Obama wins 4 more years!

First topic message reminder :

Just one small question? can President Obama win the US election? Who will face him for the Republicans and what does Obama need to do too win? or how could a Republican beat him. me, I hope Obama eats the Republicans for breakfast myself. as the Republicans are so back would looking too me

what states with Obama need to win or hold in the US election? what are the key swing states?

Can President Obama win?

Jeb Bush (not HIM, his brother) seems to think so. He has described the current quartet of Republican contenders as "A circular inward-facing firing squad."

The Conservative philosophy in the aftermath of the world wide recession is totaly discredited, the economic policies of Barack Obama are proving to bare fruits for America and the American people.

Here in the UK on the other hand, we have gone backwards in the almost 2 years since the Labour Party were defeated, unemployment is up, growth is down, the prospects and outlook are not very good.

It was the NYT that acclaimed our former Primeminister Gordon Brown for "taking the lead" in the world-wide fight against the financial crisis, and it was American Paul Krugman ( one of the worlds greatest economists ) who said (at the time) that Bush should follow what Gordon Brown did.

Sadly we in the UK now have the equivelant of George Bush, and you in the US have a president who follows the same economic path as Gordon Brown - your unemployment rate is falling, whilst ours rises, stability is returning to the US, our economy is uncertain.

VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA

Shirina,


"Advocates of the president’s strategy say that we do not need that human capital or expertise in ground operations because we will never again fight wars that put large numbers of our soldiers at risk. Technology, they say, will make future wars precise, rapid and decisive.

Drone technology and weapons like the Electromagnetic Pulse devices for knocking out all electronic equipment on the field of battle or wherever needed .
The days of vast armies and troops are gone , now , the US military budget could have been halved a decade ago , we all know why it wasn't , KERCHING , corporate big business , the same that pay for slush funds in the senate etc.
America has future weapons that George Orwell would spin in his grave over , face the truth , America is the new fourth reich , just the problem of Russia , China and India ha ha ha .

America is the new fourth reich

Have you been reading books by Jim Marrs, perchance?

Shirina, never heard of the dude until you named him, for a crackpot he's a very learned one,

Marrs is listed both in Who’s Who in the World and Who’s Who in America. He has won several writing and photography award including the Aviation/Aerospace Writer’s Association’s National Writing Award and Newsmaker of the Year Award from the Fort Worth Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists. In 1993, Marrs received Freedom Magazine’s Human Rights Leadership Award. He has taught a course on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy at the University of Texas at Arlington. A native of Fort Worth, Texas, Marrs earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in journalism from the University of North Texas in 1966 and attended Graduate School at Texas Tech.

It's the Economy, Stupid! Famous words from a famous man, but still relevant. The US economy is recovering. Every month in the past six has produced better growth figures. General Motors, which some people were prepared to write-off just three years ago, is in merger talks with Citroen/Peugot.

Obama should be able to exploit a growing feel-good factor by the end of the Summer.

Though Iran could still kick over the card-table.

Though Iran could still kick over the card-table.

If the Iranian leadership had any sense, they would be laying low and keeping out of the headlines. The last thing the Iranians should want is Obama losing the election and having one of these "shoot first, ask questions later" Republican candidates assuming power. The US does have the capability of utterly destroying the Middle East (without nukes). No one could pacify the Middle East, but the US could destroy it. Being all anti-American to get your people focused on something other than your own corruption is one thing, actually going to war with the US is something else altogether. The politically savvy Iranian would know this.

Israel is currently believed to possess between 75 and 400 nuclear warheads with the ability to deliver them by intercontinental ballistic missile, aircraft, and submarine.
Former International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei regarded Israel as a state possessing nuclear weapons, but Israel maintains a policy known as "nuclear ambiguity" (also known as "nuclear opacity"). Israel has never officially admitted to having nuclear weapons.

The International Atomic Energy Agency should be allowed to view and record Israel's nuclear arsenal, what have they got to hide , they are the only country on the planet that wont allow google earth to allow users to zoom in on the streets.

This ambiguity in the 21 st century is outrageous regarding there nuclear stockpiles.

America , will not roll over in regard to being the number one super power , the countries infrastructure is collapsing , the American dream is in tatters for millions living below the poverty line , 49 million at last count , a Chinese worker will work for $17 dollars an hour, an American $46 dollars an hour .......go figure.
Yet the budget for the military is outrageous , year on year even with the new cuts in defense spending. America is in chronic debt to China , but because they have the biggest military on the planet , they continue to play the world bully, as they always have. The PNAC think tank blueprint foretold what uncle sam was going to do , we were put in the picture back in 2000. I feel for the American people who want no part of this global domination, but America's back is against the wall , all they know is aggression.
Saddam was the threat with the invisible WMDs , then Gaddafi , now Ahmadinejad is the new bogeyman for the American people to be brainwashed with .

Well, Scarecrow, I've heard all of these arguments and accusations before; I remember hearing America-bashing back in the early 90's from angry Europeans who seem more jealous than outraged. You see, it's one thing to pick a specific issue, such as the invasion of Iraq, and condemn it. But when it is simply a general catch-all, one-size-fits-all "America is responsible for all the evil in the world since 1776" argument, I have to start questioning motives as well as facts. I'm not sure where you acquire your information, but surely you realize that your source is most likely heavily propagandized as well, right? Just because you want to agree with it doesn't mean the information is accurate.

In this sentence ...

for the American people to be brainwashed with

... you talk of Americans being brainwashed, but I'll bet dollars to donuts that you've already suffered a similar fate and aren't even aware of it. That's the insidious nature of brainwashing.

the countries infrastructure is collapsing

First of all, this really isn't that factual. There will always be problems within an infrastructure as vast as America's; it is expensive to maintain, and unlike other large nations - including Canada - our infrastructure exists in every corner of the nation. Our infrastructure will forever be in a "state of collapse" because there will always be something that needs fixed. It's like playing whack-a-mole. If you fix a bridge in California, a dam in New York will need mending. Fix that and a stretch of interstate will need repaved in Nebraska. That's inevitable. I think as a nation we could do better, absolutely, but until we become more politically progressive, we'll keep on keeping on as we have been.

the American dream is in tatters for millions living below the poverty line

This is one issue that I can agree with. The problem here is convincing the American people who the real enemy is - who is really to blame for this. It's not the government despite what some might say. The government is a scapegoat; the government also does not have a stranglehold around the necks of the American people. We are often told not to bite the hand that feeds us, but there are times when biting is the only option, especially when you're not being fed enough. I'll leave it at that for now.

a Chinese worker will work for $17 dollars an hour, an American $46 dollars an hour .......go figure.

Those figures are exaggerated on both sides. Making $46/hour comes out to just shy of $100k per year. Most people don't make half that. Or even a quarter. The median income in the US is around $30k per year, and that comes out to around $14/hour ... lower even than the Chinese who you put at $17/hour. Obviously something is wrong with your figures. The truth is that authoritarian nations like China with fewer human rights can undercut America by exploiting hundreds of millions of poor peasants who will work for pennies on the dollar just to have a bowl of rice on the table. Don't let all the fancy new skyscrapers shooting up in China deceive you. The average Chinese still lives in 2nd and even 3rd world conditions - and these are people with jobs.

America is in chronic debt to China

This is another one of those "panic button" issues. The reality is that most of America's debt is debt to itself. It's deficit spending, not taking out loans from foreign nations like China. The Chinese debt scenario is one of the most vastly overstated pieces of propaganda in existence today.

but because they have the biggest military on the planet , they continue to play the world bully, as they always have.

Here's where things begin to really unravel. First, there is the "as they always have" addition at the end of your sentence. Always have? Certainly there have been times when the US has overstepped its bounds especially during the Cold War, but then again, every nation with a military and intelligence network was playing the bully game. If America had stepped out of the ring, someone else would have simply filled the void, and that "someone" would likely be far worse than the United States.

This is actually a rather complex issue and one post cannot do it justice. But I will express my lack of understanding about something. I have encountered Europeans who are so intent on hating America that they'll defend and support anyone (and I do mean anyone) who stands against her. I really don't understand that since it is an example of cutting of your nose to spite your face. They will support terrorists, dictators, fascists, even a lone nut with a bomb just as long as they are standing against "the world's biggest bully." But I have to ask - have you ever wondered what the world would be like if these people ever WON? So many of these America-haters cheerlead on the sidelines for America's collapse with nary a thought for who or what might fill the vacuum should that ever occur. It is remarkably shortsighted.

But that "always have" comment is what really stinks of being propagandized since history does not corroborate it. Yes, there is the invasion of Iraq, but in this line ...

then Gaddafi

... shows that every bullet fired in the world today is being blamed on America. Intervention in Libya was actually led by France and was primarily a NATO/European issue. Obama even said as much, and while yes America was there, the issue with Gaddafi had nothing to do with American bullying. In fact, America took a back seat roll in the Libyan crisis.

The PNAC think tank blueprint foretold what uncle sam was going to do

That's not necessarily true, either. This was one plan submitted by one "think tank" of hundreds that exist in Washington alone. Plucking this one 12 year-old document out of the millions of documents in DC and insisting that is the direction America will go sounds more like wishful thinking than actual fact - which brings me full circle back to questioning motives. Why would anyone wish that the PNAC document is the one true document out of all the plans drawn up every day in the United States? Is it because this PNAC plan would fuel preconceived ideas of what America is?

Great post and great response Shirina......

I am sorry Scarcrow, but your rantings are straight out of one of the conspiracy comics you can locate a specialist newsagents. If you look back in history you didn't see America start 2 world wars, but joining in to support the good guys undoubtedly saved many millions of lives.....Probably some of your own ancestors.

You cannot hate America just because......If as you say the US infrastructure is collapsing, then god help the rest of us....the whole house of cards would come crashing down across the world

The PNAC think tank blueprint foretold what uncle sam was going to do

Shirina.

As usual your post makes sense. I don't usually comment on the USA as it's your territory, and I know little about your politics. I know nothing about the above PNAC.
Figures out, I think last year, prove your point about the US being in Debt to itself. Like many others until that time I was under the 'in debt to China' attitude.

Quote. for the American people to be brainwashed with

Anyone care to name a country where this doesn't happen in one form or another.


Quote. Those figures are exaggerated on both sides. Making $46/hour comes out to just shy of $100k per year. Most people don't make half that. Or even a quarter. The median income in the US is around $30k per year, and that comes out to around $14/hour ... lower even than the Chinese who you put at $17/hour. Obviously something is wrong with your figures. The truth is that authoritarian nations like China with fewer human rights can undercut America by exploiting hundreds of millions of poor peasants who will work for pennies on the dollar just to have a bowl of rice on the table. Don't let all the fancy new skyscrapers shooting up in China deceive you. The average Chinese still lives in 2nd and even 3rd world conditions - and these are people with jobs.

Exactly. As many foreigners who work in China will tell you. Before the days of modern communications these thing could be hidden. Outward show was effective then, but not today.

but because they have the biggest military on the planet , they continue to play the world bully, as they always have.

Interesting points that you make. Not thought of it quite like that.

But it is a criticism that was, and still is, pointed at Britain and its past in the 'acquisition' and 'maintenance' of the British Empire. I don't always agree with the US actions, or with British actions, but that is only my choice.

And please will someone tell me how to 'Quote' in black and reply in this colour.

Just seen Blue's post. I agree with his sentiments, so I will go ahead and post.
Hope you don't mind Blue.

Shirina, to answer the 8 questions you picked up on from my earlier post.


1: "Americans are brainwashed" The number of Americans who have a passport, according to the most recent statistics issued by the State Department in January of 2011, is 114,464,041.Given the country’s population of 307,006,550, about 37% of the population has one. This means that nearly 2 out of 3 Americans can’t even fly to Canada, let alone travel to anywhere else in the world. You have to agree that a population being so insular as that is bordering on a third world mindset , that statistic is outrageous for the leading superpower of the world. The MSM in the states FOX , CNN etc spew out rightwing propaganda and the insular Americans digest it as fact.We in the UK and Europe like a balanced informative factual running news commentary , not Republican hyped hogwash .The passport analogy speaks volumes regarding the state of the USA.

2: "American Infrastructure" I will let your fellow Americans tell you about US infrastructure, and yes this is from 2009.

Brendan Says:
October 5th, 2009 at 2:15 pm

Apparently we need a couple more Katrinas and I-35 style bridge collapses before people wake up. There was a good article in Time several months back about how the US will eventually be forced into making
these improvements to vast amounts of our 50+ year old infrastructure. Meanwhile, China will have spanking new infrastructure, which is still being built today, to drive commerce for the next 50 years. This is going to catch up with us; and Spanish owned toll roads aren’t the answer.

If anyone here knows of any jobs for a licensed civil engineer that doesn’t involve building more houses that we don’t need (which is what I pretend to do now), I’m all ears. I’ve been looking for new work for almost a year now, with no luck. Sooner or later it’s going to hit the fan around here. I can’t keep collecting a paycheck for doing nothing forever – so I’m trying to be prepared. All that stimulus money just kept other civils working and didn’t spur any new opportunities. The deadline to get the engineering on these “shovel ready” projects approved is coming up soon; so I expect another round of layoffs in the industry. In other words, when the common excuse of “we don’t have the talent trained in America to do it,” feel free to call BS on my behalf!

dsawy Says:
October 5th, 2009 at 2:31 pm

One of the problems we have is the crass opportunism of our political “leaders.” They’re mostly narcissists who want to see their name in the papers, being adored for what they’ve done “new” for their community.
Money invested in most types of infrastructure has long-term positive economic multipliers. Look at the economic multipliers for FDR’s REA and huge hydropower projects (many of which the radical greenies in the Democratic Party would even now like to destroy). Without those hydro dams, the US could never have won WWII. There would have been no Manhattan Project. Without rural electrification, a much larger segment of the population would have had to remained tied to farming.

Today, we see our “leaders” pissing money into the wind on projects and sectors popular with the press and their various constituencies, but which have mediocre or pathetic multipliers. Much of this spending on “green” power is complete mental masturbation and wastes both money and opportunities. Similarly, spending on new roads while the old ones crumble is also stupid.

dss Says:
October 5th, 2009 at 7:44 pm

Two trillion dollars spent on two wars would have revitalized all of America. Instead, we blow up Iraq and Afghanistan, spend billions building the American Embassy in Bagdhad, send billions to Pakistan so that they can spend it on their army and the threat of terrorism still hangs over our head.

Too many politicians vote “no” on public works spending unless it is for a bug museum in their districts. Big government, bad, small government, good, until as noted, the bridges start falling, the levees break and tax breaks for ruling class.

Now we are bankrupt, still spending billions in the middle east, and some projects are getting done.

And no where do I see moves to right these problems. Just more of the same.

3:"The American dream is in tatters for millions living below the poverty line", we agree.

4: "A Chinese worker will work for $17 dollars an hour, an American $46 dollars an hour .......go figure". Those figures were for the manufacture of the Apple iphone with wages to produce compared with manufacturing in China now and the cost of older Apple production in the states , nowhere did I say it was the minimum wage for America . $7.65 - $9.04 is the minimum wage in the states depending on the state you work in.

5: "America is in chronic debt to China" To put China's ownership of U.S. debt in perspective, its holding of $1.2 trillion is even larger than the amount owned by American households. U.S. citizens hold only about $959 billion in U.S. debt, according to the Federal Reserve.

6: "Biggest military on the planet , they continue to play the world bully"

Many people regard America as a bully. When al Qaeda crashed airliners into the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., many felt that "Hey, turn about is fair play. America is always bombing and invading other countries, it's about time someone gave the U.S. a taste of their own medicine." American media briefly showed Palestinians dancing the street, but quickly avoided any further reporting of similar sentiments.

The problem with viewing America as an international bully is that there's some truth to it. Worse, the Republicans are doing everything they can to reinforce the notion of 'America the Bully' and this has serious negative consequences for us.

Remember the school bully? Would you help him if you had the chance? The same thing is happening to us. We are immensly powerful, but not omniscient. We can push the world around, but where ever we are weak, or not paying attention, nothing goes our way because no one likes a bully or gives them a break.

So why would anyone think the U.S. is an international bully? A bully is someone who attacks the weak, avoids fights with strong, and ignores the rules when it suites him. How do we stack up?

Attacking the weak


America invades other countries far more than any country since Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in World War II. Since 1945, the Soviets invaded Hungary, Checkoslovakia, and Afganistan; North Korea invaded South Korea; North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia; Libya invaded Sudan; Argentina invaded the Falklands; Israel invaded Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt; and Iraq invaded Kuwait and Iran. In the same period, the U.S. invaded Afganistan, Iraq (twice), Haiti, Panama, Grenada, Laos, Cambodia and North Korea. Some would say we have also invaded Cuba, Nicaragua, Lebanon, Somalia, the Dominican Republic and a few additional Latin American countries; although others might view these military interventions as something other than an invasion.

Second, the U.S. bombs other countries a lot, something others don't do much at all. In recent decades the U.S. has bombed Afganistan, Sudan, Iraq, Serbia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Libya, Lebanon (actually, naval shelling), and North Vietnam. I may have missed a few.


Third, the U.S. is accused of overthowing, or attempting to overthrow, dozens of governments around the world. Republicans like to say we have a policy of 'regime change.' Most of the regimes to be changed are dictatorships, but many believe the U.S. was involved with coups against democratically elected governments in Iran, Guatemala, Venezuela, Haiti and Chile.

Since 1945 the U.S. has avoided attacking any really strong countries. America took extrordinary care in Korea and Vietnam to avoid getting into a fight with Russia. We did end out at war with the Chinese in Korea, but that was due to miscalculation rather than choice. Today, the U.S. even avoids invading second tier but relatively powerful countries like Iran and North Korea. Both are in Bush's 'axis of evil' and both have nuclear weapon programs. Iraq, which we did invade, is much weaker and was well known to have minimal nuclear capacity. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that the U.S. will attack the weak, but is scared of the strong

Particularly since Republcans gained control of the federal government, the U.S. has avoided international treaties. America dropped the Kyoto treaty, cancelled the ABM treaty, refused to join the International Court of Justice, won't join protocols on land mines and biological weapons, etc. etc. etc. Most important, however, is that most of world regards the invasion of Iraq as illegal under international law.

The U.S. also looks like a bully because we have built a global military empire. We have troops all over the world. We spend more than $500 billion a year on our military. China, the country with the next largest military budget, spends only $50 billion a year -- 10 times less.

Why does the U.S. need such an enormous military? The only possible explanation is that America wants to run the world. America will decide who lives and who dies, who rules and who is ruled, which regimes shall stand and which shall be 'changed.' Not surprisingly, a lot of people aren't too happy about this.

I supported, and still support, many of the U.S. actions mentioned above. However, the cumulative effect makes it very easy to argue that the U.S. is an international bully who cares only about its 'national interest' and couldn't care less who gets hurt in the process. We are viewed as arrogant, selfish bullies and people treat us accordingly.

So what? Do we really care? After all, we are the biggest, the strongest, and the most powerful nation in the world. If people think we are a bully, let them. The problem with this view is that our image as a bully weakens us. It provides justification for those, such as al Qaeda, who would kill us. This justification translates into support for our enemies, and a reluctance of our friends to help us. In a thousand small ways, we are weakened.

It is said that "everyone you trash on the way up will be waiting for you on the way down." One day we will falter. Perhaps the $7 trillion federal debt, growing at a half trillion a year, will drive us into bankrupcy. Perhaps the insurgents will drive us out of the Sunni Triangle in Iraq. Perhaps the volcano in Yellowstone will blow and cover half the U.S. in volcanic dust. Who knows when or why, but nothing last forever. When we falter, we will no longer be able to afford a half trillion dollar per year military and our financial strength will be demolished. If we are still viewed as a bully, things will not go well.

7:" Gaddafi" This shift in imperialist diplomacy is a devastating confirmation of the predatory, neo-colonial agenda that lay behind the launching of the war in the first place.

The French, British and American governments viewed the mass popular uprisings that forced the removal of pro-imperialist dictators in Tunisia and Egypt as a threat to their interests in North Africa and the Middle East. They were determined to ensure that Gaddafi’s Libya, with which they had each established close political and economic relations, was brought firmly under their control.

As cables published by WikiLeaks demonstrate, the United States was concerned by Gaddafi’s efforts to secure better terms for the exploitation of the country’s lucrative oil and gas resources and his overtures toward Chinese and Russian corporate interests. Any government that came into existence through a popular overthrow of his regime would be even more likely to demand a greater share of the country’s natural wealth.

The war has never been about protecting civilians. From the time the United Nations legitimised the war with Resolution 1973, the US, Britain and France, operating under the umbrella of the NATO alliance, made no secret that their real agenda is regime-change.

The US-NATO war on Libya is a damning exposure of the various pseudo-left and liberal tendencies and individuals, including France’s New Anti-Capitalist Party, the Nation magazine and US academic Juan Cole, who endorsed the intervention with claims it was justified on “humanitarian” grounds. They have legitimised the deaths of thousands and the devastation of an oppressed country so that the imperialist powers can refashion its government—directly against the interests of the masses in Libya and more broadly in the region.

8: "PNAC" The PNAC exerted influence on high-level U.S. government officials in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush and affected the Bush Administration's development of military and foreign policies, especially involving national security and the Iraq War.

After the election of George W. Bush in 2000, a number of PNAC's members or signatories were appointed to key positions within the President's administration:
Name Position(s) held
Elliott Abrams Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Democracy, Human Rights, and International Operations (2001–2002), Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Near East and North African Affairs (2002–2005), Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy (2005–2009) (all within the National Security Council)
Richard Armitage Deputy Secretary of State (2001–2005)
John R. Bolton Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs (2001–2005), U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations (2005–2006)
Dick Cheney Vice President (2001–2009)
Eliot A. Cohen Member of the Defense Policy Advisory Board (2007–2009)[64]
Seth Cropsey Director of the International Broadcasting Bureau (12/2002-12/2004)
Paula Dobriansky Under-Secretary of State for Global Affairs (2001–2007)
Aaron Friedberg Deputy Assistant for National Security Affairs and Director of Policy Planning, Office of the Vice President (2003–2005)
Francis Fukuyama Member of The President's Council on Bioethics (2001–2005)
Zalmay Khalilzad U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan (11/2003 - 6/2005), U.S. Ambassador to Iraq (6/2005 - 3/2007) U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations (2007–2009)
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby Chief of Staff to the Vice President of the United States (2001–2005)
Richard Perle Chairman of the Board, Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee (2001–2003)
Peter W. Rodman Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security (2001–2007)
Donald Rumsfeld Secretary of Defense (2001–2006)
Randy Scheunemann Member of the U.S. Committee on NATO, Project on Transitional Democracies, International Republican Institute
Paul Wolfowitz Deputy Secretary of Defense (2001–2005) 10th President of the World Bank (2005-2007)
Dov S. Zakheim Department of Defense Comptroller (2001–2004)
Robert B. Zoellick Office of the United States Trade Representative (2001–2005), Deputy Secretary of State (2005–2006), 11th President of the World Bank (2007–Present)

You will note the names , RUMSFELD , WOLFOWITZ, CHENEY. these men were complicit in the wars to come .

This means that nearly 2 out of 3 Americans can’t even fly to Canada, let alone travel to anywhere else in the world.

This doesn't have anything to do with brainwashing. All it takes to be brainwashed is to have a strong opinion on something and then have it verified by an "official" source. It doesn't matter how many other countries you visit, your own beliefs will be extremely resistant to any other belief that counters it. After all, here you are, a European, trying to tell me, an American, what my country is like. Have you ever been to America? Because if you haven't then you're just as susceptible of being brainwashed in regards to America as Americans are for the same reason! And when I say "been to America," I'm not talking about a trip to Disneyland. Apparently having an American tell you what America is like fails to influence your opinion of America. Therefore, why would an American flying to Canada (or anywhere else) change their minds? You're like the poster child of my argument scoring points for the wrong team.

It kind of reminds me of one particular pilot who flew for the American Volunteer Corps. (the Flying Tigers) in China during WWII. In one day, he managed to crash 4 aircraft on landing. His fellow pilots said if he crashes one more plane, he'll be a Japanese Ace.

I will let your fellow Americans tell you about US infrastructure

Here again, you prove my point. Why believe what they say over what I say? Is it because you already have a conclusion and are now collecting evidence to prove it - while discounting evidence that challenges that conclusion? It would seem so. I admit that we should spend more on our infrastructure. I won't argue that point. But to say that our infrastructure is "in a state of collapse" is somewhat melodramatic and hyperbolic. Remember that there are forces at work in the USA who love to point out every rust spot on every bridge in the hopes of the government allocating them a big infrastructure budget. That's how politicians get elected. Whether or not the problems they claim exist are truly as bad as they say is another story altogether. However, it is a well known fact that, when various districts are looking for federal money, nothing sweetens the pot like an "impending disaster" that needs fixed right this very minute. Now, I've lived all over the eastern US. I have never experienced a water shortage, had my power terminated because of a lack of transformer capacity, I've never had a bridge collapse from beneath me (or have ever been anywhere near one), etc. I just don't see this imminent collapse. Considering how often I'm delayed due to road construction, I see just the opposite.

As for those fellow Americans you've quoted, yes, I agree with them. We could do better, as I've said before, and we do need to modernize the infrastructure we have. It's hard to convince a person in New York City to pay a higher tax rate to build a new road system in Buffalo - on the opposite end of the state. That's fiscal conservatism for you ... illogical and braindead (rather than brainwashed). We need to invest in this country, not decrease spending. We just need to start spending it on the right things, and NOT on an invasion of Iraq. George W. Bush is going to be ranked as one of the worst presidents we've ever had; Americans are very aware of this. Even the Republicans are beginning to recognize Bush's idiocy even when they were saying just a few years ago that history would rank him as one of our greatest! No, you can't look at the Bush years and make sweeping generalizations about America's foreign policy. He was an anomaly, an statistical aberration. Bush managed to become the only president in American history that waged a war of aggression. Believe me, we know.

nowhere did I say it was the minimum wage for America . $7.65 - $9.04 is the minimum wage in the states depending on the state you work in.

I never said you said that. What I'm saying is that places like China have facilitated a "race to the bottom" in terms of wages. Labor costs comprise the largest percent of overhead costs a business faces. If they can move to China and hire people for $1/hour to do the same job an American would charge $10/hour for, they will move to China. Think of it this way: Back in the 60's, some southern states began allowing prison inmates to work various construction jobs. These became the infamous "chain gangs," and because I live in a southern state, I see these chain gangs working on the roads even today. The problem was that many independent contractors were put out of business because a prison with slave labor could bid on a construction project with much lower prices. That's essentially what's happening to America on a macro scale. We are being undercut by slave and sweatshop labor.

America has very strict policies regarding the treatment of workers, we have a minimum wage law, we have environmental laws, we have worker safety laws, we have equal opportunity laws, we have strict building codes, fire safety codes, on and on and on. Complying with all of these very necessary laws costs money for businesses. So off they go to China where they can pay workers whatever they want, can pollute the environment to their hearts content (China is horrible for pollution), can build cheap factories that are unsafe for the workers, hell, they don't even have to give a Chinese worker a lunch break if they don't want to. Now, this is fantastic for businesses and the already wealthy, but it doesn't do diddly squat for the worker ... and this behavior is dragging America down to their level of living standards. If we all want to live like the average rank-and-file Chinese worker who will sometimes sleep next to his machine and only go home on the weekends, then we can keep these profiteering, ultra-greedy corporations here in the States.

This isn't a governmental issue, it is a greed issue. It is an issue whereby corporations aren't interested in simply making a profit. They want to maximize their profits, to squeeze every penny out of their business even if it means raping the American people in the process. To even claim any of these companies are "American" is stretching the truth. They have no allegiance to a particular nation.

To put China's ownership of U.S. debt in perspective, its holding of $1.2 trillion is even larger than the amount owned by American households. U.S. citizens hold only about $959 billion in U.S. debt, according to the Federal Reserve.

The Chinese holds $1.2 trillion of the US national debt. The total national debt is $15.4 trillion. That just goes to show you that China holds less than 10% of the total debt. Most of our debt comes from deficit spending, as I've said. Your statistic doesn't disprove my argument. In fact, it supports it.

When al Qaeda crashed airliners into the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., many felt that "Hey, turn about is fair play. America is always bombing and invading other countries, it's about time someone gave the U.S. a taste of their own medicine."

LOL! Okay, forgive me for being blunt, but this is just stupid. And, not only is it stupid, it proves my point yet again. Remember what I said in my initial response to you? Here's a refresher:

I have encountered Europeans who are so intent on hating America that they'll defend and support anyone (and I do mean anyone) who stands against her.

That's what I said, and here you are, agreeing with me while simultaneously trying to refute me. But here are two reasons why it's stupid:

The first reason is the ridiculous naïveté expressed by this opinion. Radical Islam is opposed to the very freedoms you're enjoying on this forum. If you think I'm exaggerating, then I suggest you draw a cartoon depicting Muhammad or burn a copy of the Quran and see what happens. The fact that anyone would side with terrorists who would love nothing more than to fill our skylines with minarets, stick our women in burkas, and make everyone pray 5 times per day ... it's nonsense. I have nothing against the Muslim people as a whole, but that doesn't mean I have to like Muslim extremism. Those who side with or sympathize with a group who saws off the heads of civilians in front of a camera will receive no quarter or sympathy from me. With those people, I will be very brutal. I hope and pray you're not one of them.

The second reason is the premise for why someone would sympathize. You said, "America is always bombing and invading other countries." Really, Scarecrow? Other than Somalia, which America never actually bombed, which countries have we "bombed and invaded" BEFORE September 11th, 2001? Are we talking about Korea, which was a UN action, not an American one? Of course let's forget about how it was North Korea who actually invaded, and let's also ignore China who stormed into Korea with 300,000 men! How about Vietnam which all started because of EUROPEAN colonialism? Let's just forget that South Vietnam actually requested American intervention and again ignore that South Vietnam was invaded by communists. How about Lebanon? Oh yeah, that was another one of those multinational operations which included France, Italy, and Britain. Desert Storm? Whoops, that one was so rock solid even the Arabs allied with the Coalition to get Saddam out of Kuwait. When US forces marched into Kuwait City, did the citizens there look "bullied" to you? Grenada ... heh ... that was less of an invasion and more of a hostage rescue operation, but who cares, right? Protecting our own citizens is "bullying" I suppose.

I mean, seriously, I could go on and on about this, but the reality is that those who believe America has been running around "bombing and invading" all by itself is just plain wrong. It's just wrong, Scarecrow. The people who are telling you these things about America are spoon-feeding you bullshit. It is factually incorrect, and even a simple google search will prove that. IF you read an unbiased source. It reminds me of North Koreans who managed to escape across the border. They would tell how they were led to believe that American soldiers eat babies. No kidding! And you're falling for the same type of propaganda.

The problem with viewing America as an international bully is that there's some truth to it. Worse, the Republicans are doing everything they can to reinforce the notion of 'America the Bully' and this has serious negative consequences for us.

The Republicans are doing what they can to distract the American people from our own domestic problems. Believe me, I'm with you on this particular point. The Republicans have a dismal track record with foreign policy, and I don't want them in power any more than you do. All I can really do, though, is not vote for them, and encourage others not to, either. I know, as an American who actually lost a relative in Iraq, we as a people are tired of war. We've been at this for ten years. It's time to bring everyone home.
the U.S. invaded Afganistan, Iraq (twice), Haiti, Panama, Grenada, Laos, Cambodia and North Korea. Some would say we have also invaded Cuba, Nicaragua, Lebanon, Somalia, the Dominican Republic and a few additional Latin American countries; although others might view these military interventions as something other than an invasion.
There are few things worse for an argument than to over-simplify. This list is an over-simplification. Merely providing a list of every nation since WWII were an American soldier's boot touched the soil says nothing about why we were there, who else joined in, whether or not we were welcome to be there, etc. Using a list like this to grant legitimacy to a terrorist attack like 9/11 completely disregards all of the historical forces that created the situation in the first place.

Unfortunately, though, I have to cut this post short as I have an important phone call. I'll try to get back to this later.

As much as I may disagree with you, I do enjoy the challenge of a good debate.

Take care, Scarecrow.

RockOnBrother , duly noted and understood, carry on defending the indefensible actions of America , Shirina. It is a pleasure to debate with you also.

RockOnBrother , apologies , my speed of qwerty typing should have had Shirina's name at the end of the sentence , sorry for the lack of attention. I am reading your post as I type this regarding the interstate highway system , looks informative , I will seek more info besides WIKI , again cross wires this end , not yours .

RockonBrother. Thanks for the Interstate Highway item. Interesting.

I wonder whether it is the most impressive system. With modern methods and machinery we have certainly a system of that is unrivalled in building costs.


However, with little 'machinery' other than picks and shovels, carts and horses etc, and 'slave' labour the Romans managed to constructed an impressive road system across Europe, East Asia and North Africa. From the north and west of England down to the English channel. From the French coast down to Italy, and cross country. Also some in Germany. (All countries as we know them today). North of Italy to Rome. From Rome the Via Appia ran down the west coast, and with the Via Appia Traiana across Italy to Brindisi port.
In Asia there were roads running from ports connecting with crossing from Brindisis, through Greece, Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Israel and into Egypt.
There was a network of roads in Spain. Roads across North Africa.

It is estimated that there were around 400,000 Km of Roman roads, some still exist today, 2 millenia later. Modernised, of course. I live not far from 2, and often travel 1.

They built bridges, cut channels and tunnels. All without diggers, excavators, dynamite and modern tools.

Impressive?

RockOnBrother wrote:
Trevor,

Two persons, one known personally, in 2004 travled almost 3,000 miles via Interstate 90 (primarily) on four lanes or more (two lanes in each direction) controlled-access freeways from Groton/New London, Connecticut to Seattle, Washington.

They wouldn't have done that in this country with the cost of petrol Filled my car up this a.m. Went and paid with my debit card. When the receipt for petrol came out of the machine it had 'you've got to be joking' written on it.

Anyway, Elijah travelled all the way to heaven in a chariot of fire. In an asbestos cloak, of course

3

,000 miles via Interstate 90 (primarily) on four lanes

RoB

UK is JUST on 1,000 miles north to south. The whole journey cannot be driven over anything LIK|E decent roads. The first 100 miles John O' Groats to Inverness, (even the TRAIN takes 3 hours for this journey!) are basically over the old drove roads from 100s of years ago and a speed of anything over 35 mph is doing very well indeed! At the other end in Cornwall, it is the ols Smugglers paths you are following.

OK, largly disingenuous of me, but our infrastructure in this country is CRAP

RoB

EVERY vehicle pays "Road TAX" for the road fund licence - comes up under all sorts of names, but the ethic ic the same. Every vehicle is paying for the "bit of road" it is using.

If all this money HAD EVER ACTUALLY been used on the roads, our road system would be as effective at moving goods and people around the land as your roads, and indeed the continental Autobahn/ Autostrada systems. This money is put into a singular dish, with ALL other collected taxes, then divided up by the differing governmental departments at the behest of civil servants. It is fact that barely 15% of 'road tax' collected actually goes into tarmac, and cement for bridges. The toll roads are starting up in this country, what a wheeze!! Are the users paying less in road tax?? NAH just another drain (read overflow culvert) for the money in the average man's wallet to swalow!

NAH just another drain (read overflow culvert) for the money in the average man's wallet to swalow.

Is that just a polite way of saying 'just another sewer?
Unfortunately the roads where I live are just like my poor old car. Seen better days

As you say, road tax is like any other tax. Collected and seldom used for its true purpose.

It would be revealing if the Government of the day had to have an exhaustive audit of public finances and expences each year. We have a general idea, but where do all the 'odd' millions go.
On second thoughts that would need another tax to pay for it

Anyone reading this. Please can you tell me how to get quotes in BLACK while the rest in this colour print.

Trevor,

To quote someone, all you have to do is highlight with your mouse the words you want to quote, then click the quote button - there are two little speech balloons on the button, or more specifically, it's the 12th button from the left.

Shirina wrote:Trevor,

To quote someone, all you have to do is highlight with your mouse the words you want to quote, then click the quote button - there are two little speech balloons on the button, or more specifically, it's the 12th button from the left.

[quote]

Shirina. Many thanks.

astra wrote:3

,000 miles via Interstate 90 (primarily) on four lanes

RoB

UK is JUST on 1,000 miles north to south. The whole journey cannot be driven over anything LIK|E decent roads. The first 100 miles John O' Groats to Inverness, (even the TRAIN takes 3 hours for this journey!) are basically over the old drove roads from 100s of years ago and a speed of anything over 35 mph is doing very well indeed! At the other end in Cornwall, it is the ols Smugglers paths you are following.

OK, largly disingenuous of me, but our infrastructure in this country is CRAP

But take a holiday in Spain or Portugal, and the country by-ways have been replaced by Express Motorways linking all the major cities. At the side of the road are signs "thanking" the EU for their funding. How did the UK miss that opportunity?

But take a holiday in Spain or Portugal, and the country by-ways have been replaced by Express Motorways linking all the major cities. At the side of the road are signs "thanking" the EU for their funding. How did the UK miss that opportunity?.
oftenwrong
Sage



Posts: 2132
Join date: 2011-10-08

We are not in the geographic areas for which these Motorways were funded. If I remember rightly they were to facilitate speedier transport between ports in parts of Europe.
As an island with easy/short access to/between ports I suppose it was considered unnecessary.

God I do wish we did not have to have Mitt Romney speech's on our radio..God they are so bad..they make me almost cry...Romney sounds more like a loser each time I hear him...

And Romney is the pick of the litter as far as Republicans go. Gingrich and Santorum are even worse.

Shirina, RoB and any other posters interested in US politics..
As you know I am not 'into' US politics. I have always thought that Obama has done a reasonable job under difficult circumstances, and the opposition to his policies. I may be wrong. He has tried to fulfil some of the policies, even to bringing the troops back from the ME, and trying to bring Health to the poor.

However, the question is, in your opinions, which will probably vary, 'How much will Romney's Mormon faith colour/affect his Presidency if he did reach the White House?'
'Would it be good for the US'.
It seems to me that 'religion' in the US has a grip which it is not easy to break.
My beliefs have no relevance in this.
Is it TIME for a leader who can concentrate on state affairs without bringing faith into it.
To me it is hard to balance the two opposing sides of religion and atheism. Each will have its own preference.
Is it possible to 'sit on the fence' and run the country. Each will have his, oops - or her - own ideas. Can they put aside personal preferences and run the US.
Your opinions please

Shirina wrote:And Romney is the pick of the litter as far as Republicans go. Gingrich and Santorum are even worse.

Oh god...Just pray Obama wins...if not god hell us and you

RockOnBrother wrote:

Stox 16 wrote:
God I do wish we did not have to have Mitt Romney speech's on our radio..God they are so bad..they make me almost cry...Romney sounds more like a loser each time I hear him...

Stox,

Listen to Mitt Romney here (2007):





Commentary:




"I'm very proud of my faith, and of the faith of my fathers, and I certainly believe that it is a, a faith um, well it's true, and I, I, I love my faith, and I'm not going to distance myself in any way from my faith…" (Mitt Romney, 2007)

Rock mate
I hate going to the dentist....but after listing to that lot...I will complain never again Rock ha ha.... its like listing to some quasi-holiness... you know Rock after hearing that...the only joy i had was an expression of indigestion after my Irish barmbrack cake went down the wrong hole after eating it.....

trevorw2539 wrote:Shirina, RoB and any other posters interested in US politics..
As you know I am not 'into' US politics. I have always thought that Obama has done a reasonable job under difficult circumstances, and the opposition to his policies. I may be wrong. He has tried to fulfil some of the policies, even to bringing the troops back from the ME, and trying to bring Health to the poor.

However, the question is, in your opinions, which will probably vary, 'How much will Romney's Mormon faith colour/affect his Presidency if he did reach the White House?'
'Would it be good for the US'.
It seems to me that 'religion' in the US has a grip which it is not easy to break.
My beliefs have no relevance in this.
Is it TIME for a leader who can concentrate on state affairs without bringing faith into it.
To me it is hard to balance the two opposing sides of religion and atheism. Each will have its own preference.
Is it possible to 'sit on the fence' and run the country. Each will have his, oops - or her - own ideas. Can they put aside personal preferences and run the US.
Your opinions please

trevorw
The good news is with luck we will never find out...Romney is so far only talking to the Rep party...I think its quite fair to say they have made a real mess of it so far...Obama must be very happy how the Rep race is going....cannot really answer you question on the mormons....as I am not sure if they are a powerful group within the US....

However, the question is, in your opinions, which will probably vary, 'How much will Romney's Mormon faith colour/affect his Presidency if he did reach the White House?'

Perhaps in any other election, his Mormanism may affect his chances of being elected, and with a small few, his faith still will make a difference. However, the Republican conservatives have been painting a picture of Obama that involves him being everything from a Muslim to an atheist. I think Gingrich even called him an "Muslim atheist" ... I mean, how LOL-worthy is a statement like that? Of course they also frequently shift between him being a fascist and a communist without any apparent understanding of what those two words even mean. If the propaganda machine says he is a Muslim atheist who believes in fascist communism, that's what their followers will parrot. Having it actually make sense is irrelevant.

So back to his Mormon faith, I think most Christians will accept that at least Mormons believe in Christ, the Son of God, which is more than they can say about Muslims, atheists, and Godless commies. Even though his Mormon faith would have been a handicap in a "normal" campaign, the outrageous hatred for Obama (remember, Obama is perfectly imperfect) will shunt issues of his faith to the back of the bus.

'Would it be good for the US'.

Well, comparatively, yes, it would be good for the US. Mind you, not so good that I want Romney in the White House, but if a Republican must win this year, Romney is by far the least of the four evils to choose from. The reason is this: Romney, of course, is a Mormon, and that means he's not going to be able to proselytize his faith from the presidential podium. Only 1.7% of Americans are Mormon, so preaching Mormonism or trying to move America in the direction of Mormonism would be a big joke and nothing more. He can't blather on too much about Mormonism except in terms of his own personal faith since, obviously, Mormonism does not represent anywhere close to a majority or even a substantial minority (atheists and agnostics comprise 16.1%). Yet he can't embrace rabid evangelical Christianity, either, since that would be stepping outside of his own personal beliefs - it would be like a Muslim preaching Christianity. The only option he really has is to stay religiously neutral, and that is always a good thing in politics.

It seems to me that 'religion' in the US has a grip which it is not easy to break.

I know this only too well. Everywhere where I have had vigorous religious debates, the believers and unbelievers were almost always split between two geographical camps. Americans, who always take the side of religion, and everyone else, who more often tend to be agnostic. There are exceptions, if course, but this is the general rule. One of the unfortunate aspects of Christianity is its mandate to convert the heathens and hedonists, and for some, fiddling with US law to make that happen is perfectly acceptable. I see a lot of that ... but I have also seen some surprising concessions from right-wing believers. So they're not ALL bad! Yet it seems there is one thing they all agree on: They hate Obama. More propaganda in action.

Is it TIME for a leader who can concentrate on state affairs without bringing faith into it.

All I can say here is - ABSOLUTELY! We aren't electing an American pope. I don't look to the president for spiritual guidance, for crying out loud, and neither should anyone else. That's simply not his job.

Can they put aside personal preferences and run the US.

The truth is, most presidents do, even if they don't want to. Even though I don't want Santorum anywhere near the White House, for instance, chances are, if he were elected, he would have to abandon much of his ultra-religious rhetoric. It's easy to spout that stuff during the primaries, but in the general election when you have to court ALL the voters and not just your base, a lot of people - including many Christians - simply won't stand for his religious views becoming a part of his politics. George W. Bush won his second term mostly due to his faith and religious beliefs, but the moment he took office, most of that nonsense flew right out the window. He infuriated the Christian conservatives who voted for him, but that's politics. Santorum will most likely do the same because he HAS to. The US Constitution is not on the side of religion when it comes to policy making.

Shirina. Thanks for your detailed reply. Stox 16 thanks.

The truth in politics is this. You're elected to serve the people - all of the people, not just the people who voted for you. You can never reconcile the two sets of voters. Only do your best.

And I thought that Obama had done a reasonable job.

I believe that Christianity, in its purest sense, and politics can work hand in hand. Caring and sharing. That's not to say those qualities do not exist outside Christianity. They do. Still, each to his own way of doing things, as long as the objective is the same.

I once read the Constitution of the US. out of interest. Until I came across this

Quote.
The President informed Congress, on the 28th of January, 1790, that North Carolina had ratified the Constitution November 21, 1789; and he informed Congress on the 1st of June, 1790, that Rhode Island had ratified the Constitution May 29, 1790. Vermont, in convention, ratified the Constitution January 10, 1791, and was, by an act of Congress approved February 18, 1791, "received and admitted into this Union as a new and entire member of the United States."

Note 2: The part of this Clause relating to the mode of apportionment of representatives among the several States has been affected by Section 2 of amendment XIV, and as to taxes on incomes without apportionment by amendment XVI.

Note 3: This Clause has been affected by Clause 1 of amendment XVII.

Note 4: This Clause has been affected by Clause 2 of amendment XVIII.

Note 5: This Clause has been affected by amendment XX.

Note 6: This Clause has been affected by amendment XXVII.

Note 7: This Clause has been affected by amendment XVI.

Note 8: This Clause has been superseded by amendment XII.

Note 9: This Clause has been affected by amendment XXV.

Note 10: This Clause has been affected by amendment XI.

Note 11: This Clause has been affected by amendment XIII


It was 2 weeks before I came out of the coma

Thanks again.

LOL! The Constitution is far more complicated than libertarians in this country think it is. They have lawyers in this country that do nothing but specialize in constitutional law.