American Politics during the Bush Presidency

The funny thing is no one mentioned illegal immigrants. Some people just used my comments, regarding death threats to companies allowing people to pay using mexican currency (PS Walmart does it also) in towns and states bordering Mexico, to start an endless tirade againt illegal immigrants. So I don't think anyone was supporting illegal immigration. I personally believe that whatever the majority agrees on in a country is what the country should do, right or wrong, THAT is democracy. If the majority of people believe that illegal immigrants should be treated like suboid beings that should be hunted down, shot, thrown in jail, and eventually deported. Hey, what can I say, that is US democracy working for the majority.

I still believe that there is a growing unhealthy phobia towards immigrants, (note I stress immigrants, as in anyone from any country that enters legally into another country. And I still think people writing hate mail and death threats to businesses that allow payment in other currencies are stupid. And some seem to possibly be AP members. Just think of all those US immigrants in Argentina overstaying their visas? (those damn Illegal US immigrants) I am sure they should also be hunted down, shot, thrown in prison and eventually forcefully deported never to be allowed back in right? Kinda poetic if you ask me.

Badboy.

BTW, just to directly reply to one of Stowes comments regarding Reagan. Stowe, Maybe if Reagan hadn't basically destroyed Central America with his policies (Iran Contra anyone?) Central america would have possibly been a much more attractive place to raise a family. What do you want the general population of Nicaragua to do when US funded Contras are kidnapping executing and torturing half the population. (Wow sounds alot like what is going on in Iraq right now, Deja Vu anyone? I guess we didn't learn the first few hundred times around) Guess what? I am sure the level of Iraq immigrants trying to come into Europe and the US has multiplied 10 times over since pre Iraq invasion and Occupation, I guess we should blame the Iraqis for trying to leave the civil war we are funding right? This has been my basic point in previous posts, if the US doesn't want massive immigration maybe they should leave foreign countries alone, connect the dots my friend, stop destabalizing other countries, stop funding military juntas, dictatorships, tin pot dictators, puppet regimes, client states (Saddam anyone? ) A great joke that circulated in the CIA during the build up to the war " WE KNOW SADDAM HAD WMD'S " When asked how? Simple answer " WE STILL HAVE THE RECIEPTS ".

Can you not see that US economic foreign policy directly effects migration? NAFTA and Militarized Border anyone? Do some research and you will see Clinton and Perot knew in advance NAFTA would cause a flood of immigration. Since NAFTA, wages have actually decreased in Mexico, Someone tell me how small mexican farmers can compete with US government subsidized agro business? ANSWER, they can't? But we are all for free trade right? The only people that benifit from NAFTA are big business and those who own stock in those big businesses, the common Mexican people have lost. Increased immigration from Mexico is a direct result of NAFTA. Is free trade completely bad? No, not when it is done between two equal parties. That is why protectionism is good in the beginning, to defend and build up the domestic market and economy, That is what the US and UK did, did everyone forget about that?

Badboy,

I do agree that the US has interferred in too many countries to list here. It seems that we have the mentality that "the bully on the block can do anything they want". I absolutely do not agree with our involvement in almost all of the MANY countries that we did get involved with over the last 25 years (except Afganistan)

However, I think it is ridiculous to imply that those countries were doing great economically until we interferred with them and that it was solely our interference that caused those economies to collapse.

The economies of those countries were poor before, during and after our interference.

While the actions of this country bears scrutiny and responsibily but it seems some people like to blame everything bad that happens around the world (or to all the economies of Central and South America countries we were involved with) on our actions is invalid.

To not be objective just substantiates the conservatives belief that liberals attack the US for everything and see no good in anything the US does.

Suerte.

Stowe

One addition: NAFTA was working pretty good for Mexican job creation until corporate America decided it was even cheaper to send those jobs from Mexico to China. In the last 5-6 years those jobs have gone to China. NAFTA did not help the American worker one bit-it was mostly to allow corporations to find the cheapest labor possible.

I contend that corporations would bring back a form of slavery, only this time class slavery, because that would allow the lowest possible costs and thus the greatest profits. I know this is radical but given my 25 years in corporate America management, I have a perspective.

Examples: corporations wanting to allow low wage earners to come from Mexico. The first time in 100 years we would be intentionally creating a 'poverty class' just to support corporate profits. Another example: Nike, Bratz doll maker (and how many others) using Chinese companies that require their workers to work 18 hour days for 25-50 cents per unit (selling for $25-$200) made with minimal breaks. If that isn't a form of slavery, I don't know what is. Once it makes the newspapers they claim they did not know the Chinese were doing that--yeah I believe that!! Yet, they get caught again within a few years.

JMO

After the european implosion during WW2, due to irrational nationalistic tensions, us americans who were barely recovering from their 1936 economic slump finally came down to the ground 4 years after hostilities started and claimed they "saved the free world". The exhausted Europe didn t have the means to protest and the global police role was naturally transfered to the USA while Europe was reorganising itself, abandoning colonies to concentrate on its european identity. That s when us americans started to feel American, rather than Italian, Irish, African, british settlers, and developped a national pride. Unfortunatly, this continent wasnt ready to assume this role since it more or less always kept a non interventionist position unless forced to intervene.

I don't deny the positive influence of the United States over the 20 th century. Democracy is a dynamic process that brings wealth diversity and energy, at the cost sometimes of internal security. The problem began in 1989 when the communist block collapsed. The US american military leadership couldnt be counter balanced any more, and an uncontested power leads to over confidence, and close mindedness as a result.

The Iraqi crises is a perfect example of the dangers of an unchallenged power. Why bothering with international institutions and the rest of the 95% of the global population opinion when nobody is powerful enough to counter you? Why bothering with a global democracy when you can dictate your views to others? Unilaterality is so much more simple. Why even bothering refunding your debts, nobody can force you to refund anyways...

This crises created a huge continental divide between Europe and the USA, who share common values (democracy, self achievement) but also diverge on the darwinian us american philosophy of life.

Since ww2, Europe didnt bother too much about its defense. NATO (95% of members being european) was a natural shield. But since the beginning of the 21 st century, and the us american unilateral stance, unethical behaviour (fabricated evidences, torture, nuclear leaded weapons, arbitrary imprisonment, invasions) , a real conciousness arose of the need of a defense force independant from the USA. We are willing to pay to bring our own voice to global crises management, and this goes thru ficancing a european army. This force is called the European Intervention Force and unites France, Spain, Italy, Germany and Benelux. Just like the common currency and common market, other nations might join depending on their convergence with the european views (for example refusing to do the dirty torture and kidnapping jobs for the CIA) This is the force present in Lebanon right now.

China is gaining wealth quickly and Europe is expanding also quickly, even tho its constitution has been delayed for a few years due to french populist internal reasons. Both are meant to challenge the USA economicly with their cheap labor force reservoirs, eastwards for Europe, westwards for China (the EU is already the first global economic power and the Euro is gaining influence globally). Both have nuclear power and global leadership ambitions. I find this situation reassuring since it will bring back some balance in global management, and as a result more democracy in a multi polar world, as well as some more open mindedness in the USA.

The good news is that you guys wont have to subsidise us militaro industrial lobbies with your tax money so much in the future, the bad news for the most nationalist is that, like Russia, USA will see its global influence lessened gradually over the century.

I agree that something needs to balance the US military might. We are like an undiciplined teenager with a MAC 10. However I really do think we saved the free world in WWII. Germany wouldn't have taken over all of Europe but Stalin might have.

[QUOTE=Daddy Rulz]I agree that something needs to balance the US military might. We are like an undiciplined teenager with a MAC 10. However I really do think we saved the free world in WWII. Germany wouldn't have taken over all of Europe but Stalin might have.[/QUOTE]Nazis wouldnt have been able to do anything if Russia and USA had the guts to declare war on them like France and GB did when they invaded Poland, and eastern europe might have avoided the iron curtain afterwards. Actually both self declared heroic countries were doing business with nazis at that time (check Bush family history) . The war economy did also bring prosperity to the USA in the early 40s with minimal domestic damage.

Anyways, that s different lectures of the past, what s most interesting is the future and how to get to a real global democracy with balanced powers so that one block can t just ignore others, shamelessly lie and manipulate, without having to fear of consequences.

The bully of the classroom was rarely the wisest, even tho he did get some natural respect (not necessarily consideration).

[QUOTE=Courcheval]Nazis wouldnt have been able to do anything if Russia and USA had the guts to declare war on them like France and GB did when they invaded Poland, and eastern europe might have avoided the iron curtain afterwards. Actually both self declared heroic countries were doing business with nazis at that time (check Bush family history) The war economy did also bring prosperity to the USA in the early 40s with minimal domestic damage.[/QUOTE]Can't disagree, I'm aware of what the US did before it's entry into the war. I do think however that the American lives lost there during WWI had something to do with the publics reluctance to go again. I don't mean to go around with you a lot over this. I believe that the US did some very shameful things before WWII and I believe that we did some very heroic things after our entry.

Sometimes when Europeans talk about what the US didn't do it sort of upsets me because my family has never been from the rich and powerful, we were always the dumb fucks that ended up doing the fighting. I don't think it's proper to talk about my countries mistakes without paying honor to the men that did the fighting. The resistance as well as the troops that liberated the countries.

Fair enough?

At least, unlike the pre 2001 unknown Bin Laden, you guys know for sure that the evil Hugo Binito Shavez is alive, so alive that last year he delivered oil at half the market price to the poor New York city favellas.

Provocation aside, Chavez is of course a joke, since his only goal is his power and wealth, but you should look your own nation in a mirror when you are talking about populism.

Populism: a political philosophy or rhetorical style that appeals to the common people to unite and change societal structures ruled by an entrenched, self-serving or corrupt elite.

Who reelected the Bush monarch family 3 times in a generation time, it s us american masses. What attracted them in their political marketing? Isnt nationalism a strong populist driving force? Whose prior interests are they serving? How does the paranoid fear strategy affect your daily life? Is this administration corruption free? Who went to war recently in the name of God, Good n Evil?

If you are being honest in the answers, you might find out that the Evil/Beast you need to fight is not outside, but within your borders.

Nationalization may have different look.

FRANK BAJAK.

Associated Press.

BOGOTA, Colombia - Hugo Chavez loves incendiary rhetoric and risk-averse investors understandably rushed to sell shares in Venezuela's biggest telecommunications and power companies after he announced this week that he would nationalize them. But it later emerged that the Venezuelan president - whose "21st-century socialism" has managed to co-exist with a vibrant private sector - is disposed to pay fair market prices for the two utilities.

That would make these "nationalizations" much less radical than initially feared and not all that unusual for Latin America. "Nationalization," White House press secretary Tony Snow said after Chavez's latest move, "has a long and inglorious history of failure around the world."

The directors of the Chilean copper-mining company Codelco might take issue. Theirs is a proud and extremely profitable ward of a state so committed to free markets that even its toll roads are privately run. A decade after the region rushed to privatize state-run industries, even countries outside Chavez's populist camp have realized that private companies haven't always served the public's best interests, particularly when it comes utilities like water distribution that require major investment but don't reap much profit.

Several key privatizations have recently been reversed, and even in countries that bought into the "Washington consensus," some strategic industries were never sold off. "Some nationalizations in Latin America are long-standing and exist for mainly national security and even symbolic reasons. They are also a measure of national pride," said Michael Shifter of the Inter-American Dialogue think tank.

Mexico's 1938 nationalization of its petroleum industry set the standard. Its state-run oil company Pemex has long served as both the government's cash cow and a model of inefficiency and patronage. State-run oil is the norm in countries including Brazil, Colombia and Chile, despite the latter two being near orthodox free-marketeers. (Colombia is, however, poised to sell 20 percent of state-run Ecopetrol this year to help fund exploration)

State-owned enterprises continue to account for more than 10 percent of the region's gross domestic product and about 5 percent of formal employment, according to the World Bank. Of course, the success of any nationalization depends on details specific to the industry and country.

Bush: I'll Bring Troops Home on JetBlue.

No Exact Timetable, President Says.

Under increased pressure to announce an exit strategy from Iraq, President George W. Bush revealed plans today to bring U. S. Troops home on the budget airlines JetBlue.

Mr. Bush received praise for his decision to withdraw American troops, but his choice of JetBlue to transport them raised more than a few eyebrows.

According to most official estimates, with its recent spate of scheduling problems and flight delays, JetBlue could take up to seven years to bring U. S. Troops home, and possibly ten years in the event of inclement weather.

But at a press conference at the White House today, the president argued that the selection of Jet Blue was "crucial" to the success of his latest exit strategy.

"Setting an exact timetable for a withdrawal from Iraq would be playing right into the enemy's hands," Mr. Bush said. "By going with JetBlue, our enemy will have no idea when we're leaving."

To emphasizes his point, Mr. Bush added, "And neither will we."

Across Iraq, U. S. GIs were hopeful that the news about JetBlue meant that they would be home by Christmas, or at least by Easter 2012.

At JetBlue headquarters in Forest Hills, New York, CEO David Neeleman said that it was "flattering" to be chosen to play such a critical role in President Bush's new exit strategy, but wondered if his embattled airlines has what it takes to bring troops home from Iraq.

"We're still having a hard time getting people home to Fort Myers," Mr. Neeleman said.

Elsewhere, Britain and Denmark announced that they were joining "The Coalition of the Leaving."

[url]www.liveleak.com/view?i=2bc_1172263442[/url]

The US government is poised to unleash eco fashism and new forms of environmental taxes on the American public to combat the recent weather phenomena blamed on global warming.

Here's what's really been going on.

In a breakthrough that could end the nuclear standoff between Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the so-called "rational world", U. S. President George Bush said today that his country is willing to let Russia build 37 Chernobyl-style nuclear reactors throughout Iran.

Mr. Bush also offered to allow open sharing of Chernobyl-class technology between Russia and Iran.

An unnamed White House spokesman said Mr. Bush believes the new proposal could break deadlocked negotiations by giving Iran "the world's best-known reactor technology, while allowing Russia to continue to profit from Mr. Ahmadinejad's thirst for power."

"These Chernobyl-style reactors can bring the transforming power of nuclear fission within reach of the average Iranian," said Mr. Bush.

Why does Russia have to be the only peacemaker? I suggest the US do it's part and build another 37 Three Mile Island " style " reactors. Then Iran could sell all it's petrol while remaining energy self reliant. A truly win win situation.;)

In the same newspapers, there was an article about Israel willing to denuclearise to allow a long term peace process in the region.

Too bad this guy isn't a monger.

[url]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ec9_1172585080[/url]

Democrats in the Senate plan to introduce a measure next week to repeal the 2002 Iraq war authorization, and Republicans have already announced they're willing to discuss the bill in exchange for Democrat support of a measure repealing the 1935 Social Security Act.

Democrats said circumstances have changed in the past five years — Saddam Hussein is gone and no WMD were found — making the 2002 war authorization obsolete.

Republicans used similar logic in offering their Social Security repeal act: the Great Depression is over, and despite 60 years of trying, no security has been found.

[QUOTE=Hunt99]Democrats in the Senate plan to introduce a measure next week to repeal the 2002 Iraq war authorization, and Republicans have already announced they're willing to discuss the bill in exchange for Democrat support of a measure repealing the 1935 Social Security Act.

Democrats said circumstances have changed in the past five years — Saddam Hussein is gone and no WMD were found — making the 2002 war authorization obsolete.

Republicans used similar logic in offering their Social Security repeal act: the Great Depression is over, and despite 60 years of trying, no security has been found.[/QUOTE]Irony is certainly a stronger wmd than Iraq ever had in 2002.

About the social security (individualism against social conciousness strike) I heard an interesting historical reference yesterday on the french television.

This strike was already happening between competing towns in Ancient Greece. Athens was a democracy where each individual had a voice while Sparta was a warring equalitarian town rejecting wealth accumulation. Those opposing philosphies influenced the choice of the metal used for manufacturing coins. In Athens, gold was prefered because it could be burried and saved for next generations, while in Sparta, iron was chosen because it would rust with time. I found the analogy interesting and worth sharing =)

MANCHESTER, NH—Rumors are swirling among Beltway insiders that the Patterson family vacation last weekend to New Hampshire, site of the first presidential primary, was, in fact, an attempt by the Michigan family of four to test the waters for a 2008 presidential run.

The Pattersons reportedly spent most of their three-day stay in the Granite State—known for its ability to make or break a candidate—interacting with locals, visiting key landmarks, and, according to political observers, using the outing to showcase their message of strong family values. They were seen taking a guided tour of a maple-sugar house in Barrington as well as stopping for countless photo opportunities outside government buildings in Concord and at other sites around the state.

"No one knew they were planning to throw their hat in the ring," Boston Globe columnist Scott Lehigh said. "They've obviously been planning this trip for months, maybe even as long as a year. They managed to squeeze countless side trips into an almost impossibly tight schedule, including a skiing outing at Pats Peak to their stop and a stop at the Hannah Duston monument in Penacook."

Pundits said the family's slow drive through Bear Brook State Park signaled a deep concern for environmental issues, while their decision to attend Sunday services at the New Castle Congregational Church acted as a nod to the country's important bloc of religious voters. The Pattersons also strolled the shopping districts of wealthy Portsmouth, showing their ability to relate to a cross-section of Americans.

[url]www.liveleak.com/view?i=abd_1173051869[/url]

LOL!

Sen. John McCain, R-AZ, who used an appearance on The Late Show with David Letterman to announce he's running for president, tonight plans to release his Top Ten list of why Republicans should nominate him to head the 2008 GOP ticket.

The edgy septuagenarian maverick plans to make a formal announcement in April, after completing a round of appearances on the other respected political news programs — The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, The Tonight Show, The Late Late Show, Late Night with Conan O'Brien, Saturday Night Live and Larry King Live.

Mr. Letterman plans to read the list, prepared by the McCain campaign, on tonight's show:

10. Years as POW in solitary prepared him for isolation in White House "bubble"

9. Won't accept presidential paycheck, since at 72 he can live off Social Security.

8. More exciting presidential news conferences as reporters vie to light his fuse.

7. To beat him, the libs will have to get through his Gang of 14

6. Unlike senators, presidents have term limits.

5. He has a lock on the black vote because his middle name is Sidney, like Poitier.

4. Won't surrender to anyone, since war injury prevents raising hands above head.

3. No longer despises "agents of intolerance" on whacko religious right.

2. Definition of "surge" starts with 200,000 new boots, and Al Sadr dangling from rope.

1. Not beholden to the Republican Party and other "special interest" groups

The same young woman is talking to her Father whom asks about Audrey.

"Poor Audrey, she is working 3 jobs because she lost her grant and is having a really hard time keeping up. She can't afford a tutor, by the way thanks for sending Dr. Joe Blow over to help me with anatomy, and is probably going to flunk out."

"Well honey you keep talking about redistributing wealth, why don't you go to the deans office and ask him if you can give part of your GPA to her. You know it would help her."

"Oh Dad, you know Kenny and I are planning on going to med school together, by the way thanks for endowing that chair I'm sure it helped with those nasty people at admissions, but if I do that it will spoil our plans. Don't you have some minimum wage thing she could do at the office? I'm sure she will be fine."

The Dad pats her on the shoulder and with pride says "welcome to the Republican Party."

An older man crashed his grocery cart into that of a much younger fellow while both were shopping. The elderly man explained apologetically that he had lost track of his wife and was preoccupied searching for her. His new acquaintance said that by coincidence his wife had also wandered off and suggested that it might be more efficient if they jointly looked for the two women.

Agreeing, the older man asked his new companion what his wife looked like. "She's a gorgeous blonde," the fellow answered, "with a body that would cause a bishop to go through a stained glass window, and she's wearing tight white shorts. How about yours?" The senior citizen wasted no words: "Forget her, we'll look for yours."

I wonder how Buenos Aires will look 20 years from now?

[url]http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/scientists-offer-dire-forecast-for-earth/20070310193709990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001[/url]

Bad

Yesterday, a group of scientists warned that because of global warming, sea levels will rise so much that parts of New Jersey will be under water. The bad news? Parts of New Jersey won't be under water.

[QUOTE=Badboy13]I wonder how Buenos Aires will look 20 years from now?

[url]http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/scientists-offer-dire-forecast-for-earth/20070310193709990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001[/url]

Bad[/QUOTE]Badboy,

Is there a significance to you posting this article in the "American Politics" thread?

Alan

Global warming and the political policies regarding it are a hot topic in the US and around the world, maybe you disagree with my posting it here but I think it is valid.

It's not here to start a debate, just some food for thought next time we go to the ballot boxes.

Governments formulate policies baesd on domestic and global politics, these policies affect our environment ergo they affect us. According the the worlds top scientists we are all fucked within the next 50-100 years.

I rest my case your honor.

The balls in your court.

Bad

[QUOTE=Badboy13]Global warming and the political policies regarding it are a hot topic in the US and around the world, maybe you disagree with my posting it here but I think it is valid.[/QUOTE]Bad,

I would only agree that global warming is a hot topic in the USA amongst a relatively small group; Al Gore, ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, and a disproportionate number of "soccer moms" (however concerned they may be, they are not willing to give up their HUGE SUVs) some scientists, and of course the United Nations - seeing this as a huge power grab and opportunity to collect money for "Carbon Credits".

I will start a separate thread, so we don't "pollute" this thread - wouldn't want anyone to miss an opportunity to discuss Campaign 2008.

Alan

You do that.

This week marks the 15th anniversary of the 1992 bombing of the Israeli Embassy here in Buenos Aires. 29 people died with about 240 injured. The site is located at the corner of Arroyo & Suipacha, you will easily see the memorial park and the traced outline of the previous building. Two years later, there was a second bombing here that killed approximately 85 people at the AMIA Jewish Center.

An interesting article:

[url]http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=391&issue_id=2877&article_id=23407[/url]

For the members who are still reliving the "lovefeast" of the 1990s, I. E. Clinton era. May I respectfully offered this reminder:

1992- Bush"1" - BsAs bombing #1

1993- Clinton - World Trade Center 1st bombing.

1994- Clinton - BsAs bombing #2

1996- Clinton - Khobar towers.

1998- Clinton - Nairobi US Embassy.

1998- Clinton - Dar es Salaam US Embassy.

2000- Clinton - USS Cole attacked.

2001- Bush"2"- Asleep at the switch - WTC 2nd attack.

The point is this; the US has never and will never be liked by many / most in the world - for more reasons than I could list here. If you believe that the recent trials and tribulations are solely caused by the man / dufus we currently call "Mr. President and Commander in Chief", you have a short memory.

President George Bush will return from his Latin American tour this week with an agreement-in-principle to aid several nations by providing them with a steady supply of low-cost, American-made anti-Bush protesters.

"Our experienced, homegrown protesters will augment the budding anti-me industry in these developing nations," Mr. Bush said at a news conference today in Uruguay. "I think Latin Americans will be impressed by our high-volume products."

In an extraordinary goodwill gesture, the president did not ask his Latin American counterparts for anything in return.

"We're more than glad to help," said Mr. Bush. "After all you've shipped to us, it's the least we could do."

I just could not help to see the irony in todays NY Times Webpage as the first article was shown directly over the other.

Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Bill.

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG 3:39 PM ET.

President Bush said that the bill promoting embryonic stem cell research disregarded the sanctity of human life.

Heavy Fighting as Troops Pursue Iraqi Insurgents.

By ALISSA J. RUBIN 3:32 PM ET.

Officials said that at least 30 insurgents were killed on the first full day of an aggressive push in Diyala Province.

I guess there is no sanctity of human life for at least 30 follks. By the way I met a couple the other day from Florida who were here with their daughter going to some clinic in the province because they do stem cell research down here.

...absolutely hilarious:

[url]http://rawstory.com/news/2007/The_Daily_Show_lambastes_Cheney_secret_0626.html[/url]

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSjaXqGrtyI[/url]