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.;)