Is America Collapsing? [Archive]

Vetalia

17-10-2005, 01:08

Enron/WorldCom debacles

Not Bush's fault, caused by lax standards under Clinton and collapse of dot com bubble.
Katrina and Rita Huricanes

Definitely not Bush's fault, rebuilding will help economy and new energy legislation will fix refinery problems.

Economic Recession (borderlining total collapse)

If you theink the 2001 recession brought us anywhere near economic collapse, you have no knowledge of the history or current condition of the US economy. Hell, the US economy actually grew during the recession year, which has never happened before. The unemployment rate at its peak was comaprable to the 50 year average, and was equal to the levels at the peak of the 80's boom.

The economy is overall doing quite well and has worked off much of the excesses caused by the dot-com collapse. It's nowhere near collapse and unemployment is equal to Clinton's in 1997.

Inflated Gas Prices

Being fixed; new refineries, expansion of old ones on the way. Plus, China's coal power supply is growing, reducing demand for diesel fuel.

Approval Ratings went from 80% to low 40% in 4 years 01-now

Happens; the 9/11 boost was pretty abnormal, and Bush takes a lot of flak for the hurricanes.

Corrupt Leadership at ALL levels of government (both parties)

Look at the administrations of Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Eisenhower, Roosevelt...etc. This isn't new.

China's Military/Economic Ascendancy
The European Union Economic Revival
Job exportation to India

The Eurozone is far from reviving and is weakening considerably while unemployment rises and growth flattens. Job exportation to India has been going on for 30 years and has translated in to productivity gains and lower prices, China's growth is ineviatble and helps the US economy (not to mention the fact that Clinton set up much of the trade deals) in multiple ways.

Vetalia

17-10-2005, 01:12

Here's another thing; up until 1997 the majority of Americans (as measured by CNN) thought America was headed in the wrong direction. Those sky-high numbers for Clinton didn't show up until the dot-com bubble began to inflate in 1997-2000.

After that, they reached 72%.

Khallayne

17-10-2005, 01:15

Notice how Vetalia has managed to ignore the subject of Iraq, Prisoner Tourcher, the whole "WMD" thing that turned out to be a bold face LIE.

Very clever.

Not Good Enough.

Vetalia

17-10-2005, 01:16

Notice how Vetalia has managed to ignore the subject of Iraq, Prisoner Tourcher, the whole "WMD" thing that turned out to be a bold face LIE..

No, they're absolutely correct. I'm no fan of Bush, and I agree with you on those. The rest is what needed to be corrected.

Corneliu

17-10-2005, 01:20

Iraq,

12 years to late. Should've been done in 1991

Prisoner Tourcher

Being corrected as we speak with people going to jail over it.

the whole "WMD" thing that turned out to be a bold face LIE.

Bad intelligence.

Very clever.

For you maybe since you didn't look at all the facts. I corrected it.

Not Good Enough.

Your right. You need to do better than this.

Pure Metal

17-10-2005, 01:21

The Eurozone is far from reviving and is weakening considerably while unemployment rises and growth flattens.
our economies are recovering after the recent slowdown - you could say reviving - and aren't 'weakening considerably', while (at least here in the UK) we still have the lowest unemployment... pretty much ever.

stop watching FOX news :p

sorry, had to say that:)
as for the question: no, but the country has/is going through some tough times - tougher than the growth boom everyone would have gotten used to with Clinton. that, plus the fact that G. W. Bush is a total plonker makes for tough times and tough decisions... but not the end of the country.
that said i love the idea of Imperial Canada :D

Khallayne

17-10-2005, 01:21

No, they're absolutely correct. I'm no fan of Bush, and I agree with you on those. The rest is what needed to be corrected.

I'm sorry, I'm just a little mad right now (arguing with religious fanatics can do that to you) but you do seem pretty conservative to me.

But then again I'm not happy with either the democrats or the republicans (who neither really represent Liberal or Conservative ideology anymore).

Dobbsworld

17-10-2005, 01:22

Father: That son...used to be America...

Son: And now it's a part of Imperial Canada?

Father: Yes it is son...yes it is...

*salutes to Overlord Paul Martin*

Ahhh... 'pass', Alex.

Don't look to us to fix yer trike, kiddo.

Vetalia

17-10-2005, 01:23

our economies are recovering after the recent slowdown - you could say reviving - and aren't 'weakening considerably', while (at least here in the UK) we still have the lowest unemployment... pretty much ever.

stop watching FOX :p

I always group the UK differently from the Eurozone, just because you're so different economically than France/Germany. You're the ony one (besides Scandinavia) whose economy is doing well.

Vetalia

17-10-2005, 01:25

I'm sorry, I'm just a little mad right now (arguing with religious fanatics can do that to you) but you do seem pretty conservative to me.

Economically, yes. Socially, no. Religious fanatics piss me off as much as anyone else; they motivated my departure from the Republican party amongst other things.

But then again I'm not happy with either the democrats or the republicans (who neither really represent Liberal or Conservative ideology anymore).

A 51-49 split is best (with the majority being the opposite party of the president) because it will cause gridlock unless bipartisanship is used. Minimize the damage.

Pure Metal

17-10-2005, 01:27

I always group the UK differently from the Eurozone, just because you're so different economically than France/Germany. You're the ony one (besides Scandinavia) whose economy is doing well.
well our economy managed to stay growing (albeit slowly) while the rest of europe went into very mild recession in the last couple of years, but the economies of EU most certainly aren't "weakening considerably" (which is the line that made me post here). this difference is largely down to the difference in labour mobility patterns...
germany has a decidely average/middling unemployment rate at the mo but thats about it for the strong EU nations (as far as i am aware)

anyways [/hijack]

Zanato

17-10-2005, 01:29

Oh, you can rest assured the United States will lose its place as the #1 Superpower within the century.

Vetalia

17-10-2005, 01:30

well our economy managed to stay growing (albeit slowly) while the rest of europe went into very mild recession in the last couple of years, but the economies of EU most certainly aren't "weakening considerably" (which is the line that made me post here). this difference is largely down to the difference in labour mobility patterns...
germany has a decidely average/middling unemployment rate at the mo but thats about it for the strong EU nations (as far as i am aware)

The economic problem isn't slowing growth, it's inflation. Unfortunately, the EU has little it can do to control inflation anymore, since they lack the surplus revenue to cut taxes and their interest rates are already on the low side. That's what is causing the weakening. Now, if oil prices fall, the situation will reverse itself.

The Chinese Republics

17-10-2005, 01:30

Father: That son...used to be America...

Son: And now it's a part of Imperial Canada?

Father: Yes it is son...yes it is...

*salutes to Overlord Paul Martin*
*Year 2050*
Found a welcome sign near the former US/Canada border, it said: "WELCOME TO AMERICA - THE 11TH PROVINCE OF THE CANADIAN CONFEDERATION AND THE LARGEST IN THE COUNTRY"

Then there's a new poster-sized canadian map I found in a info centre at the former US customs building:
http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/7242/usa0cr.jpg
It says here on the bottom the map: "Jesusland is a far far far right-wing country based on the ideas of their "Eternal Great Leader" George W. Bush. This country is founded when the blue states of the former USA decided join the Canadian Confederation while the redneck states decided to "re-create" the country under the new name, Jesusland."

Posi

17-10-2005, 01:31

that said i love the idea of Imperial Canada :D
Me, too. Just as long as Martin or teh Conservatives are in charge. Teh idea of Overlord Martin was sickening.

Neo Kervoskia

17-10-2005, 01:31

I'm sorry, I'm just a little mad right now (arguing with religious fanatics can do that to you) but you do seem pretty conservative to me.

But then again I'm not happy with either the democrats or the republicans (who neither really represent liberal or conservative ideology anymore).
Sorry about that, the 'L' and the 'C' give the words a different meaning.

I agree with Vetalia, America is always faced with some trouble or another.

Vetalia

17-10-2005, 01:32

Oh, you can rest assured the United States will lose its place as the #1 Superpower within the century.

I'd put it later than that; China's got some problems that will keep it behind unless they address them. Of course, if they were to ally closely with Russia, that's a totally different situation.

The US has to get itself off of foreign oil or it's going to lose its place.

Vetalia

17-10-2005, 01:34

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/7242/usa0cr.jpg
It says here on the bottom the map: "Jesusland is a far far far right-wing country based on the ideas of their "Eternal Great Leader" George W. Bush. This country is founded when the blue states of the former USA decided join the Canadian Confederation while the redneck states decided to "re-create" the country under the new name, Jesusland."

That would be a pretty kickass war. Giant 2,000 or 30,00 mile battlefront with two totally mortal enemies and 10,000 nuclear weapons.

H N Fiddlebottoms VIII

17-10-2005, 01:34

Father: That son...used to be America...

Son: And now it's a part of Imperial Canada?

Father: Yes it is son...yes it is...

*salutes to Overlord Paul Martin*
The funny part is, Canada probably could take over, but the average American wouldn't care or notice. Nah, we'd all just go on bitching about how whatever political party we disagree with is ruining the country and run by either a bitch or her son, and then settle down to watch bitchy people bitch about their bitchy problems on the T.V.
Then the Mounties would come marching by, and everyone would point and laugh, because that is all anyone ever does in response to the Mounties.
Giant statues to Herr Martin would be put up, but Americans still won't know exactly who he is (not that this ignorance will stop them from bitching about him). While this will work against any efforts at controlling the surviving Americans, it will make them feel a sort of vague deficiency of awareness whenever the Imperial Brigade marches through, and it is this vague sense of ignorance that will cause the Americans to bitch all the more about their own problems as a distraction.

FUN FACT: The word "bitch" was used 7 times, and never once was it used in the original proper form. Isn't that a Bitch?

Neo Kervoskia

17-10-2005, 01:35

That would be a pretty kickass war. Giant 2,000 or 30,00 mile battlefront with two totally mortal enemies and 10,000 nuclear weapons.
99,999 of which are owned by Jesusland.

Vetalia

17-10-2005, 01:39

99,999 of which are owned by Jesusland.

Most of the plutonium is stored in California, and the US's uranium comes mostly from Canada, so the Canadians would be able to make new weapons while Jesusland would be stuck with the aging stockpiles from the Cold War.

Posi

17-10-2005, 01:40

That would be a pretty kickass war. Giant 2,000 or 30,00 mile battlefront with two totally mortal enemies and 10,000 nuclear weapons.
Sure Canada and Jesus may hate eachother, but they are not mortal enemies.

Zanato

17-10-2005, 01:40

I'd put it later than that; China's got some problems that will keep it behind unless they address them. Of course, if they were to ally closely with Russia, that's a totally different situation.

The US has to get itself off of foreign oil or it's going to lose its place.

At the rate China is growing, problems won't stop it from blasting ahead. The United States is past its prime, and the economy is no longer blooming.

H N Fiddlebottoms VIII

17-10-2005, 01:41

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/7242/usa0cr.jpg

I took a minute or so to stare at this map before I realized what was so odd about it:
Where did Mexico go? Texas is just dangling out there like some sort of phallic insturment that has been doused in cold water.
Did Mexico, as a whole, just say "Fuck it" and float out into the Pacific so it could chill out with Australia? (We all know that they've been wanting to do it for years).

Vetalia

17-10-2005, 01:43

At the rate China is growing, problems won't stop it from blasting ahead. The United States is past its prime, and the economy is no longer blooming.

I don't know, because too much of China's growth is centered in a few sectors and is heavily dependent on foreign investment. The rural areas are crippled by high unemployment, and the cities have an increasingly aging population. Their growth is so high because it was unnaturally stifled for so long.

China's going to become a rival if they get rid of their corrupt, authoritarian infrastructure. Otherwise, they won't be able to sustain growth once the market reaches equlibrium with the rest of the world. They can catch up, but only if they liberalize and reform. If that happens, things will be excellent for China.

Corneliu

17-10-2005, 01:44

Oh, you can rest assured the United States will lose its place as the #1 Superpower within the century.

I'll take that bet.

Vetalia

17-10-2005, 01:46

Sure Canada and Jesus may hate eachother, but they are not mortal enemies.

For some reason, I see some kind of theocrat whipping the people in to a war frenzy like in 1984 and launching a crusade. Jesus Christ will be long gone by that point. Of course, if such a thing were to happen, you'd think God would smite them beforehand.

Corneliu

17-10-2005, 01:47

At the rate China is growing, problems won't stop it from blasting ahead. The United States is past its prime, and the economy is no longer blooming.

Actually, it will. Their economy isn't exactly 100% stable but neither is the US economy. However, the US Economy is more stable than China's is. China is going through massive corruption and if they can't find a way to stop it, it'll implode the Chinese Economy and thus causing a catastrophic collapse with world wide implications.

Opressive pacifists

17-10-2005, 01:57

No endorse

17-10-2005, 02:09

Within just five years of the Presidency of George W Bush we have seen the following.

No particular Order

All of our Allies abandoning us
9/11
The Iraq War
Enron/WorldCom debacles
Katrina and Rita Huricanes
Economic Recession (borderlining total collapse)
Inflated Gas Prices
Prisoner Abuse Scandels
Approval Ratings went from 80% to low 40% in 4 years 01-now
Corrupt Leadership at ALL levels of government (both parties)
China's Military/Economic Ascendancy
The European Union Economic Revival
Job exportation to India

When you put all this into a big pot and stir it up this spells trouble... But does it spell the beginning of the end of the United States as a Superpower, or even as a nation? Is this country built on the ideals of liberty and justice and freedom now like an old person on life support who is just begging to be given a quick death rather than a lingering one?

Is America Dying?
If only I was Hari Seldon...

Oh well, one doesn't need Psychohistory to see that America is slowing down. We are still the dominant military power, but China is not far behind in terms of the ground and the air. (China frankly reeks as a naval power...)

But, in the infinitly wise words of Westwood (Red Alert) "Time will tell. Sooner or later, time will tell."

The Chinese Republics

17-10-2005, 06:14

Most of the plutonium is stored in California, and the US's uranium comes mostly from Canada, so the Canadians would be able to make new weapons while Jesusland would be stuck with the aging stockpiles from the Cold War.hmmmm........ :D :D :D :D :D :D *evilness*

Besides the nuclear bombs and other resource crap. Jesusland might have a better war strategy. Look at the "new" map, Jesusland still have Alaska. They can attack us from both sides just to screw us over.

Stephistan

17-10-2005, 06:31

America being utterly destroyed is bad enough, but America being ruled by Martin . . . that's just adding insult to injury.

Hey, it wouldn't be so bad. Canada is after all the most free nation in North America. Without doubt.

Posi

17-10-2005, 06:34

hmmmm........ :D :D :D :D :D :D *evilness*

Besides the nuclear bombs and other resource crap. Jesusland might have a better war strategy. Look at the "new" map, Jesusland still have Alaska. They can attack us from both sides just to screw us over.
The USC has a fairly good chance of being able to ally with somelike Russia. Russia could use a couple of the nukes its got laying around to blow Alaska off North America. Hopefully the Soviets knew how to build a bomb that'll last.

Leonstein

17-10-2005, 06:37

-snip-
No particular Order

All of our Allies abandoning us - Check
9/11 - Check
The Iraq War - Check
Enron/WorldCom debacles - Check
Katrina and Rita Huricanes - Check
Economic Recession (borderlining total collapse) - Well, I wouldn't exactly call it a "collapse"
Inflated Gas Prices - Check, but that's your own fault. Since the 1970s or something has no US firm built a new rafinery...demand is very inelastic, so it pays to restrict supply.
Prisoner Abuse Scandals - Check
Approval Ratings went from 80% to low 40% in 4 years 01-now - Check, but is that such an apocalyptic thing?
Corrupt Leadership at ALL levels of government (both parties) - You reckon?
China's Military/Economic Ascendancy - Well, it's nowhere near a real problem yet. And they have to deal with oil prices just like everyone else.
The European Union Economic Revival - I wish.
Job exportation to India - Check, but you know that on aggregate and over time everyone will do well out of it.

So I reckon it might be the end of the beginning, but probably not the beginning of the end.

Myotisinia

17-10-2005, 07:36

Very melodramatic topic. Thought I was watching an episode of "As The World Turns" for a moment there. Let's address them one at a time, shall we?

All of our Allies abandoning us
(Not all of them. Just the ones who don't matter. Last time I checked, Britain was still with us.)
9/11
(The first World Trade Center bombing happened when was it...... ah yes. During the Clinton administration, as I recall. What has it got to do with this, you ask? Probably nothing. Likewise YOUR point.)
Enron/WorldCom debacles
(There are examples you can ALWAYS find of financial fraud going back over many many years. That is just the flavor of the month. Fraud is not exactly a creation of the new millenium.)
Katrina and Rita Hurricanes
(Oh sweet Jesus. Are you implying that we are getting an increase in the number of hurricanes because we are morally corrupt as a nation?)
Economic Recession (borderlining total collapse)
(The economy is cyclical. It always has been. It will get better. Then it will get worse. It has no concern for whom is in power. And bordering total collapse? Let me know when we actually have a significant increase it the unemployment rate nationwide, THEN we'll talk about it. I lived through a recession. It was in the seventies. What is going on now is living in the lap of luxury by comparison.)
Prisoner Abuse Scandals
(Overall we treat our prisoners FAR better than we have ever received in return from our enemies in ANY major conflict you would care to bring up. So far we have done little more than hurt some feelings. I am not saying that what Lynne England and those of her ilk and what they did was right. But a little perspective is in order......)
Approval Ratings went from 80% to low 40% in 4 years 01-now
(This will happen when the initial idealism and pre-war euphoria wears off. Don't beleive me? See what had happened to the approval ratings for the Vietnam War era presidents. Look it up. Nixon or LBJ would be a good place to start.)
Corrupt Leadership at ALL levels of government (both parties)
(Nothing new here either. Next.)
China's Military/Economic Ascendancy
The European Union Economic Revival
(Good for them. It's a big world. I think it is possible for one nation to be successful without it necessarily spelling doom for other nations. If anything, China's economic success has made them much less of a military threat than they once were. We are their best customer, or very close to it.)
Job exportation to India
(You forgot Mexico. Taiwan. Indonesia. Etc., etc. That is the way of business. They will go where the operating costs are less, or where there is a ready market for their goods. This is not new either. This has been going on for years. Um. Japan has technically lost jobs to the U.S. as well. They operate many businesses HERE too. It's called free trade. Welcome to the new millenium. Glad you could join us.)

You can choose to see every ongoing event as being the harbinger of oncoming doom, if you like. Enjoy yourself. Some people can always look at that half full glass and see it as being half empty. People have been predicting the end of civilization for years. Hasn't happened yet, chum. Remember the Y2K bug? We survived that.

Or did we.....? :eek:

The Similized world

17-10-2005, 07:47

Actually, it will. Their economy isn't exactly 100% stable but neither is the US economy. However, the US Economy is more stable than China's is. China is going through massive corruption and if they can't find a way to stop it, it'll implode the Chinese Economy and thus causing a catastrophic collapse with world wide implications.
Well...
Unless the Chinese economy goes utterly bust tomorrow, chances are that the US & EU would do our damndest to keep them afloat almost regardless of what happens.

Not only do we have a ton of investments tied up there, which are growing exponentially at the moment, but China is also the main financial support for the US (together with EU). If that changes drastically & suddenly, especially if current trends continue, pretty much everyone in the world would go dead broke.

It's fun to be so dependent on eachother, right?

Anyway, this is also why I back Corneliu's bet on America remaining a superpower. They run the world economy at the moment, so noone's actually interested in changing the powerbalance. There'd be nothing to gain by it for anyone, execpt maybe a handful of struggling 3rd world countries, and they're not really in a position to do anything. Outing the US would start the 21st century dark ages.

Anyway, please elect a better president next time. Like it or not, he's our despot too, so pay attention or allows us to vote.

Horse Mongers

17-10-2005, 08:12

(You forgot Mexico. Taiwan. Indonesia. Etc., etc. That is the way of business. They will go where the operating costs are less, or where there is a ready market for their goods. This is not new either. This has been going on for years. Um. Japan has technically lost jobs to the U.S. as well. They operate many businesses HERE too. It's called free trade. Welcome to the new millenium. Glad you could join us.)

http://www.canada.com/businesscentre/story.html?id=8f36029c-656a-4794-9a23-d2c95912616f
....is that what you call free trade?

Mariehamn

17-10-2005, 08:30

No, America's not collasping.

Slowly on the decline, yes.

I would liken to a comparison between Rome and America, rather than a sudden crater. But without the "empire" of course, because America has never been imperialistic in anyway.

Leonstein

17-10-2005, 08:56

...But without the "empire" of course, because America has never been imperialistic in anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Philippines#The_U.S._Invasion.2C_Colonial_Period_and_Regime_.281898-1946.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_%281865-1918%29#The_rise_of_U.S._Imperialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Colonization_Society

And finally
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._foreign_interventions_since_1945

Mariehamn

17-10-2005, 09:41

snip
Being sarcastic! :p

EDIT: I says things like that because people in my High School believe that America is not imperialistic in any sense. No hard feelings, I applaud you for those links!

Hyperspatial Travel

17-10-2005, 09:57

Is america collapsing

Do we really care?

Corneliu

17-10-2005, 14:01

Hey, it wouldn't be so bad. Canada is after all the most free nation in North America. Without doubt.

*cracks up laughing*

Sorry Stephistan but this is just plain wrong!

Corneliu

17-10-2005, 14:04

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Philippines#The_U.S._Invasion.2C_Colonial_Period_and_Regime_.281898-1946.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_%281865-1918%29#The_rise_of_U.S._Imperialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Colonization_Society

And finally
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._foreign_interventions_since_1945

Yep but we haven't kept any territory we gained since.... *goes back into his history books* World War 1! (Guam was a German Possession until handed over to the US after said war)

Leonstein

17-10-2005, 14:05

Sorry Stephistan but this is just plain wrong!
Now, I'm not an expert, but does Canada have such problems with
- gay marriage
- abortion
- anti-terror legislation
and other infringements on civil liberty?

Sierra BTHP

17-10-2005, 14:08

Within just five years of the Presidency of George W Bush we have seen the following.

No particular Order

All of our Allies abandoning us
9/11
The Iraq War
Enron/WorldCom debacles
Katrina and Rita Huricanes
Economic Recession (borderlining total collapse)
Inflated Gas Prices
Prisoner Abuse Scandels
Approval Ratings went from 80% to low 40% in 4 years 01-now
Corrupt Leadership at ALL levels of government (both parties)
China's Military/Economic Ascendancy
The European Union Economic Revival
Job exportation to India

When you put all this into a big pot and stir it up this spells trouble... But does it spell the beginning of the end of the United States as a Superpower, or even as a nation? Is this country built on the ideals of liberty and justice and freedom now like an old person on life support who is just begging to be given a quick death rather than a lingering one?

Is America Dying?

Nope. Regardless of who is in office here, the rest of the world is developing - and that's a good thing. Why is it a bad thing for America that China, India, and Europe are building their economies?

And I'll ask you a question - why is the American idea of globalization and free markets (which some Americans find distasteful) being promoted by so many OTHER nations?

Why do German car manufacturers outsource their labor to other countries?

Why is everyone buying soccer balls from the Third World?

It's not America dying. It's globalization - and it appears to me that the world is just moving to a higher state of economic equilibrium.

Leonstein

17-10-2005, 14:09

Yep but we haven't kept any territory we gained since.... *goes back into his history books* World War 1! (Guam was a German Possession until handed over to the US after said war)
Isn't Kadena Air Base in Okinawa legally US property?
Didn't say anything on Wiki about it being bought or rented...maybe we'll have to add that!

Corneliu

17-10-2005, 14:31

Now, I'm not an expert, but does Canada have such problems with
- gay marriage
- abortion
- anti-terror legislation
and other infringements on civil liberty?

Is Canada:
-a melting pot
-have 300 million people
-a powerful military
-rights that are gaurenteed under a thing called the constitution
-knows whats a state and federal issue?

No Canada isn't the most free nation on the conteninent and I'm not about to start this game.

Eli

17-10-2005, 14:35

the premise here sounds a lot like John Kerry's campaign speeches. people hate negative candidates btw for all you aspiring candidates.

drivel of course. oh and the EU is stagnant other than the recent additions and the UK.

France and Germany haven't had impressive employment or growth in thirty years still stuck in 70's stagnation. UK had Thatcher so they were saved from that hell.

Try staffing a call center in the US at 10-15 dollars an hour. Lots and lots of people in this country want jobs very few of them want to earn their pay. There is a big difference. I hire and interview all the time for those type jobs like what are going to India, I interview more for one position now (10-12 applicants) to get 1 or 2 suitable CSR's than you can believe. Uneducated, ill mannered, drug infested, cretins for the most part is what you get. Drive in window for lifers I call them. At least people in India value education over indoctrination while attending school.

Corneliu

17-10-2005, 14:39

Isn't Kadena Air Base in Okinawa legally US property?
Didn't say anything on Wiki about it being bought or rented...maybe we'll have to add that!

Kadena. The air base where my parents met! :D

Actually its not really clear if we own it or not. We do have a Status of Forces Agreement with the Island. I think, and after just talking with my mom who served at Kadena, we don't own it but pay rent. I'll know more when my father gets home though.

Leonstein

17-10-2005, 14:40

Is Canada:
-a melting pot: Given how many Indian Canadians I've met here in Australia, I'd guess the answer is "yes". :D

-have 300 million people: No, I don't think so (about a tenth or so). So they're even more free to enjoy their own private space!

-a powerful military: No. Does that make them any less free?

-rights that are gaurenteed under a thing called the constitution: Yes! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms

-knows whats a state and federal issue?: Well, they do have plenty of "states", so they have issues with that too. In fact, aren't all kinds of people trying to become independent over there?

From a Civil Libertarian's point of view, I'd think I'd rather live in Canada than in the US if you look at it on aggregate.

Sierra BTHP

17-10-2005, 14:44

The Western world is seeing the effects of globalization, that's all. The developing world is developing rather rapidly.

Corneliu

17-10-2005, 14:46

point of view, I'd think I'd rather live in Canada than in the US if you look at it on aggregate.

I would rather live in the United States. The land of the free and the home of the brave. I would rather live in the United States where we can hold our politicians to task by voting them out of office. Can't do that in Canada.

Where we can toss out our elected leaders through impeachment if they violate the law of the land. That hasn't happened with Martin yet even though he has.

We could play this shell game forever so why not agree to disagree.

Compuq

17-10-2005, 15:13

I would rather live in the United States. The land of the free and the home of the brave. I would rather live in the United States where we can hold our politicians to task by voting them out of office. Can't do that in Canada.

Where we can toss out our elected leaders through impeachment if they violate the law of the land. That hasn't happened with Martin yet even though he has.

We could play this shell game forever so why not agree to disagree.

What? We don't vote?

If Martin or any Canadian Prime minister was convicted of a crime or did something canadians really did'nt approve of then we would be able to get rid of him, but there is no formal impreachment process.

Corneliu

17-10-2005, 15:16

What? We don't vote?

Tell me how many scandals has PM Martin have? To many. Why have the liberals been in power so long even after all of the scandals? Seems to me the Canadians don't care. In the states, have that many scandals and odds are, articles of Impeachment would be drawn up.

If Martin or any Canadian Prime minister was convicted of a crime or did something canadians really did'nt approve of then we would be able to get rid of him, but there is no formal impreachment process.

HAHA! Look at all the scandals involving the Liberal party. They are still in power so this arguement won't work with me.

Nopuland

17-10-2005, 15:26

The easy way out of all of the listed problems is to assume that the nation's leader and the nation's citizens are idiots. (Which is only assumed by the narrow-minded, the minority)
Anyway, it's safe to say that the Allies abandoning you (You, not us, is Canadian), prisoner abuse scandals, inflated gas prices (indirectly [gas companies are losing refineries in the Middle East, and possibly greed inspired by the belief that people will think it's due to the Iraqi oil industry being collapsed forcibly]) is due to the Iraq war.
The Iraq war was put in motion a decade ago, and caused the Gulf War when Hussein attacked America. Former pres. Bush didn't finish the job, though, and Clinton abandoned it.
The return to the war was probably initiated by the terrorist attacks at 9/11, again, indirectly enough since it heightened American hatred for the Middle East, not just Afghanistan, but anyone who is somehow associated with it. Such an association exists in Iraq, since both countries are oppressive, and both are a large exporter of oil. Also, Afghanistan would have served as a platform from which to launch an attack on Iraq, both physically (due to proximity) and otherwise (since people now have an augmented belief that the Middle East is highly oppressive, and needs democracy).
9/11, in turn, was caused, of course, by America's effect on the Middle East. The war over Israel was going on for many years, now. And since it is fueled solely by religious beliefs, chances are it won't be quelled until both sides are unable to fight. America had occupied Israel to help defend against attacks, such as from Egypt, and was successful in fending them off. This would naturally anger the attackers, such as Islamic extremists, like Osama bin Laden, who decided to counterattack by landing a cheap shot on Americans. Hence, 9/11.
Of course, all of the above would naturally cause general concern over whether the right things are being done. Who wouldn't value safety? Approval ratings reflect this and drop over a short period of time, and in the height of the conflict.
Corrupted leadership would stand to reason as a result. Nobody in charge of the country wants it to collapse. The best way of doing this is by not telling the citizens what's going on for the most part, and then by making drastic moves to attempt to prevent said collapse. With no one in the know, how could they complain about it? Unfortunately, some of this information will be leaked to the media. The promise of more drastic measures being secretively taken and the concern of what measures the public does know about without being given justification would aid in the drop in approval, too, and raise awareness about the government's quasi-denial of civil rights.
The aforementioned war on the Middle East, which caused the huge oil prices, is primarily what caused the economic recession. It's harder to acquire oil, and the minimized funds have to go to the offensive, too. The result is a decreased budget, increased debt, and hence the poor economic status. Such a state is debatably what also caused the collapse of Enron and WorldCom. The sudden cut in the amount of money available to such large companies would have at least contributed to their collapse.
(See how nicely all the above problems tie together?)
The Hurricanes really weren't caused by anything...my personal belief is that the slow response and the unlucky location of Katrina heightened public consciousness of Rita, making the latter seem worse when it was really not as bad, and perhaps augmented concern over the government's motives. (Since Bush claimed responsibility for the failure of the government to relieve Louisiana)
The European revival was probably brought on by the UK's contribution to the war, and the New World. I say this because Canada and the US used to be British colonies, and were funded solely by the UK. Colonization drained the population, as well, since the life of a person in North America was better due to the fishery and mining industries, such as was apparent during the gold rush. Once the US left the commonwealth, the British were no longer gaining income from the once-great amount of moneys coming in from that country. Then, when Canada gained independance, the British had to go back to native income, since they were now unable to garner anything from North America.
China's military power was arguably brought on by its general inactivity, but the constant pressure on the Russian/Chinese border, augmenting the need for soldiers to join the army. Of course, with 1 billion people in the country, it would be possible to gain the power they would need to hopefully end the tension between Russia either through preparedness for an attack/defense or through fear of the military prowess of China.

The above is all opinion based on some facts that have been made aware to me. So if you disagree with something, don't get angry and/or flame out.

Whallop

17-10-2005, 15:29

-a powerful military: No. Does that make them any less free?

Heh, the group who founded the USA considered a standing army one of the most harmful things for the freedom of the people in the USA they could think of.
Which is why they had militias instead of a standing army in the early USA.

Back to the subject on hand.
No the USA is not dying. It's just losing it's position as hegemon in a way that is almost starting become standard for an empire to lose that position because of wars that can be avoided (and the attendant social, political & economic problems this brings).

Sierra BTHP

17-10-2005, 15:31

Back to the subject on hand.
No the USA is not dying. It's just losing it's position as hegemon in a way that is almost starting become standard for an empire to lose that position because of wars that can be avoided (and the attendant social, political & economic problems this brings).

It's not just the USA losing its position.

It's the whole Western world. Losing their economic ascendancy over the rest of the world as the rest of the world develops.

America is not the only Western country exporting jobs. Europe is ahead of us in that regard, and additionally, Europe has seen declining native birth rates for over a decade now.

The decline of the West is what we're seeing - at least in relation to the rise of the East.

Whallop

17-10-2005, 15:44

It's not just the USA losing its position.

It's the whole Western world. Losing their economic ascendancy over the rest of the world as the rest of the world develops.

What is called the western world are all vassal states beholden to the US.
The problems in vassal states are partially their own, partially first indicators that something is wrong with the empire/hegemon.

The Iraq war was put in motion a decade ago, and caused the Gulf War when Hussein attacked America. Former pres. Bush didn't finish the job, though, and Clinton abandoned it.
Bush Sr. has been asked why he didn't what you call finish the job.
The response was because he expected the exact mess that the USA is in now and considered it not worth the expenditure in money or lives.

Corneliu

17-10-2005, 15:48

What is called the western world are all vassal states beholden to the US.

HAHAHAHA!!! Oh such a rediculous comment! HAHAHA!!

The problems in vassal states are partially their own, partially first indicators that something is wrong with the empire/hegemon.

And since they aren't vassel states..... so far there is no problems in Guam or any other American territory.

Bush Sr. has been asked why he didn't what you call finish the job.
The response was because he expected the exact mess that the USA is in now and considered it not worth the expenditure in money or lives.

Not to mention it wasn't UN approved. Another reason to dislike the United Nations as well as the Arab States for not wanting a change in leadership there either.

Nopuland

17-10-2005, 15:49

-knows whats a state and federal issue?: Well, they do have plenty of "states", so they have issues with that too. In fact, aren't all kinds of people trying to become independent over there?
Not really. As far as I know, it's only Quebec. They tried to seperate a few years back, and had a referendum to that effect, but they lost 52% to 48%. So Quebec is still part of Canada. If I'm wrong about that being the only case, so be it. But that's all I've heard of. And I don't watch the news or anything.
Bush Sr. has been asked why he didn't what you call finish the job.
The response was because he expected the exact mess that the USA is in now and considered it not worth the expenditure in money or lives.
That doesn't really matter. The point is that Bush Jr. went back to Iraq, despite the UN not approving.

Corneliu

17-10-2005, 15:51

-knows whats a state and federal issue?: Well, they do have plenty of "states", so they have issues with that too. In fact, aren't all kinds of people trying to become independent over there?

As far as I know, the answer is no. Unless you want to take into affect Texas but they haven't held a referendum to split off from the Union though some militias there want a Texas Republic. That won't happen and they know it.

Sierra BTHP

17-10-2005, 15:52

What is called the western world are all vassal states beholden to the US.
The problems in vassal states are partially their own, partially first indicators that something is wrong with the empire/hegemon.

Bush Sr. has been asked why he didn't what you call finish the job.
The response was because he expected the exact mess that the USA is in now and considered it not worth the expenditure in money or lives.

France is a vassal state of the United States? HAHAHAHAHA <had to clean up my keyboard after that one>

Corneliu

17-10-2005, 15:53

That doesn't really matter. The point is that Bush Jr. went back to Iraq, despite the UN not approving.

In reality, they did when they Approved the Cease-fire Agreement that Hussein violated.

Under International Law when a cease-fire is violated, war picks up where it left off.

Nopuland

17-10-2005, 16:06

Okay, then forget me saying the UN didn't approve. The fact is that Bush Jr. went back.
Is Canada:
-a melting pot
-have 300 million people
-a powerful military
-rights that are gaurenteed under a thing called the constitution
-knows whats a state and federal issue?

No Canada isn't the most free nation on the conteninent and I'm not about to start this game.
Canada is probably a melting pot...but whatever. There are, as posted above, lots of Indian Canadians in Australia...so I'll say "Sure"
Canada has like...40 or 50 million people. But who the hell cares? That comes with having bad winters and cold weather. Why should population affect freedom? Actually, one could argue that more population = more need for security, with would adversly affect freedom.
Canada might not have a powerful military, but again, who the hell cares? You can't judge freedom by the military. America has a reputation for its military causing wars and attacking other countries. Canada has a reputation for using the military to relieve affected peoples after or during war. In addition, nobody ever really attacked Canada. You don't see an Islamic extremist screaming "Death to Canada! Death to Canada!" with a hook waving around in his hand.
And Canada has The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. And the government actually ADHERES to it. In fact, any given bill goes through the House of Commons, where they agree on a solution, then to the Senate, where they "proofread" it to make sure it complies with the Charter, other laws, etc., then it goes to the sovereign where it's approved and whatnot. Canada has provinces. Not states. So there are provincial issues, federal issues, etc. The only difference is the system with which the government uses to correct it.

Sierra BTHP

17-10-2005, 16:09

Okay, then forget me saying the UN didn't approve. The fact is that Bush Jr. went back.

Canada is probably a melting pot...but whatever. There are, as posted above, lots of Indian Canadians in Australia...so I'll say "Sure"
Canada has like...40 or 50 million people. But who the hell cares? That comes with having bad winters and cold weather. Why should population affect freedom? Actually, one could argue that more population = more need for security, with would adversly affect freedom.
Canada might not have a powerful military, but again, who the hell cares? You can't judge freedom by the military. America has a reputation for its military causing wars and attacking other countries. Canada has a reputation for using the military to relieve affected peoples after or during war. In addition, nobody ever really attacked Canada. You don't see an Islamic extremist screaming "Death to Canada! Death to Canada!" with a hook waving around in his hand.
And Canada has The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. And the government actually ADHERES to it. In fact, any given bill goes through the House of Commons, where they agree on a solution, then to the Senate, where they "proofread" it to make sure it complies with the Charter, other laws, etc., then it goes to the sovereign where it's approved and whatnot. Canada has provinces. Not states. So there are provincial issues, federal issues, etc. The only difference is the system with which the government uses to correct it.

Here in Virginia, I wear a pistol all the time. I am entitled to wear it concealed or in the open. I am also allowed to defend myself under certain circumstances.

I can't do that in Canada.

And before you talk about how violent it is here, remember that firearm murders have dropped 63 percent since the introduction of the laws that let me walk around with a pistol.

Baradun

17-10-2005, 16:15

Is Canada:
-a melting pot
-have 300 million people
-a powerful military
-rights that are gaurenteed under a thing called the constitution
-knows whats a state and federal issue?

No Canada isn't the most free nation on the conteninent and I'm not about to start this game.

1) Since when does assimilating someone's population like the fuggin' BORG make your country any more free?
2) ... WTF does having a larger population have to do with it!?
3) And so, the USSR and Nazi Germany had powerfull militaries, did this make them any more free?
4) We have a charter of rights and freedoms, nimrod. A constitution deals with how the government runs
5) ... How can we have state issues when we have PROVINCES! BAKA!

P.S. You just started it.

Corneliu

17-10-2005, 16:17

Okay, then forget me saying the UN didn't approve. The fact is that Bush Jr. went back.

Which was a good thing.

Nopuland

17-10-2005, 16:17

Well, Americans might need a reason to carry a pistol around. I don't. And why would you, if nobody else can legally carry a pistol, either?

Baradun

17-10-2005, 16:18

Here in Virginia, I wear a pistol all the time. I am entitled to wear it concealed or in the open. I am also allowed to defend myself under certain circumstances.

I can't do that in Canada.

And before you talk about how violent it is here, remember that firearm murders have dropped 63 percent since the introduction of the laws that let me walk around with a pistol.

And guess what? Our murder rate is still about 10% of yours...

I wonder why...

P.S. If I can wander around downtown without the threat of being mugged... do I need a weapon? Weapons are only needed in poverty-ridden third-world countries. If you're saying you need one to protect yourself then you're basically saying you have the same social stability as freakin' Afganistan.

Corneliu

17-10-2005, 16:21

1) Since when does assimilating someone's population like the fuggin' BORG make your country any more free?
2) ... WTF does having a larger population have to do with it!?
3) And so, the USSR and Nazi Germany had powerfull militaries, did this make them any more free?
4) We have a charter of rights and freedoms, nimrod. A constitution deals with how the government runs
5) ... How can we have state issues when we have PROVINCES! BAKA!

P.S. You just started it.

Provinces and states can be interchangible.

As for the USSR and Nazi Germany, they weren't even free. The United States still is free and we have the most powerful, ALL VOLUNTEER, force in the world.

As for assimulating...I'm not even going to touch that one because it is rediculous for you even to say what you stated.

As for your charter of rights and freedoms, insults invalidate any point you make.

Actually I didn't. Stephistan actually started it by stating "Canada is the freest nation in North America"

Corneliu

17-10-2005, 16:22

And guess what? Our murder rate is still about 10% of yours...

I wonder why...

Population numbers?

Sierra BTHP

17-10-2005, 16:22

And guess what? Our murder rate is still about 10% of yours...

I wonder why...

P.S. If I can wander around downtown without the threat of being mugged... do I need a weapon? Weapons are only needed in poverty-ridden third-world countries. If you're saying you need one to protect yourself then you're basically saying you have the same social stability as freakin' Afganistan.

Actually, if you stay out of the poor areas of the major urban centers, your odds of being involved in violent crime are not any different from living in Switzerland.

But, if you're black and living in a major urban area in the US (where guns are already illegal), your odds of being shot to death are about 200 times greater than they are for me.

Oh, and women are beaten to death in Canada, too. By their ex-husbands. Here in my district, I train women to carry guns. It ensures that they don't get bothered by their ex-husband. Curiously, none of the women I've trained have been even slightly bothered by their ex-husband - all of whom experienced frightening levels of violence before the ex was made aware of the fact that the women were armed, trained, and through the protective order, had what amounted to a license to defend themselves.

A woman in Canada can't get that kind of protection. I guess that's why there will always be women beaten to death there - women who are forbidden to protect themselves.

Nopuland

17-10-2005, 16:23

He said the murder RATE. Not the murder total. So population doesn't make a difference.
And women are beaten to death, sure. But notably less than America's women. (Again, as a rate, not a total)
Before you go off on how the murder rate is only due to the pop. density, remember that Japan has way more density than the entirety of North America, and the murder there is less than 100 annually.

Corneliu

17-10-2005, 16:25

He said the murder RATE. Not the murder total. So population doesn't make a difference.

Actually it does make a difference and I'll let you figure out why.

Sierra BTHP

17-10-2005, 16:25

He said the murder RATE. Not the murder total. So population doesn't make a difference.

Also, if you consider how spread out the Canadian population is, it's rather hard to get close enough to murder someone.

Did I forget to mention those great Edmonton police? You know, the ones who pick up homeless drunks and drive them 50 K out of town, and leave them to freeze to death?

Great police you have there. And no annoying video of someone being beaten to death by the cops. Very smart policing, that.

Nopuland

17-10-2005, 16:28

Did I forget to mention those great Edmonton police? You know, the ones who pick up homeless drunks and drive them 50 K out of town, and leave them to freeze to death?
I can speak volumes about the American police forces doing much worse than that.

Corneliu

17-10-2005, 16:29

I can speak volumes about the American police forces doing much worse than that.

Ahhh you mean just shooting them or beating them if they throw a punch?

Sierra BTHP

17-10-2005, 16:29

I can speak volumes about the American police forces doing much worse than that.

Oh, the American police are dumb enough to do it on video tape. That way, the abuse doesn't go on for more than the one or two victims seen on the tape.

In Edmonton, the murder by police went on for decades. Oh, and after a bit of whitewash, they resumed doing it.

Baradun

17-10-2005, 16:29

Provinces and states can be interchangible.

As for the USSR and Nazi Germany, they weren't even free. The United States still is free and we have the most powerful, ALL VOLUNTEER, force in the world.

As for assimulating...I'm not even going to touch that one because it is rediculous for you even to say what you stated.

As for your charter of rights and freedoms, insults invalidate any point you make.

Actually I didn't. Stephistan actually started it by stating "Canada is the freest nation in North America"

Provinces and states are NOT interchangable.

Nazi Germany's force was pretty much volounteer... brainwashed volounteers maybe, but volounteers none the less. The USSR's were the same. They volounteered to serve their country and ideology, too.
Oh, and your volounteers? How is someone who volounteers because of economic pressures any less of a conscript than someone who goes because of political ones?

You've just failed to take on an issue. This must mean I'm right. :cool:

The insult was justified because of your ignorance and lack of research.

You were the one who rebutted first.

Nopuland

17-10-2005, 16:32

Ahhh you mean just shooting them or beating them if they throw a punch?
That's still murder, dude. And if you think the RCMP use unnecessary force to the point where they shoot for no reason, then you truly don't know what you're talking about.

Corneliu

17-10-2005, 16:34

Provinces and states are NOT interchangable.

All what your used too.

Nazi Germany's force was pretty much volounteer... brainwashed volounteers maybe, but volounteers none the less.

And yet there was full conscription and yes they were brainwashed but I never stated that their forces weren't volunteer now did I?

The USSR's were the same. They volounteered to serve their country and ideology, too.

Funny. Most of those were conscripted soldiers.

Oh, and your volounteers? How is someone who volounteers because of economic pressures any less of a conscript than someone who goes because of political ones?

Most people join the Armed Forces for the benefits but also to protect the nation they love. They know full well that they could be shipped off to war. That is why I hold contempt for Consciencous objectors.

You've just failed to take on an issue. This must mean I'm right. :cool:

Never proclaim victory.

The insult was justified because of your ignorance and lack of research.

No insult is justified.

You were the one who rebutted first.

Nice back down. I came back with "that's the most funniest thing I've heard then Leonstein started in so.......

Corneliu

17-10-2005, 16:36

That's still murder, dude. And if you think the RCMP use unnecessary force to the point where they shoot for no reason, then you truly don't know what you're talking about.

In the United States, there are just some city police departments you just don't mess with. Crooks are starting to learn that too.

Laerod

17-10-2005, 16:37

Provinces and states are NOT interchangable.Maybe not, but they come pretty close as equivalents. Arguing that there's so much of a difference you can't compare the two is a semantic arguement.

Nazi Germany's force was pretty much volounteer... brainwashed volounteers maybe, but volounteers none the less. Bullshit.
The USSR's were the same. They volounteered to serve their country and ideology, too.Hardly. Plenty did, but I doubt an entire generation would go to the battlefields volontarily and die (and that's what happened. There were almost no Russian men with certain years of birth alive after WWII).
You've just failed to take on an issue. This must mean I'm right. :cool:

The insult was justified because of your ignorance and lack of research.

You were the one who rebutted first.This is a silly arguement and has nothing to do with which country is freer in N. America.

Nopuland

17-10-2005, 16:37

By the way, the homeless-being-dragged-out-of-town thing was in Winnipeg, not Edmonton, and was actually a punishment to be administered en lieu of jail time. And it wasn't the homeless who were affected. It was the criminals. Nor did they freeze to death. They were dumped a certain distance out of town and made to walk back, at which point they were "off the hook".

Corneliu

17-10-2005, 16:39

By the way, the homeless-being-dragged-out-of-town thing was in Winnipeg, not Edmonton, and was actually a punishment to be administered en lieu of jail time. And it wasn't the homeless who were affected. It was the criminals.

What's the matter with just jailing them and releasing them? We do that here. Doesn't work but that is what we do here in the United States.

Sierra BTHP

17-10-2005, 16:40

By the way, the homeless-being-dragged-out-of-town thing was in Winnipeg, not Edmonton, and was actually a punishment to be administered en lieu of jail time. And it wasn't the homeless who were affected. It was the criminals.

It happened in Edmonton, too. Saw a nice show about it down here. Talked to Sinuhue about it.
http://radio.cbc.ca/programs/thismorning/sites/news/carty_001103.html

Evidently, it happens all over the more remote, colder places in Canada. Nice police you have there.

Nopuland

17-10-2005, 16:41

Actually, it was later shown that crimes commited by the people in question were diminished to near-nothing. So that makes it more effective than jail. Although I don't think they do that anymore.

Sierra BTHP

17-10-2005, 16:43

Actually, it was later shown that crimes commited by the people in question were diminished to near-nothing. So that makes it more effective than jail. Although I don't think they do that anymore.

Yes, if you take a person 50 kilometers outside of town, when the temperature is well below freezing, they tend to stop committing crimes, largely because they are frozen solid and deceased.

Corneliu

17-10-2005, 16:44

Actually, it was later shown that crimes commited by the people in question were diminished to near-nothing. So that makes it more effective than jail. Although I don't think they do that anymore.

Considering that what these 2 towns do will be considered Cruel and Unusual Punishment (a violation of the 8th Amendment :p) Good for them if they don't dump people off in freezing cold places anymore.

Nopuland

17-10-2005, 16:45

Sierra BTHP

17-10-2005, 16:46

Sierra BTHP

17-10-2005, 16:48

Assuming they actually died. If there was one, that would be why they stopped doing it. And don't think that American police aren't similarly treating people in their jurisdiction. If it was as cold, chances are there'd be a lot more of it down there.
Also, Winnipeg and Edmonton aren't cold most of the year. Only during the winter. And again, American police unjustly treat citizens plenty of times.
"I'm Pat Lorje. I'm a MLA, a member of the legislative assembly for Saskatoon-Southeast. I've been jogging out here for about 15 years - I consider it my big backyard and I find a lot of treasures out here. I found a$50 bill one time - which was nice. But lately a lot of unpleasant things happen.

"It was a Saturday, January 29th to be specific. I looked at the thermometer before I left the house and it as -19 degrees. I came around the corner and I saw the owner of the feed store drive up. And the man said to me 'Pst, pst - come here, come here.' And he sounded both excited and he had a tone of revulsion in his voice. As I was running down the hill I saw what I thought was a piece of carpet or something on the ground. And as I ran closer what I thought was rolled up carpet started to look like a tube of some sort - and then I realized tube was a leg and the leg was actually a man lying on his back on the ground, on the gravel. His skin was very waxy looking. He had no shirt on at all. He was completely naked from the waste up. I just bent over and put my hand down near his mouth to see if there was any sign of breathing or warmth - which there wasn't.

"When the police arrived, they were able to identify Mr. Naistus, Rodney Naistus, as the man who was frozen to death. And I said to the police officer 'You know, I think he was dumped here.' And the officer said 'Oh, no, no - he's walked here.'

"That was bad enough. The next week, railway workers found another body, just on the other side of the garbage dump."

"We're standing in the field where Lawrence Wegner's body was found, says Dan Zakresky, a reporter with the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix. "To the north there's the back side of the dump - off to right is the power station, with some sort of clanging background. He was curled up in ground in snow, wearing jeans and socks and a T-shirt. No shoes. He was frozen solid enough to suggest that he was out here more than overnight. I believe it took up to three to four days to thaw him out enough to be able to do an autopsy.

"After the second body appeared, we decided to take a little bit closer look at it. In conversation with the police, it was presented as a standard death by misadventure. I started with a mind to doing a cautionary tale - don't drink and wander around in the wintertime because you'll die."

Nopuland

17-10-2005, 16:49

Wow, you need to find out more about Canada.

A lot of people died. And although there have been investigations, nothing has really come of it other than a short pause, and then a resumption of business as usual.
So then look at the methods of your police. The RCMP don't go as far as stopping on the side of the road and charging someone with something they didn't commit, then use it as an excuse to beat them. Or falsify rap sheets to put them in jail for nothing.

Sierra BTHP

17-10-2005, 16:51

So then look at the methods of your police. The RCMP don't go as far as stopping on the side of the road and charging someone with something they didn't commit, then use it as an excuse to beat them. Or falsify rap sheets to put them in jail for nothing.

Really? Never? ROFLMAO! With the kinds of police you have, stripping drunks naked and then taking them kilometers out of town in -19 C weather so they freeze SOLID before they walk a kilometer - that's rather farfetched for you to make such an assertion.

Nopuland

17-10-2005, 16:54

Really? Never? ROFLMAO! With the kinds of police you have, stripping drunks naked and then taking them kilometers out of town in -19 C weather so they freeze SOLID before they walk a kilometer - that's rather farfetched for you to make such an assertion.
So you tell me how many people have died due to this treatment, then tell me how many people have died in America due to mistreatment. You've yet to tell me anything about America, all you've done is attack a particular incidence in Alberta that has since stopped.
And even so, the events in Alberta haven't exactly gone unnoticed. But nor does it affect my freedom.

Sierra BTHP

17-10-2005, 16:55

So then look at the methods of your police. The RCMP don't go as far as stopping on the side of the road and charging someone with something they didn't commit, then use it as an excuse to beat them. Or falsify rap sheets to put them in jail for nothing.

Yes as we know, there are no Canadian racists, either, and no racist society in Canada (ROFLMAO!)

Police officials say some of these stories will prove to be fabrications. And many people in Saskatoon might have been willing to give the police the benefit of the doubt - had it not been for a story written in a local paper. It was a column advertised as real life vignettes about policing. It was written by a real police officer. Three years ago, that column described two officers picking up a drunk man and driving him out of town, to the power station to be precise, and then forcing him out of the car to walk back home. 'One less guest for breakfast,' is how the police officer's column ended. It still bothers Pat Lorje:

"It didn't cause a stir in the city - people read it. I read that column and didn't immediately say 'There is something wrong here.' When I came back from finding this man frozen to death - I talked to one man and he said 'How was your run?' 'Not good at all - I found a dead body in field.' He said 'Was it a man or woman?' and I said 'A man.' He said 'Native?' I said 'Yes.' He said 'Oh well, that's alright' - and turned away from me. It's too easy to blame the police and say we have to clean up the police and everything is fine. This is systemic racism that spreads throughout whole society."

Sierra BTHP

17-10-2005, 16:57

So you tell me how many people have died due to this treatment, then tell me how many people have died in America due to mistreatment. You've yet to tell me anything about America, all you've done is attack a particular incidence in Alberta that has since stopped.

Nope, it's systemic and it hasn't stopped.

The two officers investigated weren't even charged with murder.

First People are of the opinion and experience that it happens so often that they are afraid to get into the back of any patrol car.

Hundreds of people have been killed this way.

You're the one who says that Canada is so pristine, unracist, and the system works perfectly and the police never abuse anyone.

Nopuland

17-10-2005, 16:58

Again, they've stopped that once they realized that people were dying. So that point is moot.

Laerod

17-10-2005, 16:59

So then look at the methods of your police. The RCMP don't go as far as stopping on the side of the road and charging someone with something they didn't commit, then use it as an excuse to beat them. Or falsify rap sheets to put them in jail for nothing.The US judicial system often appears rather extreme. There's immense amounts of rights for criminals and these often let guilty men walk free. On the other hand, you have cops pissed off by this, who will then proceed to do things wrong. Either of these cases will get more media attention than the ones in which the laws work, because of the "if it bleeds, it leads" policy in the media.

Corneliu

17-10-2005, 17:00

Again, they've stopped that once they realized that people were dying. So that point is moot.

Proof that it has stopped please!

Sierra BTHP

17-10-2005, 17:01

Again, they've stopped that once they realized that people were dying. So that point is moot.
Hasn't stopped.

Nopuland

17-10-2005, 17:01

Nope, it's systemic and it hasn't stopped.

The two officers investigated weren't even charged with murder.

First People are of the opinion and experience that it happens so often that they are afraid to get into the back of any patrol car.

Hundreds of people have been killed this way.

You're the one who says that Canada is so pristine, unracist, and the system works perfectly and the police never abuse anyone.
The official death toll was 2. And I didn't say Canada was pristine/unracist/with a perfect system. You did. And that procedure did stop. Maybe they're telling you differently, but I've been to Edmonton.

Corneliu

17-10-2005, 17:02

Nopuland

17-10-2005, 17:02

The deaths totalled 2. Whether you want to believe it or not. That's still a big thing, since provincial murders are about 20 or 30 annually.
Whatever, back to the point. America isn't collapsing as much as diminishing in power. I think maybe the military is getting too much attention and the economy is falling because of it. But again, opinion.

Sierra BTHP

17-10-2005, 17:03

The official death toll was 2. And I didn't say Canada was pristine/unracist/with a perfect system. You did. And that procedure did stop. Maybe they're telling you differently, but I've been to Edmonton.

So have I. I go every year. It's still happenning all over the colder areas of Canada.

And the intent behind the tour is literally, "one less mouth at breakfast". They mean to kill the people who they drop off.

Corneliu

17-10-2005, 17:03

Whatever, back to the point. America isn't collapsing as much as diminishing in power. I think maybe the military is getting too much attention and the economy is falling because of it. But again, opinion.

The economy is falling? :eek:

Haven't seen it yet so I guess its inaccurate.

Nopuland

17-10-2005, 17:06

So have I. I go every year. It's still happenning all over the colder areas of Canada.

And the intent behind the tour is literally, "one less mouth at breakfast". They mean to kill the people who they drop off.
The hell are you talking about? Your info thus far seems to be primarily speculation. They intend to keep the people from home until the evening, which is when they'd usually get back, so they miss breakfast and lunch. And no, it's not happening all over the colder areas of Canada. It was stopped, and no matter how many times or how strongly you assure me otherwise, it won't change the fact that it has. It's still written and talked about, so maybe that's given a wrong impression. But this treatment has ended already.

Corneliu

17-10-2005, 17:08

The hell are you talking about? Your info thus far seems to be primarily speculation. They intend to keep the people from home until the evening, which is when they'd usually get back, so they miss breakfast and lunch. And no, it's not happening all over the colder areas of Canada. It was stopped, and no matter how many times or how strongly you assure me otherwise, it won't change the fact that it has. It's still written and talked about, so maybe that's given a wrong impression. But this treatment has ended already.

Prove that it has stopped please.

Sierra BTHP

17-10-2005, 17:09

Compuq

17-10-2005, 17:10

Tell me how many scandals has PM Martin have? To many. Why have the liberals been in power so long even after all of the scandals? Seems to me the Canadians don't care. In the states, have that many scandals and odds are, articles of Impeachment would be drawn up.

HAHA! Look at all the scandals involving the Liberal party. They are still in power so this arguement won't work with me.

*I am not trying to turn this into a " My country is better then yours" arguement or a GW Bush bash.*

The liberal party has been implicated in one scandal during its time in office so far and the case has not been made that PM Paul Martin had anything to do with during his time as PM or ever.

In the US Politians are implitcated in wrong doing all the time like everywhere else, but rarely is anyone impeached. How many accusations does Tom Delay have against him? Yet he has only resigned temporarily? What about other Republican Scandals that have occured in during their time in power, but they remain in power. Seems to me Americans don't care either.

Nopuland

17-10-2005, 17:12

Prove that it has stopped please.
That's something many Indians scoff at. Since the deaths of the two men, native leaders say they've received over 250 phone calls reporting similar stories across the province. Now they want a public inquiry to examine the entire justice system.
The officers were arrested, badges were stripped, and they weren't charged with murder because they didn't murder them. The procedure was meant as punishment, not an execution, so it wasn't a murder attempt. Although I believe they got manslaughter.
Native leaders can go examine the justice system if they want. But them saying they've received calls is what's called hearsay. It doesn't prove anything. No more deaths were attributed to the procedure, either.

Sierra BTHP

17-10-2005, 17:15

The officers were arrested, badges were stripped, and they weren't charged with murder because they didn't murder them. The procedure was meant as punishment, not an execution, so it wasn't a murder attempt. Although I believe they got manslaughter.
Native leaders can go examine the justice system if they want. But them saying they've received calls is what's called hearsay. It doesn't prove anything. No more deaths were attributed to the procedure, either.

Oh, and I'm supposed to believe you, and not the Natives. I get it. Looks like you magically solved the whole racism problem there, too.

I've been to Edmonton too many times to know that they are about as racist as some people in the Deep South in the US.

Corneliu

17-10-2005, 17:15

The officers were arrested, badges were stripped, and they weren't charged with murder because they didn't murder them. The procedure was meant as punishment, not an execution, so it wasn't a murder attempt. Although I believe they got manslaughter.

Proof please.

Native leaders can go examine the justice system if they want. But them saying they've received calls is what's called hearsay. It doesn't prove anything. No more deaths were attributed to the procedure, either.

so much for the Canadian Justice System. Thank God I live in America where the burden of proof is on the Prosecutor.

Sierra BTHP

17-10-2005, 17:17

The officers were arrested, badges were stripped, and they weren't charged with murder because they didn't murder them. The procedure was meant as punishment, not an execution, so it wasn't a murder attempt. Although I believe they got manslaughter.
Native leaders can go examine the justice system if they want. But them saying they've received calls is what's called hearsay. It doesn't prove anything. No more deaths were attributed to the procedure, either.

The two veteran officers were charged with assault and forcible confinement. The jury rendered convictions on only the latter charge.

Shows how little you know about it.

Laerod

17-10-2005, 17:19

so much for the Canadian Justice System. Thank God I live in America where the burden of proof is on the Prosecutor.I believe that was an example of how more proof than just phonecalls is needed to prosecute someone. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that imply that the burden of proof is on the prosecuter?

Sierra BTHP

17-10-2005, 17:26

I believe that was an example of how more proof than just phonecalls is needed to prosecute someone. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that imply that the burden of proof is on the prosecuter?

The problem is that racism and mistrust of authorities exists in Canada.

I am really, really tired of people saying, "well in my country, we don't have police brutality, and wife beating, and crime, and racism. If only America was like our country, bad things would never happen and all problems would be solved."

The racism in Edmonton is so thick you can walk on it. I've had a restaurant owner up there ask me to go somewhere else because I looked aboriginal.

Being half-Korean is evidently enough to trigger the racism there.

Nopuland

17-10-2005, 17:54

The two veteran officers were charged with assault and forcible confinement. The jury rendered convictions on only the latter charge.
I said "I believe they got manslaughter". So I made it clear that I wasn't sure. I even said earlier in the thread that it wasn't an attempt at murder, and that I don't watch the news anyway.
The problem is that racism and mistrust of authorities exists in Canada.

I am really, really tired of people saying, "well in my country, we don't have police brutality, and wife beating, and crime, and racism. If only America was like our country, bad things would never happen and all problems would be solved."

The racism in Edmonton is so thick you can walk on it. I've had a restaurant owner up there ask me to go somewhere else because I looked aboriginal.

Being half-Korean is evidently enough to trigger the racism there.
So there's none of this in America? And anyone who tells you "If only America were like our country" needs to be slapped upside the head. Really. Those people have no idea what they're talking about. And personally speaking, I have spoken to plenty of them, and I really hate most of 'em. So don't go blaming all of Canada for it. Or for all of what one particularly racist town is doing. I don't go to Boston and accuse them of something that happened in L.A. This whole topic was created by an American making wrong assumptions about Canada, so how about we all go back to America possibly collapsing, and stop making up/exaggerating (sp?) crap about each other.

Kecibukia

17-10-2005, 18:01

On topic:

As for the economy, in my area, the only business that went under were the ones that were run poorly in the first place. Everyone else went about their business as usual. The "bordelining total collapse" bit is just nonsense.

Gas prices are just forcing people to tighten their belts and economize while looking for alternatives.

Government has always been corrupt. Get used to it.

The hurricanes!? WTF. They were a bad bit that directly affected a couple of states, not the US as a whole and things are being fixed.

Ten years from now, everything from the gulf will be rehashed only by media pundits and internet-philes.

World economies rise and fall regularly. Good on those that are increasing theirs. That doesn't equal to "America collapsing".

Nopuland

17-10-2005, 18:06

Sierra BTHP

17-10-2005, 18:09

Actually, I kinda feel as though there's some kind of turning point on the horizon on a global scale. Whether it's World War III (God forbid) or interspatial colonization, or the fall of America and/or its government, the recent events will definitely have something to do with it. (Points back to his long-ass post on page 5 of this thread, indicating some kind of more elaborate, theory-based explanation of the whole thing)

It's just the relative decline of the West. Every Western nation is spending its wealth, burning gas, outsourcing jobs, letting their native birth rate decline.

Meanwhile, the Eastern nations like China and India are saying, "hey, in order to be successful, we have to do what the US did. We'll burn fossil fuels with complete abandon, pollute like crazy, open sweatshops, and fund a huge military".

See?

It's not like you're losing America. You'll just be getting a bigger and better version that speaks Chinese and eats rice.

Nopuland

17-10-2005, 18:13

That's a scary thought. Chinese people in America. Some guy with a Chinese accent saying "I am honorable American, yah!"

Kecibukia

17-10-2005, 18:13

Actually, I kinda feel as though there's some kind of turning point on the horizon on a global scale. Whether it's World War III (God forbid) or interspatial colonization, or the fall of America and/or its government, the recent events will definitely have something to do with it. (Points back to his long-ass post on page 5 of this thread, indicating some kind of more elaborate, theory-based explanation of the whole thing)

I could see it happening w/ a fanatical Islam vs. the rest of the world kind of war.

A likely match strike scenario would be a Nuke smuggled into a major metropolis (US, Russia, UK, anywhere really) and setting it off.

Colonization is to far off w/ the current political climate (no one cares enough) nor do I think and American "fall" will happen anytime soon barring some ELE scenario.

Nopuland

17-10-2005, 18:24

I could see it happening w/ a fanatical Islam vs. the rest of the world kind of war.

A likely match strike scenario would be a Nuke smuggled into a major metropolis (US, Russia, UK, anywhere really) and setting it off.

Colonization is to far off w/ the current political climate (no one cares enough) nor do I think and American "fall" will happen anytime soon barring some ELE scenario.
Dude, you have to remember that the vast majority of the countries in the world have a load of bullshit in the seat of their pants that has only been speculated on. And the Terror war isn't the only conflict going on. There's still high tension between China and Russia, there's lots of civil strife in Africa and South America, Osama bin Laden appears to have been all but forgotten. Not to mention that all of this would be a great smokescreen for pre-attack preparations being made by pretty well any given country. Not only that, but it's become so easy to obtain WMDs (notably in Russia), or attempt assassination that practically anyone can trigger a global catastrophe.

Kecibukia

17-10-2005, 18:39

Dude, you have to remember that the vast majority of the countries in the world have a load of bullshit in the seat of their pants that has only been speculated on. And the Terror war isn't the only conflict going on. There's still high tension between China and Russia, there's lots of civil strife in Africa and South America, Osama bin Laden appears to have been all but forgotten. Not to mention that all of this would be a great smokescreen for pre-attack preparations being made by pretty well any given country. Not only that, but it's become so easy to obtain WMDs (notably in Russia), or attempt assassination that practically anyone can trigger a global catastrophe.

No arguement. At this time, however, I don't think there will be any major confrontations between the powers. China/Russia have rarely liked eachother, India/China is relatively cool, and India/Pakistan is also more of a local cold war, etc.

Africa & SA have always been unstable. I don't think that the conflicts there will affect global stability.

What I'm saying is that a major terrorist strike by fanatical Islam (they have them in Russia as well) is the most likely to set the spark. However an assasination by said fanatics could also be the spark. I agree w/ you there.

Muravyets

17-10-2005, 19:54

You have to try to separate bad luck from bad policies from changing trends. The storms and floods were natural disasters; could have happened to anyone. They don't reflect on the condition of the country as a whole, and, to be honest, neither does the abysmal governmental response to them.

I believe changing trends in the way business is conducted, the way populations move about, and the way war can be conducted will inevitably make superpowers obsolete, as power becomes less centralized and more privatized. In such a climate, a superpower becomes nothing but a big, convenient target/scapegoat/moneybags, and the US would be foolish, imo, to want to keep that status.

Bad policies, meanwhile, will probably decide the matter for us, as we are putting ourselves ever deeper into debt to nations who are almost certainly not our friends, straining our military and environmental resources, gutting our own work force, selling off security related technology to foreign powers, and making enemies everywhere we go, thus setting ourselves up as the bad guy of convenience for every terrorist and dictator on the planet. The faster we fall from superpower status, the better it will be for us in the long run, imo, especially if we've gotten to the point that our political discourse is so pointlessly belligerent that some of us are actually arguing that our brand of police brutality is better than Canada's.

:rolleyes:

Khallayne

17-10-2005, 22:01

people hate negative candidates btw for all you aspiring candidates.

If people hate negative candidates then WHY are negative promos used in EVERY election cycle since the 80's?

Because THEY WORK!!!

Like commercials that sell us Pepsi or Coke, the people who put big money into Promos do so because it has been proven to work and if it didn't work then WHY spend BILLIONS of dollars for TV airtime?

The Chinese Republics

18-10-2005, 02:08

Corneliu

18-10-2005, 02:21

Hmmm... I wonder who's feeding you this info??? FOX?

Nope Not Fox!

Known fact that:

1) US is a melting pot with cultures from all over the globe
2) US does have the most powerful military.
3) US does have rights that are gaurenteed under the US Constitution

Equus

18-10-2005, 03:36

Alrighty, can we please stop beating each other over American and Canadian crime rates?

Here's the actual stats (provided by nationmaster.com):

Murders with firearms (per capita)

United States: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people
Canada: 0.00502972 per 1,000 people

Murders per capita (total)

United States: 0.042802 per 1,000 people
Canada: 0.0149063 per 1,000 people

Total crime per capita:

United States: 80.0645 per 1,000 people
Canada: 75.4921 per 1,000 people

See? The rates of crime between the two countries really isn't all that different - it's only a couple of percentage points either way. If this was a poll, I'd say it was all within the margin of error. For Whispering Legs/Sierra BTHP, if I could have found domestic violence rates I would have shared them, although we both know that rates for that would likely be inaccurate due to the low rate of reporting.

Anyway, both countries obviously have systems that work for them. Both Canadians and Americans have lots of guns, although you could argue that we favour different kinds. Can we talk about something else now?

Colodia

18-10-2005, 03:38

Hmmm... I wonder who's feeding you this info??? FOX?
...Woah.

Equus

18-10-2005, 03:38

Nope Not Fox!

Known fact that:

1) US is a melting pot with cultures from all over the globe
2) US does have the most powerful military.
3) US does have rights that are gaurenteed under the US Constitution

And Canada's population is only growing because of our immigration rates, thanks to people all over the world moving there.

Canada has sent more peacekeepers to more missions than all other countries combined. We just have different priorities.

Canadian rights are guaranteed under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Again, not really all that different.

Equus

18-10-2005, 03:46

[snip]...we've gotten to the point that our political discourse is so pointlessly belligerent that some of us are actually arguing that our brand of police brutality is better than Canada's.

:rolleyes:

Absolutely bloody right. Both countries have problems with this - neither can claim to be racism or brutality free.

If people have to discuss this, why not discuss solutions instead of pointing fingers and yelling "Did not!" "Did too!"

Posi

18-10-2005, 03:57

Nope Not Fox!

Known fact that:

1) US is a melting pot with cultures from all over the globe
2) US does have the most powerful military.
3) US does have rights that are gaurenteed under the US Constitution
1) Canada is a cultural mosaic. In a Melting Pot each culture slowly becomes more and more alike until they are all the same. In a Cultural Mosaic each culture maintains its uniqueness. Different cultures are more free from society forcing them to conform in Canada.
2)How does a stronger military make the USA freer than Canada? It neither increases nor decreases the countries freedom.
3)So does Canada.

The Chinese Republics

18-10-2005, 04:32

CanuckHeaven

18-10-2005, 06:09

Here in Virginia, I wear a pistol all the time. I am entitled to wear it concealed or in the open. I am also allowed to defend myself under certain circumstances.

I can't do that in Canada.
Thank God for that.

And before you talk about how violent it is here, remember that firearm murders have dropped 63 percent since the introduction of the laws that let me walk around with a pistol.
You have proof of that?

From what I understand, the US National average for murder by firearms in 2003 was:

"The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 67% of the 16,503 murders in 2003 were committed with firearms (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm)."

The percentage of murders committed with a firearm in Virginia in 2003 (http://www.vdh.state.va.us/medexam/FIPVRpt04.pdf)was 72.6%.

Also, Virginia's lax gun laws result in crime guns showing up in many States with more restrictive gun laws. 85% of crime guns in New York State came from other States and the biggest supplier? Yup, Virginia at 15%.

CanuckHeaven

18-10-2005, 06:23

Tell me how many scandals has PM Martin have? To many.
I invite you to name the numerous scandals that you refer too. Or are you just talking through your hat again?

Why have the liberals been in power so long even after all of the scandals?
Again, I invite you to name all of these scandals you refer to.

Seems to me the Canadians don't care. In the states, have that many scandals and odds are, articles of Impeachment would be drawn up.
Pray tell one thing that Martin could be impeached for, if he had to abide by US laws.

HAHA! Look at all the scandals involving the Liberal party. They are still in power so this arguement won't work with me.
There ya go again. You sound like Bush. Saying the same thing over and over again ad nauseum doesn't make it true.

It is time you changed fields Corneliu, you are wearing out the turf in left field.:eek:

Lacadaemon

18-10-2005, 06:29

Pray tell one thing that Martin could be impeached for, if he had to abide by US laws.

His part in bombing Kosovo. Clearly, he acted illegally as finance minister when he helped plan and implement it with war criminal Chretien.

CanuckHeaven

18-10-2005, 06:33

His part in bombing Kosovo. Clearly, he acted illegally as finance minister when he helped plan and implement it with war criminal Chretien.
If that is the case then Bush should be given a special seat in the nose of the next MOAB?

Lacadaemon

18-10-2005, 06:37

If that is the case then Bush should be given a special seat in the nose of the next MOAB?

No, silly, because then where would the warhead go? You wouldn't kill many serbians with a "bush" bomb.

The Chinese Republics

18-10-2005, 07:02

I invite you to name the numerous scandals that you refer too. Or are you just talking through your hat again?

Again, I invite you to name all of these scandals you refer to.

Pray tell one thing that Martin could be impeached for, if he had to abide by US laws.

There ya go again. You sound like Bush. Saying the same thing over and over again ad nauseum doesn't make it true.

It is time you changed fields Corneliu, you are wearing out the turf in left field.:eek:
hear hear!!!

BTW, I think FOX is feeding Corny way too much "Ann Coulter Corn Flakes."

CanuckHeaven

18-10-2005, 07:19

hear hear!!!

BTW, I think FOX is feeding Corny way too much "Ann Coulter Corn Flakes."
Wow....Ann Coulter.:(

She is one totally deluded woman. I saw that clip you posted, and after watching it, I thought that Fox could use a new commentator.:eek:

Leonstein

18-10-2005, 07:57

His part in bombing Kosovo. Clearly, he acted illegally as finance minister when he helped plan and implement it with war criminal Chretien.
I for my part am against pretty much all wars, but the Kosovo was one thing that I did, and still do, agree with.
How does it make him a war criminal to participate in this operation?

Mariehamn

18-10-2005, 08:03

What a hijack....

Anyhow, America won't implode. Its going to take time for it to get used to the return of and Older World order, with two or more powers competing for power and influence. Most concerning for USA: China.

America's military will be around for awhile, but with increasing frequency of wars that are, in the public's eye, unfavorable, eventually the military will not be so vast. The American Army, right now, is having trouble gaining enough volunteers, thus why we pulled out of various nations to consolidate our troops, and why there is a back-draft.

America's economy is losing manufacturing, but mechanization of various jobs is due mainly for the cause, even though outsourcing isn't a problem. Jobs that American's don't want to work in, naturally, get outsourced. And also the reason why there is something like 1 lawyer for evey 5 Americans, but don't quote me on that statistic.

What America needs is some politicians who aren't so hellbent on doing what their buds want (corporations?) and get more presidents that do what is right for the country and the people.

And while there may be tensions between China and Russia, I believe that the recent increase in joint military training between the two countries probably means that the tensions are not much greater than the tensions between Canada and USA, which seem to be quite great, if someone who had no idea read this thread.

Vassal states of USA? No...while a more fuedal model of current modern affairs is more appropriate, that is due mainly to people's obligation to themselves and their families to be fed, clothed, and sheltered who are employed by various multinational corporations, which, as always, is never the complete story of everything. Read: There are exceptions.

END RANT

Waterkeep

18-10-2005, 08:36

I'll agree with some here, China is the main problem for America, but not for the reasons most people think.

The American dollar is currently propped up largely by Chinese purchases of American bonds. The Chinese economy is propped up largely on investment speculation by the Chinese postal service. This investment speculation has been primarily in Chinese real-estate. Hundreds of buildings are being bought, built, and then just sit, waiting for the so-called boom that China is experiencing -- but the money flow in China isn't coming from people adding value and starting the small firms required, it's coming from people buying the land and building these empty buildings.

When those investors start to look for some type of return on all that empty space, things are going to get dicey. If they wind up collapsing, they'll likely pull down the Chinese postal service along with it, which will in turn pull down the entire Chinese economy.

This is the real danger for America. If the Chinese economy gets pulled down, Chinese investors stop buying American bonds (because they don't have the money). Without that support, the american dollar starts to tailspin. Because America has mostly gutted it's manufacturing sector, it will have signficant problems ramping up its economy to keep up, meaning all manner of things will get more expensive. That's inflation, boys and girls. Big inflation, with a danger of it becoming hyper-inflation. To combat that, the feds have little response but to raise interest rates. The typical American family's net-worth is negative as it is. A sharp spike in interest rates will send bankruptcies through the roof -- too bad about recent legislation protecting credit agencies from people being able to bankrupt on them.

Anyway, with that happening left and right, small businesses will be the hardest hit, along with the employment they create. More people out of work. On the bright side, this slows down the inflation. On the dark side, it slows down the American economy. Lack of funds available for investment (as it's being eaten up in interest rates) mean less chance of America rebuilding it's manufacturing sector any time soon.

However, my fear isn't that the American economy will collapse. My fear is that we will see the Bush Doctrine then exposed as laying the groundwork for a rebirth of pure colonialism. After all, in order to keep its own economy going, America's either going to need to be able to lift itself up (very hard, and not quick.. certainly longer than an election cycle) or it's going to need to externalize costs, and the easiest way to do that, when you've got the largest military force in the world, is to drum up some excuse and conq.. I'm sorry.. liberate some resource rich country to channel those resources into local businesses in hopes that the businesses will grow and create jobs.

We've had the test run. It's now been shown that the American government can sell a pre-emptive war to its people on the shakiest of grounds. We've seen that no-bid contracts and 100% ownership of foreign resources can be passed by the American people with nary a whisper. The only problem, as they've found out, is that domestic issues need to be handled quickly and efficiently at the same time that the rest of this is going on. That's more a resource challenge than anything though.

PNAC may well be successful in creating a New American Century -- but I'm willng to bet it will be a lot bloodier creation than even they envision.

Lacadaemon

18-10-2005, 09:50

I for my part am against pretty much all wars, but the Kosovo was one thing that I did, and still do, agree with.
How does it make him a war criminal to participate in this operation?

The UN Charter.

Disraeliland

18-10-2005, 10:14

[fevered rantings ...]

Your whole theory is dependent on the US stealing oil from Iraq. Have you the slightest scrap of evidence that the US is obtaining Iraqi oil without paying for it at the market price? I doubt it, after all, if you had it you'd post it.

Have you also any evidence that the building sector in CHina is engaged mainly in building enpty structures?

Lacadaemon

18-10-2005, 10:25

Your whole theory is dependent on the US stealing oil from Iraq. Have you the slightest scrap of evidence that the US is obtaining Iraqi oil without paying for it at the market price? I doubt it, after all, if you had it you'd post it.

Have you also any evidence that the building sector in CHina is engaged mainly in building enpty structures?

I think he's talking about this.

Field of dreams theory of real estate developing (http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/arsenaultrubino/2004/1022.html)

Make of it what you will. Personally, I think their insolvent banking system, or peasant uprisings, will do them in first.

Mariehamn

18-10-2005, 11:38

Well Prosed Rant
Well said, I agree with you on many things.

But, colonialism as in the early 20th century fasion is unlikely in my opinion. We'll probably end up leaving the plundering of the earth to the people we "liberate". More likely very, very pro-American "puppet" regimes, I guess you could call them that, or Democratic-Satiliete states, that give tributes to America is probably more likely.

But there are many hurdels in every region where there are resources still left, and then extracting these would be even harder. Iran anyone? We've taken out the two neighbors that kind of kept them on the defence. What will they be up to next?

I find colonialism to be a suicide option. It would result in World War if America found no-one to sympathize with it. Heck, even if someone did agree with it.

Muravyets

18-10-2005, 16:37

<snip>
Outstanding post. Your points concerning the dangers posed by the weakness of China's economy are especially interesting. Paper tiger vs. paper tiger?

As for colonialism, I do believe this is the neo-cons' desired model (though they use different words for it). Their entire approach as been strictly late 19th century. I believe they dream at night of an American Raj built on corporate commerce run by a network of socially connected "old boys." The trouble is, this model is completely obsolete. (And anyway, all the neo-cons in the country combined couldn't come up with the brains and the balls of one JP Morgan.) The rest of the world, including the "third-worlders" whose resources the "old boys" want to control, have moved on to new ways of doing things that don't permit of the kind of centralized control colonialism requires. Their attempts so far have been disastrous, and their failures will only get bigger and bloodier if they continue.

Frankly, I believe, if the US continues to embrace this Manifest Destiny mania, even by such narrow margins as we've seen, then a major economic setback will be the only thing that knocks it off this self-destructive track. So, here's to the Chinese postal system, eh?

(Man, that'll be some chapter in the history books, won't it?)

The Chinese Republics

18-10-2005, 17:44

<a big SNIP>
hear hear!!! :)

Canada6

18-10-2005, 18:02

Americans... Vote Democrat and worry less please.

Sierra BTHP

18-10-2005, 18:13

Americans... Vote Democrat and worry less please.

Oh right. Like that would solve anything. Vote Democrat - the party that has no ideas except "Bush sucks".

Oh, I forgot - "We want to get rid of your guns even though firearm murders are down 63 percent", or "Tax the rich so we can fund midnight basketball in the inner city", or "More money into a failing school system makes it fail that much better"

Or the more extreme, "The US military deliberately blew up the levees in New Orleans in order to drown blacks and lower the welfare rolls - so vote Democrat".

Canada6

18-10-2005, 18:39

Even if that was true it sure beats record deficits, insecurity, and chaos the gop's have brought into the US and the world.

Sierra BTHP

18-10-2005, 18:44

Even if that was true it sure beats record deficits, insecurity, and chaos the gop's have brought into the US and the world.

I guess you haven't read the UN's latest report that the world is more peaceful now, and that the number one warmongering nation is not the US.

CanuckHeaven

18-10-2005, 18:56

Oh, I forgot - "We want to get rid of your guns even though firearm murders are down 63 percent".
Interesting to say the least?

The Northeast accounted for an estimated 18.6 percent of the Nation’s population and an estimated 15.6 percent of violent crime in 2004. Of the four regions, the Northeast had the largest decrease, 2.5 percent, in the volume of violent crime.

The South, the Nation’s most populated region, had an estimated 36.1 percent of the Nation’s inhabitants. An estimated 41.9 percent of the Nation’s violent crimes occurred in this region. Overall, violent crime decreased slightly (0.3 percent) in the region when compared with 2003 figures.

It would appear that the people in the Northeast, where there is more gun control measures, enjoy a much lower level violent crime rate than in the gun happy Southern States?

Sierra BTHP

18-10-2005, 19:01

Interesting to say the least?

The Northeast accounted for an estimated 18.6 percent of the Nation’s population and an estimated 15.6 percent of violent crime in 2004. Of the four regions, the Northeast had the largest decrease, 2.5 percent, in the volume of violent crime.

The South, the Nation’s most populated region, had an estimated 36.1 percent of the Nation’s inhabitants. An estimated 41.9 percent of the Nation’s violent crimes occurred in this region. Overall, violent crime decreased slightly (0.3 percent) in the region when compared with 2003 figures.

It would appear that the people in the Northeast, where there is more gun control measures, enjoy a much lower level violent crime rate than in the gun happy Southern States?

As I posted before, the majority of violent crime is committed by African Americans - against African-Americans. I've posted the links to the Department of Justice site so many times, Canuck.

You know what? A lot of African-Americans live in the South. And they live in the Northeast corridor - trapped in those magical ghettos created by the Democratic party of the 1960s.

I personally experience a rate of violent crime and murder that is low.

Guns aren't the cause of violence. If they were, then guns would affect African-Americans in the same proportion that they affect whites and other races. Unfortunately, African-Americans are 200 times more likely to kill someone with a firearm than someone who is a white American.

200 times. Sounds like the guns are not the cause. The instrument perhaps, but not the cause.

Even when viewing violent crime that involves no firearms at all (93 percent of violent crime in the US is without firearms), we see the same skew.

Must be something else, eh?

Otherwise, handing me a gun would raise my risk as much as it does an African-American.

You look pretty foolish wearing those statistics. Better take a shower.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/wuvc01.htm

Canada6

18-10-2005, 19:14

I guess you haven't read the UN's latest report that the world is more peaceful now, and that the number one warmongering nation is not the US.Since when did republican supporters begin caring as to what the UN has to say about anything?

Do you feel relieved that the US isn't the number one warmongerer anymore? LOL

Sierra BTHP

18-10-2005, 19:15

Since when did republican supporters begin caring as to what the UN has to say about anything?

Do you feel relieved that the US isn't the number one warmongerer anymore? LOL

According to the UN, the UK and France are more warmongering than the US and former USSR, and have held the lead since 1946.

So it's rather hard to say "anymore" when in actuality it's "never".

Canada6

18-10-2005, 19:37

You didn't answer my first question.

Sierra BTHP

18-10-2005, 19:40

You didn't answer my first question.

I only care insofar as the UN evidently has great credibility with anyone who is not a Republican.

To people who believe in international law, and world government, and the ideals that both of those ideas encompass, the UN is a bright shining light of virtue and good.

That's why I use it as a source when talking to people who believe in it.

Or are you going to change your mind now and join with me in saying that the UN is the architect or accomplice in more mass murder since its inception than either Stalin or Hitler?

Muravyets

18-10-2005, 19:50

Just my own personal preference, but I'd rather the US didn't appear on lists of warmongering nations at all.

Canada6

18-10-2005, 19:50

I only care insofar as the UN evidently has great credibility with anyone who is not a Republican.

To people who believe in international law, and world government, and the ideals that both of those ideas encompass, the UN is a bright shining light of virtue and good.It could be. The fact is that it hasn't been.

That's why I use it as a source when talking to people who believe in it.

Or are you going to change your mind now and join with me in saying that the UN is the architect or accomplice in more mass murder since its inception than either Stalin or Hitler?Since when have I ever said anything or expressed my views about the UN in this or any other conversation? /me laughs...

Kecibukia

18-10-2005, 19:52

Interesting to say the least?

It would appear that the people in the Northeast, where there is more gun control measures, enjoy a much lower level violent crime rate than in the gun happy Southern States?

Oh, you mean the NE that had more CC states than the rest of the country for years?

How about this:

The South -- with 36 percent of the nation's population but 43 percent of its murders -- saw larger declines than any other region. The region's murder rate declined 5 percent to 6.6 per 100,000.

or this:

In Maryland, the number of murders dropped by less than 1 percent in 2004, with four fewer than the 525 in 2003. The number in Virginia dropped by 6 percent from 416 in 2003 to 391 in 2004.

MD w/ strict laws, VA with "loose" laws? How can that be?

Do you still claim causality? Others disagree.

"We're not seeing important national trends like the shrinking of crack markets in the 1990s," Mr. Blumstein added. "These are responses to local situations, changes in local drug markets and shifts in gangs."

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051017-101154-3532r.htm

Kecibukia

18-10-2005, 19:57

Thank God for that.

Also, Virginia's lax gun laws result in crime guns showing up in many States with more restrictive gun laws. 85% of crime guns in New York State came from other States and the biggest supplier? Yup, Virginia at 15%.

My god Canuck, can you continue to misrepresent the facts any more? We've been through this several times. The 85% number is from TRACED guns. Not of guns as a whole. Yet you will continue to spout it as an absolute each and every time this topic comes up. And you have the audacity to get upset when people say you support gun bans.

Zarathoft

18-10-2005, 23:03

This is a very fun topic to read *sinks back into the shadows*

LazyHippies

18-10-2005, 23:06

Is America Dying?

No

Militia Enforced State

18-10-2005, 23:15

Short answer: Hell yes!

Long answer:

If the wars don't kill the US, then the oil shortage will.
If the oil shortage doesn't kill the US, then the MASSIVE US federal debt will.
If the debt and the oil and the wars that makes everyone hate the US doesn't kill the US, then the corrupt government will finish it off.

Any way you put it, the US is going down, and only the collective US standing up for their country will stop it. :eek:

Khallayne

18-10-2005, 23:42

WOW!

A lot of thoughts, a lot of opinions, keep 'em comming!

RomeW

19-10-2005, 00:23

Canada6

19-10-2005, 00:31

Regarding "the European Revival": I'm surprised no one's mentioned the bird flu. While I for one believe the threat is merely pereceived rather than real, it still has the potential to hurt the European economy, at least in the short term, because I'm not sure how many people will want to trade with them now that the virus has reached Greece.

It is not perceived. The situation with the virus is the following:

It spreads easily between birds.
It has difficulty in spreading from bird to human, but it can spread from bird to human.
The current strain cannot spread from one human to another.

IF the virus mutates and begins spreading from one human to another easily tens of thousands possibly hundreds of europeans citizens will die. It's that simple.

It is currently under control, but can get quickly out of hand if measures are not taken, despite that there is an anti-virus medication available.

RomeW

19-10-2005, 00:35

It is not perceived. The situation with the virus is the following:

It spreads easily between birds.
It has difficulty in spreading from bird to human, but it can spread from bird to human.
The current strain cannot spread from one human to another.

IF the virus mutates and begins spreading from one human to another easily tens of thousands possibly hundreds of europeans citizens will die. It's that simple.

It is currently under control, but can get quickly out of hand if measures are not taken, despite that there is an anti-virus medication available.

I don't know. I have a hard time believing anything apocalyptic until it actually happens. People get too jumpy, and start assuming the worst before knowing everything. The bird flu hasn't shown a human-to-human transmission, and hopefully if that does happen we'll be prepared. I know, it may be naive, but I'm not willing to sound extensive alarm bells just yet.

Canada6

19-10-2005, 00:37

It's hardly apocalyptic. It's just if things go wrong then we'll be thankfull we didn't sit on our hands when he had plenty of time to prepare.

We because I'm also a European. :)

RomeW

19-10-2005, 00:42

It's hardly apocalyptic. It's just if things go wrong then we'll be thankfull we didn't sit on our hands when he had plenty of time to prepare.

We because I'm also a European. :)

Oh no, I'm not saying don't prepare. I'm just saying that I'm not as worried as others are, because (I hope) we've learned this time.

Pschycotic Pschycos

19-10-2005, 00:53

HA! As long as I'm alive, there will always be at least one United States Flag flying! NO! Even if my property is all that remains!

RomeW

19-10-2005, 00:54

HA! As long as I'm alive, there will always be at least one United States Flag flying! NO! Even if my property is all that remains!

Well, in that case, at least you can say you ruled America :D

Sierra BTHP

19-10-2005, 00:55

It is not perceived. The situation with the virus is the following:

It spreads easily between birds.
It has difficulty in spreading from bird to human, but it can spread from bird to human.
The current strain cannot spread from one human to another.

IF the virus mutates and begins spreading from one human to another easily tens of thousands possibly hundreds of europeans citizens will die. It's that simple.

It is currently under control, but can get quickly out of hand if measures are not taken, despite that there is an anti-virus medication available.

Influenza A virii, of which H5N1 is one, don't have mechanisms that repair their genetic structure during reproduction.

Thus, there is a drift of the genetic code over time. It is only a matter of time before the virus mutates to a form that can travel human to human.

Canada6

19-10-2005, 01:06

RomeW

19-10-2005, 01:07

Influenza A virii, of which H5N1 is one, don't have mechanisms that repair their genetic structure during reproduction.

Thus, there is a drift of the genetic code over time. It is only a matter of time before the virus mutates to a form that can travel human to human.

In such a case, it may be theoretical, not inevitable. It may become a human disease and then it may not. Regardless, this time we may be better prepared because the WHO is working on a vaccine, and because the 1918 epdiemic did teach us something.

Regardless, though, I'm still skeptical about the European revival thing, at least in the short term. I remember what SARS did to Toronto, and even though THAT was overblown, it still crippled Toronto's economy because everyone got scared. I see the same thing happening in Europe.

Corneliu

19-10-2005, 02:43

If that is the case then Bush should be given a special seat in the nose of the next MOAB?

Actually, that would be Clinton for Serbia :D

Corneliu

19-10-2005, 02:44

hear hear!!!

BTW, I think FOX is feeding Corny way too much "Ann Coulter Corn Flakes."

Funny thing is, I don't even like Ann Coulter. In fact, she gives conservatives a bad name.

Corneliu

19-10-2005, 02:44

Wow....Ann Coulter.:(

She is one totally deluded woman. I saw that clip you posted, and after watching it, I thought that Fox could use a new commentator.:eek:

I agree with you 100%

Corneliu

19-10-2005, 02:47

The UN Charter.

Actually, if the Canadian government didn't approve of it then you could say it was illegal. It depends on how the PM is able to use the Military of Canada.

Corneliu

19-10-2005, 02:49

Americans... Vote Democrat and worry less please.

HAHA

If a democrat gets elected, I'll worry more. At least the Republicans care more about defense and National Security. The Democrats don't.

Corneliu

19-10-2005, 02:50

I guess you haven't read the UN's latest report that the world is more peaceful now, and that the number one warmongering nation is not the US.

Psst: They don't care. Its always the US's fault and no one elses.

Corneliu

19-10-2005, 02:52

I only care insofar as the UN evidently has great credibility with anyone who is not a Republican.

To people who believe in international law, and world government, and the ideals that both of those ideas encompass, the UN is a bright shining light of virtue and good.

That's why I use it as a source when talking to people who believe in it.

Or are you going to change your mind now and join with me in saying that the UN is the architect or accomplice in more mass murder since its inception than either Stalin or Hitler?

Here Here Sierra. Well said indeed.

Canada6

19-10-2005, 03:01

HAHA

If a democrat gets elected, I'll worry more. At least the Republicans care more about defense and National Security. The Democrats don't.LOLOLOLOLOL

Under Reagan's (R) presidency... 278 marines killed in Beirute, and broke his own anti-terrorism policy by trading weapons for hostages. DID NOT RETALIATE.

GHWB (R) presidency... 259 passengers of flight 103 of Pan am were killed. DID NOT RETALIATE
Had no official antiterrorism policy, and allowed Saddam to remain in his throne.

Bill Clinton (D)- Acknowledged terrorism as the greatest post-cold war threat and was responsible for preventing Al-Qaeda gaining controll of Bosnia.

GWB (R) - 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina FEMA mess. Growing anti-americanism in the middle-east.

You where saying?

Sierra BTHP

19-10-2005, 03:05

LOLOLOLOLOL

Under Reagan's (R) presidency... 278 marines killed in Beirute, and broke his own anti-terrorism policy by trading weapons for hostages. DID NOT RETALIATE.

GHWB (R) presidency... 259 passengers of flight 103 of Pan am were killed. DID NOT RETALIATE
Had no official antiterrorism policy, and allowed Saddam to remain in his throne.

Bill Clinton (D)- Acknowledged terrorism as the greatest post-cold war threat and was responsible for preventing Al-Qaeda gaining controll of Bosnia.

GWB (R) - 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina FEMA mess. Growing anti-americanism in the middle-east.

You where saying?

How many times did al-Q attack the US during Clinton's tenure - and did Clinton do anything about it? Effectively, no, he didn't.

Wasn't the World Trade Center first attacked on his watch? The US Embassy in Kenya? The USS Cole?

Didn't Clinton cut and run in Somalia? When the warlords were getting training and advice from al-Q? Didn't Osama mention that directly in writing - that based on Clinton's cut and run, you could count on Americans to do that every time?

Canada6

19-10-2005, 03:10

Wasn't the World Trade Center first attacked on his watch? The US Embassy in Kenya? The USS Cole?Count the dead bodies and compare what Republicans and Democrats did in response please. You'll find that HELLUVA alot more americans died victoms of terrorism under republican administration. That's all I have to say about that.

Corneliu

19-10-2005, 03:31

Under Reagan's (R) presidency... 278 marines killed in Beirute, and broke his own anti-terrorism policy by trading weapons for hostages. DID NOT RETALIATE.

And actually left Lebanon.

GHWB (R) presidency... 259 passengers of flight 103 of Pan am were killed. DID NOT RETALIATE

Bombed Libya actually with a bomb being dropped near the French Embassy as well.

Had no official antiterrorism policy, and allowed Saddam to remain in his throne.

Which was a mistake.

Bill Clinton (D)- Acknowledged terrorism as the greatest post-cold war threat and was responsible for preventing Al-Qaeda gaining controll of Bosnia.

HAHAHAHA!! And ignored Kobar, 2 Embassy Bombings, 1 WTC Bombing, 1 Warship bombing.... shall I go on or is this enough for you?

GWB (R) - 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina FEMA mess. Growing anti-americanism in the middle-east.

9/11/05--Retaliated by attacking Afghanistan
Katrina--Can't blame this on Bush no matter what you try to do.

FEMA mess--An unqualified person getting hampered by the State Governor.\

You where saying?

Likewise.

Corneliu

19-10-2005, 03:33

Count the dead bodies and compare what Republicans and Democrats did in response please. You'll find that HELLUVA alot more americans died victoms of terrorism under republican administration. That's all I have to say about that.

Having 2 trade towers hit with airplanes will kinda do that. Guess what though! It was planned during Clinton's watch and thanks to the wall that Clinton put up regarding the Intel agencies.....

CanuckHeaven

19-10-2005, 08:39

As I posted before, the majority of violent crime is committed by African Americans - against African-Americans. I've posted the links to the Department of Justice site so many times, Canuck.
Most of the stats you post are not from the DOJ. I am still waiting your proof from an earlier post.

You know what? A lot of African-Americans live in the South. And they live in the Northeast corridor - trapped in those magical ghettos created by the Democratic party of the 1960s.
Oh yeah, it is the Democrats that made African American more violent than white people. Your reasoning is totally skewed.

I personally experience a rate of violent crime and murder that is low.
I guess you don't go into Richmond often?

Guns aren't the cause of violence. If they were, then guns would affect African-Americans in the same proportion that they affect whites and other races.
So African Americans are more prone to violence? And the root cause would be?

Unfortunately, African-Americans are 200 times more likely to kill someone with a firearm than someone who is a white American.
Where did you get that stat from?

200 times. Sounds like the guns are not the cause. The instrument perhaps, but not the cause.
Why is it that the leading supplier of crime guns in New York State (15%) is courtesy of your wonderfully safe State of Virginia?

Even when viewing violent crime that involves no firearms at all (93 percent of violent crime in the US is without firearms), we see the same skew.
Yet the weapon of choice for the most violent crime of all (murder) is firearms to the tune of 67% in America, unless of course you live in gun happy Virginia where it is 72%.

Must be something else, eh?
You want to ignore the obvious of course.

Otherwise, handing me a gun would raise my risk as much as it does an African-American.
It would appear that handing guns to anyone automatically raises the risks. Especially when you consider that over $4,000,000 worth of guns have been stolen in Virginia over the past 2 years.

You look pretty foolish wearing those statistics. Better take a shower.
Actually the statistics that I posted were from the Department of Justice. Nice try.:eek:

Disraeliland

19-10-2005, 09:04

Oh yeah, it is the Democrats that made African American more violent than white people. Your reasoning is totally skewed.

High rates of welfare dependency are well known as causes of increased crime, as well as the various phenomena that high rates of welfare dependency create including high unemployment, high rates of teenage pregnancy, high rates of narcotic use, low levels of education, and low rates of home ownership.

It was the welfare state policies of Democrats that created this, which dovetails into my theory about the Democrats and race: That they are, have always been, and will always be the party of slavery, its just that Republicans freed all the slaves, and showed how serious they were about it. So the Democrats keep blacks dependent on them.

Canada6

19-10-2005, 12:35

9/11/05--Retaliated by attacking Afghanistan
Katrina--Can't blame this on Bush no matter what you try to do.

FEMA mess--An unqualified person getting hampered by the State Governor.\That was appointed by who? You guessed it...
Having 2 trade towers hit with airplanes will kinda do that. Guess what though! It was planned during Clinton's watch and thanks to the wall that Clinton put up regarding the Intel agencies.....He did not place up any wall. anti-terrorism was irrelevent up until that point, particularly considering attacks on US soil. When the WTC was bombed they didn't even know which department should've handled it for a while. This was not Clinton's doing, it was simply a lack of organisation and bureacracy that had lasted throughout the years.

Regardless... You've stated that people feel more safe under republican presidents. Under the current state of affairs and constant needless evacuations of Sub-Ways and Busses, I find that statement ridiculous. Americans lived under much more tranquility with the Democrats in the Whitehouse, For whatever reason and wether you like or not.

Disraeliland

19-10-2005, 12:45

That was appointed by who? You guessed it...
He did not place up any wall. anti-terrorism was irrelevent up until that point, particularly considering attacks on US soil. When the WTC was bombed they didn't even know which department should've handled it for a while. This was not Clinton's doing, it was simply a lack of organisation and bureacracy that had lasted throughout the years.

Regardless... You've stated that people feel more safe under republican presidents. Under the current state of affairs and constant needless evacuations of Sub-Ways and Busses, I find that statement ridiculous. Americans lived under much more tranquility with the Democrats in the Whitehouse, For whatever reason and wether you like or not.

Clintoon did precisely nothing about al Qaeda. He specifically ordered intelligence and law enforcement not to talk to each other.

He was blind to what was happening in the last months of his 'administration' because he was too busy pardoning felons and fraudsters.

That was appointed by who? You guessed it...

Nevertheless, if it wasn't for the negligence, and idiocy, of Mayor Nagin (Democrat) and Governor Blanco (Democrat), the Feds could've done more sooner.

Khallayne

19-10-2005, 12:55

Clintoon did precisely nothing about al Qaeda. He specifically ordered intelligence and law enforcement not to talk to each other.

Clinton could of done something had he been not distracted by the non-scandals (Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, etc...) that the REPUBLICAN Party cooked up to PARALYZE the presidency.

And NOW your saying it was his fault when the real blame is on Newt Gingrich and Ken Starr's shoulders for keeping the President distracted from the real threats?

Nevertheless, if it wasn't for the negligence, and idiocy, of Mayor Nagin (Democrat) and Governor Blanco (Democrat), the Feds could've done more sooner.

And it had NOTHING to do with the Arab Horse Trader who was in charge of FEMA... No sirre, nothing to do with an incompetent Department of Homeland Security office that doesn't give Homeland Security. Nope, not at all...:rolleyes:

Canada6

19-10-2005, 13:01

Clinton could of done something had he been not distracted by the non-scandals (Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, etc...) that the REPUBLICAN Party cooked up to PARALYZE the presidency.Thusly reaping the seeds they sowed.

And it had NOTHING to do with the Arab Horse Trader who was in charge of FEMA... No sirre, nothing to do with an incompetent Department of Homeland Security office that doesn't give Homeland Security. Nope, not at all...:rolleyes:And I'd like to add that Nagin is democrat in name only. He's truly a republican, and his public behaviour and statements will clearly attest to his populist gung ho John Wayne wannabe style.

Disraeliland

19-10-2005, 13:18

Clinton could of done something had he been not distracted by the non-scandals (Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, etc...) that the REPUBLICAN Party cooked up to PARALYZE the presidency.

And NOW your saying it was his fault when the real blame is on Newt Gingrich and Ken Starr's shoulders for keeping the President distracted from the real threats?

Bush has done much more, and his Presidency hasn't been scandal free. People have been trying to white-ant Bush for years, and it didn't distract him from fighting the enemies of the US.

I certainly do blame Clintoon. He in fact used the military in ineffectual operations to distract people from his amorality, and contempt for the limitations of office.

And I'd like to add that Nagin is democrat in name only. He's truly a republican, and his public behaviour and statements will clearly attest to his populist gung ho John Wayne wannabe style.

He is a Democrat through and through, that's why his first reaction to the Hurricane and flood was to say "gimme gimme gimme", while letting the considerable resources under his control slip beneath the water.

Freudotopia

19-10-2005, 13:21

No, America is not collapsing. Anything you hear to the contrary is promulgated by hypers and hippies.

Good day.

Canada6

19-10-2005, 14:18

I certainly do blame Clintoon. He in fact used the military in ineffectual operations to distract people from his amorality, and contempt for the limitations of office.LOL. So you mean bombing Iraq, was to distract the American public and not put Saddam in check and under control? OK... :p :p :p

About amorality... let's not get into that... *cof* cocaine, alcohol, skull'n'bones branding' *cof*.... for your repuclican self's sake.

He is a Democrat through and through, that's why his first reaction to the Hurricane and flood was to say "gimme gimme gimme", while letting the considerable resources under his control slip beneath the water.That might have something to do with the fact that Bush cut spending on levee maintenance year after year.

Kecibukia

19-10-2005, 14:19

Most of the stats you post are not from the DOJ. I am still waiting your proof from an earlier post.

They're from the FBI. The new numbers are posted.

Oh yeah, it is the Democrats that made African American more violent than white people. Your reasoning is totally skewed.

Not what he's saying at all. Nice diversion. A stupid policy encouraged by the Dems of the time mostly focused on AA that encourages criminal behavior.

I guess you don't go into Richmond often?

And the rest of the state is considerably lower. One city of an entire state causality does not make. Otherwise Chicago accounts for 57% of all murders in IL w/only 22% of the population. Removing Chicago drops IL murder rate to 3.4.

So African Americans are more prone to violence? And the root cause would be?

Poverty, drugs, gang culture, economic isolation, etc.

Where did you get that stat from?

It's called Algebra.

Why is it that the leading supplier of crime guns in New York State (15%) is courtesy of your wonderfully safe State of Virginia?
And you continue to ignore reality and other posts. TRACED GUNS!! Lie some more.

Yet the weapon of choice for the most violent crime of all (murder) is firearms to the tune of 67% in America, unless of course you live in gun happy Virginia where it is 72%.

Or even better, Hoplophobe DC where it's over 90%. I like the "Gun Happy" statement. Just more proof you do support bans and confiscation.

You want to ignore the obvious of course.

Pot meet kettle.

It would appear that handing guns to anyone automatically raises the risks. Especially when you consider that over $4,000,000 worth of guns have been stolen in Virginia over the past 2 years.

Another gun banner statement "Give guns to everyone". You have no proof of that either.

How many guns is that Canuck? Who established the value?

Actually the statistics that I posted were from the Department of Justice. Nice try.:eek:

And the way you use them proves you support bans .

Here's a statement made by you in a previous thread:

The problem is that you are offering a "simplistic" solution to a complex problem. In reality. you are making the problem more complex by simplying blaming the whole set of circumstances on the "Arab society".

History is cause and effect, and I don't think you are looking at the larger picture. There are many issues that came before the current situation, and to reach a peaceful solution, you need to look at all the details.

Now who's offering the "simplistic solution"?

Disraeliland

19-10-2005, 14:29

LOL. So you mean bombing Iraq, was to distract the American public and not put Saddam in check and under control?

Timing is everything. Bombing Iraq tended to happen when there was a scandal, and lasted until the scandal was out of the current press.

About amorality... let's not get into that... *cof* cocaine, alcohol, skull'n'bones branding' *cof*.... for your repuclican self's sake.

Where is the amorality of using drugs and alcohol? Or entering a frat boys club?

There is certainly amorality in lying constantly, and violating oaths one has sworn (to his wife, and to the people of the United States)

That might have something to do with the fact that Bush cut spending on levee maintenance year after year.

Federal budget cuts meant that idiot Nagin left the vast number of buses he controlled in parking lots? Federal budget cuts meant that idiot Blanco couldn't declare a state of emergency? Federal budget cuts meant that idiot Nagin couldn't read his own emergency plan, and put it into action (which required city resources)?

Canada6

19-10-2005, 14:43

Timing is everything. Bombing Iraq tended to happen when there was a scandal, and lasted until the scandal was out of the current press.Bombing Iraq was necessary. It had to be done and so it was.

Where is the amorality of using drugs and alcohol? Or entering a frat boys club?So acording to you there is nothing wrong with branding other people with red hot pokers, breaking traffic laws and snuffing cocaine?

There is certainly amorality in lying constantly, and violating oaths one has sworn (to his wife, and to the people of the United States)Marriage oaths are between husband and wife. He never lied to the american people about this issue anyway. He was under no obligation to reveal his sex life to the american people.

Bush on the other hand has lied about many things. Iraq for starters.
Manipulating proof to support policy. Lives are at stake, and republicans don't seem to care. They did though when Bill was doing no-no's in the oval office though. :rolleyes:

Some americans have the strangest priorities...

Federal budget cuts meant that idiot Nagin left the vast number of buses he controlled in parking lots? Federal budget cuts meant that idiot Blanco couldn't declare a state of emergency? Federal budget cuts meant that idiot Nagin couldn't read his own emergency plan, and put it into action (which required city resources)?You will never find me defending those two caracters... but you will find me nailing Bush for cutting spending on levee maintenance that would've drastically reduced the catastrophe. The levee would not have broken and so many people would not have died, if someone on the federal level had actually cared for it.

It's wrong from POV to criticise those who had difficulty dealing with the disaster when the said disaster could've easily been avoided by other people.

Sierra BTHP

19-10-2005, 14:45

Marriage oaths are between husband and wife. He never lied to the american people about this issue anyway. He was under no obligation to reveal his sex life to american people.

No, but if he's asked questions under oath, he's legally obligated to tell the truth. It's called perjury if you don't. And he did commit perjury.

Not the biggest crime in the world, but I figure if the guy is willing to lie to his wife, and then lie to the court, he's probably willing to lie to just about anyone about anything.

Canada6

19-10-2005, 14:48

he did commit perjury.When and how?

Disraeliland

19-10-2005, 14:51

Bombing Iraq was necessary. It had to be done and so it was.

Simply dropping bombs was not necessary, nor was it effective. Invading Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein was necessary.

So acording to you there is nothing wrong with branding other people with red hot pokers, breaking traffic laws and snuffing cocaine?

If someone agrees to be branded then I've no problem with it.

Bush on the other hand has lied about many things. Iraq for starters.
Manipulating proof to support policy. Lives are at stake, and republicans don't seem to care. They did though when Bill was doing no-no's in the oval office though.

No one's proven that Bush lied, and in any case, Operation Iraqi Freedom was justified no matter what Bush's clumsiness in putting the case because it was an enforcement of a ceasefire that Saddam violated totally and constantly.

You know what to do when a ceasefire is violated? Resume firing

You will never find me defending those two caracters... but you will find me nailing Bush for cutting spending on levee maintenance that would've drastically reduced the catastrophe. The levee would not have broken and so many people would not cared for it, if someone on the federal level had actually cared for it.

Source that claim.

It's wrong from POV to criticise those who had difficulty dealing with the disaster when the said disaster could've easily been avoided by other people.

What rubbish. Idiot Nagin and idiot Blanco did not do things they could have done, the worst of these was not declaring a state of emergency as soon as Bush asked idiot Blanco.

Sierra BTHP

19-10-2005, 14:54

First, a brush-up on the definition of perjury. Perjury means (a) knowingly (b) making a false statement (c) about material facts (d) while under oath. It's not perjury if you honestly believe what you're saying is true, or if your lie is irrelevant to the issue you're under oath about. Moreover, the Supreme Court has ruled that it's OK for "a wily witness [to] succeed in derailing the questioner--so long as the witness speaks the literal truth." Disingenuousness and misleading (but not technically inaccurate) answers are not perjury. Finally, you're off the hook for perjury if a subsequent statement in the same proceeding corrects an otherwise perjurious statement.

Even so, does Clinton have a case? Here are the accusations and Clinton's replies:

Perjury #1A: Undefined Sex.

Paula Jones' lawyers asked whether Clinton had had a "sexual affair" with Lewinsky. He answered no. See the stain on the blue dress for the truth.

Perjury #1B: Defined Sex.

Paula Jones' lawyers handed Clinton a now famous definition of "sexual relations"--"contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of a person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person"--and asked whether he'd had these sort of relations with Lewinsky. Clinton answered no. Kenneth Starr asked Clinton the same question before a grand jury, and again Clinton answered no.

Once again, see the stain on the blue dress.

Perjury #2: Alone with Monica.

Paula Jones' attorneys asked Clinton whether he was ever alone in a room with Lewinsky. Clinton answered "I don't recall." Later Jones' attorneys asked whether it was possible that they were alone, even though Clinton had no specific memory of such an event, and Clinton answered yes.

Once again, see the stain on the blue dress, unless you're saying that Clinton did this in front of other people.

Perjury #3: Giving and receiving gifts.

Paula Jones' attorneys asked Clinton whether he had given or received gifts from Monica Lewinsky. He said he'd definitely given her a gift from the Black Dog, a store on Martha's Vineyard. He said he wasn't sure whether he'd given her a book, and he'd received gifts from her "once or twice." We know that many more gifts were exchanged.

Perjury #4A: Conversations with Lewinsky

Jones' attorneys asked Clinton to say when he last met with Lewinsky. Clinton said he wasn't sure, but it was "probably sometime before Christmas." Clinton was also asked if, at that time, she said she had been subpoenaed. (The questioners were trying to establish that Clinton pressured Lewinsky to lie.) Clinton said, "I don't know." It is undisputed that, at their last meeting on Dec. 28, Lewinsky said she'd been subpoenaed.

Perjury #4B: Conversations with Vernon Jordan about Lewinsky

Vernon Jordan testified before the grand jury that he had two conversations with Lewinsky in Dec. 1997, and that he told Clinton about both. Both times, Jordan says, he mentioned that Lewinsky had been subpoenaed. Jones' lawyers asked Clinton whether anyone other than his attorneys had told Clinton about the subpoenas. Clinton said "I don't think so," then another question was asked, and Clinton replied "Bruce Lindsey ...[was] the first person [who] told me she was [subpoenaed]."

Corneliu

19-10-2005, 14:58

Clinton could of done something had he been not distracted by the non-scandals (Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, etc...) that the REPUBLICAN Party cooked up to PARALYZE the presidency.

HAHAHA! This is so rich it isn't even funny.

And NOW your saying it was his fault when the real blame is on Newt Gingrich and Ken Starr's shoulders for keeping the President distracted from the real threats?

Yes. Clinton did jack. He treated it like it was something left to the police. Guess what? It isn't. Its a worldwide problem that needs to be rooted out at the source. Clinton did nothing to root it out. Instead, we had several terror attacks as well as an attack on a US WARSHIP! If someone attacked one of my warships, I'd launch an attack. Clinton didn't do that.

Learn a little history.

Corneliu

19-10-2005, 15:01

LOL. So you mean bombing Iraq, was to distract the American public and not put Saddam in check and under control? OK... :p :p :p

This is both a Yes and a No. He did it on the verge of her testimony. It distracted the news from that to the bombing of Iraq.

About amorality... let's not get into that... *cof* cocaine, alcohol, skull'n'bones branding' *cof*.... for your repuclican self's sake.

Which was done BEFORE he was in office. Clinton did WHILE IN OFFICE and then lied about it. Then he lied about it under oath. That my friend, is purgery.

Canada6

19-10-2005, 15:02

Simply dropping bombs was not necessary, nor was it effective. Invading Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein was necessary.That depends on what your goal is. If you're goal is maintaining peace and stability, then it was extremely necessary and effective. If your goal was to overthrow, and impose American PNAC imperialism in the middle east, losing European and canadian support, and wreaking instability in the middle east and oil prices then no, it wasn't necessary. Cheers.

If someone agrees to be branded then I've no problem with it.That doesn't make it legal. Correcting what you said... "If someone is branded by a republican then I've no problem with it."

No one's proven that Bush lied.Richard A. Clarke, and the 9/11 comission.

You know what to do when a ceasefire is violated? Resume firingThat's precisely what clinton did, without wreaking havok on the middle east, or losing european and canadian support, etc.

Source that claim.Um... if something isn't fixed... then it's broken... on the other hand, if something isn't broken then it is fixed... What is there to source...

Funding was reduced the levee was not repaired. The levee broke, the city flooded people died. Plain blunt and simple.

Corneliu

19-10-2005, 15:05

When and how?

Lying about having sex to a federal Grand Jury that's how.

As for when, look up when Clinton testified to a federal grand jury. There's your when.

Canada6

19-10-2005, 15:11

Perjury #1A: Undefined Sex.

Paula Jones' lawyers asked whether Clinton had had a "sexual affair" with Lewinsky. He answered no. See the stain on the blue dress for the truth.He did not have sex with Lewinsky.

Perjury #1B: Defined Sex.

Paula Jones' lawyers handed Clinton a now famous definition of "sexual relations"--"contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of a person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person"--and asked whether he'd had these sort of relations with Lewinsky. Clinton answered no. Kenneth Starr asked Clinton the same question before a grand jury, and again Clinton answered no.

Once again, see the stain on the blue dress.Still he wasn't lying.

Perjury #2: Alone with Monica.

Paula Jones' attorneys asked Clinton whether he was ever alone in a room with Lewinsky. Clinton answered "I don't recall." Later Jones' attorneys asked whether it was possible that they were alone, even though Clinton had no specific memory of such an event, and Clinton answered yes.

Once again, see the stain on the blue dress, unless you're saying that Clinton did this in front of other people.He told the truth. He said yes.

Perjury #3: Giving and receiving gifts.

Paula Jones' attorneys asked Clinton whether he had given or received gifts from Monica Lewinsky. He said he'd definitely given her a gift from the Black Dog, a store on Martha's Vineyard. He said he wasn't sure whether he'd given her a book, and he'd received gifts from her "once or twice." We know that many more gifts were exchanged.Um... lol? :rolleyes:

Perjury #4A: Conversations with Lewinsky

Jones' attorneys asked Clinton to say when he last met with Lewinsky. Clinton said he wasn't sure, but it was "probably sometime before Christmas." Clinton was also asked if, at that time, she said she had been subpoenaed. (The questioners were trying to establish that Clinton pressured Lewinsky to lie.) Clinton said, "I don't know." It is undisputed that, at their last meeting on Dec. 28, Lewinsky said she'd been subpoenaed.And he didn't know.

Perjury #4B: Conversations with Vernon Jordan about Lewinsky

Vernon Jordan testified before the grand jury that he had two conversations with Lewinsky in Dec. 1997, and that he told Clinton about both. Both times, Jordan says, he mentioned that Lewinsky had been subpoenaed. Jones' lawyers asked Clinton whether anyone other than his attorneys had told Clinton about the subpoenas. Clinton said "I don't think so," then another question was asked, and Clinton replied "Bruce Lindsey ...[was] the first person [who] told me she was [subpoenaed]."He corrected himself, after having thought wrong. A lie would've been not giving the Bruce lindsey answer.

Disraeliland

19-10-2005, 15:12

That depends on what your goal is. If you're goal is maintaining peace and stability, then it was extremely necessary and effective.

No, it wasn't. Saddam continued after the bombing as he had before.

If your goal was to overthrow, and impose American PNAC imperialism in the middle east, losing European and canadian support, and wreaking instability in the middle east and oil prices then no, it wasn't necessary. Cheers.

You certainly know all the leftist cliches. Enforcement of a broken ceasefire was necessary.

That doesn't make it legal.

Source that claim. Existing laws allow consensual self-harm to adults, like piercing.

Richard A. Clarke, and the 9/11 comission.

They proved precisely nothing.

That's precisely what clinton did, without wreaking havok on the middle east, or losing european and canadian support, etc.

What Clinton was ineffective, he had no support from Congress. It was not real enforcement because it did not affect Saddam.

As for losing international support, the only reason he lost international support was that he proposed effective measures to bring Saddam to account, which threatened the bottom line of countries like France and Russia.

Um... if something isn't fixed... then it's broken... on the other hand, if something isn't broken then it is fixed... What is there to source...

Funding was reduced the levee was not repaired. The levee broke, the city flooded people died. Plain blunt and simple.

There's a lot to source, like the budget for the Army Corps of Engineering.

Idiot.

Canada6

19-10-2005, 15:13

This is both a Yes and a No. He did it on the verge of her testimony. It distracted the news from that to the bombing of Iraq. But it had to be done just the same. Was he going to delay the bombings because of what was going on? Gimme a break... :rolleyes:

Which was done BEFORE he was in office. Clinton did WHILE IN OFFICE and then lied about it. Then he lied about it under oath. That my friend, is purgery.Clinton never did Cocaine. He fooled around in his office. He did not lie to the american people. The american people have no business in his private sex life.

Canada6

19-10-2005, 15:14

Lying about having sex to a federal Grand Jury that's how.He did not have sex with Lewinsky.

Sierra BTHP

19-10-2005, 15:15

He did not have sex with Lewinsky.

The question was did he have a "sexual affair" - it was proven by DNA analysis that the semen found on Lewinsky's blue dress was Clinton's.

He answered "No."

Are you saying that without having any sexual activity at all, Clinton's semen magically jumped out of him, and on to her blue dress? And when asked if he was ever alone with Lewinsky, he said, "No." Therefore, are you insisting that Clinton's semen not only jumped out of him and on to her blue dress, but all of this happened while other people were in the room?

I'm sorry - I have to clean up my keyboard - your assertion that he didn't commit perjury made me spew coffee everywhere.

Corneliu

19-10-2005, 15:16

He did not have sex with Lewinsky.

Why to ignore the facts of the case!

Corneliu

19-10-2005, 15:20

But it had to be done just the same. Was he going to delay the bombings because of what was going on? Gimme a break... :rolleyes:

What he should've done was gone in and taken him out. Of course people would judge the timing of such things but you know what? I don't care. Hussein needed to be taken out.

Clinton never did Cocaine. He fooled around in his office. He did not lie to the american people. The american people have no business in his private sex life.

Your so full of crap it isn't even funny. Yes he did lie to the American People. It is everywhere if you bother to take alook at what he said and the facts that are out there. So why don't you just be quiet in this matter.

Corneliu

19-10-2005, 15:21

He did not have sex with Lewinsky.

Who said anything about Sex? The question was on SEXUAL RELATIONS. That is just more than intercourse buddy.

Canada6

19-10-2005, 15:22

No, it wasn't. Saddam continued after the bombing as he had before.With what exactly? Developing WMD's lol

You certainly know all the leftist cliches. Enforcement of a broken ceasefire was necessary.What you call cliches I call reality brought upon us by Bush and the PNAC.

Source that claim. Existing laws allow consensual self-harm to adults, like piercing.Consensual and informed... the person that was branded was not informed.

They proved precisely nothing.They prooved that Bush and his administration has lied time after time.

What Clinton was ineffective, he had no support from Congress. It was not real enforcement because it did not affect Saddam.Again we're talking semantics... For me ineffective means it kept him unarmed. For republicans perhaps not...

There's a lot to source, like the budget for the Army Corps of Engineering.And here I was thinking that I was talking about known facts, that have been repeated ad nauseum on every single media source.

Idiot.You're mistaken. I've never voted for Bush.

Sierra BTHP

19-10-2005, 15:23

According to Lewinsky, she gave him oral sex, and he came on her - which was proven by the stain on the dress. She also said that he inserted a cigar into her vagina and then took it out and smoked it.

Since the question was about "sexual affair", if this isn't a "sexual affair" then what is?

Canada6

19-10-2005, 15:24

Who said anything about Sex? The question was on SEXUAL RELATIONS. That is just more than intercourse buddy.Semantics... acording to Clinton and Lewinsky it's not.

Sierra BTHP

19-10-2005, 15:25

Semantics... acording to Clinton and Lewinsky it's not.

Correction - Clinton made that assertion, and Lewinsky did not.

Keep your facts straight.

Also, it seems that most everyone else except you believes that getting oral sex is a "sexual affair". Especially if the man has an orgasm. Kind of hard to have an orgasm without something "sexual" going on, eh?

Canada6

19-10-2005, 15:25

The question was did he have a "sexual affair" - it was proven by DNA analysis that the semen found on Lewinsky's blue dress was Clinton's.

He answered "No."

Are you saying that without having any sexual activity at all, Clinton's semen magically jumped out of him, and on to her blue dress? And when asked if he was ever alone with Lewinsky, he said, "No." Therefore, are you insisting that Clinton's semen not only jumped out of him and on to her blue dress, but all of this happened while other people were in the room?

I'm sorry - I have to clean up my keyboard - your assertion that he didn't commit perjury made me spew coffee everywhere.
Again semantics... under the legal definition of 'sexual affair' if there is such a thing Clinton and Lewinsky did not have one.

Sierra BTHP

19-10-2005, 15:27

Again semantics... under the legal definition of 'sexual affair' if there is such a thing Clinton and Lewinsky did not have one.

Well, I'll have to add one more person to the "magic" list. First there was Arlen Specter and his "magic" bullet.

Now there's Canada6, and the "magic" semen that shoots out with no sexual activity.

Canada6

19-10-2005, 15:28

What he should've done was gone in and taken him out. Of course people would judge the timing of such things but you know what? I don't care. Hussein needed to be taken out. According to the PNAC yes. According to Clinton no. What is going on right now with oil prices tells me loud and clear who was right.

Your so full of crap it isn't even funny. Yes he did lie to the American People. It is everywhere if you bother to take alook at what he said and the facts that are out there. So why don't you just be quiet in this matter.No he did not lie.

Canada6

19-10-2005, 15:28

Canada6

19-10-2005, 15:29

Well, I'll have to add one more person to the "magic" list. First there was Arlen Specter and his "magic" bullet.

Now there's Canada6, and the "magic" semen that shoots out with no sexual activity.
Sexual activity is one thing. Sexual affair is another.

Corneliu

19-10-2005, 15:30

According to the PNAC yes. According to Clinton no. What is going on right now with oil prices tells me loud and clear who was right.

*Yawns*

According to International Law it was the right thing to do.

No he did not lie.

Keep telling yourself that.

Corneliu

19-10-2005, 15:31

Sexual activity is one thing. Sexual affair is another.

THEY ARE THE EXACT SAME THING

Sierra BTHP

19-10-2005, 15:32

Oral Sex is not included in the legal definition of sexual affair.
Unfortunately, that's not true.

If it wasn't perjury, then the following could not have occurred:

The perjury allegations provoked the Arkansas Supreme Court to suspend Clinton's law license in April 2000. Clinton agreed to the 5-year suspension and to pay a $25,000 fine on January 19, 2001. The following October, the U.S. Supreme Court once again suspended Clinton's law license and gave him 40 days to convince them that he should not be disbarred permanently. Clinton surrendered his law license in response to these actions.

Disraeliland

19-10-2005, 15:32

With what exactly?

Violating the 1991 ceasefire.

What you call cliches I call reality brought upon us by Bush and the PNAC.

And since you lack evidence, you can call it what you like. I know what I shall call it.

They prooved that Bush and his administration has lied time after time.

No, they didn't, the 9/11 Commission proved why conflicts-on-interests are a bad thing (Clintoon's former Dep Sec Justice was on it)

Clarke proved that a spurnned bureaucrat can spin a lot of rubbish. He was in charge of CT during Clintoon's adminstration, he failed, so he made a lot of smoke about Bush to cover himself.

Again we're talking semantics... For me ineffective means it kept him unarmed. For republicans perhaps not...

No, we're not. Saddam was not brought into compliance with his obligations under the ceasefire agreement.

And here I was thinking that I was talking about known facts, that have been repeated ad nauseum on every single media source.

Show me the money. Show me the budgets, or STFU.

NationStates Jolt Archive

Is America Collapsing?