<p>rhizome, it says you posted---but i don't see yoru posts?</p>
<p>weird....</p>
<p>this is what i posted:</p>
<p>This is ********. North Korea are not supporting terrorists? Where you got the notion that DPRK = terrorists? They are actually anti-imperialist, and they have helped poor african nations with arms in order to fight off imperialists. Whether you like it or not DRPK and South Korean people want to unite, but it's the U.S puppets in South Korea that are preventing them from uniting. That is the main juice of this whole deal. I burst out in laughter when U.S pundits say Kim Jong-il is the president, he actually isn't the president he is the Commander of the armed forces, and has less constitutional power than the U.S president himself.Heck, U.S has nuclear arms in the open, and they were the first to use it.</p>
<p>The real reason for the Iraq war was the impending collapse of the dollar, and Saddam's decision to switch to the Euro.</p>
<p>The US, since bush came to power, has printed 1.5 trillion dollars American. To put that in perspective, America's entire economic worth, from the revolution onwards till 2000 was equal to that amount. It took what, 200-300 years? To produce real wealth equal to that. In 4 years, they have created fake wealth equivilant to that. That's massive devaluation. And it's beginning to hurt.</p>
<p>The world is already moving away from the dollar, expecting collapse, China, which is the US's biggest creditor who single handedly holds up the worth of the dollar at this point, has already begun to diversify its holdings of foreign capital. Patience is running out. This is why the European imperialist nations and the yankee imperialists, two camps that usually see eye to eye in such things, were so split on invading Iraq. Currently the Euro is worth more and switching a country with the 2nd largest oil fields in the world to the Euro is not good for the yankee imperial economy, not good at all.</p>
<p>Whether you like it or not, capitalism is a system founded on the objective necessity, not the subjective choice, of maintaining profitability. When economic realities begin to put pressure on profit rates, business loses both the ability and the desire to support any serious social reforms. The hard economic facts that you discard so easily, not "evil politicians," are what have transformed the Labor Party from one claiming it could bring about a "capitalism with a human face" to one implementing economic policies harsher than those of Margaret Thatcher twenty years earlier -- as well as the NDP's current admiration for that transformation. What the state of the world today proves is that socialism is not only the sole moral choice, but the only choice based on economic realities, not on fantastic make-believe about the capitalist economic system.</p>
<p>While not only is the idea of "capitalism with a human face" no longer viable today, there is no reason whatsoever why such a state of affairs should come about in the first place. The number of facts and statistics I could cite indicting the consequences of the capitalist system around the world are endless. As you're apparently one of the few open apologists for the profit system on these forums, I'd like to see your rationalization for the fact that more than thirty six million Americans -- more than 12% of the population -- were forced to live in poverty last year, or that twenty million American children faced food insecurity because they had the misfortune of living in families unable to afford basic daily nutritional requirements. If your only response is to blather about the virtues of "regulated capitalism," don't bother. That's no more serious a response than to say you're going to grow a money tree or persuade CEOs to give 99% of their income to charity. These social problems are the consequence not of greedy corporations or heartless politicians, but the objective economic processes of a society based on the pursuit of profit, a society you want to preserve by papering over its worst features with outdated policies of social reform.</p>
<p>The worst thing of all is the growth of religion, as I've mentioned in the 'conservative' thread:</p>
<p>"Religion is unfortuantely more important now than it was 20-30 years ago. It has been a long long time since religion was so central to so many of the worlds conflicts, and the president of the USA is more guided by religion than others have been for awhile. Alot of people thought historically that with 1. the separation of church and state and 2. the emergence of science as an explanatory framework, would eventually lead to the decline of religion. But the revolution in Iran, the Balkans, conflict in the Middle East, 9/11 and now the cleavages in Iraq have put paid to that. And in the worlds most dominant country, there are unparalleled numbers of people who think God plays an important role in their life, in the worlds emerging dominant power China there are conflicts emerging as people demand religious rights even before they demand extensions to political rights, and the Republican Party that dominates political affairs in the US is heavily indebted to religious groups.</p>
<p>I don't necessarily think religion per se is the problem, I mean I don't personally believe in God or gods - I am pretty much in agreement with Karl Marx who suggested that religion is the opium of the masses, but who am I to dictate to others what to belive in. The problem is when religion becomes an instrument of power and an excuse to pursue particular agendas, whether it be flying planes into buildings or invading another country.</p>
<p>Oh, and when Churches take so much money off the congragation, often 10 per cent of their income, allowing the fat cat preachers to live large whilst the majority sit in poverty waiting for 'salvation'.</p>
<p>I think in future 9/11 will be seen by historians not as the 'rallying call against terror' that Bush would like it to be, but as the defining moment of the culmination of American political decline on the global stage. Culturally and politically, the US has never been so distrusted as they are now. Which leaves economics and military might... and their eventual passing as global economic leader leaves but one area of might - and we saw all the good that did for Britain, didn't we. It will be interesting to see how the US copes with this slide, since noone likes to give up their place when they are so dominat. But it is inevitable, and the Project for a New American Century guys may have to cut their timeframe in half."</p>
<p>i still don't see...</p>
<p>hmm...Newt Gingrich or Guiliani/Pataki...GUILIANI BABY!!!! YEA to the MAN WHO MADE NYC AMAZING !!!!!! guiliani '08...that man better run!</p>
<p>He will lose. As someone said earlier, too much baggage, and enough people in this country do not like him. I am suprised the Republicans haven't run McCain.</p>
<p>No Kerry lost cause hes a flip flopper who inspired no confidence in anybody who wasn't a Democrat...i know many more Democrats who hated Kerry and we're just voting for him based on their "lesser of two evils" argument than Republicans who disliked Bush...but even if Republicans did not like Bush...i bet very few of them actually voted for Kerry...the guy was like a little school student, saying how he was going to fix EVERY issue since the beginning of time...</p>
<p>One again Bigjake, you lack any political knowledge.
Flip flopping is changing your mind, isn't it? What is so wrong with that?
Its not like Bush has never changed his mind on issues before. Its better to flip flop and eventuaally be right, than be a stubborn moron like Bush and be wrong
My god, think before you type.</p>
<p>But the difference is Kerry won't admit he changed his mind. He kept on saying that he wasn't flip flopping. I agree with you that changing your mind is OK (even though when you have been in the Senate that long you should have had your opinions and plans developed long ago). However, when you try and come up with some explanation that you haven't been changing your mind when you clearly have, that is what troubles me.</p>
<p>tennistennis: could we please keep our posts civil? Of course Bigjake doesn't lack any political knowledge. If we all were a little more polite things would be much more pleasant here :).</p>
<p>"But the difference is Kerry won't admit he changed his mind. He kept on saying that he wasn't flip flopping. I agree with you that changing your mind is OK (even though when you have been in the Senate that long you should have had your opinions and plans developed long ago). However, when you try and come up with some explanation that you haven't been changing your mind when you clearly have, that is what troubles me."</p>
<p>Bush has given the image of being a "resolute" leader, i.e. not flip flopping. You are accusing Kerry of flip flopping wihtout admitting it, but Bush hasn't admitted it in his four years of his presidency. After all, he has said he hasn't made a single mistake in his presidency! This whole flip flopping argument is ********, but sadly, most americans don't critically examine what is put in front of them. ( I am not saying that is you)</p>
<p>flip flopping... this actually isnt a bush bash, but did anyone see the daily show segment with the debate between george w bush during his 2000 campaign and george w beofre the war on iraq? they put the two clips side by side and the 2 g.ws had a little debate LOL, he's flip flopped so much. but whatever kerry was a flip flopper i agree. he wanted to be everyones friend. i still heart him, but the truth is the truth. that segment was hilarious though.</p>
<p>Look, we can't say, "Well your candidate did it so we can too." If Bush has flip flopped and he doesn't admit that he has changed his mind, that is wrong too, just as wrong as Kerry is! </p>
<p>Now, I don't think Bush would say he hasn't made a single mistake in his whole presidency. I think you are getting that mixed up with him denying any mistakes on his part over Iraq. I could be wrong though, but I'd like to see a link. </p>
<p>The flip flopping argument is valid. Even if Bush has changed his opinion on some things (I'm not really aware of any major issues though), it is nothing in comparison to Kerry's flip flopping. It just points out that Kerry is an amazing panderer who changes his story to whatever the audience wants to hear, something I don't want in a leader. I have not seen any evidence for anything comparable on Bush's part.</p>
<p>Exactly...whatever the opinion of the country is at a given time, that's what Kerry will support. He's not a leader, he just goes with the flow. Our leaders are supposed to not give in the temporary passions and emotions of the public. They are supposed to keep everything in perspective and take the right course of action. To someone easily impressed or uninformed, Kerry seems like he's sent from heaven. OMG look how well he talks! Or look how he's got the PERFECT response to EVERY issue without any coherent program! I look at Kerry and I laugh because if he were elected, he would not be able to do most of the things he said. It does not matter to me if Bush didn't join the debate team in college or memorized his list of vocabulary. Bush stepped up and said, "Look, right now, Iraq and terrorism are the most important issues, and this is what i'm going to do." Whether you agree with it or not, he has been resolute and he portrays the impression of a leader willing to finish what he started and not give in when some people complain. Kerry didn't even have an important issue. For all you college admissions people - he had no "hook." He just said he was going to do everything for everybody.</p>
<p>That really is kinda funny Jake...so you are telling me that Bush has never pandered to big corporations in order to get something done and just went with the flow? As many people here have pointed out, you are the one uninformed. You haven't actually given any concrete proof as to anything you say, and the things that you have said are large generalizations. </p>
<p>Yes, Bush was resolute. I'll give you that. That isn't always a good thing. Being stubborn and resolute can get us into trouble. Bush didn't keep anything into perspective besides "How much money can I make for myself and my transnational buddies by invading this country?" That is not why we fight wars. And you do realize that the United States had no legal or international mandate and actually invaded a sovereign nation? No one in America is going to debate on whether or not Saddam Hussein was a bad person. What there is a debate on is whether he had any connection to Al Qaeda (proven to have none), had WMD's (had none) or had the capability to get them (international sanctions were actually working to keep most foreign influence and product out of Iraq. While there have been instances of Russia and France having illegal trade, it is extremely likely that there were other countries as well.) </p>
<p>I do not like Bush for his economic policies (free trade and absolute capitalism are absolutely horrid economic plans, along with tax cuts for the top 2%), his environmental record (promoting Arctic and Alaskan drilling in the latest version of a budget that is not receiving much news coverage, as well as his cutting down of hundreds of thousands of acres so that transnationals can make profits), and his social stances (I am pro-choice and am for gay marriage). While you may not like my views, you must respect them. </p>
<p>Again, we have said that Kerry was not the best candidate for the Democrats. However, if you are tracking Bush's poll numbers, his approval rating has continued to decline even after his reelection and is at about 47% now. With more and more casualties being taken in Iraq and skepticism about the permanent tax cut he is about to sign, that percentage is going to decline as well. As the leader of the Republican Party, he will be the man to take the blame for all his actions and the Republican Party will reel from it. 2006 should be a good year for Democrats to make up some seats in the Senate and House. We may not win back the White House in 2008, but I do forsee a win in 2012 with Obama.</p>
<p>I would just like to take a poll of everyone's economic status and how they would have voted in this past election. I think the results will be suprising. I am a member of the upper-middle class and do get parts of Bush's tax cut refund, and I still hate it.</p>
<p>if you think that the country is ready to elect obama in 2012, you are sadly mistaken. how about waiting a good 20-30 years more for that one...</p>
<p>hmm, lot of bush haters...</p>
<p>i dont hate bush, rather i enjoy his leadership (dick's really, but because dubya is the puppet figure, you get it). watching him blunder and defiling his own name is almost as good as family guy</p>
<p>my friends and i were having a dicussion about how happy we would be if dubya were impeached or in some way had to leave his position as prez, but then we realized that it would just put cheney in power and we were like 'ughhhh, he'll blow up the world and eat the little children', so i personally prefer gw.</p>
<p>lol, youve got it all wrong. if dubya was impeached, jeb would take his place. g senior would make sure of that.</p>
<p>i can sleep easy tonight :)</p>
<p>i hate it when people talk about tax cuts and all this "top 2%" stuff... </p>
<p>tax cuts, tax raises---who cares about the millionaires/billionaires</p>
<p>taxes hurt small businesses most, and people that are making 80-100,000 dollars a year and wnat to work their way up. They work hard harder than the ones who are already at the very top and are able to retire. yet, the end up on the same playing field as people who might work less harder and who happen to make less---yet in the end they're on the same level? How is that fair? That's who taxes hurt. </p>
<p>and no i'm not saying the harder you work, the more you make--or that people who make less aren't hard workers. but, tax raises don't exactly level anything out. the "rich-rich-rich" people will still be rich-rich-rich. but raising taxes hurt the peopel who are not exactly rich-rich-rich, but work really hard and want to be work their way up, but high taxes prevent them from earning the money they deserve.</p>
<p>oh yeah raise the roof tax deduction right here... and we didnt even VOTE for dubya.</p>
<p>jaug, your ideal system is a lot liek western Europe...and Europe is having tremendous problems in terms of economic growth and people don't have the same initiative to work harder, become entrepeneurs, start businesses....by having super high taxes, the government doesn't motivate individual initiatve in people. </p>
<p>what's the point if all you earn is going to be taken away and you end up maknig the same as someone on welfare?</p>
<p>becuase all your money is going towards PAYING for that person's welfare!</p>