American History

[fourteen]

Discuss historical American events here in this forum! :)

[pawprints]

Hehehe... why don't you start?

[seventeen]

eventually somone will! hehehe

[champion]

Okay, I will discuss American History (I promise), but first, how do you get a avatar? Thanks

[radical1]

American History, okay, sure. Let's have a open and *honest* debate.
We'll start with: Our 'forefathers' never intended for us to live in a multi-culturist society. Why, even Abraham Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery, then ship the "darker fellows" back to their native land: Africa.

[champion]

Originally posted by radical1
American History, okay, sure. Let's have a open and *honest* debate.
We'll start with: Our 'forefathers' never intended for us to live in a multi-culturist society. Why, even Abraham Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery, then ship the "darker fellows" back to their native land: Africa.

There has been much conjecture regarding Lincoln's intention in signing the emancipation proclimation, however, he was assassinated before any of these could be proven true or false. Therefore, he is remembered for the great deed he did accomplish: freeing the slaves.
I'm sure most people here are aware that the Civil War was not about slavery, however, great achievements stand alone.

[champion]

Originally posted by radical1
American History, okay, sure. Let's have a open and *honest* debate.
We'll start with: Our 'forefathers' never intended for us to live in a multi-culturist society. Why, even Abraham Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery, then ship the "darker fellows" back to their native land: Africa.

Oh, by the way, our forefathers' intentions are not at issue here.
Remember, the moment a European stepped foot on this land, it became multi-cultured (intended or not).

[Liberalmind]

:o My ruffest and most favorite History Professor said one day, "I generally prefer to have a discussion class! This is history and there is nothing to discuss! Take notes!":eek:

[Yellowrose]

The Constitution of the United States of America is the foundation on which this country was built. It is the "bones" if you will, for our system of government. It's importance in today's world is even greater than in 1789. Why? Well, I will quote my DS's Constitution textbook: because "Without it, we become a nation of instability, subject to the varying "democratic" whims of a continually changing majority without the protections for minorities that are provided for in our Constitution."

I believe the term democratic refers not to political party per se, but rather to our type of government--a democracy. We have the freedom to vote and elect and ultimately choose how and who governs this nation from our President right down to the Mayor in our community. In our town, we even get to elect the dog-catcher! The "varying whims" apply to all political parties and to every politician in the US. This document provides the standard by which we govern. The Constitution is not some archaic document and I, for one, refuse to accept the idea that this document in our nation's history should be disregarded because it appears we have moved past it in today's society; that there is no relevance for today. It is my opinion that this is quite the contrary.
The problem is that currently the Constitution is being misinterpreted. The Congressional Congress argued long and hard concerning "Federalist" and "Nationalist" Now to me, that's just semantics, but it meant a lot to them. The colonies had just fought to establish themselves seperate from England's strong, central government, and many of them didn't want to give up this power to a "new" central government. They wanted to remain independent. Yet there were some who realized that they needed to be "united". The ultimate power was given to the states, with the federal government overseeing it. From what I understand, we were never meant to vote for our representatives to Congress. These people were suppose to be chosen from those elected to the state government! Congress has no authority to tax the people; this was left to the state. And if Congress couldn't tax, they couldn't get involved in all the programs they're involved n that they have no business controlling. Things changed after the Civil War, when the Northern Republicans had control and wanted to "punish" the South. They refused to allow the southern states the right to govern themselves.

[champion]

Of course Congress could tax (they could have an Army and declare war and coin currency - how were they to do this without revenue?) We were to vote for our federal represenatives - just not our senators. The representatives were to elect from among themselves the senators.
-Champi

[Export]

The representatives were to elect from among themselves the senators.
-Champi

Don't knock your system, man. Here, our Senators are appointed by the Prime Minister and confirmed by the Governor General (the Queen's representative in Canada, our Head of State.) Speaking purely as a British Columbian, I think it's the worst possible system! While we do have a few 'good' Senators who actually do good things for their Provinces and regions, most just sit in the Senate until they're forced out at retirement at age 75 or die and do nothing for the people. It's very much like the British House of Lords.

I may not like your government, but I sure like the fact that you elect your Senators!!!!

But, I really like how the Australians elect their Senate. I'm not sure if the Americans do it the same way (tell me maybe?), but they elect half their Senate at a time for a fixed term, and the other half exactly halfway through THIER term. So, mostly, you won't find one Party dominating the Senate and it seems to work quite well (by not having the same party in the Majority in Parliament (Congress) and the Senate.)

Neat, eh?

[champion]

Don't get me wrong, I think our current system is much better - I want to vote for a represenative and a senator - what I last posted is just the way it was. As for how we elect senators: we have 100 senators, two for each state. They are separated into three (roughly equal) sections, and one of those sections is elected every two years. So a senator serves a six year term, and every two years, 1/3 of all senators is involved in an election, but it is arranged in such a way that the two senators from one state are not running in the same election year.
-Champi

[Export]

Ah, okay. That seems like it would work rather well, actually.

I'm watching the system in action tonight, it seems pretty interesting. Bush is now at 249, not far from the win. I'm only watching the Canadian coverage, but Canadian neworks are calling it for Bush (it's only 1am Eastern.)

But then the paper today said that it might take a long time to decide. In 1876 it took 115 days!

[champion]

It's now 206 - 269 for Bush.

[Export]

Looks like that's the end of Kerry for a few years! Is there any way that Kerry can come back, really?

[Export]

Jeez! One network says he's got it and another says he doesn't! I'd hate to see what's going on on the American networks!

[champion]

I know, it's not looking good, though. Fact of the matter is Bush is one vote away -

[Export]

I saw recently that if a party courted everybody BUT white males, that party could win. I thought that was kinda neat!

[champion]

Well, if you think about it, put all white males in one container and everyone esle in another, which container fills up the most? How a candidate would go about doing that - not to mention the ethics of it - is beyond me.
-Champi

[Export]

Haha! Yep, I guess there's no way that's going to ever happen, especially since the white males have all the money, eh?

Well, Kerry just conceded. You poor Americans! And you thought that world-wide anti-Americanism was high when Bush WASN'T elected, I'm afraid how it's going to go now that he IS elected!

[champion]

We appreciate your sympathy. I can barely breathe - Republicans got a majority in Congress as well. Any immigration infromation, Export?
-Champi

[klassybandit]

We appreciate your sympathy. I can barely breathe - Republicans got a majority in Congress as well. Any immigration infromation, Export?
-Champi


America will be better for it.
There must be a reason that the majority of Americans vote for Republicans. If you look closely at the voting results you'll notice that most of the individual counties/regions that Kerry won were very highly populated, which is where you'll find the majority of the low income and inner cities. Those are the areas that are traditionaly known to have many problems. Gangs, drugs, violence, discrimination etc. and many many very nice people who just have it rough.
BUT... they do not represent the main-stream America.

[champion]

Whether or not America will be better for it remains to be seen, unless there's some ESP going on. The scary part, the way I see it, is how many people are more worried about my monogamous, loving, stable and long term relationship than they are about the war in Iraq or the economy. As for the reason the majority voted for him (I have to say I am glad that the popular and electorial votes agreed) - survey after survey has found that Bush voters are more likely to believe that there are WMD in Iraq, that there is a strong connection between Iraq and 9/11, AND that Bush has said so. Even Bush agrees that those two things are not so. This indicates that his voters are (willingly?) misinformed and have a seriously screwed up system of priorities. Hail to the Cheif, indeed.
-Champi

[Export]

Any immigration infromation, Export?
-Champi

Sorry, champion. I'll take in an American deserter, but you civilians are on your own!

Of course, you could always come in as a tourist and get some under-the-table low-paying work and hide out. Or (and this works rather well) come to Canada, make a Refugee Claim, get it rejected, then claim 'Sanctuary' (and run REAL fast to the nearest place of worship. The church/mosque/synagogue won't turn you away, and the government can't get you AS LONG AS YOU DON"T GO OUTSIDE. Something like 3 in 4 people who claim Sanctuary get to stay.

Good God, I'm going to get arrested now! teehee!

[klassybandit]

Whether or not America will be better for it remains to be seen, unless there's some ESP going on. The scary part, the way I see it, is how many people are more worried about my monogamous, loving, stable and long term relationship than they are about the war in Iraq or the economy. As for the reason the majority voted for him (I have to say I am glad that the popular and electorial votes agreed) - survey after survey has found that Bush voters are more likely to believe that there are WMD in Iraq, that there is a strong connection between Iraq and 9/11, AND that Bush has said so. Even Bush agrees that those two things are not so. This indicates that his voters are (willingly?) misinformed and have a seriously screwed up system of priorities. Hail to the Cheif, indeed.
-Champi


What can I say, I'm gifted ;) And actually the polls showed that the main thing that won it for Bush was morals. He is a man of conviction. That doesn't mean that others share his convictions and beliefs, but I respect that in a person.
What people are forgetting is that Saddam refused to let the inspectors do their jobs on numerous occasions. That doesn't mean that he had WMD, but I personally wouldn't want to take that chance, especially when it was a hostile country.
When 9/11 happened, I remember reading responses from world leaders and every single one of them were outraged at what happened. And I'm talking about leaders from Libya and Cuba etc., which were not on good terms with the US.
Saddam's response was basically that the US deserved it and that he was glad.
Do you trust a man like that?

[champion]

Of course saddam was a bad guy; no one has ever said differently. No where did I say anything at all like that- but, and think back on this one, did we invade Iraq because he was a bad guy? Did we invade Iraq because he wasn't sympathetic to us after 9/11? Did we? No. We invade because he supposedly possessed weapons of mass destruction and waiting any longer put us at great physical danger. I served in this country's military and I know what kind of a war I would want to fight - and this isn't it.

So, you're gifted, huh? ESP, is that what you're claiming? Wouldn't surprise me. However, do scroll up and re-read my previous post - and respond to what I actually said.
-Champi

[Yellowrose]

What can I say, I'm gifted ;) And actually the polls showed that the main thing that won it for Bush was morals. He is a man of conviction. That doesn't mean that others share his convictions and beliefs, but I respect that in a person.
What people are forgetting is that Saddam refused to let the inspectors do their jobs on numerous occasions. That doesn't mean that he had WMD, but I personally wouldn't want to take that chance, especially when it was a hostile country.
When 9/11 happened, I remember reading responses from world leaders and every single one of them were outraged at what happened. And I'm talking about leaders from Libya and Cuba etc., which were not on good terms with the US.
Saddam's response was basically that the US deserved it and that he was glad.
Do you trust a man like that?

I am with you all the way Klassybandit! America wants someone that is steadfast in our White House and is sure was not Kerry! Thank goodness Bush was re-elected.

[klassybandit]

Whether or not America will be better for it remains to be seen, unless there's some ESP going on.

***That was a joke. I don't have ESP, but I do have faith.

[QUOTE=champion]The scary part, the way I see it, is how many people are more worried about my monogamous, loving, stable and long term relationship than they are about the war in Iraq or the economy.

***I have no desire to comment on this section since it does not conern me, which from your comment, you should appreciate.

[QUOTE=champion]As for the reason the majority voted for him (I have to say I am glad that the popular and electorial votes agreed) - survey after survey has found that Bush voters are more likely to believe that there are WMD in Iraq,

***I also am glad that the popular and electorial votes agree.
And weather or not Saddam had WMD I do believe he was a threat. Why was he not cooperating with the inspectors? He was warned on more than one occasion that he needed to cooperate and if he didn't action would be taken. Granted, faulty information led us to believe that there were WMD, but there was no way to prove or disprove the information.
Again I ask... Would you want to take that chance?

[QUOTE=champion]that there is a strong connection between Iraq and 9/11, AND that Bush has said so. Even Bush agrees that those two things are not so. This indicates that his voters are (willingly?) misinformed and have a seriously screwed up system of priorities. Hail to the Cheif, indeed.
-Champi

***I know that some wonder about the connection between Iraq and 9/11 and there are known terrorists currently in Iraq and have been prior to 9/11. Was there a definate connection? I don't know - but I won't dismiss the possibility.
Look at it this way: 2 drug dealers live in the same house. One is caught selling drugs to kids. Your opinion - Is the other one innocent or guilty?

[klassybandit]

Whether or not America will be better for it remains to be seen, unless there's some ESP going on. The scary part, the way I see it, is how many people are more worried about my monogamous, loving, stable and long term relationship than they are about the war in Iraq or the economy. As for the reason the majority voted for him (I have to say I am glad that the popular and electorial votes agreed) - survey after survey has found that Bush voters are more likely to believe that there are WMD in Iraq, that there is a strong connection between Iraq and 9/11, AND that Bush has said so. Even Bush agrees that those two things are not so. This indicates that his voters are (willingly?) misinformed and have a seriously screwed up system of priorities. Hail to the Cheif, indeed.
-Champi

Let me try this again - the other post was hard to read.


***That was a joke. I don't have ESP, but I do have faith.
***I have no desire to comment on this section since it does not conern me, which from your comment, you should appreciate.
***I also am glad that the popular and electorial votes agree.
And weather or not Saddam had WMD I do believe he was a threat. Why was he not cooperating with the inspectors? He was warned on more than one occasion that he needed to cooperate and if he didn't action would be taken. Granted, faulty information led us to believe that there were WMD, but there was no way to prove or disprove the information.
Again I ask... Would you want to take that chance?
***I know that some wonder about the connection between Iraq and 9/11 and there are known terrorists currently in Iraq and have been prior to 9/11. Was there a definate connection? I don't know - but I won't dismiss the possibility.
Look at it this way: 2 drug dealers live in the same house. One is caught selling drugs to kids. Your opinion - Is the other one innocent or guilty?

[Export]

Why was he not cooperating with the inspectors? He was warned on more than one occasion that he needed to cooperate and if he didn't action would be taken. Granted, faulty information led us to believe that there were WMD, but there was no way to prove or disprove the information.

Just a second there! What about Hans Blix? He went in there, inspected the country, and didn't find anything! Saddam didn't want to lose his country, and the only way for him to keep it was to cooperate with the inspectors, and let's not forget the sanctions, and the no-fly-zones, and the oil-for-food programme. It seems to me that BUSH wasn't cooperating with the inspectors! Imagine - invading a country based on information that you couldn't prove or disprove! Oh, wait- that actually happened!


I know that some wonder about the connection between Iraq and 9/11 and there are known terrorists currently in Iraq and have been prior to 9/11. Was there a definate connection? I don't know - but I won't dismiss the possibility.
Look at it this way: 2 drug dealers live in the same house. One is caught selling drugs to kids. Your opinion - Is the other one innocent or guilty?

You've GOT to be KIDDING me! I mean, I've always thought that in our legal terms it went 'Innocent until proven guilty.'
Look at it this way: 2 motorists live in the same house. One is caught speeding through a school zone. Your opinion - Is the other one innocent or guilty?

Look, all due respect, but I think that's a pretty weak argument!

[klassybandit]

You've GOT to be KIDDING me! I mean, I've always thought that in our legal terms it went 'Innocent until proven guilty.'
Look at it this way: 2 motorists live in the same house. One is caught speeding through a school zone. Your opinion - Is the other one innocent or guilty?

Look, all due respect, but I think that's a pretty weak argument![/QUOTE]


I can tell you don't like my comparison :)
We gave him the chance to prove his innocense. He chose not to.
We gave him several warnings to cooperate. He did not.
We gave him an another chance. He still did not cooperate.

He had the knowledge, the know-how, the willingness and the hatred.

Maybe you would have waited (and think that we should have waited) until there was 110% undeniable proof, but I still believe we did the right thing.
If we had waited, like a lot of people think we should have, I'm afraid it may have been too late to avoid a disaster.

I mourn for each and every one of the soldiers that are wounded and killed and for the innocent civilians BUT.... I mourn for every one who was injured and killed on 9/11.
Maybe he wasn't involved in 9/11, and there's a good chance that he wasn't, but he is an evil man that will kill others without conscience.

[champion]

Jus ad bellum , we didn't have it when it came to Iraq, and no amount of 'yeah, but' is going to change that.

The fact of the matter remains that many people who support and voted for Bush are woefully ignorant of the situation, both domestically and internationally.

[Side note- we seem to have gotten away from American history and perhaps we should move this discussion to the 'politics' or main forums, you think?]
-Champi

[Export]

We gave him the chance to prove his innocense. He chose not to.
We gave him several warnings to cooperate. He did not.
We gave him an another chance. He still did not cooperate.

He had the knowledge, the know-how, the willingness and the hatred.


Okay klassybandit, here's for you: prove it to me. Where can I find this proof? Where specifically can you direct me to find this proof?

Everything that I've seen points to Saddam having lots of chances and cooperating with the international community.

[champion]

He had the knowledge, the know-how, the willingness and the hatred.

Further, 'knowledge' and 'know-how' are the same thing. Seems you might attempting to stretch the arguement for invasion; exactly what irratates me about a lot of Bush supporters. Why is that?
-Champi

[Yellowrose]

I am really tired of hearing about WMD's. If they never existed, Saddam sure wanted us to believe they did. And, it is not a Republican/Democrat issue.

And as far as "searching for Bin Laden", Clinton was offered him and did not want him. That might have (and note I said "MIGHT HAVE"!) made a difference on 9/11! President Bush made a decision based on the knowledge he'd been given. You cannot expect him to act on information he did not have!

[Export]

I am really tired of hearing about WMD's. If they never existed, Saddam sure wanted us to believe they did. And, it is not a Republican/Democrat issue.

And as far as "searching for Bin Laden", Clinton was offered him and did not want him. That might have (and note I said "MIGHT HAVE"!) made a difference on 9/11! President Bush made a decision based on the knowledge he'd been given. You cannot expect him to act on information he did not have!


Look, I REFUSE to allow you to be tired about hearing about WMDs! You appear to support your President Bush, so f****** (apologies, Prez of BA) STAND UP FOR HIM!!! That was a CORNERSTONE of the war (you know, the one in Iraq?), and if Saddam wanted 'us' (U.S.?) to believe he had them, then PLEASE prove it to me! I'm NOT going to let the issue of WMD go away just because you're tired of hearing about them! Where are they? Eh? You go to war because Saddam MIGHT attack the USA and where are the weapons of WMD?

(Sure, maybe not YOU personally. But if you say 'WE' as in 'we will hunt the terrorists...., then I DO mean you personally!)

Hans Blix, the UN Inspector, didn't find ANY WMDs!!! And now, bush (deliberately uncapitalized) keeps changing the reason that America is at war! As the saying goes, 'those that don't know history are bound to repeat it!'

Okay listen, it seems to me that in the past the Americans (and the British, to be fair) organized the overthrow of the Shah of Iran to put in a democratic government. You don't see a democratic government in Iran now, do you?

I can appreciate your position on the subject. But you're going to have to come up with a convincing argument. Just because you're tired of hearing about something doesn't mean that it's going to go away.

[Yellowrose]

Quite frankly, I believe Weapons of Mass Destruction will eventually be found in Iraq. With a country that size there are numerous hiding places. Saddam Hussein used them in the past and I believe he would have used them again.

It would be horrible if these Weapons of Mass Destruction ended up, again, in the wrong hands.

Maybe your country will be a little bit safer for it also.

Have a nice rest of the day!

[Export]

Quite frankly, I believe Weapons of Mass Destruction will eventually be found in Iraq. With a country that size there are numerous hiding places. Saddam Hussein used them in the past and I believe he would have used them again.

It would be horrible if these Weapons of Mass Destruction ended up, again, in the wrong hands.

Maybe your country will be a little bit safer for it also.

Have a nice rest of the day!


The only weapons that will be found will be the ones that America sold Saddam back in the 80s when he was fighting the Iranians! As for a 'country that size' that isn't really that big a country. It's maybe 4 times the size of the region - region, not Province - that I live in now!

How would my country be safer? How would Canada, the country that created the Peacekeeping forces of the world, be created? (Don't bother arguing that one, Lester B. Pearson was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for it.)

You arguments are pretty dumb, you go along this theme that America was just innocently walking along the street one day and was mugged by al Qaeda out of the blue! The whole story would be that America just raped al Qaeda's Mom and stole the television.

So anyways, how would CANADA be SAFER?

[Yellowrose]

Export, with all due respect, you do not know enough about me to call me dumb! That's how all you people get off! Calling people names when you don't agree with them!

I don't have to tell you how to keep Canada safe. That is not my problem! Figure it out yourself! I just implied that Canada might be safer. Might.

I feel the way I feel because that is my right. If you don't agree, and I know you do not, that's your right.

Have a nice day, Export!

[klassybandit]

The only weapons that will be found will be the ones that America sold Saddam back in the 80s when he was fighting the Iranians! As for a 'country that size' that isn't really that big a country. It's maybe 4 times the size of the region - region, not Province - that I live in now!

How would my country be safer? How would Canada, the country that created the Peacekeeping forces of the world, be created? (Don't bother arguing that one, Lester B. Pearson was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for it.)

You arguments are pretty dumb, you go along this theme that America was just innocently walking along the street one day and was mugged by al Qaeda out of the blue! The whole story would be that America just raped al Qaeda's Mom and stole the television.

So anyways, how would CANADA be SAFER?


America just raped Al Qaeda's Mom and stole the television!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :mad:

There is absolutely no excuse in the world that anyone can say that would justify the mass slaughter of thousands of innocent people. The world wept and now you say that it's because we raped Al Qaeda's Mom?????

Tell that to the thousands of people who lost their family that day. Many of them were Canadians and many were Muslims.

Al Qaeda did not care!!
They are mass murderers - they use their religion as an excuse!
They had been planning this for years!

So if we deserved the attack on 9/11, you must think that Russia deserved the attack at the school from the Islamic rebels in Chechnya.

[Export]

You just haven't got a clue, do you? Does America today exist in a vaccuum? With every new administration the slate is wiped clean by the rest of the world?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: America should just leave the world alone. Sure, keep up the humanitarian stuff, but quit messing around with other countries. As I've said, Osama didn't just wake up on the 10th and say to himself 'those towers are kinda high.'

If you push the world around and mess people around, eventually they're going to push back, right?

For the record, I DON'T think that America deserved 9/11. However, I think it (or something like it) should've been expected.

[Yellowrose]

The do-nothing president but screw around President "Slick Willy" Clinton could have done something! Did he? NO! He was too damn busy playing "cigars" with Monica Lewinsky!

Bill Clinton...What a damn joke!

Have a nice day!

[klassybandit]

You just haven't got a clue, do you? Does America today exist in a vaccuum? With every new administration the slate is wiped clean by the rest of the world?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: America should just leave the world alone. Sure, keep up the humanitarian stuff, but quit messing around with other countries. As I've said, Osama didn't just wake up on the 10th and say to himself 'those towers are kinda high.'

If you push the world around and mess people around, eventually they're going to push back, right?

For the record, I DON'T think that America deserved 9/11. However, I think it (or something like it) should've been expected.


You know, you are right. We should pull out of Iraq right now. Leave the country as is and the next time anyone wants our help - FORGET IT!
No more aide from invasion (Kuwait, both WWs), no more relief funds (numerous countries), mo more political assylum (numerous countries) no more mad cows imported from other countries (Canada), no more anything (all countries).

How can I justify giving countries aide when they hate us? It would be like giving my enemy my inheritance. Speaking of which, when have they given us aide?

Iran and N. Korea can do whatever they want.
If a family comes to America to avoid execution because they practice another religion, too bad. Send them back.

I will no longer spend my dollars in other countries, or even visit them. I will buy American products only or do without. I will no longer donate funds for victims of other countries.

I will do what I must to protect myself and my loved ones from fanatical hate groups, and if that means cutting off all ties to foreign countries, then so be it.

That's what minding our own business means.

[Export]

And the world will thank you! Sure, it'll be a tough few years, but American isolationism will probably only help everyone! Can't wait to see what'll happen to price of gas, though!

[klassybandit]

And the world will thank you! Sure, it'll be a tough few years, but American isolationism will probably only help everyone! Can't wait to see what'll happen to price of gas, though!


Why do you hate Americans so much? What have we done to you?

[Export]

Why do you hate Americans so much? What have we done to you?

What gives you the idea that I hate Americans? Where did I say that?

[klassybandit]

What gives you the idea that I hate Americans? Where did I say that?


No, you did not say it, but it is the impression that I am getting. Of course I may be wrong.

[Yellowrose]

You may not be wrong Klassybandit. I get the same feeling. Come on Export, we are not all bad!

[klassybandit]

I think we're out numbered Yellowrose.... But at least not during the elections :D

[champion]

I am really tired of hearing about WMD's.

Yeah, so's the president. He too wishes people would just stop bringing up the whole pesky subject. So he was wrong, so what? We don't have to be right ALL the time, do we?
The fact is, we do have to be right all the time. If there comes a time that our government is wrong, the responsible person (president) should admit it, apologize for it, and fix it. High standard? Yes. We are one of the greatest nation on Earth and we ought to demand that our elected leaders conduct themselves accordingly.
-Champi

[Yellowrose]

And I suppose you think "Slick Willy" conducted himself honorable fashion?

I'm offended by being called "the morol majority". At some point aren't the rest of us allowed to stand up and say enough is enough? If someone else has the right to say and do who or what ever they want, why is it not okay for me to think it is not right? Is it okay for someone to stand out on the street screaming obscenities at my house? Doesn't that person have the right to free speech? It's a public street...but shouldn't I have the right to let the dog out on him? I think it's about time someone stood up for morols in this country!

[Export]

I've got nothing against Americans per se, but I think that certain aspects of the American political systems are fundamentally flawed, specifically that there appears to be no limits on how much a specific person (or corporation) can contribute to an election campaign. Without those contribution limits, I beleive that, with enough money, you can effectivly 'buy' a win. Here I'll trot out the examply of Ross Perot, but remember that the 'average' American doesn't have the cash to do what Perot did.

I'm also very suspicious of the 'two-party system'. To me that doesn't seem very free! If you only have the choice of one or the other, then that doesn't seem very good. (Yes, I realize that Nader is there, but realistically...) To me, that's like if Ford only made one model of car and Chevrolet only made one model of car. It's all about choice.

I also think that the American Administration (happy with that?) needs to realize that, although capitalism is a good system, it cannot apply all over the world. Some cultures and countries are just better served by being an autocracy, or a kindgom, or whatever. They view capitalism (and by extension, democracy) as a corrupt system.

As well, the American Administration has (in the past) aided groups in trade for natural resources. But when that natural resource is gone, or it doesn't go the Americans' way, they get upset. Here's an axample: in early 2001 that Americans told the Taliban Government of Arghanistan that they would 'carpet the desert with bombs' of they weren't allowed to build an oil pipeline through the northern part of their country. Come September 11th...

There, I hope that helps a bit. There are Americans in my family and time to time I even visit America. Americans are as good as anyone else on this planet, no better no worse. But please regard my comments as having mainly to do with American politics and foreign policy.

Hope that helps!

[jlswenka]

klassy - "You've GOT to be KIDDING me! I mean, I've always thought that in our legal terms it went 'Innocent until proven guilty.'"

Under the Bush regime, that is speedily being reversed, and you KNOW it, and worse yet, you CONDONE it! You've even so much as admitted it yourself! And I quote "That doesn't mean that he had WMD, but I personally wouldn't want to take that chance, especially when it was a hostile country." --AND--"And weather or not Saddam had WMD I do believe he was a threat." It has been PROVEN that he hadn't, that he never did! And when the hell did Iraq ever pose a threat to us?? PROVE it to me! Seriously, give me some hard, concrete evidence that Iraq was a literal threat to our contry! Can't do it, can you?
And still you try to justify Bush's actions! AAAGH!!!

The REASON why Saddam wouldn't bow to us is becuase he REFUSED to be pushed around by a bigger bully! Have you ever seen 2 bullies fighting in the schoolyard, one is just a little bit bigger than the other, still the other refuses to back down?? It's the same thing! He knew Bush's dad kicked his ass in the last war against Iraq, so to save face, he flat out refused to cooperate!

I'm not arguing that Saddam wasn't a bad guy, he was and probably would have had to be dealt with eventually, but the whole pretense for going into this war was based on one BIG, FAT, LIE!!

[jlswenka]

And I suppose you think "Slick Willy" conducted himself honorable fashion?

I'm offended by being called "the morol majority". At some point aren't the rest of us allowed to stand up and say enough is enough? If someone else has the right to say and do who or what ever they want, why is it not okay for me to think it is not right? Is it okay for someone to stand out on the street screaming obscenities at my house? Doesn't that person have the right to free speech? It's a public street...but shouldn't I have the right to let the dog out on him? I think it's about time someone stood up for morols in this country!


** Just an observation: Why is it that, when a Bush supporter feels they are comming under "attack", they suddenly have to throw Clinton's f**k-ups into it?? Just an observation.

[jlswenka]

And I suppose you think "Slick Willy" conducted himself honorable fashion?

I'm offended by being called "the morol majority". At some point aren't the rest of us allowed to stand up and say enough is enough? If someone else has the right to say and do who or what ever they want, why is it not okay for me to think it is not right? Is it okay for someone to stand out on the street screaming obscenities at my house? Doesn't that person have the right to free speech? It's a public street...but shouldn't I have the right to let the dog out on him? I think it's about time someone stood up for morols in this country!

--- Clinton was a f**k-up too! Okay? GET OVER IT!! Why not go back to the Reagan years with the war in Afganistan. Remember that one?? The Soviets were occupying Afganistan, and the Afgans wanted thier country back. So what do we do? We GAVE Osama the money, the resources, AND the KNOWLEDGE to basically become a terrorist! And after the war was over, and the Soviets gone, we bugged out! The Afgan people were pleading with us to help restore and rebuild thier country, but we turned a cold shoulder and let Osama and his regime walk right in. THAT'S what started this whole Osama/Taliban/Terrorist bullshit to begin with!

"I'm offended by being called "the morol majority".

---If you are offended by that, then maybe you should stop spouting them off every chance you get. Either that, or DEAL WITH IT!

We ALL have the RIGHT to voice our opinions, --for now anyway-- and I don't personally have a problem with your morals and your "god". But when you make it a national issue, when you try to shove your morals and beliefs down my throat, to force them upon me, then I have a HUGE problem with it! And I will not back down. :)

[jlswenka]

The do-nothing president but screw around President "Slick Willy" Clinton could have done something! Did he? NO! He was too damn busy playing "cigars" with Monica Lewinsky!

Bill Clinton...What a damn joke!

Have a nice day!

Slick Willy huh? Boy, I bet you thought of that one all by yourself!

[jlswenka]

[QUOTE=Yellowrose]"Is it okay for someone to stand out on the street screaming obscenities at my house? Doesn't that person have the right to free speech? It's a public street...but shouldn't I have the right to let the dog out on him?" QUOTE]

--- If someone is standing out on the street screaming obsenities at your house, just call the cops and have him arrested for bing a terrorist.

Sorry 'bout that last remark, I am just a LITTLE frustrated at the immediate moment. Seriously, if someone were doing that in front of my house, I would tell him he has two options, either he can shut up and leave, or I would call the cops and have him arrested for disturbing the peace. Sicking (sp?) your dog on him is just WRONG, and violence only spawns more violence.

[jlswenka]

America will be better for it.
There must be a reason that the majority of Americans vote for Republicans. If you look closely at the voting results you'll notice that most of the individual counties/regions that Kerry won were very highly populated, which is where you'll find the majority of the low income and inner cities. Those are the areas that are traditionaly known to have many problems. Gangs, drugs, violence, discrimination etc. and many many very nice people who just have it rough.
BUT... they do not represent the main-stream America.


How do they not represent mainstream america????????? Please "enlighten" me on this one.

[jlswenka]

The scary part, the way I see it, is how many people are more worried about my monogamous, loving, stable and long term relationship than they are about the war in Iraq or the economy. -Champi

--- I haven't been able to figure that one out yet either. Why is it that the people of the USA more worried about how others live thier lives? Why can't they just let people be and leave well enough alone?? Maybe becuase thier own life sucks? I don't know.....???

As for the reason the majority voted for him (I have to say I am glad that the popular and electorial votes agreed) - survey after survey has found that Bush voters are more likely to believe that there are WMD in Iraq, that there is a strong connection between Iraq and 9/11, AND that Bush has said so. Even Bush agrees that those two things are not so. This indicates that his voters are (willingly?) misinformed and have a seriously screwed up system of priorities. Hail to the Cheif, indeed.

Wow! I couldn't have said that better myself! Bravo!! Bravo!! :D :D

[klassybandit]

klassy - "You've GOT to be KIDDING me! I mean, I've always thought that in our legal terms it went 'Innocent until proven guilty.'"

Under the Bush regime, that is speedily being reversed, and you KNOW it, and worse yet, you CONDONE it! You've even so much as admitted it yourself! And I quote "That doesn't mean that he had WMD, but I personally wouldn't want to take that chance, especially when it was a hostile country." --AND--"And weather or not Saddam had WMD I do believe he was a threat." It has been PROVEN that he hadn't, that he never did! And when the hell did Iraq ever pose a threat to us?? PROVE it to me! Seriously, give me some hard, concrete evidence that Iraq was a literal threat to our contry! Can't do it, can you?
And still you try to justify Bush's actions! AAAGH!!!

The REASON why Saddam wouldn't bow to us is becuase he REFUSED to be pushed around by a bigger bully! Have you ever seen 2 bullies fighting in the schoolyard, one is just a little bit bigger than the other, still the other refuses to back down?? It's the same thing! He knew Bush's dad kicked his ass in the last war against Iraq, so to save face, he flat out refused to cooperate!

I'm not arguing that Saddam wasn't a bad guy, he was and probably would have had to be dealt with eventually, but the whole pretense for going into this war was based on one BIG, FAT, LIE!!


Headline from article on factcheck.org
Bush's "16 Words" on Iraq & Uranium: He May Have Been Wrong But He Wasn't Lying
Two intelligence investigations show Bush had plenty of reason to believe what he said in his 2003 State of the Union Address.

Headline/beginning of article from CNN
MOSCOW, Russia (CNN) -- Russian intelligence services warned Washington several times that Saddam Hussein's regime planned terrorist attacks against the United States, President Vladimir Putin has said.

The warnings were provided after September 11, 2001 and before the start of the Iraqi war, Putin said Friday.

The planned attacks were targeted both inside and outside the United States, said Putin, who made the remarks during a visit to Kazakhstan.


Headline/article from world tribune.com
UN inspectors: Saddam shipped out WMD before war and after

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Friday, June 11, 2004
The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003.

The UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission briefed the Security Council on new findings that could help trace the whereabouts of Saddam's missile and WMD program.

The briefing contained satellite photographs that demonstrated the speed with which Saddam dismantled his missile and WMD sites before and during the war. Council members were shown photographs of a ballistic missile site outside Baghdad in May 2003, and then saw a satellite image of the same location in February 2004, in which facilities had disappeared.

Now tell me again he was lying. It may have been faulty evidence/intelligence, but there was a heck of a lot of it.

[klassybandit]

** Just an observation: Why is it that, when a Bush supporter feels they are comming under "attack", they suddenly have to throw Clinton's f**k-ups into it?? Just an observation.

Uh.....
I have not once mentioned Clinton or one of his mistakes. And believe me, I sure come under attack!!

You can just ask export :p

[Yellowrose]

klassybandit, she was referring to me! I think "Slick Willy" was a disgrace to the World! How he could even show his face is beyond me!

[jlswenka]

Quote:
Originally Posted by klassybandit
"America will be better for it.
There must be a reason that the majority of Americans vote for Republicans. If you look closely at the voting results you'll notice that most of the individual counties/regions that Kerry won were very highly populated, which is where you'll find the majority of the low income and inner cities. Those are the areas that are traditionaly known to have many problems. Gangs, drugs, violence, discrimination etc. and many many very nice people who just have it rough.
BUT... they do not represent the main-stream America."



Again, how do we not represent mainstream america?????????
Please "enlighten" me on this one.

[jlswenka]

Headline from article on factcheck.org
Bush's "16 Words" on Iraq & Uranium: He May Have Been Wrong But He Wasn't Lying
Two intelligence investigations show Bush had plenty of reason to believe what he said in his 2003 State of the Union Address.

Headline/beginning of article from CNN
MOSCOW, Russia (CNN) -- Russian intelligence services warned Washington several times that Saddam Hussein's regime planned terrorist attacks against the United States, President Vladimir Putin has said.

The warnings were provided after September 11, 2001 and before the start of the Iraqi war, Putin said Friday.

The planned attacks were targeted both inside and outside the United States, said Putin, who made the remarks during a visit to Kazakhstan.


Headline/article from world tribune.com
UN inspectors: Saddam shipped out WMD before war and after

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Friday, June 11, 2004
The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003.

The UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission briefed the Security Council on new findings that could help trace the whereabouts of Saddam's missile and WMD program.

The briefing contained satellite photographs that demonstrated the speed with which Saddam dismantled his missile and WMD sites before and during the war. Council members were shown photographs of a ballistic missile site outside Baghdad in May 2003, and then saw a satellite image of the same location in February 2004, in which facilities had disappeared.

Now tell me again he was lying. It may have been faulty evidence/intelligence, but there was a heck of a lot of it.

I Need some links to follow here, so that I can prove or disprove them, still got them handy? Or are you just throwing out "facts" without any way for one to check them out??

[klassybandit]

Quote:
Originally Posted by klassybandit
"America will be better for it.
There must be a reason that the majority of Americans vote for Republicans. If you look closely at the voting results you'll notice that most of the individual counties/regions that Kerry won were very highly populated, which is where you'll find the majority of the low income and inner cities. Those are the areas that are traditionaly known to have many problems. Gangs, drugs, violence, discrimination etc. and many many very nice people who just have it rough.
BUT... they do not represent the main-stream America."



Again, how do we not represent mainstream america?????????
Please "enlighten" me on this one.

Bad choice of words from me - sorry.
What I was trying to say that it appears to me that Kerry's supporters are more limited in specific and alike regions, which generally means a more limited demographic group but in a larger population per sq. mile. That is what I ment when I said the mainstream America. Cluster areas (large cities) are usually of a more specific group(s).

I can be more specific to Michigan since that is where I am from. The Detroit area alone is what won Michigan for Kerry. Ann Arbor alone won it for Washtenaw County. I can honestly say that Detroit does not represent the entire state of Michigan - actually it's totally different in most aspects concerning business practices, liberal vs. conservative beliefs, race, income and housing, than the rest of Michigan that I've been to.

[klassybandit]

I Need some links to follow here, so that I can prove or disprove them, still got them handy? Or are you just throwing out "facts" without any way for one to check them out??


So that you can "prove or disprove" them?? Hate to tell you this, but they are news articles. You do not have the power to prove or disprove anything. Even if you find another article stating the opposite, guess what? It will be just another news article.
The proof will be with the end results.

As far as the links go - Oops! lost them.

If you would not have insinuated that I lied I may have looked them up for you. Oh well! Too bad

[klassybandit]

I Need some links to follow here, so that I can prove or disprove them, still got them handy? Or are you just throwing out "facts" without any way for one to check them out??


http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/18/russia.warning/index.html

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html


(new link)
http://newsfromrussia.com/world/2004/06/24/54525.html

[champion]

klassybandit, she was referring to me! I think "Slick Willy" was a disgrace to the World! How he could even show his face is beyond me!


Because he cheated on his wife? That renders one a disgrace to the world? Really? You live in a dream world.

Quit blaming Bill Clinton, take responsiblity for your president's mistakes. Clinton got head and the most vile of creatures, Bush was wrong about the reasons to go to war and can do no wrong. That doesn't make sense. Was Clinton a perfect president? Hell no; I've got my issues with a few things he's done. Difference is, I judge him on what he did as a president (which wasn't all bad, don't get me wrong) and not what he did as a husband.
Again - you want Bush in office, you take responsibility for his mistakes and quit shirking that responsibility. You know, I here a lot of lip-service from the 'right' about personal responsibility, but that sure goes out the window when it gets difficult.
-Champi

[jlswenka]

So that you can "prove or disprove" them?? Hate to tell you this, but they are news articles. You do not have the power to prove or disprove anything. Even if you find another article stating the opposite, guess what? It will be just another news article.
The proof will be with the end results.

As far as the links go - Oops! lost them.

If you would not have insinuated that I lied I may have looked them up for you. Oh well! Too bad


My apologies, my intention was not to insinuate that you had lied, it was a bad choice of words on my part. And you are right, they are just news articles. You will tend to believe what you will, and I will tend to believe the what I will. It doesn't make either one of them right, until you believe that it's right. It's all in what you BELIEVE.

...Remember that.

:)

[jlswenka]

http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/18/russia.warning/index.html

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html


(new link)
http://newsfromrussia.com/world/2004/06/24/54525.html


Now for this.....

The first article you have linked here reminds me of Kerry; no one could make up thier minds as to what was giong on. (lol :p ) Did he or didn't he go to Nigeria with the purpose of purchasing Uranium? According to that article, it seems to me that it was discovered that Saddam didn't. A quote form that article: "None of the new information suggests Iraq ever nailed down a deal to buy uranium, and the Senate report makes clear that US intelligence analysts have come to doubt whether Iraq was even trying to buy the stuff." Another Quote: "The subject of uranium sales never actually came up in the meeting, according to what Wilson later told the Senate Intelligence Committee staff. He quoted Mayaki as saying that when he met with the Iraqis he was wary of discussing any trade issues at all because Iraq remained under United Nations sanctions. According to Wilson, Mayaki steered the conversation away from any discussion of trade. For that reason, Wilson himself has publicly dismissed the significance of the 1999 meeting. He said on NBC’s Meet the Press May 2, 2004: Wilson: …At that meeting, uranium was not discussed. It would be a tragedy to think that we went to war over a conversation in which uranium was not discussed because the Niger official was sufficiently sophisticated to think that perhaps he might have wanted to discuss uranium at some later date."


Okay, before you jump into a very bloody war, wouldn't you want to make triple-sure all the facts are straight?? Especially as the President of the United States of America, wouldn't you want to make darn sure of the facts before you go killing thousands and thousands of people?? Even if Bush really was misinformed, why didn't anyone bother to double and triple check until after the fact??

Another quote form that article: "However, the Senate report confirmed that the CIA had reviewed Bush's State of the Union address, and -- whatever doubts it may have harbored -- cleared it for him. Senate Report: When coordinating the State of the Union, no Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analysts or officials told the National Security Council (NSC) to remove the "16 words" or that there were concerns about the credibility of the Iraq-Niger uranium reporting."

So the question remains, why was Bush allowed to use those 16 words in his State of the Union Address??

In MY OPINION, it was because Bush was really puhing the issue to go to war with Iraq to begin with. Misinformed or not, it is obvious that he took whatever he could get and ran with it.

[jlswenka]

http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/18/russia.warning/index.html

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html


(new link)
http://newsfromrussia.com/world/2004/06/24/54525.html


Your second link.......What is this article trying to say?? I quote "Russia (CNN) -- Russian intelligence services warned Washington several times that Saddam Hussein's regime planned terrorist attacks against the United States, President Vladimir Putin has said." Yet (I quote) "However, Putin said there was no evidence that Saddam's regime was involved in any terrorist attacks."
....So Saddam had planned terrorist attacks, yet there is no evidence that his regime was involved in any terrorist attacks. ....huh. I'm a bit confused. THis article does go on to say too, that (Quote) "Russia opposed the invasion of Iraq and Putin said Friday the information did not effect its stance on the war. He said there were international norms and procedures that weren't observed regarding "the use of force in international actions." Regarding how the information might have been related to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, Putin said, "Whether or not this was sufficient basis to state the United States was acting within the boundaries of self-defense, well, I don't know. This is a separate issue."

As for your third link, yes, I have heard of that too, but not too much about it as of yet. I need to learn more about this before I can form an opinion. And as for your fourth link, it collaborates with your second. Colin Powell states (quote) "I am waiting for our intelligence men to say what they have heard or not heard from the Russians." And another quote "Frankly speaking, I don't know what the Russians had told or had not told us through intelligence channels - I am not sure now, the Secretary of State added." So still no one knows. Still, it's all just speculation. In MY OPINION, we started a war and killed, no murdered innocent people on speculation.

[jlswenka]

Because he cheated on his wife? That renders one a disgrace to the world? Really? You live in a dream world.

Quit blaming Bill Clinton, take responsiblity for your president's mistakes. Clinton got head and the most vile of creatures, Bush was wrong about the reasons to go to war and can do no wrong. That doesn't make sense. Was Clinton a perfect president? Hell no; I've got my issues with a few things he's done. Difference is, I judge him on what he did as a president (which wasn't all bad, don't get me wrong) and not what he did as a husband.
Again - you want Bush in office, you take responsibility for his mistakes and quit shirking that responsibility. You know, I here a lot of lip-service from the 'right' about personal responsibility, but that sure goes out the window when it gets difficult.
-Champi

Again, very well said! :) :) :)

I didn't care much for Clinton either, but, as it has been stated many times all over the place, when he left office there was a big surplus. Now we are in the midst of the worst deficit this country has ever seen, and it keeps growing & growing & growing..... Not to mention the unemployment rate. Sure, it may have climbed a LITTLE in the last few months, but there are still (something like) 2.3 BILLION people who are unemployed. More now that what there was when he took office.

[klassybandit]

My apologies, my intention was not to insinuate that you had lied, it was a bad choice of words on my part. And you are right, they are just news articles. You will tend to believe what you will, and I will tend to believe the what I will. It doesn't make either one of them right, until you believe that it's right. It's all in what you BELIEVE.

...Remember that.

:)

No problem - caught me on a bad day :)

I too agree that Bush probably rushed the war, but I still believe it was necessary. Every time there are reports of deaths, whether Iraqi or armed forces, I mourn for the familys and I pray for the casualties and their families.

I really don't believe that Bush was itching for a fight and to attack Iraq - I really believe that Bush believed (as well as others) the reports. Maybe he should have waited longer and verified the information.

The problem with bad intelligence, is when do you believe it? If it was wrong before, how can you trust it the next time?

9/11 hit a lot of people hard and it wouldn't suprise me if that was a factor for Bush to attach Iraq as soon as he did - both because of anger and because of fear of another attack. I still get angry and find myself distrusting arab-americans on sight. I really try not to - I've always tried to judge the person as an individual, not as a race or religious group.

[Export]

...there are still (something like) 2.3 BILLION people who are unemployed.

2.3 billion?

[klassybandit]

I think she misspoke.

We're currently at 5.5% (as of 10/04) unemployment rate, it was 6.0% Dec 2003

12/03 - 10/04, employment increased by 1,299,000

8,774,000 million unemployeed (16+ years old)

[jlswenka]

TO Export and Klassy --- I sorta did mis-speak, I coun't remember the exact satistical amount when I posted that and, at that moment, didn't have the time to go a' looking for it on the net. Now I don't even remember the news site I found that on. :eek:

That's why I put the "something like" in parenthises (sp?), because I was brainfarting and couldn't remember the exact amount. :) I really thought it was in the billions though, my mistake. :)

Unemployment is pretty bad though, at least in East Central Iowa anyway. Until last year, I have NEVER had toruble finding a job, now it's been over a year that I've been unemployed. There are so many people out there loking for work.....

I originally left my job becuase my husband thought he could handle going back to work, so he got a FT (Full Time) day job. I left my PT (Part Time) day job to watch Rain (our Daughter) so that we wouldn't have to pay for Day Care. That was in November 2003, it's now nearly December of 2004, and still no job offers as of yet. I talked to my old employer a while ago, about maybe going back to work for them, but it's been so slow there that they don't need the extra help. He did tell me though, that the first day he had the ad in the paper for someone to replace me, he had over 150 people come in and fill out applications. And that was on the first day.

Please forgive me for my spelling, it's 3:45 a.m. where I'm at, and me thinks I'm gettin' tired. I'll quit ramblin' now....(lol) ;)

[klassybandit]

TO Export and Klassy --- I sorta did mis-speak, I coun't remember the exact satistical amount when I posted that and, at that moment, didn't have the time to go a' looking for it on the net. Now I don't even remember the news site I found that on. :eek:

That's why I put the "something like" in parenthises (sp?), because I was brainfarting and couldn't remember the exact amount. :) I really thought it was in the billions though, my mistake. :)

Unemployment is pretty bad though, at least in East Central Iowa anyway. Until last year, I have NEVER had toruble finding a job, now it's been over a year that I've been unemployed. There are so many people out there loking for work.....

I originally left my job becuase my husband thought he could handle going back to work, so he got a FT (Full Time) day job. I left my PT (Part Time) day job to watch Rain (our Daughter) so that we wouldn't have to pay for Day Care. That was in November 2003, it's now nearly December of 2004, and still no job offers as of yet. I talked to my old employer a while ago, about maybe going back to work for them, but it's been so slow there that they don't need the extra help. He did tell me though, that the first day he had the ad in the paper for someone to replace me, he had over 150 people come in and fill out applications. And that was on the first day.

Please forgive me for my spelling, it's 3:45 a.m. where I'm at, and me thinks I'm gettin' tired. I'll quit ramblin' now....(lol) ;)


I figured it was just a mistake. I was recently unemployed too so I keep an eye on the job market pretty close. There are still several people that I worked with that are still looking for jobs so I send them the info if I find one that I think would suit them.

Have you tried online job postings?

monster.com and flipdog.com are two sites that I like better, and even your local employment agency's job posting board. And I've noticed that many companies don't advertise when there is a position open - but they will usually put it on their website, so you can go directly to a companys site and see if there are any postings.

Bye the way, I love your daughter's name!

[champion]

Speaking of deficit, they just voted to approve raising the debt limit by 800 billion, but are going to go ahead with Bush's tax cuts. And here in Washington, we were getting all set to deduct our state sales tax from our federal tax (complicated but doable), but it looks like that's on the chopping block because that would cost the federal government money and jepordize dividend tax cuts. Now you tell me, which would benefit the most people? And which would benefit the richest people? And which is the administration pulling for?
When I was a kid, I got the best - and simplest - political analytical advice: "You can count on the democrats to take care of the people, and you can count on the republicans to make sure we don't go broke doing it." Where has the republican sense of fiscal responsibility gone?
-Champi

[Export]

What I'm concerned about is how rising interest rates are going to hit people, it seems obvious (to me, anyways) that they're only going to go up. I heard of one guy that said if interest rates go up even 1.5% then he can't pay his bills! Any thoughts?

I'm also REALLY concerned about the falling American dollar. I work at a hotel and we should be FULL of Americans this time of year, but it's been pretty quiet. Then again, I sure like to come on down and shop also - your gasoline is SO much cheaper than it is here! (If you're interested, I can get gas in Vermont for .51cents/Litre CAD, or $1.67/gal USD. Here in Quebec I pay .85c/L CAD, or $2.73/gal USD.)

But then I've also heard that the US is trying to get the Chinese to re-value their currency, so I wonder a little if maybe the Fed is just doing their part. Thoughts?

[champion]

Yeah, I too have heard talk that our dollar is doing so poorly because of the Chinese situation, but no one seems to know any details beyond that it's intentional and nothing to be concerned about :( . Anyone out there know more about this?
-Champi