Forum: General Topic: Bush has already caused serious problems. Author Message cody #1 posted February 12, 2003 at 7:44pm (EST)   To add to the idea about "stealing" Iraqi oil, America has all sorts of oil resources here that aren't tapped and prior to spending many billions of dollars on a war in the middle east don't you think we'd just go ahead and our domestic industry further? Additionally, our economy is not "fudgeed up". Inflation and unemployment are low, home loans are at 5.5% interest, and everyone is getting money back from the evil evil government. Our economy is not in as good of shape as it was during the late 90's, but don't make the mistake of equating the stock market and the economy. Additionally, even the markets are just stagnating right now as opposed to declining, the losses came surrounding Sept 11th... we never recovered from that. cody #2 posted February 12, 2003 at 7:37pm (EST)   Strong argument Kaleb. The oil talk is as bunk as it ever was, the targeting and intelligence sharing problems I'll concede are true and good points, but regarding Iraq's abillity to target the US... There are US interests all over in the Middle East such as Kuwait and Israel. We are trying to protect the oil interests there because we don't want to see any problems with our economy as secondary effects from a war in the region. So oil does play a part, but, Your theory that we are trying to "Steal" iraqi oil is just plain wrong. Get over it. It is wrong as well as idiotic, so please, drop it, and we'll have a more meaningful discussion. It has absolutely no credibility. Additionally, Iraq can easily target the US if they want to, with WOMD's. If the intelligence agencies are in chaos like you are reporting, how are they going to act in a defensive capacity to prevent a covert attack? Whether they are going to or not is another issue. I personally am doubtful that Iraq would do this, so it is kind of illegitimate to argue that that might happen because practically it's pretty much certain that it isn't going to. On the other hand I do believe that they would be willing to supply refuge, money, and technology to a terrorist organization with such goals, and I think these are the issues the current administration is upset about. cody #3 posted February 9, 2003 at 7:33pm (EST)   The public is uninformed about the political situation compared to the people who work on it all day. Among people who are directly involved in intelligence and millitary planning, they all know that it is necessary to have a war at this point. Even at the Liberal Universities in America, the closer you get to the "political science" and "history" departments, the more support you start seeing for a war. The public is not very well informed about the issue relative to our decision makers who generally have degrees in Politics and International Studies from Ivy league universities and spend 10 hours a day 6 days a week studying the Iraq situation... Each one of the Two Hundred and Sixty Million individuals in this country who has absolutely no understanding of the situation could be out in the streets protesting, and it wouldn't change the fact that the 20 people in the Department of Defense and Central Intelligence Agency who know what is going on support a war. China has 1 Billion citizens and contributes nothing to the UN, so don't try to make that the issue. Every nation in the UN regularly withholds funding when they get pissy about something-- it's the way that you call attention to something that you are upset about. cody #4 posted February 9, 2003 at 7:26pm (EST)   Turner's agreement to pay 100 Million a year to the UN is unrelated to any US dues. Incidentally Turner, who is a democRat best I can tell, has defaulted on the payments after the demise of AOL-TIME WARNER (which is part of the generalized internet falling-apart scenario that I've been predicting for some years) resulted in him losing several Billion Dollars. The US could really give a fudge what the UN thinks, because we are the primary target for any potential terrorist activities that the great and moral nation of IRAQ might be planning. Again, the US hasn't done anything yet. We'll wait for at least a couple more UN members to get on board. Because the UN security council has five veto holding members, the likelyhood of the UN becoming involved in a conflict like this is low. Whoever said the US had an obligation to take such things to the UN to begin with? What the fudge are they, our mommy? There isn't a one world government. We are a sovereign nation and we will defend our interests with or without the approval of disinterested third parties who JUST HAPPEN to have it in for us due to their jealousy of our free markets... cody #5 posted February 9, 2003 at 1:05pm (EST)   Turner had nothing to do with it. What the fudge is wrong with people? Bush signed a budget that made the 300 some million dollar payments. Why don't people like him again? cody #6 posted February 8, 2003 at 10:07pm (EST)   The US debt to the UN (which was amassed by Clinton and payed by Bush, incidentally), is resolved. Our concern focused around a number of issues. I'll be happy to address them-- 1) Our share of the bill was too high. We were being asked to cover 35% of the Security Council Bill, and 25% of the general bill. In the years since the percentages had been assigned in the late 70's, certain nations (Israel, France, Germany, China, etc.) had drastically improved their financial situations, and we thought that it were about time that we stopped paying 30% of the bill for an organization with 160 Nation-Members. 2) The UN was funding abortion promoting campaigns in Africa and we were upset. Democrats too. This is the context surrounding the debt that was owed to the UN. We are well within our rights to not give them our money if we don't want to, and they can respond to this however they choose. Other nations regularly withhold money as well. cody #7 posted February 8, 2003 at 9:41pm (EST)   Bush is a Republican President. The Republicans control both houses, Congress and the Senate. Of course Bush has the power to do whatever he wants because what Republican will stand up and cause disunity by disagreeing with Bush?>> This is an interesting point but isn't really true. There is plenty of disunity in the party and people generally vote along idealogical lines. The illusion of everyone in a particular party being in kahootz is just a result of the fact that they come from similar idealogical backgrounds. <<Unless both houses have a secret conscience vote on such issues as Iraq and Kyoto, Congress will tow the party line.>> Sounds like a great idea-- hide the voting process from the American Public. I don't know if you noticed the Iraq war powers vote, but wasn't it 77-23 in the senate? Hmmm... interesting, no? Quite a few democrats on board-- the democratic party was split on the issue. And what, are you for Kyoto now? You should know that it was voted down unanimously by the senate shortly before the meeting in 97'... "The Republican controlled Senate will certainly not squash legislation put forward by a Republican controlled Congress. Disunity is death. If you don't believe this, ask yourself how congress would act if tomorrow Bush woke up and said he made a mistake. Suddenly all of those members of Congress who stood behind him on Iraq would stand behind him on withdrawal." No, but they'd certainly consider it, just on the basis that it would be a mind-fudge. There is actually very little party unity on most issues. You don't look at many votes, do you? "It's party politics. The Republicans must unite behind their guy, just as the Democrats are "supposed" to oppose what the Republicans do. If they agree with the Republicans they admit they are right." This is true that the democRats will disagree for it's own sake. "As for Americans being stupid, I don't think they're stupid. I think they're ill-informed. A saw a bunch of Texans talking about the war and the UN. They were saying things like "Well the US pays for the UN so they should be doing what we want. For a start, it shouldn't matter who funds the UN, the decisions should not be influenced by this. Also, the US does not fund the UN. The US actually owes more dues than any other country." We've with-held funds because of things like Kyoto, which is our right. As you may or may not know, contributions to the UN are voluntary and are determined by each member nation. I don't have specific intelligence on the dues which the US pays compared to other nations, but my understanding is that we provide around %50 of total UN funding. "Protests are important. Governments know that people have to be really pissed off about an issue if they get off their arses and protest." You believe in the mob rule system and don't understand the nature of a republic. When'd you turn into a liberal? "They also know for every protestor there are many more voters who either can't or won't protest, but they will change their vote." Great. Politics. First you were doging about it and now...? No, actually, most politicians don't give a fudge about protests because they recognize that the protestors weren't in their support base to begin with. When a bunch of rich white businessmen protest some republican action, THEN there might be an effect. A bunch of idiot liberals who were voting liberal to begin with doesn't affect anyone. As discussed before, the kids go to these things because it is considered a social event and a potential chance to see a riot. "Public opinion is very important, especially if there are riots and civil disobedience in many cities." Yes, riots do tend to call attention to a cause. And the stupidity of the people who support it. cody #8 posted February 8, 2003 at 7:20pm (EST)   In the rush to emulate our government, the governments of other nations only seemed to pick up on the idea of "democracy". They assumed falsely that the democratic aspects of our government where what was making it work. They viewed us as a nation "ruled by the people". What the nation was ruled by was not the people. The government was not set up to rule. That was the whole point. Of nation WAS and to an extent still is, ruled by the higher ideals of a select handful of people. These are not ideals of democracy. They knew better. It had been done before in the colonies and it hadn't worked (many colonies had elected governors and legislatures). Instead, they created a government that was essentially intended to fill the vaccum where the old government had left, but which was paralysed from ever doing anything. All care was taken to ensure that nobody could do anything, except something that REALLY REALLY REALLY needed to get done... matters of business... international defense... etc. Checks and balances were not checks and balances, but wrenches in the gears. We were founded not on the idea of people ruling each other, but on the idea of people ensuring that nobody can rule them. When other nations adopted more democratic processes, they didn't understand this. The idea was to minimize government, and prevent the passing of laws. Jefferson warned that normal democracy would fail when the people realized that they could vote themselves each other's money (sound familiar?)... and cited this as one of the reasons for our REPUBLIC. In your nations, rule has been restored to the people completely, and they have gone and essentially voted themselves money in the form of health-care, and education, and whatever else they might want. They are completely blind to the fact that government is not a limitless bank account but rather is funded by them. They vote to ensure they get more back, and they do, but then they pay more, and the only thing that changes is an increase in the cost of administering the whole state of affairs. In third-world countries democracy failed more quickly. People realized that they could vote people into power who would give them money, and smarter people realized they could be voted into power by promising people money. The people who were voted into power then did one of two things-- Became totalitarian dictators (Castro, Hugo Chavez). Or. Did as they promised and printed more money and gave it to everyone. (Every Mexican President ever...). In your countries your system has managed to survive simply because of generalized economic prosperity in the first world outweighing the negative effects of the fact that people, like rats with electrodes in their brains, keep pushing the nob at the poll-booths that says, "Give me another shot of morphine/Give me some more of everyone else's money." However, certain countries, like Canada, have started to come to the end of their pipe-dream/pax regium... It is no wonder that ya'll are sold the false impression that the US is a democracy where the will of the people is always acted on... or a nation where the people should be out in the streets ranting about what they believe. To the contrairy, such people are known as fools, and such is not part of our process. cody #9 posted February 8, 2003 at 6:59pm (EST)   Your falling victim to the belief that most Americans are foolish or naive is also something you should get out of your head. I'm not sure where it originated (the popular press?) but it actually isn't true. There are stupid people here, yes. There are stupid people there though, as well. In general our public is slightly more educated than yours in terms of years of school. Additionally, our work-force is the most educated and skilled in the world. cody #10 posted February 8, 2003 at 6:52pm (EST)   No, you don't understand how our system works better than most Americans. You have only a limited understanding of our system and you repeatedly demonstrate that through minor slip-ups in your posts. What you are discussing in terms of "Checks and balances" is something that American school children learn in 3rd grade. Literally. Later on students take government classes in middle and High School and we move past simple explanatory mechanisms like that which don't really capture what happens. I don't even want to get into the class on US Government that the 40% of Americans who went to college had to take their first year.. Checks and balances is not a term you'd hear someone use outside of the context of an elementary school classroom here. In fact, putting the phrase into a search engine will result in a long list of websites intended for young children. The voters have no "Responsibility" to do anything under our government, moral or otherwise, and they CERTAINLY are not intended to have ANY SAY WHATSOEVER in matters of government business. You heard me. The American constitution was written with one main goal-- To prevent the people, by popular majority or mob rule, from making stupid laws. The idea that the American citizens should, by majority, try to influence the workings of government does not jive with the way our REPUBLIC is set up. You are under the same misunderstanding that many foreigners are (but only democrats in Americans are)-- that the government of our nation is in place to enforce the will of the people. Rather, our government is in place to PREVENT the people from trying to enforce their will on each other. This is a CRUCIAL difference and it is the one thing that seperates us from other nations. Your governments exist so that your people can tell each other what to do through a federal mechanism. Our government exists to ensure that we cannot so much as try. In fact, what you consider to be "Checks and balances" in our system is actually a neat way to allow any particular branch of government to put an end to anything that the voters thought was a good idea. Ideas like "impeachment" and "veto power" are not unique to the American government, have very little relevance to the way our system was set up, and had an analogy in every government prior to ours that had ever existed. Our "Electorate" is not our voters, and there is NOTHING in our federal constitution which says that the electoral college of a state should or ought to nominate the candidate that was voted for in the election. Many state constitutions do have this enforced, but generally it was frowned upon by the founders of the nation, who had the foresight to realize that the people are fools. It is not the President's job to "keep an eye on the legislative body". It is the president's job to "Execute the will" of the legislature. His abillity to "Veto" bills because he doesn't think that they are prudent has nothing at all to do with him "keeping an eye on them"... this is a task which falls to the courts, where constitutionality is determined. The president's ability to veto bills is more of a house-keeping procedure designed to allow him to say, "I don't think you guys are realizing what's going to happen if I execute this...". Because any sort of major bill in our government needs a 2/3's majority to begin with, the potential for the President to prevent congress from doing something major that he doesn't like is nil... if they had the 2/3s to propose some sort of major action, they have the 2/3s to over-ride a veto. The difference between 1/2 and 2/3's is also an optical illusion. 50% vs. 66% shows you how unimportant the matter is. Even on the minor issues his veto amounts to little more than a "you should re-consider this". It was never used during the early days of the nation, and actually only became popular in the 20th century. You aren't quite clear on how our government works, Biggles, for a variety of other reasons as well. You continually, and I'll admit this is something many Americans falsely do as well, fall victim to the illusion that our president is the leader of our government. Bullcrap. Congress is the leader of our government. It has significantly more power to make decisions on wars and treaties and such than our president does. (This has changed recently with the idea of "police actions" but I won't get into that.) Pretty much ANYTHING that the president does is something that is the will of congress... which kind of makes sense, because his job is to, "Execute the will of congress." If all you do is watch speaches, you might get the feeling that the president is more influential than he is. Why might this be? Because ALL OF CONGRESS doesn't regularly get up on TV and in unison give a talk... The president's decisions, the things he says... they all are directly related to votes that were taken in congress. Sure, he can go on and on about something that hasn't happened in congress yet, but it's rhetoric. There are executive orders, but even these hold very little sway. If an executive order ever contradicted the will of congress, the Supreme Court would immediately knock it down. Ones I love are foreigners saying things like, "Bush didn't sign Kyoto." No, CONGRESS didn't sign Kyoto. "Bush is starting a war with IRAQ". NO, there is no war with IRAQ, and when there finally is one it will be because CONGRESS started one. You kind of think like people like this Biggles, and the problem with you and them is that you just don't understand our government. http://www.votenowar.org/ Ever since the Civil rights movement certain groups have begun to believe that the citizens were intended to play an active role in government. Bullcrap. The citizens have, and ought have, no role. Next page (only 10 shown here)