Does anyone still believe this guy?

I can understand you egtting upset over the most powerful nation in the word leading preemptive strikes, but engine sizes? Taxes? Education?

Engine sizes? You think pollution keeps itself within the borders of the country they're poured out from? It's the same rock we all live on, air moves around buddy.

Taxes? If your administration, now that the rich corplords are in power, changing the taxing to benefit the rich, will keep the rich in power and the average joe powerless. You see, in your country, the candidate with the most money to throw into campains and bribes wins. Easy!

Education? You're the ones who vote for these guys. How is a democracy (debatable, in your case) going to work with keeping the voters in the dark about the options on who to vote for?

EDIT:

...leading preemptive strikes

You can't still think that hitting Iraq can be called that, can you?

Because I want a bigger motor. If my government took away Big Block V8's, I'd move to Italy where I could still buy a V12. No joke. I wouldn't drive a 4-banger unless it growled like a V8 and had the same 'GRUNT' as a big V8.

Malibu, I tried, man, I really tried!!!! I beat up the kids that write those columns in high school. (joking, again! GOD I'm funny). Seriously, I have very conservative, Republican - politically active - parents. Believe me, I get the issues spoon fed to me. I can't for the life of me figure out how I became a lefty hippie tree hugger, but I did. (Common sense, maybe???)

Okay... that post made my day!

[tongue in cheek] A wise engineer I once worked beside said it best, I think, "The more money I make, the more conservative I become!" ;) It's okay to throw money away on silly regulations and useless social programs--WHEN IT'S SOMEONE ELSES MONEY!!!! [/tongue in cheek]

BTW, Paavo... "tongue in cheek" is an American slang expression that doesn't mean to us what it means to you!!!!! :p

Now on a serious note: To answer the (one of the) overbearing question, "Why does the rest of the world care what America does?" If we stayed within our own borders, probably not much. Other than some 'jealous' political sniping, there would probably not be any of much to-do. But because we step outside our borders and support countries like Isreal (which Biblically is a sound choice), Kuwait, or the majority of the Iraqii people, we violate what is largely a global 'norm'. 'Norm' being

a principle of right action binding upon the members of a group and serving to guide, control, or regulate proper and acceptable behavior

. That norm is "nationalism". Something that most countries (unless they are imperialistic) believe in is the sacredness of their borders. We used the concept of nationalism to explain our stepping into the Middle East when Sadaam invaded Kuwait. Smaller countries are outraged at the U.S. not because they are being proactive about overthrowing a evil regime (anyone who doesn't believe this... sigh), but because they feel that if we can invade Iraq, what's to stop us from invading Finland? Excellent vodka and voluptuous blondes... sounds like reason enough for an invasion!

1) Global warming is a joke. Maybe I'm ignorant because I live in Iowa where it's freakin cold outside right now.

We don't know if this is true or not. It could be a normal warming period or it could be humans. There is not enough science to prove either argument.

[QUOTE=Telemakhos]We don't know if this is true or not. It could be a normal warming period or it could be humans. There is not enough science to prove either argument.[/QUOTE]

I live in freakin' Iowa. I don't see any warming here at all. It's colder than a well-diggers ass up here.

Well sure, if you assume the rest of the world is exactly like where you are, then you are totally right.

Bush volonterly LIED on many occasions to the American's citizens (and the rest of the world) in order to go war.

This war caused the death of many humans, including Americans. And the most important contract after the war went to the company of the vice president (no bid).

How can you trust him ?

Because I want a bigger motor. If my government took away Big Block V8's, I'd move to Italy where I could still buy a V12. No joke. I wouldn't drive a 4-banger unless it growled like a V8 and had the same 'GRUNT' as a big V8.

Eh...funny, but sad and true I guess, in a boring way. If large noisy engines is what it takes to make American males feel they've got a penis long enough, then, what can one do?

But because we step outside our borders and support countries like Isreal (which Biblically is a sound choice)...

Yeah, you see, the people that are pissed off don't believe in that little book at all. They've got their own, and they're getting angry. I can't believe that a country as powerful as yours would ever use religion as a reason for anything concerning politics.

Smaller countries are outraged at the U.S. not because they are being proactive about overthrowing a evil regime (anyone who doesn't believe this... sigh), but because they feel that if we can invade Iraq, what's to stop us from invading Finland? Excellent vodka and voluptuous blondes... sounds like reason enough for an invasion!

Overthrowing an "evil" (just using the word "evil" tells something about how far back the US administration took the timemachine when they got in power) regime is always a good thing. But that was not the reason for invading that country. I though this was obvious even to the most hardcore rightwing person. Read my font: It still was all about money and personal agenda on behalf of the few chosen ones (yes, the ones with the friends at the top and the money because of the same reason).

As for the fear of "if they can do this, what can't they do?"; it's true, on one level or another. I know the US won't invande my tiny country, because you've got nothing of interest for the US here. The real thing is though, that the day Bush ordered his troops to invade that country, he showed the rest of the world that there are no international rules anymore. It's ironic that people even speak about the reasons for the US to invade Iraq having something to do with UN rules, as the invation itself was a blatant way of showing that the UN rules do not apply anymore.

[QUOTE=PaavoPerkele]Engine sizes? You think pollution keeps itself within the borders of the country they're poured out from? It's the same rock we all live on, air moves around buddy.[/quote]

Yes, and there haven't been any past presidents who have done anything about engine sizes either - why are you so passionate about your dislike for Bush? Are you just anti-American, plain and simple?

Taxes? If your administration, now that the rich corplords are in power, changing the taxing to benefit the rich, will keep the rich in power and the average joe powerless.

Okay, now this is where i question your honest pursuit of knowledge and start wondering whether or not you are just spewing out textbook-insults. We do not benefit the rich! What is your reasoning behind that statement? HERE is the 2003 tax rates and tax brackets - do you consider almost 40% taxation benefit? Tell me how that benefits the rich, sir, because your claims are coming off as charlatanistic - nothing more. You simply list off the typical attacks! I'd be willing to bet you haven't even seen an American income tax chart such as that one - honestly, have you?

If you have, and you still insist that we are unfairly benefitting the rich, then that doesn't say much about your use logic.

You see, in your country, the candidate with the most money to throw into campains and bribes wins. Easy!

Again, where are you getting this information? There have been many times where the underdog candidate takes the presidency. Yes, campaigning is an important part of our elections - after all, we are an enormous country, and flights to each one of those states, media in each, etc, etc - it adds up.

Look at Joseph Lieberman (do you even know who that is? If you are critiquing our current elections, then you had better learn fast)! He is spending one million dollars a WEEK this month, and was very well funded, but he is doing HORRIBLY in the polls. Because of this, his campaign money is going down the hole. If anything, it is the campaign funds that are a result of the polls, not the other way around (which you are suggesting - that the polling is a result of the funding).

Education? You're the ones who vote for these guys. How is a democracy (debatable, in your case) going to work with keeping the voters in the dark about the options on who to vote for?

Who says we're keeping the voters in the dark? Care to tell me exactly what you mean, here? You're being very vague and unspecific.

You can't still think that hitting Iraq can be called that, can you?

Where did i mention "Iraq"?

Quite frankly, reading your posts concerning America is much like reading a book on childcare written by an author who has yet to have a child.

Nos.

I can't believe that a country as powerful as yours would ever use religion as a reason for anything concerning politics.

We didn't. Please, go ahead and try and prove me wrong here - quote President Bush saying that we defend Israel because it is a Biblically sound choice. If you cannot supply a quote, you will maintain the title as an unwarranted spectator, shouting cat calls, and booing the winning team. You're continually assuming things about our nation, and i am very glad to be clearing these things up, one by one.

I though this was obvious even to the most hardcore rightwing person. Read my font: It still was all about money and personal agenda on behalf of the few chosen ones (yes, the ones with the friends at the top and the money because of the same reason).

Again, more silly content with no proof to back up your claims. What do you mean? Care to explain?

The real thing is though, that the day Bush ordered his troops to invade that country, he showed the rest of the world that there are no international rules anymore. It's ironic that people even speak about the reasons for the US to invade Iraq having something to do with UN rules, as the invation itself was a blatant way of showing that the UN rules do not apply anymore.

TELL me you're joking... are you THAT out of touch with world politics? Perhaps you missed my post a bit further back, but i mentioned the 17 UN Security Council resolutions made against Iraq and it's regime, including the latest, resolution 1441 which i quoted a piece of. We went in to Iraq to enforce UN law, not to break it. Have you even read the UN resolutions? Give me an honest answer - have you read the 17 resolutions?

Assuming you have, how can you be so daft? And assuming you haven't, how can you even begin a debate concerning UN resolutions when you haven't even read them?

Nos.