry is much more the presidential candidate then Bush. More eloquent, typical senatorial material.
      I doubt if he'd do half the things he says he's going to do if he's elected president but it still beats Mr. Conflicts of Interest...

      What was especially revealing was the ability of the two to discuss subjects without looking at their notes all the time. I like to see how candidates hold up when there is no safetynet in the form of prepared texts. I don't know about you people, but I had the distinct impression that Bush was instructed not to stray from the subject too much so he could fall back on his whachamacallit(spiekbriefjes!), post-it notes with keywords. That would have been smart but it definitely limited him when Kerry went soaring off every now and then. Just like any foreign leader could do in direct talks...

      I had hoped for more surprises, both from Bush and from Kerry. You know; a surprisingly cleverly placed remark that confuses the opponent to no end, that sort of thing. Didn't see that last night. Perhaps next time?

      Still, it beats watching reruns of "I dream of Jeannie"...
      Last edited by Towelmaster; 10-01-2004, 02:19 AM.
      "En wat als tijd de helft van echtheid was, was alles dan dubbelsnel verbaal?"

      Comment


      • #4
        While I agree with you that Kerry looks more presidential, being here in the USA I don't think that voters agree.
        What you call Kerry going soaring every now and then is spinned as "being unfocused" by the Bush campaign.

        They had a 32 page rules of engagement document, they didn't know the questions, thus they couldn't have prepared notes. I think the clever remarks (or zingers as they called them in a post debate analysis) were absent partly due to such rules.

        Bush went to paint Kerry as a "flip-flopper" since that is their campaign mantra, I think Kerry could have done more to dispel that, but at least once he did refute that point.
        As I said in the "Michael Moore..." thread, the ability of Kerry to change his opinion is not only a non-issue for me, it is a strength. I'd rather have a leader that is able to re-examine events when new information becomes available and changes the course when needed that someone that believes he's right and won't change course no matter what.
        Kerry did make the point that you can be certain and be wrong, I hope he stresses that point more in the following debates (and be sure that he'll get a chance).

        But the best part of the debate was watching The Daily Show with Jon Stewart analysis/spoof at Comedy Central.
        Such... is the respect paid to science that the most absurd opinions may become current, provided they are expressed in language, the sound of which recalls some well-known scientific phrase
        James Clerk Maxwell (1831-79)

        Comment


        • #5
          As a Brit I dont usually pay much attention to this kind of thing, and I certainly never get involved with political debates (can get too messy). I just happened to be changing channels last night and saw the dabate, so figured I'd post here.

          As a complete nuetral, and one who has not seen much of Kerry, I was quite impressed with him. He certainly came across much better than Bush. He gave his answers clearly and concisely, where Bush seemed to waffle around the issue instead of directly answering the questions. Bush also seemed to just repeat the same old statements over and over, 'till it got almost embarrasing.

          Usually I dont have a major problem with Bush, but I dont think he handled himself well enough. It was almost as if he just expected to breeze it, without really trying. I expect him to be much better prepared for the next one. I'll certainly be watching.
          *Den-Sha*

          Comment


          • #6
            <<ee Kerry as the more capable, intelligent candidate. One who can see and accept the situation for what it is and know how to address it.>>

            That's style over substance. He's making you think he knows what to do and how to do it. Either way, I think Republicans win this election. Bush wins and we get four more years of tax cuts and security. Kerry wins, the liberal side takes a four year litmus test.

            And as for Kerry's changing views being a strength...that's a good point, Montoya, but is Kerry doing it because he has convictions or because he is testing the waters for political reasons, finding out which view is more popular to his base?

            Oh, and as for someone "winning" a debate...how do you win when you state what everyone already knew you believed? I didn't come out of it feeling any more or less about either candidate. Bush is a nationalist, Kerry is a globalist. Bush defends the war, Kerry attacks it.
            Last edited by Dr Maturin; 10-02-2004, 01:26 PM.
            Recently, there was a reckoning. It occurred on November 4, 2014 across the United States. Voters, recognizing the failures of the current leadership and fearing their unchecked abuses of power, elected another party as the new majority. This is a first step toward preventing more damage and undoing some of the damage already done. Hopefully, this is as much as will be required.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Z'ha'dumDweller

              Oh, and as for someone "winning" a debate...how do you win when you state what everyone already knew you believed?
              Correct, you cannot ''win'' a debate based on convictions and beliefs alone. But rather, how convincing you are supporting your stand points.

              As I see it:
              In the debate, Kerry's responces were direct, logical and to the point. His reasons for voting to allow for war only as a last resort we're clearly stated, as were his position on Iraq today and a number of other foreign policy issues. Bush on the other hand did not give very convincing arguments for many of his convictions, and frequently relied on them and them alone.

              A classic example of this was when Kerry hit Bush with the collosal error of judgement line, siting the war in iraq had the US overextended and weakened in its capacity to fight the war on terror, something Iraq had nothing to do with. Bush was not convincing in refuting these arguments, or in maintaining that Iraq and and the war on teror were linked.

              Ultimately, it was substance that triumphed over style in this debate, as indicated by the many polls held afterwards.

              Comment


              • #8
                <<A classic example of this was when Kerry hit Bush with the collosal error of judgement line, siting the war in iraq had the US overextended and weakened in its capacity to fight the war on terror, something Iraq had nothing to do with. Bush was not convincing in refuting these arguments, or in maintaining that Iraq and and the war on teror were linked.

                Ultimately, it was substance that triumphed over style in this debate, as indicated by the many polls held afterwards.>>

                Well, that's assuming that Kerry thinks the WoT should be fought by military might. Clinton didn't, but who knows what Kerry thinks. I am sure he "has a plan."

                K, let me give it to you straight. This is what I think. I think that Bush knew that the only way to really stop global terrorism is to, frankly, modernize the Middle East. Numerous scholars have pointed out that the anti-American movement over there is partly caused by technological envy. The Middle East used to be the center of science and mathematics ages ago. Now that the US has surpassed them (we outlawed slavery 150 years ago) in many ways, the ME leaders turned their efforts into hating that which they feared and envied.

                Bush probably figured Iraq was as good a place as any to start with. The WMD's should have been there, so they went in. They weren't there, but they kicked Saddam's forces' asses. The WMD's were probably and "oh shit" for Bush but they are still looking and there were stories of the stuff going to Syria.

                Where he dropped the ball in one perspective is that he didn't convince the world that we should go in and clean up the ME. From another perspective, this would be seen as US "imperialism." Nobody wants to start a long, 100-year revolution, but it must be done. Sure, it goes against the "Prime Directive" but do we let terrorism nurture in these backward countries?

                I like the fact that he did what he thought was right without getting permission from the UN, a very shady organization to say the least. Stuff like Kerry's "global test" makes me nervous. The average American doesn't like the UN. Why do we have "UN-free zones" here and there?

                But looking at the past, Mondale and Dukakis both told the American people they'd raise taxes if they were elected. Not a great strategy, and the results showed. I think that, along with the UN thing, may be Kerry's nail in the coffin. We'll see in a month.
                Recently, there was a reckoning. It occurred on November 4, 2014 across the United States. Voters, recognizing the failures of the current leadership and fearing their unchecked abuses of power, elected another party as the new majority. This is a first step toward preventing more damage and undoing some of the damage already done. Hopefully, this is as much as will be required.

                Comment


                • #9
                  If what you suggest is true it's the worst type of arrogance... and I'll suggest that American arrogance may be another (maybe a more important reason) why the USA is disliked around the world.
                  Bush erred by thinking that was the way to modernize the Middle East.
                  Invading, bombing, and forcing a culture into modernity by a foreign power is bound to backfire... it already is, the invasion of Iraq has delivered more fodder (human and ideological) into the hands of extremist muslim groups.
                  Kerry is right. It really was a colosal error, strategically, economically, diplomatically, and ideologically.

                  Also, I think that Kerry has changed opinions and votes out of conviction, not out of political pandering. I may be wrong, but I see much more pandering from the Bush campaign, particularly when trying to atract the hispanic vote, they used lots of pandering in 2000, they seem to be doing more of the same now.
                  Such... is the respect paid to science that the most absurd opinions may become current, provided they are expressed in language, the sound of which recalls some well-known scientific phrase
                  James Clerk Maxwell (1831-79)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    <<it already is, the invasion of Iraq has delivered more fodder (human and ideological) into the hands of extremist muslim groups. Kerry is right. It really was a colosal error, strategically, economically, diplomatically, and ideologically.>>

                    It's been less than two years. Revolutions aren't won overnight.

                    <<Also, I think that Kerry has changed opinions and votes out of conviction, not out of political pandering. I may be wrong, but I see much more pandering from the Bush campaign, particularly when trying to atract the hispanic vote, they used lots of pandering in 2000, they seem to be doing more of the same now.>>

                    Well, those convicted opinions sure change a lot over the course of a few years. More aptly, they change back and forth. But his "flip flopping" is not why I will not vote for him. His ideals do not match with mine, and that is why I will not vote for him. I think the Bush camp has made too much out of the flip flopping. I'd be going after what he believes and how he's voted in the past, not the changes of those beliefs and votes.

                    We'll see what the American people think in a month.

                    EDIT: Just saw a clip of Kerry lambasting "assault weapons." Could this be another nail in the coffin?

                    And check this out, from about four years ago:

                    http://geocities.com/realsithsquadron/tgtg2.jpg

                    http://geocities.com/realsithsquadron/tgtg3.jpg

                    Last edited by Dr Maturin; 10-03-2004, 11:30 PM.
                    Recently, there was a reckoning. It occurred on November 4, 2014 across the United States. Voters, recognizing the failures of the current leadership and fearing their unchecked abuses of power, elected another party as the new majority. This is a first step toward preventing more damage and undoing some of the damage already done. Hopefully, this is as much as will be required.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      ZHD : Revolutions ARE won overnight: The French Revolution, The MAO-takeover, The Russian Revolution, The Second Russian Revolution II(early nineties), Kristalnacht, etcetera. The most efficient Power take-overs have always been incredibly short. When they took a lot of time they were always bloody.

                      Any president of the U.S.A. who believes he can 'Modernize the Middle East' with weapons overkill is out of his mind and has lost the last bit of realistic thinking. Destroy it yes, modernize it no. As far as I know Bush never spoke of a war in Iraq that would last years and years; he avoided the Vietnam-issues completely and spoke of the war on terror that might take years and years. He even declared victory in Iraq after just a few months. "The fighting is over"... I take it that, even with Fox doing the newscoverage in the States, you do know that over a thousand Americans and several thousands of civilians have been killed since. What does he mean ; victory? I saw the first debate : what does Bush mean when he says in reply to Kerry's accusation : "Error of judgement? That is not a message the commander-in-chief delivers" ??? Does that mean that he does not even disagree with the assessment completely but is afraid to admit he was wrong? Which would mean he knows he should get the Hell out but he'd rather send new troups in to die than do something about it? What kind of an answer is that in an official debate in front of the American people? I thought you all wanted clarity, not vague retorics?


                      Back on topic a bit more :

                      Yes, it would be great - from our western perspective - to have a free and democratic Middle East. It would make us all safer. So when is America going to liberate the Palestines? Wanna run over Iran anyone? Overthrow the Saudis next perhaps?

                      Can't be done with unilateral military action. No freaking way. The only thing you breed are more fundamentalists who will not only cling to their religion but who will also be misguided and manipulated by their leaders in the name of said religion. Next thing you know are 20 suicidebombers exploding at the same time in the New York underground. Does this government really think you can prevent such a disastrous attack by invading other countries? You only need a few determined people with delusions of Paradise and few kilo's of C4.


                      Invading Iraq the way it was done wasn't a "colosssal error of judgement', it was a 'colossal error of arrogance'. It alienated the rest of the western world(except for a few quite isolated countries). Bush could not bring himself to listening to - for instance - the French. Arrogant as hell they may be, but they were in the region for centuries before America even started looking at the Middle East, they had better intelligence-gathering in the region, etcetera.

                      The invasion of Afghanistan was probably necessary because of the actual hide-outs of OBL, and besides; the Taliban were in my opinion the most repressing criminal dictatorial bastard-regime I have come across in modern times. Much much worse than even Saddam Hussein's reign of terror. And don't forget that a big part of the cocaine imported into the U.S.A. came from Afghanistan. So you were fighting a war against terrorism and against drugs.

                      On the other hand; Hussein hated OBL's guts and vice versa. Iraq wasn't even officially a moslim country until 10 years ago when Saddam decided he could use the support of OBL and his organisation. This was right after the first Gulf War...

                      Talk about what goes 'round must come 'round ; America financed and armed the Taliban in the 80-ies because it was convenient. America financed and armed Iraq in the eighties because that too was convenient. And now America is afraid of the regimes it helped in the first place.
                      The U.S.A. are now fighting the terrorists they have created and helped for years, as long as they were aimed at someone else, preferably the Russians.

                      If there weren't so many people dying I would savour the irony. But - perhaps as opposed to the news in the U.S.A. - we do get to see the results on TV. We see the 5 year olds lying in the streets. So the sense or irony disappears very quickly.

                      And those are some of the reasons I would never vote for Bush. It has nothing at all to do with anti-American sentiments.

                      I doesn't have to. Really.

                      TM.
                      "En wat als tijd de helft van echtheid was, was alles dan dubbelsnel verbaal?"

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        One more thing : please everyone ; do not blame the UN for not doing enough.

                        The UN have been constantly harassed and frustrated by the U.S.A. Every American administration thought it would be worthwhile NOT to pay their contributron the the UN until YEARS later. In normal life you would be in court, the U.S.A. paid out under Bush Sr. and under Clinton because they wanted to use the UN(Gulf War anyone?).

                        And let us not go into the discussion of the abuse of Veto-power in the Securitycouncil. By the U.S., by the Soviet Union, China, France and Great Britain. That stunk from 5 sides and did not benefit global cooperation, to say the least...

                        The UN have always complained about lack of funds for the really necessary operations. So if there is one thing I cannot stand, it is the notion that 'The UN did nothing so the U.S. had to to it themselves". The UN were held back by their biggest contributor who abused the power of money to block motions, pressure countries to vote their way, etcetera.

                        But I suspect that this is not the picture that has been painted in the American media(?).
                        "En wat als tijd de helft van echtheid was, was alles dan dubbelsnel verbaal?"

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Hey TM, try taking out ''America'' and replacing it with ''the EA''. You should now see some rather interesting parallells....

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Towelmaster
                            Yes, it would be great - from our western perspective - to have a free and democratic Middle East. It would make us all safer. So when is America going to liberate the Palestines? Wanna run over Iran anyone? Overthrow the Saudis next perhaps?
                            The invasions of Iran and Saudi Arabia have probably been planned. Hopefully at 5 year intervals, otherwise everyone in Europe will be walking to work. (Except for the Dutch - they can cycle.)
                            Andrew Swallow

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              You mean to say that the EA has been obstructing the UN?

                              Seriously: I think that jms wrote/writes(?) using a lot of background-information which he then manages to convert to a general principle or statement around which he builds an episode or story-arc. He has a great memory when it comes to historical events and manages to analyze those events.

                              You can interpret his work on B5 very broadly. But Yeah; there are some parallells. The question is where in the storyline of the EA would you place us at the moment?

                              I wouldn't go as far as to compare the U.S. to the EA(after Nightwatch started to become active). But of course I too see some parallells. I also see parallells with the British system, and the Dutch system, and the Chinese system...

                              Perhaps it is merely a sign of the times we live in. I don't think this is a typical American problem, I just think that it is more noticable in America. They are usually ahead of the rest of the world in these kind of things. So it will probably be up to the Americans to come up with the solution too...

                              And BTW : If people in America say that we foreigners are much more critical about Bush(or any other American president) than we are of our own glorious leader(s) that is - in my case - a simple matter of power. If the prime minister in Holland says that he wants to get the terrorists out of Belgium(Just an example!!!) then nothing will happen because he does not have that power unless provoked by a direct military attack. If the President of the United States decides that Haiti is destabilizing the region he gives the order and Haiti is occupied. The office of President of the U.S.A. is more demanding than that of our Prime Minister so it asks more of the person doing the job. And so we are more cricital.
                              "En wat als tijd de helft van echtheid was, was alles dan dubbelsnel verbaal?"

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X