Armageddon's-a-comin'!

[taks]

the US has been in some form of war or another nearly since its inception. iraq is no different other than the fact that it is unpopular with the rest of the world. to say a president wants an endless war is pointless since there nearly always is a war going on, i.e. he's already got what you're asking if he wants with or without iraq.

 

taks

[DesertHawk]

The world may not end, but the younger generation of people who are just about coming of voting age will want it to.

 

They'll be hated by a lot of countries, they'll end up paying 3trillion+ USD, and they'll have to pay for the baby boomers! SUCKERS!

 

Meanwhile the rich will continue to have their taxcuts. And they'll be able to afford going overseas for abortions and stemcells.

 

{Note: If this offended you, please realize that I don't think bad of you if you're pro- what was shown here. People are seperate entities and individual, and a few beliefs does not determine if they are good or bad.}

[Child of Flame]

I. Don't. Care. I'm moving to Canada as soon as I can anyway.

[Gromnir]

is amazing just how confused people is 'bout what a President does... and can do. would make us think that some of the foreigners is right 'bout their criticism of our educational process... if it weren't for fact that we can see just how ignorant those foreigners tends to be.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Little Baron]

is amazing just how confused people is 'bout what a President does... and can do.  would make us think that some of the foreigners is right 'bout their criticism of our educational process... if it weren't for fact that we can see just how ignorant those foreigners tends to be.

 

HA! Good Fun!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Um... "foreigners" case in point. ^ I find it funny that you would be chiding others about their educations.

 

The president by himself has little power, you are right about that. What you don't seem to understand is that there is now a Republican majority in the House of Representatives AND in the Senate. It will be *much* easier for the Republicans to get their way for the next two years (at least).

[Gromnir]

is amazing just how confused people is 'bout what a President does... and can do.  would make us think that some of the foreigners is right 'bout their criticism of our educational process... if it weren't for fact that we can see just how ignorant those foreigners tends to be.

 

HA! Good Fun!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Um... "foreigners" case in point. ^ I find it funny that you would be chiding others about their educations.

 

The president by himself has little power, you are right about that. What you don't seem to understand is that there is now a Republican majority in the House of Representatives AND in the Senate. It will be *much* easier for the Republicans to get their way for the next two years (at least).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

why do you find it funny? you do not suggest that Gromnir's education is lacking, do you?

 

in any event, we is quite aware of the recent republican victories, but that does not change the fact that the President himself is incapable of achieving any of the changes you prospectively attributed to him.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[random evil guy]

World War III, I mean.

 

[John Kerry has officially conceded].

 

 

****

 

Not to mention, America is now headed directly back to the social conservatism of the 50's. Complete Republican control bought with promises of Christian moral values (really! It was the #1 concern of Bush-voters!*). The potential impact on the supreme court alone could be [will be] devastating, but with no-one to stop them they will pretty much be doing whatever they want.

 

*and because of this, even the Dems still in office are going to start turning socially conservative in order to survive. Here, I thought that ruining the country's reputation and economy were important things to consider, when all that really matters is whether or not gay people can get married. Silly me.

 

Good times, good times.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

good post; i fully agree and i'm soooo glad i am not an american. when i see what the americans chose and why they chose them; i'm glad i live in a liberal country like norway. we have our problems, but they're small potatoes compared to you guys.

 

i feel sorry for the liberals in the us now; they'll have to struggle with the religous right for four more years. a bit sad, but what are you gonna do when 70 million americans call themselves evangelists(or crazy people as i like to call them)... "

[DesertHawk]

World War III, I mean.

 

[John Kerry has officially conceded].

 

 

****

 

Not to mention, America is now headed directly back to the social conservatism of the 50's. Complete Republican control bought with promises of Christian moral values (really! It was the #1 concern of Bush-voters!*). The potential impact on the supreme court alone could be [will be] devastating, but with no-one to stop them they will pretty much be doing whatever they want.

 

*and because of this, even the Dems still in office are going to start turning socially conservative in order to survive. Here, I thought that ruining the country's reputation and economy were important things to consider, when all that really matters is whether or not gay people can get married. Silly me.

 

Good times, good times.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

good post; i fully agree and i'm soooo glad i am not an american. when i see what the americans chose and why they chose them; i'm glad i live in a liberal country like norway. we have our problems, but they're small potatoes compared to you guys.

 

i feel sorry for the liberals in the us now; they'll have to struggle with the religous right for four more years. a bit sad, but what are you gonna do when 70 million americans call themselves evangelists(or crazy people as i like to call them)... "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Mental note: Move to Norway.

 

The President of the United States has power to:

Suspend congress

Declare martial law

Send congress home and rule in an "emergency"

Suspend elections

Declare war (...depends on the definition of war...)

Basically anything they want. The constitution allows for a lot, including possible tyrrany.

 

Such is life. Unless things become really bad, I will probably be staying here in my purely democratic state. Plus, considering who we have who just won a seat, it looks like it'll be an interesting four years. Hmm. Which middle eastern country do you think we'll declare war on next?

[Kaftan Barlast]

World War 3, no. But "The war against terror 3- The Iran campaign" is comming to a world close to you.

[Dakoth]

Declare war (...depends on the definition of war...)

 

Only congress can declare war, which is why most actions taken after the Korean war have been called some thing different. The president has the ability to send troops to a conflict for a limited amount of time, I think 90 days after which he must seek congressional approval to keep them there.

 

The President of the United States has power to:

Suspend congress

Declare martial law

Send congress home and rule in an "emergency"

Suspend elections

 

Which is why our fore fathers wrote into the constitution that every citizen has the right to own a firearm. No ruler in his right mind is going to try and take those measures while the average American can own a gun, because there would most definately be an uprising.

 

Also the seperation of church and state has been twisted over the years. It was a provision to keep the church safe from the government not vice versa. Remeber the original settlers were leaving England partially because of its state sponsored church.

[Little Baron]

Which is why our fore fathers wrote into the constitution that every citizen has the right to own a firearm.  No ruler in his right mind is going to try and take those measures while the average American can own a gun, because there would most definately be an uprising.

 

I hope you're right about that, but you forget that those same people are firmly under his ideologic spell. Depending on the spin he [or the REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED CONGRESS, WHO WOULD DECLARE WAR FOR THEIR REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT] puts on these measures, it could happen without much resistance at all... and by the time the people realize what's happened it would be too late. [Not that I think this is possible, but just to counter this assertion].

 

Also the seperation of church and state has been twisted over the years.  It was a provision to keep the church safe from the government not vice versa.  Remeber the original settlers were leaving England partially because of its state sponsored church.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Right, but case in point. My religion [Liberalism/Non-Christian Ideology] is being oppressed right now, by the state. The pilgrims left England because they were being forced to acknowledge the ideology of the Church of England. How is it any different to legislate morality for a minority in America today? It isn't. It is purely religious/ideological in nature... the Christian majority is forcing the liberal minority to accept it's values as law. If there was some legitimate benefit to stopping anyone from getting married, then I wouldn't be talking about it, but their clearly isn't any need to "protect" marriage between men & women...

 

For the record also, I don't so much care about Gay marriage per say, what I care about is that 70% of America has forgotten that we are supposed to be the "land of liberty" and are willing to push their religious views onto the whole.

 

Didn't I say I was going to shut up? I should stop reading this topic...

[Nick_i_am]

I.  Don't.  Care.  I'm moving to Canada as soon as I can anyway.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I would be too if I didn't already live elsewere.

[Dakoth]

Just goes to show how differently people think. I voted for Bush but would gladly take up arms against him if he tried to pull any of the stunts listed above.

 

I also don't see where any religious ideas are being foisted apon you by our government. Other than the right for gays to marry, (but that has been something not accepted for a long time, and change is never easy.) that is also an issue that I think if it was cleared up and the message got out that they want marriage by law and not church there would be less of a problem.

[~Di]

that's the will of 80% of the population of the US, not a religious "offensive"... a society is allowed to decide what type of behavior it defines as acceptable, whether you like it or not.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Umm, I have to take slight exception to that statement, Mark, my sweet. The reason we have a federal constitution is to assure that certain behaviors are never deemed acceptable no matter how many folks decide to engage in them. If 80% of the population suddenly decided that slavery was a good idea after all, or that they want to withhold certain rights from those uppity females (like voting, owning property, that sort of stuff!), the constitution deems that unacceptable. And all the tooth-gnashing insistance in the world can't made it okay.

 

Of course, worst case, the constitution can eventually be amended so that predjudice and bigotry becomes the law of the land. That takes considerable time, however. But it's doable. Unfortunately.

 

At this point, it seems that a majority of our population believes that withholding rights from gays is okey-dokey, just like a majority of our population once believed that withholding rights from blacks and women was okey-dokey. I think that's kinda sad, actually. But that's just me.

[random evil guy]

World War III, I mean.

 

[John Kerry has officially conceded].

 

 

****

 

Not to mention, America is now headed directly back to the social conservatism of the 50's. Complete Republican control bought with promises of Christian moral values (really! It was the #1 concern of Bush-voters!*). The potential impact on the supreme court alone could be [will be] devastating, but with no-one to stop them they will pretty much be doing whatever they want.

 

*and because of this, even the Dems still in office are going to start turning socially conservative in order to survive. Here, I thought that ruining the country's reputation and economy were important things to consider, when all that really matters is whether or not gay people can get married. Silly me.

 

Good times, good times.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

good post; i fully agree and i'm soooo glad i am not an american. when i see what the americans chose and why they chose them; i'm glad i live in a liberal country like norway. we have our problems, but they're small potatoes compared to you guys.

 

i feel sorry for the liberals in the us now; they'll have to struggle with the religous right for four more years. a bit sad, but what are you gonna do when 70 million americans call themselves evangelists(or crazy people as i like to call them)... "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Mental note: Move to Norway.

 

The President of the United States has power to:

Suspend congress

Declare martial law

Send congress home and rule in an "emergency"

Suspend elections

Declare war (...depends on the definition of war...)

Basically anything they want. The constitution allows for a lot, including possible tyrrany.

 

Such is life. Unless things become really bad, I will probably be staying here in my purely democratic state. Plus, considering who we have who just won a seat, it looks like it'll be an interesting four years. Hmm. Which middle eastern country do you think we'll declare war on next?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

yeah, norway is a pretty good country. the un has said it's best country in the world to live in two years in a row now... but it's cold; brrrrr.

where i live, northern parts of norway, it's cold and snowy from late november and all through march(sometimes april!). (w00t)

 

however; health care and education is free and poverty hardly excists. one big difference from the us, is that the government is far bigger in norway. health care and education is almost entirely funded by the federal government...

 

that is something that fascinates me with the us; their almost natural distrust of the federal government. in europe, most of us, don't see the government as an enemy. we think of the government as a "friend" that can help us if we're in trouble...

[Phosphor]

yeah, norway is a pretty good country. the un has said it's best country in the world to live in two years in a row now... but it's cold; brrrrr.

    where i live, northern parts of norway, it's cold and snowy from late november and all through march(sometimes april!).  (w00t)

 

Sounds fantastic!

 

however; health care and education is free and poverty hardly excists. one big difference from the us, is that the government is far bigger in norway. health care and education is almost entirely funded by the federal government...

 

Taxes must be quite high? Which is a fair trade-off for free health care and education provided the quality of such is good - which it must be to be rated so highly by the UN.

[Vincent_Valashar]

I rather pay high taxes and get a free medical care than not pay taxes and get charged $50,000 for one hospital visit.

[random evil guy]

yeah, norway is a pretty good country. the un has said it's best country in the world to live in two years in a row now... but it's cold; brrrrr.

    where i live, northern parts of norway, it's cold and snowy from late november and all through march(sometimes april!).  (w00t)

 

Sounds fantastic!

 

however; health care and education is free and poverty hardly excists. one big difference from the us, is that the government is far bigger in norway. health care and education is almost entirely funded by the federal government...

 

Taxes must be quite high? Which is a fair trade-off for free health care and education provided the quality of such is good - which it must be to be rated so highly by the UN.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

taxes are quite high in all of scandinavia, but everyone basically accepts that. most people think that everyone should have the same opportunities; so therefore taxes are relatively high, so that the federal government can fund health care and education. equal opportuneties no matter who you are or how much money you have...

 

then again, most people make a really good living here, so they don't mind paying their taxes.

 

but that's enough about norway; this thread is about the usa. why is it so many americans don't like the federal government a federal funded health care and so on?

[~Di]

Hmm, well the folks in Dakur don't think of the government as a "friend", since it's the government that is committing genocide against them. I doubt the Croatians, Bosnians or Kosovar's thought of government as a friend, nor did the Russians during Stalin's time.

 

The USA was founded by people who were persecuted by their governments, survivors of those who were murdered by their governments, and those who were escaping the tyranny of their governments. So yeah, under those circumstances we can see where the founding fathers of the USA would be more concerned that the power of government be controlled than they would in constructing an all-encompassing "friend" like those "friends" they'd just escaped.

[random evil guy]

Hmm, well the folks in Dakur don't think of the government as a "friend", since it's the government that is committing genocide against them.  I doubt the Croatians, Bosnians or Kosovar's thought of government as a friend, nor did the Russians during Stalin's time.

 

The USA was founded by people who were persecuted by their governments, survivors of those who were murdered by their governments, and those who were escaping the tyranny of their governments.  So yeah, under those circumstances we can see where the founding fathers of the USA would be more concerned that the power of government be controlled than they would in constructing an all-encompassing "friend" like those "friends" they'd just escaped.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

dakur? do you mean darfur?

 

i'm talking about western europe; not croatia, russia or sudan...

 

you're talking about things 200 years ago; it doesn't explain why liberal and federal government are such negative words in the us...

[taks]

RHow is it any different to legislate morality for a minority in America today? It isn't. It is purely religious/ideological in nature...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

the way i see it, the "minority" as you so state is asking the government to force YOUR morality on the majority... ? you seem to be applying a double standard here.

 

taks

[~Di]

dakur? do you mean darfur?

 

i'm talking about western europe; not croatia, russia or sudan...

 

you're talking about things 200 years ago; it doesn't explain why liberal and federal government are such negative words in the us...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, I do mean Darfur. And by segregating "western Europe" specifically, you conveniently slice off areas of the world that do not ascribe to your own country's view of governmental purpose. Which basically proves my own point, which is that different areas of the world view their own societies, including their own forms of government, differently than you do based upon the history of those societies.

 

The USA constitution may have been forged 200 years ago, but it still rules our country today, and its purpose has not changed. The words "liberal" and "federal government" are not negative words in the USA, although they have been bastardized by some conservatives who enjoy using the word "liberal" as some kind of obscene insult. It isn't. Federal government has a distinct role to play in American culture, and how much of a role is still the topic of discussion here.

 

At one point, republicans basically believed that government should be small and stick to its basic function of providing for the common defense and enforcing the constitution (although republicans now are expanding government's role to expand their own power base, IMHO). Liberals believed that government should provide womb-to-tomb parenthood for all citizens, thereby removing all incentives beyond that of getting out of bed each day to receive one's governmental subsistance check. Most Americans, however, fall into the moderate range.

 

I guess my question to you would be why you seem to believe that American government, beliefs and society should mirror that of western Europe? Do you have no respect for cultures that are different from your own? I'm genuinely curious.

[taks]

the answer to that last bit Di is an emphatic NO. people like this think their way is the only way and can't understand why the US doesn't hop on the bandwagon... elitism at its best.

 

taks

[random evil guy]

dakur? do you mean darfur?

 

i'm talking about western europe; not croatia, russia or sudan...

 

you're talking about things 200 years ago; it doesn't explain why liberal and federal government are such negative words in the us...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, I do mean Darfur. And by segregating "western Europe" specifically, you conveniently slice off areas of the world that do not ascribe to your own country's view of governmental purpose. Which basically proves my own point, which is that different areas of the world view their own societies, including their own forms of government, differently than you do based upon the history of those societies.

 

The USA constitution may have been forged 200 years ago, but it still rules our country today, and its purpose has not changed. The words "liberal" and "federal government" are not negative words in the USA, although they have been bastardized by some conservatives who enjoy using the word "liberal" as some kind of obscene insult. It isn't. Federal government has a distinct role to play in American culture, and how much of a role is still the topic of discussion here.

 

At one point, republicans basically believed that government should be small and stick to its basic function of providing for the common defense and enforcing the constitution (although republicans now are expanding government's role to expand there on power base, IMHO). Liberals believed that government should provide womb-to-tomb parenthood for all citizens, thereby removing all incentives beyond that of getting out of bed each day to receive one's governmental subsistance check. Most Americans, however, fall into the moderate range.

 

I guess my question to you would be why you seem to believe that American government, beliefs and society should mirror that of western Europe? Do you have no respect for cultures that are different from your own? I'm genuinely curious.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

well, you can't really compare the western europe to the former yugoslavia, russia and the rest of eastern europa. the western euorpe have been democratic for many years now, while the east was basically ruled by the communists in moscow. nevertheless; with the expansion of the european union, i would think the eastern parts of europe will become similar to the western parts in the years to come.

 

well, to be honest. there are some cultures i don't respect; religious fundamentalism shouldn't be tolerated. it's opressive in its nature.

 

you ask me why i think american values should be similar to those of the western europe. well, first of all the close relationship through nato and the cold war. they are both stable democracies in which personal freedom, freedom of speach and so on are key values. there are so many things that are similar on the surface, but religious and moral values are very different. i have no idea why. in scandinavia, only 39-40 % of the population considers themselves christians and the number is constantly decreasing. in the us, i think some 70 % of the population considers themselves christians. a huge difference! people say education kills religious beliefs, but i don't think europeans are generally better/more educated than americans...

 

but here is a question for you; why is canada so similar to the western europe, while the us is a lot more conservative?

[~Di]

well, you can't really compare the western europe to the former yugoslavia, russia and the rest of eastern europa. the western euorpe have been democratic for many years now, while the east was basically ruled by the communists in moscow. nevertheless; with the expansion of the european union, i would think the eastern parts of europe will become similar to the western parts in the years to come.

 

In other words, they WILL be assimilated! Seriously, what you are implying is that your own culture is better than any other culture, and that superiority is why others should emulate you rather than you emulate them. Never mind the mind-boggling thought that each country should actually keep their own culture, LOL!

 

well, to be honest. there are some cultures i don't respect; religious fundamentalism shouldn't be tolerated. it's opressive in its nature.

 

And there, in a nutshell, is the philosophy that sent hundreds of thousands of your ancestors across the pond to my country, where they became my ancestors. They were searching for religious freedom, the ability to practice their own religion without suffering the prejudice of anti-religious folks like yourself and the persecution of intolerant governments.

 

Which may give a clue to the answer to your next question:

 

but here is a question for you; why is canada so similar to the western europe, while the us is a lot more conservative?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

First, I won't pretend to respond to the culture and history of Canada. It's not my place to, since I'm neither Canadian nor an expert on Canadians. I can, however, point out that the large percentage of Americans who consider religion a major part of their life has to do with why these people and/or their ancestors came to America in the first place... for religious freedom. Therefore, it stands to reason that a large populace of Americans would be religious.

 

BTW, I'm not a Christian myself, so there are quite a few non-theists running around. Freedom to practice religion also means freedom not to practice religion, which is why I'm quite sensitive to any perceived attempts by the government to enforce the religious beliefs of others onto me via legislative means.

 

We are a massive country. We could stick most countries in Europe into the corner of our large cities, and not notice the increase in population. Therefore, we are as diverse, or more diverse, within ourselves as the whole of Europe, west from east and everything in between. Which is why it's so annoying to have Europeans, or anyone else, generalize Americans. You were quite quick to point out the difference between western and eastern European culture, yet seem to believe that all Americans are homogenious robotrons. I can assure you, we are not.