1
   

Is This The Death Of America?

 
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2005 12:01 am
I think America is the only country that could survive George Bush. But it look like hes giving it his best shoot at destroying it. Its the story of his life. Oh yea, And Iraq looks like it might make it too. The stupidest and most powerful man on the planet shouldn't be the same person. In the end well see who carries the country back.
0 Replies
 
Lord Ellpus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2005 03:39 am
I would like to correct you slightly, Amigo.

I think that America is about the only "democratic" western country that HE would be able to survive in.

The farce re. the clipped or unclipped voting papers would not have happened anywhere else, which also applies to all the "grey areas" re. postal votes and other lawyer type dirty tricks. If it HAD have happened in another Country, then the FREE press would have exposed this straight away, and there would have been uproar.

If Bush had got into office by fair means in any other country, and handled the economy and war in a similar manner, there would have been a vote of no confidence by now.

Bush only survives in America, because he has the media on a firm leash. Any journalist worth his or her salt must feel sick to their stomachs, at having to toe their Companies line so as not to incur the wrath of the White House.

Pitiful, really. "Leader of the FREE world....". That always makes me smile.
0 Replies
 
Lord Ellpus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2005 03:55 am
...and before anyone starts firing back about Blair, he was voted in without bending any voting rules, or citing "pregnant chads".

The main reasons that he was voted back in, are:

1. Unlike the USA, the UK economy under Blair has done pretty well.

2. There was no viable opposition.

He is also advocating a quick withdrawal from Iraq, and receives an almost daily bombardment from our FREE press and TV, regarding the whole matter.

He and his ministers appear on regular LIVE open Q and A television programmes, where the public make no bones about telling him how wrong he was in following Bush in the first place.

Unless Blair has shares in Halliburton, I would honestly think that his decision re. Iraq haunts him every day, and he would go back in time in a flash to reconsider the whole thing, if he were able.
0 Replies
 
Sturgis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2005 07:05 am
I decided not to cast a vote since I believe the negativity of believing that America is at death's door is counterproductive. If one is not happy with the current situation then they should get up off their lazy rear and do something instead of moan and groan about how tragic everything is...which by the way it is not.
0 Replies
 
Sturgis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2005 07:07 am
Lord Ellpus wrote:
...and before anyone starts firing back about Blair, he was voted in without bending any voting rules, or citing "pregnant chads".

The main reasons that he was voted back in, are:

1. Unlike the USA, the UK economy under Blair has done pretty well.

2. There was no viable opposition.


Point #1...the economy in the USA is doing quite well thank you very much.

Point #2...There was no viable opposition here either.
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2005 07:15 am
Dunno where you get your notions about the economy, Sturgis. I am 66 years of age, coming up fast on my 67th birthday and I don't recall the last time our economy was in the mess it's in today. Inflation isn't just runaway, it's going into orbit. Most folks who were not born with a silver spoon in their mouths are having a dickens of a time making ends meet. The national debt is astronomical. Unemployment is still quite high. Jobs are being "outsourced" to third world countries. The wholesale closing of military bases around the country has eliminated thousands of civilian jobs in those communities. Where do you see our economy "doing quite well"?
0 Replies
 
Sturgis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2005 07:26 am
Just quoting those cheery (possibly fake) sound bites that Karl Rove and Alan Greenspan keep spewing.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2005 07:35 am
I dont know if America is finished as a superpower. But the country has certainly taken a nose dive in the respect stakes.

Its amazing what's happened in the last 4 years. After 9/11 we were all American. Now it seems the rest of the world has more respect for Cuba, and Americans abroad pretend to be Canadians.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2005 08:35 am
http://runn.smugmug.com/photos/588834-M.jpg

Laughing Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2005 08:35 am
Nose dive, Steve? No no, Bush has thrown us back 30 years in
domestic and foreign policies. By the time his presidency is
over, we will have to face the worst budged crisis in history, and we shouldn't forget that Bush has taken over with a substantial
surplus in funds.

His strong connection to God is driving everyone else straight
into hell.
0 Replies
 
Lord Ellpus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2005 08:51 am
Sturgis wrote.......

"Point #1...the economy in the USA is doing quite well thank you very much."



Hmmmmmm.......

From the Economic Policy Institute.

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/Issuebrief203

Snippet:-

Debt and the dollar
The United States damages future living standards
by borrowing itself into a deceptively deep hole

By L. Josh Bivens

"The United States is currently borrowing $665 billion annually from foreign lenders to finance the gap between payments to and receipts from the rest of the world, an amount equivalent to $5,500 per American household. This borrowing entails serious costs for the U.S. economy. However, these costs have been hidden for the past few years, predominantly by the historically low interest rates, which resulted from the Federal Reserve's attempts to spur economic recovery after the 2001 recession and from a downturn in domestic investment. This happy scenario will not persist indefinitely, and when interest rates rise, the costs of U.S. borrowing will have serious economic consequences:

• With no improvement in the current account deficit, the external debt of the United States will rise from 24% of total U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) at the end of 2003 to 64% by 2014.

• The cost of servicing just the additional debt incurred from 2004 to 2014 will rise to 1.7% of GDP by 2014, the equivalent of $250 billion in 2004 dollars......................"
0 Replies
 
Lord Ellpus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2005 09:09 am
Now, I have absolutely no idea whether the Christian Science Monitor is a respected paper in the USA, or whether it is viewed as a crackpot organisation.

The reason I have linked a piece of info from it is simply because, in a past thread, I saw the CSM used as a "source" in defense of GWB, therefore I assume that it is possibly pro republican.

So, for such a publication to come out with this, is interesting indeed. Please note that the article is almost two years old, but I'm sure that the situation hasn't changed for the better in the meantime.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1208/p01s02-uspo.html

This style of Governmental spending, coupled with your foreign debt mountain, will cause severe tightening of the belt over the next decade.

It has all the ingredients to indicate a MAJOR recession, which of course, will affect the rest of the world as well.

Like I said......thanks, George. Pillock.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2005 09:12 am
For some reason, US borrowing of such staggering amounts never seems to cripple the dollar as it ought to.

But then the USD is the world reserve currency. And oil is priced in dollars. So the rest of the world always needs dollars to buy oil. The US can print dollars without it leading to dollar inflation like no other country.

Of the pre eminience of the dollar has been recently challenged by the euro. Saddam started selling oil in euros in Nov 2000. What if OPEC started trading in euros? Iran has already said it plans to open a bourse for oil in dollars AND euros.

I've always wondered about the protection of the dollar argument being another cause of the Iraq war. First thing they did was start charging Iraqi oil exports in dollars again.
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2005 09:18 am
Lord Ellpus wrote:
Now, I have absolutely no idea whether the Christian Science Monitor is a respected paper in the USA, or whether it is viewed as a crackpot organisation.


The Christian Science Monitor is a very well respected paper, but it has a limited readership. First because it is rather intellectual and does not carry the kinds of stories that attract mass readership. Second it is published in Boston and therefore has a limited market. Third the publisher seems to prefer niche marketing over mass circulation.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2005 09:22 am
Second Acquiunk. Highly respected paper, in spite of the somewhat flaky parent organization.
0 Replies
 
Lord Ellpus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2005 09:27 am
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
For some reason, US borrowing of such staggering amounts never seems to cripple the dollar as it ought to.

But then the USD is the world reserve currency. And oil is priced in dollars. So the rest of the world always needs dollars to buy oil. The US can print dollars without it leading to dollar inflation like no other country.

Of the pre eminience of the dollar has been recently challenged by the euro. Saddam started selling oil in euros in Nov 2000. What if OPEC started trading in euros? Iran has already said it plans to open a bourse for oil in dollars AND euros.

I've always wondered about the protection of the dollar argument being another cause of the Iraq war. First thing they did was start charging Iraqi oil exports in dollars again.


This is very interesting Steve, as I read an article a few years back, hinting that the USA was pro the invasion of Iraq, because Saddam was seriously considering selling HIS oil in euros, once he had the embargo lifted. Maybe George wanted to get in there before the fact that no WMD's existed, and the reason for the Iraqi oil embargo evaporated.

Who knows?

If Saddam HAD decided to sell in euros, OPEC would have probably started a dual currency system, and this would have been catastrophic for the USA.

It will probably happen one day, if the confidence in the dollar is allowed to continue slipping the way it has been for the past several years.
The run on the dollar when this happens, will have to be seen to be believed.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2005 09:55 am
Do you agree the US is just about the only country that can print money without it causing catastrophic currency devaluation?
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2005 10:43 am
Lord Ellpus wrote:
Americans would be AMAZED at what life is like in most of Europe. Taxes may be higher, but our needs are looked after without thought of financial ruin because of a stay in hospital.
The thought of medical expense doesn't even enter my head, because it doesn't exist here in the UK...... Zilch. Zippo.
You can have as many scans, xrays, consultants and tests as you require in hospital, and stay for months until you are able to leave, and it will not cost one penny.

Just a shame we couldn't do something about the weather, really......


Start caring about your fellow Americans, you U.S. Politicians.


MALNUTRITION 'TIME BOMB' WARNING FOR EURO ELDERLY



Of course, another way to look at it is that this, plus another heat wave, might take care of the pension funding problems facing the Euroweenies Smile
0 Replies
 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2005 10:53 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
Nah, it's just your wet dream. Bush is doing what he has to in the world. Many people know that. Many of those who do have negative ideas about us, have them because you're cheerleading them. If you call someone "embattled," "beleaguered," etc. long enough, eventually some of it sticks. You could do it to anybody who was taking a stand on something important.


sfgate.com
CASUALTY OF WAR: THE U.S. ECONOMY

Quote:
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have already cost taxpayers $314 billion, and the Congressional Budget Office projects additional expenses of perhaps $450 billion over the next 10 years.


Quote:
"Osama (bin Laden) doesn't have to win; he will just bleed us to death," said Michael Scheuer, a former counterterrorism official at the CIA who led the pursuit of bin Laden and recently retired after writing two books critical of the Clinton and Bush administrations. "He's well on his way to doing it."


Brandon are you helping Bush find bin-laden ?
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2005 01:59 pm
does anybody seriously believe that bush does not know exactly where bin laden is?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/29/2024 at 09:39:16