IT Employment

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Further proof that BUSH IS EVIL!!

0 helpful
107 replies

by marbib

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

Bush gives to the rich, takes from the poor. Read this article.
You can read the whole thing at:
http://www.washtech.org/wt/news/legislative/display.php?ID_Content=4622

House Says ?No? to Bush Overtime Pay Attack
AFL-CIO

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Both houses of Congress have now spoken -? and they have directed President Bush not to take away overtime pay from working families.'

-- AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The House of Representatives dealt the Bush administration a stinging rebuke by approving a measure that could lead to defeat of President George W. Bush?s proposal to take away overtime pay protections from as many as 8 million workers. President Bush will now have to decide whether to withdraw the parts of his proposal that would take away overtime protection or to defy the wishes of both houses of Congress and insist on his right to take away overtime protection.

The 221-203 vote is the second congressional setback in a little more than three weeks for Bush?s plan to gut Fair Labor Standards Act protections for workers? overtime pay. The Senate voted Sept. 10 to forbid the U.S. Department of Labor from implementing Bush?s attack on working families? paychecks as part of fiscal year 2004 Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriations bill (H.R. 2660). The House passed its version of the bill in July but did not include the prohibition.

107 replies

by oz_media

Do you really need further proof. Bush is a knob, a wanker, a dork, or whatever you feel is fitting. He has no right running a country and is no more capable than his father was (NO..YOU'RE NOT MY FATHER!!!).

HE has killed HOW many American, British, German and Canadian citizens this year? He has turned many American citizens against Canada and France in an attempt to create peace. He's wrongfully accused people of threats against America, his fav pastime to get the citizens on his side.

I would be really amazed to find out he DIDN'T create Windows.

Hope you guys do better with the next knob you elect.

by guruofdos

I'm sorry but your 'proof' doesn't 'prove' anything. It hinges on YOUR definition of 'proof' and your definition of 'evil'!

This sort of comment is very subjective and you could take a hundred different people and they would all have different opinions on this subject as no two of those people would necessarily use the same basis or definitions.

It is a fact that by choosing the 'correct' axioms, you can 'prove' anything you want! If you chose the right postulates, you could even 'prove' that black IS white.

Unfortunately most postulates based on subjective feeling are soon shot down in flames. For an axiomatic 'proof', the postulates chosen have to be beyond refute by any kind of 'scientific' method. The axiom must 'stand alone'. If the postulates and axioms can be proven to be correct under any circumstances then you have the makings of a 'proof'. Anything less is simply 'belief' or 'opinion'. Perhaps a valid opinion and one held by many others but NOT in any way, shape or form an 'irrefutable truth'.

by road-dog

The private sector has been laying off and cutting hours for two years while the federal government has grown in size and spending.

Now the President wants to limit or cut overtime for government employees. I say tough sh1t. Out in the real world, overtime has been a memory for some time, and companies are asking for increased work load.

The federal employees union is lobbying hard to protect extra bucks for fat a$$ union bureaucrats.

I don't care what Congress wants, or what union they're kowtowing to. If the President wants to do anything to limit government spending, then it's OK with me.

Of course, my opinion is invalid, as agreeing with anything this President wants is a mind numbed robot that follows him blindly....

by thechas

While some federal workers might fall under the scope of the Bush administration proposed changes to over-time rules, the main impact of the rule changes would be to re-classify a large number of private sector employees so that they could be forced to work additional hours with NO additional compensation.

As with many actions of the Bush administration, they claim to be helping everyone by "simplifying" the rules. The "devil is in the details" however.

A close look at the proposed changes to the over-time rules shows that they would greatly increase the number of workers who can be classified as not qualified for over-time compensation.

This is another Bush handout to big business that would result in fewer workers in the workforce. After all, if you can force more workers to work 20 or 30 hours of uncompensated extra time per week, why hire more workers.

Existing union contracts would NOT be affected by the rule changes.

In this case, congress is actually listening to their constituents in attempting to block a rule change that would hurt the working man and the economy.

I am all for simpler rules for business. However, any changes need to be either neutral, or aid the average worker.

I am tired of the Bush administration's open season on the working man, and the environment.

Chas

by maxwell edison

I'll just mention one thing.

There's nothing in this bill (or any other, for that matter) that would prevent a company from paying any employee overtime wages - or bonuses - if they would choose to do so. And don't suggest that many don't, because I've seen too many that do. Personally, I work for a company right now that "could" include almost all of its employees (including me) in the "salaried" category, and they wouldn't "have to" pay overtime. But they do anyway (time and a half - and bonuses, too) because, like MOST companies, they realize that they have to be competitive and treat their employees fairly or risk losing them. Moreover, most "salaried" packages are negotiated to include a certain amount of overtime. And it's pure nonsense to suggest that there aren't enough jobs available to compel companies to be fair and competitive when it comes to their employees, because that's not true either.

I'm so tired of the victim mentality that permeates these threads - and society in general. It's always the little guy against big business. The little guy against the rich. The little guy against the government - but only a Republican government, of course. If anyone considers themselves a "little guy", you've made the wrong choice.

Open season, you say, on the working man and the environment? You forgot the sick and elderly, the homeless, education, and, of course, the children.

(Okay, so I mentioned more than one thing.)

by maxwell edison

No company can "force" any employee to do anything. The employee (presumably) still has free will and freedom to make his or her own choices.

And another thing:

This is a "BUSH handout to big business"? Too bad the definition of "handout" is so skewed. My definition of a handout is taking property from one person who earned it for the purpose of giving it to another person who didn't earn it. Taxing someone less or loosening regulations isn't "giving" anything. It's just taking less - as it should be.

Too many people are too tolerant of our government TAKING their property. The tens of thousands of dollars the government takes from me - just to give it to someone else who didn't earn it - is disgraceful.

There are too many TAX TAKERS crying "unfair".

I say it's high time the TAX PAYERS start speaking up.

I call for a TAXPAYER REVOLT!

(Where's a ship full of tea when you need one?)

by road-dog

Overtime. What a bunch of crap. Even in this recovering economy, if your employer wants extra hours without T1/2, you aren't handcuffed to the desk.

Jobs are reclassified all the time. If you don't like the new terms, find another venue. I've left jobs several times in my career because my employer failed to meet my expectations on pay and hours.

Just where do people get the idea that the government is here to guarantee that you have a particular standard of living? Where do people get the idea that they have no power over their own destiny? Where do people get the idea that their time over 40 hours is suddenly worth 50 percent more than the 40 before?

I guess that's the difference between a citizen and a serf. A citizen accepts responsibility for his existence. A serf waits for the government to set his price and will trade his vote every 4 years for promises of continued benevolence.

I have little stomach for the panicked ramblings of the AFL-CIO, when the same lamentations are being made by the World Socialist Web Site www.wsws.org.

by guruofdos

I would like to correct that statement. Someone IS forcing people to work!

My wife hails from upstate NY and because of her situation when we first met, wasn't in much of a position to work. She was a single mother of two boys, then 5 and 8. Apart from a pitiful $56 a month in child support from the absent father, her only income was a small monthly payment from welfare and Government food coupons ('sorry stamps' as she used to call them). The money she received was barely enough to cover her rent and heating and lighting. What little she had left went on the two children and she had to rely on what little help her elderly parents could provide and whatever I could afford to send from the UK.

Here's my point...

Governor Pataki introduced welfare reforms throughout NY state. Those in receipt of welfare money were forced (ordered, coerced, threatened...call it what you will) to do voluntary work to 'earn' their welfare money. Welfare to Work or something it was called. The amount of state aid given to a person was divided by the state minimum wage and that number or hours HAD to be worked or you lost your money. The charity or government agency you worked for had to log your hours every week and file your timesheets with Welfare.

Fair enough, I suppose, but most people would rather get a job at state minimum or above than work for your welfare handout, and this was Pataki's concept.

My then fiancee was ORDERED to work for the Salvation Army in the next town for 30 hours per week, sorting used clothes. Now, she had worked before this and has worked since arriving in the UK, but if she was ABLE to work a 30 hour week back then to support her children, she would have done so and not had to resort to Welfare.

Her problem? The 8 year old had to get on the school bus at 7.45am. The 5 year old had to get on his bus at 8.15am. The 5 year old returned home from school at 12.15pm (only half a day in kindergarten) and the elder boy returned home at 2pm. At 4pm, the elder boy then had to attend an after school programme (he had learning difficulties) and that meant putting him on another bus. He then returned home at 6.30pm.

The bus journey for her each way to and from her 'work' took 35 minutes, not allowing for 'waiting' time.

Bearing in mind she was a single parent with no transportation other than an infrequent bus service to and from the next town, with no one to assist her with her children (her parents lived some 50 miles away), how the hell was she SUPPOSED to find 30 hours to 'work' for welfare???

It was completely impossible! She couldn't even pay a childminder for a few hours because this would have eaten into what little income she DID receive from Welfare. If it HAD been physically possible to work a 30 hour week, she damn well wouldn't have been on Welfare!!

On one visit to the USA, I even went with her to 'explain' these basic facts to her Welfare officer, and even drawing diagrams and showing beyond a doubt that there was NO WAY she could fit in 30 hours made no difference. It was 'YOU WILL WORK 30 HOURS!'. The Welfare officer even sympathised and said she understood the situation and agreed with our logic, but rules were rules and you are forced to work, or go short.

Nobody is FORCED to work?? Yeah, right!!!

by thechas

It is true that most employees have the option to work or to quit.

Many people have made other 'life' choices that make it difficult to change employers. Their options when faced with a demand for unpaid work are limited.

The basics of the US wage and compensation rules date back to the early days of the industrial revolution.
Would you like to return to the working conditions that prevailed back then?

I like others here, find factoids interesting.
In relation to the trash hauler strike in Chicago, a representative of the refuse firms sounded appalled that the union refused a compensation package that would have resulted in an annual income of nearly $70,000 for the haulers.

I lived in the Chicago suburbs a few years ago.
$70,000 a year is at best a lower middle class income there.

Chas

by hal 9000

Sedinments and I don't want to get involved in this discussion because it is maninly a US topic I must point out here that if someone doesn't take responsibility for what is happening {in this case as I read it the US Government} someone else will. That generally means Unions and rampant employer bashing by the same groups.

But the main thing that I find offensive about the whole idea of what has been expressed here is that there seems to be a lot of concern about Joe Adverage and nothing mentioned about Senior Managment who are little better than Robber Barrons in some cases as they have hudge renumination packages and if they manage to screw the company really good get enormas Golden Handshakes so they can leave the Company and go on to repeat their same mistakes all over again at another place.

What I think is getting some people here worked up is the difference between the person who works for minimum wages and Senior Managment. {But I could be entirely wrong as well} AS I don't live in the US I really can't say any more than that but from what I've been reading I think that is what some people are trying to express.

The basic injustice between Joe Adverage and Chuck Managment. {Sorry for the pun but I didn't know how else to put it.}

by guruofdos

ONE post to the Discussion Forums is adequate. You do not need multiple posts to make yourself heard!

by guruofdos

>>(Where's a ship full of tea when you need one?)

Lying in the bottom of Boston Harbour, perhaps?!!

by thechas

Max, you are fortunate to be working for a company that values it's employees.

While my present employer does value and compensate it's employees, I have worked for many firms that jump at ANY chance to "screw" their employees.

Of the 7 firms that I have worked for over the past 30 years, at best, 3 valued their employees. This is not just my opinion, I could find at least 10 people from each firm that would back me up. I would have a difficult time finding 2 people that would honestly state that any of these firms valued their employees.

From where I am, it would be hard to argue that companies are taking the value of their employees into account in their business decisions.
I have seen far too many instances where layoff and compensation decisions are based on the political clout of the employee or his supervisor, not the value of the employee to the organization.

I try to have a positive outlook. But, I am concerned that the US is headed back to the "robber baron" days of the late 1800's and early 1900's where the work-force was little more than chattel to the owners of business.

I wish that there was not the need for the laws regulating business, and resultant bureaucracy. However, as long as their are people who believe that the best way to get ahead is to take advantage of others, I will continue to be in favor of controls on the behavior of business.

Chas

by guruofdos

Many people asked me why the hell she came to the UK to live instead of me going there.

Several reasons! With the H1-B visa being virtually useless and nobody hiring IT staff from overseas, that option was ruled out. In order for me to live in the US and get a permanent residence visa and a green card on the grounds of marrying a US citizen, I would have had to be married to her, the marriage subsisting for over a year, she'd have to be resident in the USA at the time of the application and she'd have to be in receipt of income equivalent to 2.5x the state self-support reserve for two adults plus two children...not easy on Welfare! Not to mention application filing fees in excess of US$1000 for all the necessary paperwork and forms, whether your application is approved or not! Green Card Lottery is not an option - British citizens are excluded from that particular scheme, and I have no Irish ancestry!

For her to live with me as my wife in the UK was by comparison simple and cost NOTHING! Filing the applications costs NOTHING...not ONE penny! One simple form and a copy of my last three months bank statements to prove I had enough money to support us both. Job done...thank you very much Mr & Mrs Guru....welcome to the UK!

Mrs Guru subsequently worked here for 30 hours a week right up until a month before we had GuruJr. From then for 26 weeks, she receives statutory maternity pay at a rate of 90% of her normal salary. When that finishes, she will stay home and raise BabyGuru until she's old enough for full-time school because I have just about enough income (after paying 40% of my net in child support for the chilluns of my previous marriage) to keep us both in crusts and water. On top of that, we are entitled to ?16.05 per week from the government (Child Benefit) payable until Guruette reaches 16, or 19 if she is still in full time education. And the best bit?....NOBODY is forcing her to WORK for it!

by thechas

I know some of the areas where the government spends money that you think they should not.

However, it is very easy to target cuts to programs that do not directly impact you.

What government funded programs that you use / are important to you would you advise cutting?
Defense?
Education?
Roads and infrastructure?
Law enforcement?
Space exploration?

I see many programs that are either non-existent or underfunded. I would welcome a tax increase if I knew that the money would go to the arts, education and the environment.

Chas

by maxwell edison

Many people point out the problems that exist in society, and they automatically look towards the government to fix them. I would probably agree, in many cases, that the problem exists, but I would rather look elsewhere for the resolution. That's not the intended role of our government, even though it's been diverted in that direction. Moreover, the problems never go away, and more are added to the list. Total failure is the only possible long term outcome because, before too long, there will be more receivers than givers. It will break down under its own weight.

So actually I see it from two perspectives. First, it's not the intended role of government, and second, it's not right. It's simply not right to take a dollar from one person just to give it to another. The recent prescription drug debate is only one case in point. Sure, there's a problem and they may be too expensive for many to afford. But the answer is not to simply have someone else pay for them.

The percentage of people living in poverty was in a steady decline for 60 years until LBJ's "war on poverty". Then the trend was reversed and more people lived on poverty. It just doesn't work.

Education: sure there are problems, but the standard answer is to just throw more money at it. Nope, it doesn't work, but we keep throwing good money after bad. It costs over $12,000 per student for education in New York, and less than $4,000 each in Utah and Iowa. New York students are among the lowest scorers, while students in Utah and Iowa are among the highest. More money isn't the answer.

Throwing money at problems has added to the breakdown of the family structure. It used to be that families took care of each other. Nope, not any more. Let's just increase the tax on Mr. Average Joe Blow to pay for it.

Just because there's a problem, doesn't mean the government - you and me - has to pay for it. There are other answers. And yes, the answer is, sometimes, life is just not fair. And if the government tries to make it fair, we all lose.

I've never heard a good argument to these two positions: First, it's not the intended role of government, and second, it's not right.

by oz_media

I don't want to get too voiced in this matter as it is a US issue, however I see some interesting statements made by several posts here.

"First, it's not the intended role of government, and second, it's not right."

If controlling America's corporations and regulating employee wages is NOT a role of the goverment, who should be taking that roll, the employers?

What's not right about the government supporting the workers?

I believe that's the issue here isn't it?

I agree 100% when you say throwing money at a problem doesn't resolve it. I don't think thats the case here though. People who aer expected to work longer hours MAY or MAY NOT be copensated for it. Who decides this? The company. Now you say there are many companies who woldn't "take advantage" of such a policy yet following thelaw is not taking advantage of someone.

This does allow the tighter companies to demand more work for less money (sounds like the India discussion now, doesn't it?)if you refuse to work the extra hours without overtime, can let you go without saying another word and hire some recent grad who will do you job for less.

by maxwell edison

The only "attack on working families? paychecks" is the theft by the government - TAXES - that make it harder for families to support themselves.

And any cost assessed on business will be passed on to the consumer.

Great, increase taxes AND the cost of living.

Democrat party programs have ruined this country.

by guruofdos

When the opposition get elected? A couple of years down the line, the situation is reversed...everyone will bleat on about the current holders of power, and wish the other lot were back in! This has happened in almost every democratic (with a small d) country since democracy began. The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence!

If you voted for the current government, and you are NOT happy about what they are doing...well, you voted for them and have to live with that choice. If on the other hand, you voted for the 'losers' then you can hold your head up proudly and say to others 'I told you so'.

The problem is NOT Republicans OR Democrats...Labour or Conservative (if you happen to be a Limey like me)...the problem is politicians generally. They ALL make promises and sweeping statements in the hope of getting into, or staying in, power...and once it's a done deal....the whole story changes. They tell you about all the 'good' things they want to do but of course they wait untill they've been elected before they tell you the downside!

If the Republicans are so great then why aren't they in power now?

by sbar

How many time do you need to understand it?
Do you all really believe that politicians go to parlament (senat etc.) to protect you, to work for you? They MUST but reality is worse. For me "politician" means "liar". In all countries. Maybe you didn't pay attention on it because several years ago your life was more stable?
I know it since I was 12 years old. My brother knows it since he was 5.

by maxwell edison

Your first paragraph is, in my opinion, incorrect. Yes, the seat of power is indeed transfered back and forth, but the programs previously installed never get undone. Once there, it's not a yes or no proposition anymore, but rather how much of an increase per year. One side (the Ds) may want to increase funding 6%-7% per year, while the other side (the Rs) wants to increase only 3%, which, of course, will be called a CUT by the disingenuous Democrats (large D). What's the old saying about a camel's nose under the tent? Eventually the whole camel will find his way in and push you out.

Your second paragraph - no one wants to hold their head up proudly and say I told you so, when those in power are answering to those with their hands held out saying I want more. I'm all in favor of being (voluntarily) charitable, and there is indeed a need out there that should be adressed. But they WOULD BE addressed without some government program forcing it on people who can not afford it, and worse yet, forcing it TO people who could get along better without it. Thes people are PAYING children to have children, for pete's sake - only causing a problem to get worse! It's been said that a Democrat (large D) is willing to give the shirt off someone else'e back. and they do it by instilling a sense of FEAR in people. Vote for me or else the sky will fall and you will be be doomed. And the Democrats (large D) are the worst fear mongers.

Your third paragraph - right on.

Your fourth paragraph - the Republicans ARE in power (but for some reason, I think you already knew that). But the Democrats were in power for over 40 years, holding a majority in Congress during the runup in social spending. And FDR (a large D) and LBJ (another large D) were the primary - but not the only - signers of such programs. Unfortunately, as I said earlier, once a program in installed, it's no longer a matter of yes or no, but rather how much more. It's kind of like the toll road. A toll both is installed to collect money to pay for the new road. But once the road is paid off in full (at ten times its fair cost), the toll just keeps going and going and going and going.....

We have a bunch of trolls in power.

by thechas

I truly believe that when LBJ declared his war on poverty that he believed that all he had to do was focus the will of the people on a problem and it would be solved.

The majority of the programs started by Democratic administrations have been noble ideas. The problems have been in implementing a program with insufficient funding, or directed funding to key law-makers districts.

The biggest problem with the war on poverty is that we failed to have the minimum wage keep pace with the poverty level.

We need to revise both the minimum wage and the poverty programs so that the poor are better off working 40 hours a week at minimum wage than they are accepting the social largess.

We have made life better for those accepting welfare than those who choose to work at minimum wage jobs.
As long as the basic needs of life are better met when on assistance than when working, we cannot expect people to voluntarily start working.

I fully agree that business taxes need to be revised and reduced.

I propose that taxes on income from US plants and offices for businesses that are both environmentally and socially conscious be ZERO.

A progressively higher tax rate would be applied as the foreign content of products increased.

Environmental consciousness:
Efficient operations.
Well maintained equipment.
Follow 'standard' practices for the industry.

Social Consciousness:
Pay a living wage.
Offer a health plan to all employees.
Support public transportation.

Chas

by jimhm

Marbib are you even an American Citizen? -

Who cares what you think about GW, if you don't like him and you are a citizen don't freaking vote for him in 2004.

Don't expect an America to listen to some Euro Weenies about our leader when they have some of the really funny and stupid ones - Lets start on the Canadian PM - Oh here's a good one "The Queen and her son Dumbo and sons" - or How about the Wanker in Austie land - and to end it all that French and German Weenie's -

Give it a rest - Oh yea thats right - Hilter and Sadam were saints and GW is the evil one to you Euro Weenies -- Now I remember..

by beermonster

Hey, well balanced argument. Good points well made. An entire continent full of a myriad diverse cultures and you've managed to capture all of it in 'euro weenies'. I can't wait to hear your views on Blacks and jews next. Or then again maybe I can.

by oz_media

"Oh here's a good one "The Queen and her son Dumbo and sons" - Good comparisson to GWB!

The Queen doesn't run England, they have a government for that. If she did, the US would probably be a British Commonwealth country, she wouldn't put up with the shite you guys sling, her family and history goes back WAY before America, when war was war not just ganging up on the little guy out of fear and trying to look tough for the next erection.

You said "lets start with the Canadian PM.."

Go ahead, you'll have more Canadians agreeing he's a dork than Americans. BUT...My family hasn't been sent to a third world country to die over nothing. I have been employed and paid a fair wage for most of my life. My medical doesn't require a bank loan. My medication when prescribed is completely FREE, my country isn't living in constant fear of terrorism and being attacked AND our beer is actually close to real beer.

So the PM is a joke, but I am alive and well, as is my family. Canadians RARELY bitch about the government because they don't loom over us the way the American government does. There are more news stories, and nespaper reports about Bush than there are ALL Canadian politicians combined.

Why must we be force fed your country's hatred toward others?

Keep it in your country and continue killing each other happily, just keep it out of MY backyard.

(I understand that when you grow up surrounded by war, that's how you learn to think ad it becomes a reality of life. When you live in a country that is NOT threatened and constantly scared of terorists, it is much more peaceful and life is a lot easier, you don't even care what the PM thinks or does. If you were to grow up in a truly free country, you would not understand this constant wagering of war at all.)

by jimhm

Dumbo was a reference to his ears - Check the ears on that man. Why do you then have the queen over there, so what if her family goes back to Christs time. Why do the British people give her family millions a year for doing nothing. If they don't run the government or country - why pay.

You can critize other countries for their form of government - or their leaders. But since you don't live there - pay taxes there - vote there (if they have that right) - or a citizen. Why should I care what you think about my chosen leader. What makes you so right in your ASS-Umption of my leader correct.

What crystal ball do you use that makes your op's so much more correct than mine. Again OZ - we don't and never will see eye to eye about anything.

Enjoy the day - I will support GWB for another 4 year term - just to piss off the world..

by maxwell edison

...they should work for us. But in reality it is we who works for them.

I say it's time we start turning it around.

by jimhm

Why - because the great American education systems teaches our children that the USA is a Democratic form of government - when we are actually a Republic - a Representative Republic - where our Elected offical are to represent the needs of those that elected them ...

But - they represent their own needs - and the needs of the special interest groups.

Most Americans are STUPID (I am an American).. Because a majority of the voters keep electing the same people over and over - when they have done nothing for them.. Ted Kennedy is a prime example...

During the election they believe these politicans and get screwed - then vote for them again in the next election..

And The Kicker - is a majority of these people that bitch about the current Administration - DIDN'T VOTE IN THE LAST ELECTION - AND HAVEN'T VOTED IN 20 YEARS... The US National Elections has on the average 20% voter turnout ... GO FIGURE ... IF you don't like the current administration - go out and vote the in the next election -

by guruofdos

In my first paragraph I said that the situation is revesed. I din't mean that changes implemented by one particular party are undone. You're right...that never happens. How many times have you ever heard a newly elected government say '"We didn't support THEIR 20% tax rise so we are going to abolish it!" No...once it is in place, it is in place forever!

I meant that the situation regarding loyalty to parties swings round. In the UK, everyone was sick of 19 years of Conservative rule. Labour were 'given a chance'. Now everyone forgets how fed up they were of the Conservatives. They think Labour has failed them and that it's time for a change again.

Trolls are NOT exclusive to the good old U S of A...we have them here too. Perchance this is why our governments are so close (especially over Iraq). The bastards at the top speak in the same troll-speak!

by maxwell edison

Thanks for the clarification.

However, in the U.S. you'll find about 30% of the voters are in lock-step behind the Democrats (bigger government, higher taxes, smaller military, hate and blame big business, beholden to environmental and other social groups, government solutions and responsibility), another 30% behind the Republicans (smaller government, lower taxes, stronger military, believe that the business of America is business, color those skeptical about global warming, individual solutions and personal responsibility), and the remaining 40% are made up of minor parties (Libertarian, Communist, Green) and the swing voters who don't know enough to understand party ideology and/or the influence and power of the two-party system, and who are gullible enough to believe what they see reported on Television and let their votes be swayed by double-talk politicians and biased reporters.

Of course, only half the eligible people even bother to vote, so you can cut the numbers in half to get the relation to the total population.

If anyone disagrees, please feel free to contribute.

by jimhm

I think you were a little high at 50% vote - I think on the GWB win the turnout was somewhere around 29 to 32 percent ... pretty bad showing ...

I love it when they say I didn't vote for him .. and asked who they did vote for .... I didn't vote no body was worth my time... Great Logic..

by guruofdos

We had a recent by-election here (one single seat in government up for grabs) and the turnout was a little over 31%. The Conservatives lost miserably, with the Liberal Democrats winning and Labour coming second. The Conservative canditate swore that he lost because all his supporters couldn't be bothered to vote.

If the percentage of votes cast was the same and the turnout was higher, that just means he'd have been shafted by an even higher margin...but he couldn't see it that way!!!

by oz_media

Your description of the different parties and those who vote for them is extremely biased. If I didn't already know, I'd say you were Republican just by the way you condem the other parties and those who vote for them.

As for;
"...and who are gullible enough to believe what they see reported on Television and let their votes be swayed by double-talk politicians and biased reporters."

How are the American pubic (or any country's citizens)expected to make a solid, educatedvote if the information isn't accurate. EVERY politician is guilty of this yet there are no cosistent sources of information. What you deem reliable may be right wing biased to another. What a Democratic party says, no matter how or where you hear it, will always be propaganda to a Republican. You made your mind up before the last election I'm sure and you will carry this as a bias whenever you are looking at the new candidates. "Democrats always say..." or "The Green party is only afer..." You will have a biased viewpoint on whatever is said. Was you're father Republican too or was that something you decided yourself? How did YOU make the decision as to which party had your better interests in mind?
Do you really feel that a bigger military is needed? Do you really feel that the Military needs more money and why, is it because all the wars you wage cost billions?

by oz_media

"There's nothing in this bill (or any other, for that matter) that would prevent a company from paying any employee overtime wages - or bonuses - if they would choose to do so. And don't suggest that many don't, because I've seen too many that do."

Yes there it will prevent MANY (not all) companies from paying overtime.
I don't know about the US but in Canada, almost ALL companies in MANY different fields will take advantage of the fact they don't have to pay overtime. Most companies here will put you on salary as soon as they can to avoid paying overtime. I have worked as a salaried employee several times where you get overtime, but they didn't have to pay up.
The majority of businesses here will definitely take advantage of the savings and pay NOTHING to overtime from a salaried employee.

I know that this bill doesn't effect Canadians because we already get pushed into a salaried category as soon as we are earning more than our hourly wage. That is the entire reason that I now contract and no longer work full time for a single employer. As soon as they were paying me too much overtime and realized that they'd either have to cut my pay or simply do without my overtime serbices, salary was posed to me, which I immediately shot down and walked out the door over.
I now have a solid contract draughted by my lawyers that outlines ALL stipulations of my pay. It is the only way to get paid properly and not be a victim to a tightwad accounting clerk.

by maxwell edison

...to treat their employees fairly and continue to pay overtime, regardless of what they could do. At least that's my contention.

Let's wait and see how many people will start claiming that their employer, all of the sudden, stopped paying overtime but still required 10,20 or more hours (over 40 per week) additional work. It just won't happen.

You're right, this bill won't affect Canadians, and it won't affect MOST American employees either, at least the existing ones in current positions.

There's no way a company will cut a good employee's usual and established annual salary (base pay plus overtime plus bonus) just because it can. Just like it won't cut a person's salary from $20 an hour (or whatever) to minimum wage, even though it could. They will have to remain competitive, and they will.

I don't buy into the notion that companies, in general, look for ways to screw their employees. Sure, there are ones that do, but they are the exception, not the rule.

by oz_media

"Let's wait and see how many people will start claiming that their employer, all of the sudden, stopped paying overtime but still required 10,20 or more hours (over 40 per week) additional work. It just won't happen."

No I don't think many will BUT they will stop requesting overtime. This makes it harder to near impossible to work after hours on servers and will require people to work while users are logged in, thus causing more incorrectly patched systems, improperly installed software and skipped backup sessions.

"I don't buy into the notion that companies, in general, look for ways to screw their employees. Sure, there are ones that do, but they are the exception, not the rule."

I agree, but if there is no overtime law, nobody is getting screwed, they are just following employment standards acts that say they DON'T HAVE to pay overtime. If they were supposed to pay overtime and didn't, THIS would be screwing the employee, if they don't HAVE to pay and don't, who's screwed ? If they paid overtime when they didn't have to the company would be screwing themselves.

That's like me saying "I'll work until 2PM, after that you have to pay me overtime or I'm going home." They don't have to pay me overtime after 2PM so why WOULD they?
There has to be a minimum set time for daily work hours, generally 8hrs, after that you get overtime. If the overtime laws were removed, companies could expect you to work 10 hours withhout paying overtime and perhapse time/half after 10? It's completely up to the employer.

You seem to understand business practice, why would you pay for hours you didn't have to ? To keep face ? You've seen how many people are whining about the US employment rate in the IT sector there's always someone who will take your position even if they don't fill your shoes in the long run.

by hal 9000

Glad I'm not involved in it because I'd be branded one way or the other and I honestly don't give a toss about any Government.
But it is good to see you lot pulling each others hair out over this.

What I can say however is that I've been a salaried manager and while I got some perks with the job it would be interesting to see if they where adquate for all the overtime that I had to work. Don't get me wrong I'm not complanining but while I got a company car, expance account and the like I never did get any overtime and I was expected to leave home on a SUnday and either fly or drive for a Mondays meeting or whatever. But on the whole I'd have to say I came out about even.
What you have to remember is it isn't only the amount of money that you get paid but any perks that come with the job.

by jellimonsta

You should always keep any perks in mind when reflecting on employment. For example, I used to live in the Canary Islands doing PR work. While my income was pitiful, I basically walked the beaches all day handing flyers to topless women!.... now THAT is a perk! :)

by maxwell edison

...that the working conditions in America would ever revert back to the early days of the industrial revolution. All government regulation could be repealed, and it just wouldn't happen. There's no way.

And the cost of living in Chicago is only about 10% more than the U.S. in general. The overall cost of living in Chicago, as compared to other major metropolitan areas, is indexed at 111.1, while other cities are indexed as follows:

U.S. Average 100.0
San Francisco 134.8
New York 122.4
Boston 121.4
Washington, D.C. 113.7
Chicago 111.1
Los Angeles 110.8
Philadelphia 110.0
Minneapolis 106.4
Milwaukee 103.9
Atlanta 103.7

A salary of $70,000 - almost $34.00 per hour - for collecting trash is way more than the majority of people in our very own industry.

How many of you would like to make $34 per hour?

Median household income 2002:

Illinois all professions $45,906
Illinois with Bachelor degree $44,806
Illinois with advanced degree $56,208

The numbers speak for themselves - $70,000 for collecting trash is outrageous. (Obviously a union negotiating with a government.) It sounds as though there's a need for competition in Chicago for trash collection.

by oz_media

I actually mean it in the most sincere way, not a shot at your post.

these stats are interesting to me as I prepare to cut ties with the two US agencies I subcontract for scouting. I was considering the East coast move due to the changing industry there.

All i can say is 56,208 for an advanced degree?!? Don't move to Illinois!

I agree when you say that the unions dealing with the government causes ridiculous salaries, the same happens here. I know a guy who has a grade 9 education (that he failed)has had two near fatal accidents on the job (construction and fishing) that ended up with him having a steel plate in his head, he can't tell the difference between "their, there and they're" but works for the city at $29.50/hr driving a city truck and sweeping bus stops!

I think the segue doesn't reflect anything as to how cutting overtime pay will be a benefit to teh worker though. (I know I always go on wierd tangents that are irrelevant to the subject but you rarely do so, I wondered where you were going with it).

by thechas

Corporate mergers left the Chicago area with few choices of trash haulers.
Like many Chicago area business operations, it is nearly impossible for an outside firm to enter the market.

As always Max, you are very good at finding data to backup your view.

I'm not sure, but I don't believe the $70K figure is for just straight time.

While $70K would be nearly double my present income, I have no interest in hauling trash or moving back to Chicago.

Even though the cost of living numbers show only a small difference for Chicago, I know from living there that my standard of living would actually drop even if my wages would be double what I presently make.

Secondly, I have no desire to abuse my body as it would be driving a trash truck.

As to working conditions, I see far too many firms pushing the bottom of the envelope.
I have seen HR departments that make "Catbert" look like Gandhi by comparison.

Chas

by oz_media

"but I don't believe the $70K figure is for just straight time."

Sorry for my shock but I thought I was WAY underpaid at $64,000/yr! That's why I left and did my own thing. I couldn't even consider working for less, in fact even that was barely keeping me afloat.

Now I know that your money is actually worth something, it even LOOKS like money, but don't newbie MCSE's get $40,000/yr? Your cost of living is MUCH lower than here in BC but still, I'm quite stunned to find out that IT pays so little there. Nothing negative towards your abilities and who you are but, WOW, less than $60,000/yr! For what YOU do !? You guys are actually skilled workers, my friend that drives shuttle bus for the hospital workers gets $21.50/hr with a grade 11 education. Anotrher earns $19.50/hr with a grade 9 education, another over $24 with a grade 8 education.

All I can say is that I have a spare room if you guys want a raise, move to canada, no politics to complain about, no terrorist threats every two weeks and best of all no GBjr.

by thechas

Max, I thought about this for some time, as something about your post bothered me.

While it was true 40 years ago that the middle class was defined by the median income, a median income no longer affords one a middle class lifestyle.

As I understand the middle class, the criteria includes:

A single family home of 1500 square feet on a lot in a "safe" neighborhood.

2 cars, the oldest less than 8 years old.

The ability to send the kids to a public college.

At $45K a year, you can't do that in the Chicago area unless you live at least 50 miles from downtown. (With 'normal' traffic, plan on up to 3 hours of commuting time each way.)

At $70K, you can afford some of the 'wrong side of the tracks' areas in the nicer 2nd and 3rd tier suburbs.

My wife and I left the Chicago area in 1980 primarily because there was no way we would be able to afford a home within a reasonable distance from where I was working.

Chas

by maxwell edison

If you think I'm being biased, then show your own description comparing the two major parties. Mine were, to be sure, generalizations, but I believe they accurately showed which way one party "leans" as compared to the other. I'd be very interested in seeing a Democrat's "generalized" description, but without the standard rhetoric that so often fogs over one's real position. (Being "for the children", "for the environment", etc.)

Yes, I admit that I'm a Republican, but I'm actually more of a Libertarian in principle. And I don't necessarily agree with the entire Republican party platform. But being a realist, I realize that in a system where the majority party sets the legislative agenda, makes key appointments, establishes rules and procedures, chairs the important and influential committees, etc., and considering that our current two party system is pretty well entrenched into the process, I'll do anything to keep the Democrats out of power. (Even if it means voting for a Republican I don't like or with whom I may disagree on some issues.)

I have no idea which party my father favored. He never discussed politics with me, but I suspect he leaned more towards the Democrats because he always saw himself as an oppressed "little guy" (just the opposite of me), although he was never a union member. On the other hand, he was a salesman most of his life, and they are generally more individualist in nature than collectivists. So I don't really know for sure. Since he reached adulthood during the depression in the 30s, I suspect he was a strong FDR guy. And I think, but I'm not sure, that he supported JFK and LBJ. (all Democrats)

I'm surprised that you asked me why I'm a Republican, considering a lot of my previous messages on various threads, but I'll answer anyway. I'm a Republican because, in a nut-shell, I believe that each person has an inherent responsibility to society to just take care of him or her self. (And the family he or she creates.) Regardless of the cards one is dealt in birth, just take care of yourself, for pete's sake. And given the opportunities available, that's not that hard to do. Sure, one person may have a tougher go of it, but the opportunity is there to improve one's self. I believe that people should have equality of opportunity, but equality of outcome is expecting too much and requires infringing on the rights of others. I believe that an individual can achieve incredible things if left to his own devices, and the government should not create barriers that impede his chosen progress. I believe it's wrong for the government to take a dollar from one person who earned it only to give it to another who did not. (Disclaimer: Of course, people who truly are incapable of caring for themselves, and who have no one to help, we, as a caring and compassionate society, should care for them so that they can live in relative comfort and with dignity.) No one ever really improved his or her lot in life, more than just "getting by", when relying on some government program. It can only happen by relying on one's own determination. And to think of all those poor saps who are convinced that the government can care for them better than they can care for themselves. I really think it's sad.

Taking current policy issues into account, I'm against nationalized medicine in any form; I believe that people and corporations should be allowed to keep more of what they earn; I think our current welfare (and redistribution of wealth) system is not only unfair to those forced to pay for it, but it dehumanizes the people it traps into the system; I think abortion is wrong; I think the death penalty is wrong (opposite the Republican platform); I believe that individual rights trump collective rights. (I could go on, but....)

If I had to pin-point the exact time in my life when I "decided", per se, to be a Republican, I would have to say it was when I walked out of the unemployment office after going there (because of a lay-off) for only a few weeks, disgusted at the lazy people with whom I was grouped, fed up with the bureaucratic nonsense I was forced to endure, telling them that I can take care of my own needs and my own future better than they could, and that they could keep their "pittance" that they made me jump through their silly hoops for. I never looked back, and I never regretted it. By the way, I had a three-month old baby and a "stay-at-home mom" wife at the time. She remained that "stay-at-home" mom, by the way, until my son went to school five years later. (Still have the wife, and the son is much older.) Of course, I didn't say, okay, I'm a Republican from now on, but it did show me the lunacy and ineffectiveness of "the system", a system usually espoused by Democrats. That event in my life really did show me the way out of difficulty and despair - relying on myself, not the government.

Your last paragraph makes some good points and is quite valid in its assumptions. That's why it's important to be wall versed on both sides of an argument so as to make an informed decision, but a decision which is based on a core set of (one's own) principles. But not everyone has the time or desire to make themselves informed, rather they just "trust" the bias of (Canadian turned American) Peter Jennings or Dan Rather on the nightly news. Sure, listen to those guys, but read George Will and William F. Buckley as well.

Do I feel a big and strong military is needed? Absolutely I do. How much money should we spend? As much as it takes. Considering that there are people in the world who wish us harm, I want to have the biggest dog on the block. And I don't buy into the notion that if we all just set down our arms and express our desire to make nice-nice, that we could finally all live in peace. We (the world) can't all "live in peace" unless it's a unanimous sentiment, and we all know that it's not. I believe in achieving peace through strength. As an illustration, I'd suggest that if the U.S. didn't have such a powerful military, that the cold war would have ended differently, with much of mainland Europe falling under Soviet control. Peace through strength managed to maintain the status quo established after the allied victory in WW2. (Note I said "allied", not "U.S.")

So there ya' go.

by road-dog

On the above points.

The hallmark of conservatism is a basis in fundamental truths that are absolute. "Fairness" as a concept is highly subjective, and leaves open great room for interpretation and injustice.

Many of my beliefs as to the role of government are based on the concept of the individual, meaning the smallest minority and the protectee of the Bill of Rights.

When government seeks to take wealth from one individual to give it to another, even in the name of "fairness", one individual is subjugated to the other. By proxy obviously, but in a very real way.

Wealth is the tangible representation of time, ability, and effort. When wealth is taken from one for another, this is the theft of time of the "donor's" life. Quite simply, this is slavery, as it is by no means voluntary through force of sanction by the government.

The average taxpayer in the US is now in a state if indentured servitude for the first six months of the year, through individual taxes and business taxes passed on to the individual.

If the government were to send taxpayers a letter assigning them a welfare recipient and telling them that that welfare recipient "owns" them from January through June, there would be a riot.

Unfortunately, the abstract nature of this slavery is the "fig leaf" that disguises the welfare state from being recognized as the slavery that it is.

by oz_media

For who you are, where you were raised and what beliefs you were instilled with. You have a strong PERSONAL reson for your convictions.

Without being argumentative, I agree with many of your views, ie. A person should be reposible for his/her own successes and not look toward the government for support (unless of course absolutely necessary due to sickness etc.)and that a person is 100% responsible for the outcome of his/her life. I spout that everywhere, "piss or get off the pot."(not quite as well versed as you but the same general idea).

What I don't like is that you say you will vote repubican just to not vote Democrat. Do yu HAVE to pick a certain party? You don't here but you can still make your voice heard that you don't support any of the parties.

Other little things you mention I don't agree with but don't want to go too far into. Abortion: as much as I disagree with abortion, I have also seen a case where the person had a child with the understanding that the government would offer support while she finished school. She was unable to get a single cent in support for child care (which I feel is imperative no matter HOW it's paid for) she was disowned by her father and was practically forced to leave school to take care of her child.

I'm not saying she would have chosen to abort the pregnancy but sometimes these options should be available to prevent TWO lives from failing or becoming dependant on society. It is a very touchy subject with many ways of looking at each case, I think it just deserves mroe attention first.

And finally here's what I thought was biased:
"Democrats (bigger government, higher taxes, smaller military, hate and blame big business"

This sounds a little biased in saying that they hate big business, I don't now myself but I see it as a slam by yourself against Democracy.

"(smaller government, lower taxes, stronger military, believe that the business of America is business, color those skeptical about global warming, individual solutions and personal responsibility), "

Sounds very inviting

"made up of minor parties (Libertarian, Communist, Green) and the swing voters who don't know enough to understand party ideology and/or the influence and power of the two-party system, and who are gullible enough to believe what they see reported on Television and let their votes be swayed by double-talk politicians and biased reporters."

Some built up angst here?

Three parties, one downed, one praised and one belittled. Hmmmm, biased? You should be if you are going to elect a party. I just don't think your OPEN analogy of the political parties was really open.

As usual though, you do make sense in your statements and reasons for your beliefs.

Thanks Max,
OM

by jardinier

On Monday, October 6, Australia observed the public holiday "Labour Day," which commemorates the introduction of the 40 hour week, above which hours the employee was entitled to be paid overtime rates.
However, for some time now, many people are working unpaid overtime -- and I mean UNPAID -- not just failing to receive the overtime rates. I guess it's a case of being better off having a steady job, than having no job at all.
For some decades now in Australia we have had to live with massive retrenchments, normally justified on the grounds of keeping the particular company profitable.
While we have our fair share of welfare bludgers, it is quite a different matter when a long-time employee with a family and mortgage to support, is suddenly supposed to survive on welfare. And this is occurring across the workforce, up to professional level.
The "battlers' battler," Shadow Treasurer Mark Latham recently criticised the chairman of the Commonwealth Bank for accepting a salary increase that took him to $AU 2.5 million per year, while simultaneously retrenching some thousands of employees. But even Mark does not consider that the highest income earners in general, who pay income tax of around 49 cents in the dollar, should be penalised for their industriousness and success.

Anyhow just to cheer up Marlib: when George Bush visits Australia shortly (at a cost of $AU 1 million to the taxpayer to recall Parliament so that GWB may address both houses) he will be ferried around in an antiquated armoured vehicle, as updated vehicles are not yet ready.

by maxwell edison

No, one does not have to pick a party. But go back and re-read again the "majority party" part of my message. (It does require, however, a pretty thorough understanding of how the U.S. Congress really works.)

In 1992 I voted for Ross Perot, but I only helped Bill Clinton get elected - and he would have been my very last choice. Not only was it a wasted vote, but it was helped cause the very thing I didn't want.

Before 1994, the Democrat party held the majority in Congress. The party who holds the majority gets to decide the agenda, they get to approve appointments, they hold all the aces.

I may not agree with all of the Republican agenda, but I agree with almost none of the Democrat party agenda.

So, even though one does not have to vote for just either a Republican or a Democrat, one of those two parties, like it or not, WILL BE the majority party in Congress. To vote for someone other than a member of one of those two parties just might help get your last choice elected.

Votes that went to Ross Perot in 1992 instead of to the alternative Republican candidate, actually helped Bill Clinton get elected.

Votes that went to Ralph Nader in 2000 instead of going to Al Gore, absolutely got George W. Bush elected. (Thank you very much, Green party.)

It's called cutting off your nose to spite your face. It might make you feel better in the short term, but in the long run it's only hurting yourself. (Isn't that right, all you Ralph Nader voters?)

Actually, I shouldn't say that, because I want them all to vote for Nader again in 2004.

by maxwell edison

Of the only two choices, at least in today's political environment, either the Ds or Rs will be the majority party. To illustrate the importance of such a majority:

In 1991, there was a vote in Congress to institute some sort of national health care. It failed to pass, but the Democrats - the majority party at the time - brought it up to vote in the first place, something the Republicans would never do. (Some Ds voted against it, thus it failed.) If the Democrats had retained their majority in Congress (they didn't), that bill would have been rewritten and brought up for another vote - and perhaps passed. But the current Republican majority would never allow even a vote on the issue, so it's a dead issue.

Anything to do with banning abortion, in any form or to any degree, would never even be brought for a vote in a Democrat controlled congress. But the Republican held majority in the House recently passed a ban on partial-birth abortion. With Democrats in the majority, it never would have been voted on.

Gun control bills - will be brought to a vote by Democrat majorities, not by Republicans.

Sure, a member of the minority party can introduce a bill - any bill, at any time. But the majority party can stall the bill in committee, never bringing it up for a full vote.

The issues of the day are decided by the party in the majority. A vote for one or the other party is casting your vote on issues as well. Vote for someone other than a D or R, and you let someone else decide the issue of the day - and it might be an issue you really care about.

by monkeybutter

It's nice to see the spirit of logical and reasoned debate is still alive and well in this, the most sacrosanct of discussion forums on the internet.

The British Royal Family cost each adult taxpayer in the UK approximately 68p a year (around one US dollar). The revenue they bring in from the tourist industry is many, many times their net cost to the British public, they still pay taxes on their immense personal property, most of which is hereditary, and whilst they don't have a governmental role per se they still fulfil myriad diplomatic functions.

On the other hand, the British Prime Minister is on the same payscale as any other civil servant.

I suspect the US patriotism-machine costs its constituents a lot more.

by oz_media

Well as for GWB being a clown, I don't think that's just my opinion. I don't vote for the US president, good thing too, I haven't seen a useful one in many years.

Your Persident's face is on no les than 6 of our TV channels EVERYNIGHT saying some BS about how he is saving the world and creating a peaceful America and yada-yada BS.
He is in our face EVERY DAY! That's how I form an opinion, keep bigmouth in his pen, perhaps your people would have a better chance at life.

Whi ever runs YOUR country is up to you, unfortunately, he is in EVERYONE else's face all day. If you could keep him in his little box and let him drop virtual bombs on a virtual world, then that would be fine. When he's in our faces, telling us our troops aren't supporting him or that the French should be seen as assholes, and that we are all doomed if we don't act now, then it is MY problem. So do me a favour, go and see your attentive, people person president and while takling man to man (that's what he does right, loves the people)tell him to get out of my f*&^ing life and get his own life.

by mrbill-

If he is on your TV channels don?t blame me, I don?t want to see his mug on mine either. But guess what? I don?t have any control over our news, as you don?t over yours. Unfortunately he is making news, good or bad, and the press will cover it. Like I have said before, I did not vote for him but he is the elected head of my government (sorry) so I have to put up with Alfred E. Newman? ER? I mean GWB.

by maxwell edison

Considering the fact that you don't like our President, George W. Bush, and further considering that you've suggested that we (the U.S) haven't had a good President in quite some time, it makes me wonder who (or what) you would like.

You're certainly not alone in your opinion, as many Americans would (and have) agreed with you. But it does make me wonder.

Who would you prefer to see as the U.S. President instead of George W. Bush. (Please choose among only U.S. citizens, but name as many as you'd like.)

What traits and characteristics would you like to see in the U.S. President?

Who, in your opinion, was the last "good" U.S. President?

Who, in your opinion, was the best U.S. President?

Later...

P.S. Anyone else who would like to answer, feel free.

by oz_media

You're right Max, I don't care for Bush. You're also right in posing the question who would do better?
My answer is I really don't know who would be best suited to run America. You see, who I feel may do a better job in Canada, would not necessarily do the best for the USA. Our people are very different, although neighbours.

I would probably say myself, but I'm not American so that's out. Arnold doesn't seem so bad, and even though he is still an actor/politician, he is at least somewhat sincere in his statements and objectives, lets see what he actually does though.

Billy and Dusty from ZZTop are really decent people that are very down to earth, I've met them several times but I don't know what political views they have.

Basically Max, you've posed a dead end question with no real answer, without campaigning, it is hard to understand someones objectives and read their personality traits without live video to review small nuances in body language, eye movement etc.

I am not American so an alternative is not really something I've put thought into, I guess that up to who you to select suitable candidates.

In a nutshell, the US president seems to always be gung ho to try and straighten out the world but reluctant to address problems within the USA. Is this just a smoke screen so they don't HAVE to address more imperative local issues? Kinda like the whole Clinton smoke screen to get rid of the the Lewinsky focus.

Your question does not go unappreciated though, I also feel that if you're going to complain, have an alternate or better idea. In this case, as I've said before, I really don't spend much time reviewing possible political candidates. This is something I think is up to Americans to decide.

It's just that your last few choices have caused so much scandal and have also turned many formerly friendly countries into America bashers, as you have all in turn learnt to dislike other countries that until recent events were considered friends. How can one man do all this damage in such a short time? Who could do better? Your guess is as good as mine, actually MUCH better than mine. I just hope you all do better next time.

by oz_media

You offered the only real opinion with a reasoning behind it, I appreciate your opinions.

I don't neccessarily agree with some of your resons for selecting your chosen party and we probably differ in a few objectives of a good government, but that neither here nor there. This isn't a place for people to simpy agree on everything. You did however, validate your opinion quite well. I may be learning something from you but I won't admit it. :-P NEVER ! NOT ME!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

by maxwell edison

...that OzMedia couldn't answer.

You started this thread by defaming the President of the United States, but you've remained silent to the subsequent comments. Your tactics are like those of terrorists - hit and run then hide. Are you going to run and hide from my questions to you?

Here are the questions:

Considering the fact that you don't like our President, George W. Bush, and further considering that you've suggested that we (the U.S) haven't had a good President in quite some time, it makes me wonder who (or what) you would like.

You're certainly not alone in your opinion, as many Americans would (and have) agreed with you. But it does make me wonder.

Who would you prefer to see as the U.S. President instead of George W. Bush. (Please choose among only U.S. citizens, but name as many as you'd like.)

What traits and characteristics would you like to see in the U.S. President?

Who, in your opinion, was the last "good" U.S. President?

Who, in your opinion, was the best U.S. President?

by guruofdos

>>Who would you prefer to see as the U.S. President instead of George W. Bush. (Please choose among only U.S. citizens, but name as many as you'd like.<<

Colin Powell. I think he is very balanced and takes a very measured view of things. Of all the American 'top brass' we have seen on television here in Europe during the events of the past six months, he comes across as competent, measured, thoughtful and pragmatic.

What traits and characteristics would you like to see in the U.S. President?

Somebody 'serious'. Somebody who can make a speech using clear language. Somebody who has earned their reputation independently of family connections. I always wonder about 'presidential families' like the Bushes and Kennedys...I think there is something unhealthy about using family connections to further a political career.

Who, in your opinion, was the last "good" U.S. President?

Hmmm. Difficult one. Many US Presidents gain a 'reputation' for things the do whilst in power. Many have gone on to do more noteworthy things AFTER serving as president. Bill Clinton is currently involved with issues in the Balkans and in trying to broker peace and reconcilliation with formerly warring factions, much to his credit. Jimmy Carter has also achieved much since he left the presidency. I think this is a fair comment on many former US presidents...many have done more 'worthwhile' things AFTER their presidency than they did during. Perhaps it is easier to focus on a few things and do them better than it is to juggle all aspects of running a country like the USA for four or eight years. I'll go out on a limb here and say Jimmy Carter.

Who, in your opinion, was the best U.S. President?

This may sound daft, and it is just an opinion, but I'm going to say Ronald Reagan. Now I may get flamed for this...you Americans would know more about taxes, policies and such like than me, and you may tear me to bits for not knowing about his domestic issues, but internationally he deserved a lot of praise. Yes, Nancy probably 'pulled his strings' and it is a fact that Margaret Thatcher, British Prime Minister at the time, exerted an enormous amount of influence on him in terms of the way that the USA took part in international issues at the time. It was also the era of perestroika and glasnost and the beginnings of a more open relationship between the US and USSR. It was about this time that Communism and Socialism started to decline in Eastern Europe. Lech Walensa and the Solidarity movement in Poland and the beginning of the end of the Cold War were all events which have increased global security and reduced the threat of mutually assured destruction. Yes, 'Star Wars' was something of a fly in the ointment, and there was much toing and froing over S.A.L.T 2 and S.T.A.R.T, but on an international view of things Ronnie and Maggie T. made a good team and accomplished much to be admired. Yes, he was an object of fun and he bluffed his lines as much as Dubya does (he once referred to HRH Diana Princess of Wales as 'Princess David'), but he was a genuinely likeable chap.

Ok Maxwell.......rip me to bits!

by maxwell edison

Ronald Reagan - Well said. He would make my top ten list, although maybe not at the top.

My top ten list is as follows, not necessarily in order, and all for diffferent reasons. But a common trait is that they all put the national best interest before their own personal or political interests:

Washington (Could have been King George, but started us in the right direction.)

Jefferson (Had the vision of a strong America that stretched between the oceans.)

Lincoln (Gave his life to preserve the union.)

Truman (You just gotta' love the fire in the belly, the big shoulders on which the weight of the world's problems rested, and he made what was possibly the toughest decision any president had to make.)

Reagan (Brought the USSR to its knees and was vital in the establishment of democracy in eastern Europe - along with Maggie Thatcher, of course.)

G.W. Bush (Too many people don't understand the passion and commitment in his heart. Just look at his speeches after 9-11, and especially the memorial at the National Cathedral - absolutely magnificent. He is currently putting his political life on the line to do what he considers is best for the country.)

T. Roosevelt (Had the National Parks vision, brought the USA into world-wide prominence.

Madison (Primary writer of the Constitution, had the vision for our constitutional republic, solidified the breaking from Great Britain during the second attempt to prevent it.)

Okay, only eight made my top ten list, but I'll think some more on it.

My "worst" list would certainly include:

Bill Clinton (Compulsive liar and self-server)

Jimmy Carter (Very inept and micro-manager, and who can forget the debacle in the desert?)

Nixon (Only because of Watergate)

Johnson and Johnson (Both of them)

F. Roosevelt (Although VERY popular, started the US on the road to socialism)

by road-dog

but I'm just too damn tired tonight after the BRUTAL day I've had.

This question merits serious answers based upon serious consideration.

I just know Jimmy Carter will NOT make the list, and I'll explain that as well!

by jimhm

From how its sounds you have all the answers but can't express them ... Haven't had a good president for a long time - Sorry can't answer who would be a good one ...

Sounds like - all complaints and no solutions from the OZ - should make a great leader in your own mind

by jimhm

I like the pic's -

I would put JFK in both good and bad ...

Good - Got the USA moving on technology and space.

Bad - Womanizer - Bay of Pigs -

Jimmy Carter - had to be one of the worse leaders the US ever had - A Nuke scientist as a leader ... wrong - Intelligent doesn't equal leadership. (Lets not even take into account the destruction of the econ & 23% inflation rates)

by maxwell edison

Kennedy would "almost" make consideration, and I considered putting him on my previously posted top ten list. The space race and man on the moon challenge was one of the best things that happened to us (U.S.), and he didn't back down to the Russians when they tried to put missiles in our back yard (Cuba). He certainly did put our "big dog" right out there to defend our interests. And his "ask not..." line is something I use often to rebuke many of the Democrat's very own social "hand-out to hands-out" programs. (I think Kennedy would either be a Republican today, or would have changed or prevented the direction the Democrat party took under LBJ.)

However, like Nixon, he disqualified himself, and in addition, he did screw up the relations with Cuba. He was a sleaze to his wife (And WOW, she was really something!), and for someone in the oval office to do that is to risk compromising national security. Moreover, he had to buy votes from dead people in Illinois and West Virginia to get elected in the first place - definitely putting his own personal and political interest above the national interest.

And you're right, I didn't mention those double-digit inflation rates and 18% mortgage rates in '79 that put our economy in the tank. But Reagan and his massive tax reform - tax cuts - pulled us out of it and into the soaring economy of the 90s, something that Clinton and the Democrats incorrectly try to take credit for. And his post presidency meddling and sabotage of the President's foreign policy efforts is, in my opinion, disgraceful.

by maxwell edison

Jimmy Carter was a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, and received a degree in nuclear engineering. He served in the navy for 6-8 years, working in the development phase of nuclear submarines. His family had a peanut farm in Georgia, to which he returned after 6-8 years in the navy. He did indeed run the farm, but took time out for local state politics including a term (or maybe two) as the state's Governor.

It's rumored that his peanuts glow in the dark!

by road-dog

The press in the US makes fun of Dubya because he pronounces nuclear nu-cu-lar.

Carter was a nuc in the navy and pronounced it the same way....

by marbib

We have to do something about this. We cant let politicians take advantage of our ignorance and we cant let corporations make us their bitches.
To many politicians manipulate us and get elected solely with name recognition (Arnold and Bush). Everyone needs to weed out these a-holes and vote in some real leaders.

by maxwell edison

(That's your description, not mine)

....but I don't consider myself ignorant. To the contrary, like many people who participate in these discussions, some of us are very well informed.

Why not accept my challenge to you in a message above this one.

I'll be happy to debate your issues with you.

However, please provide proof of your claims, or at least some logical argument to back them up.

by road-dog

Marbib.

In your short time here a recognizable pattern has developed in your postings and threads that you start. It is apparent to me that you are not really interested in presenting a cogent justification for your opinions.

You place bold accusations and outrageous generalities in the thread title and never defend your claims in the replies. When considered with your insistence on capital letters and creating the threads in triplicate, one might consider your actions a plea for attention.

Tell your mommy that you're done with the computer and go read your Harry Potter book, will you. The adults are talking here.

by oz_media

I'm not American so I am not at all familiar with your political candidates.
Secondly, it is up to the people of America to elect the President.

When I get your President's every political move crammed down my throat EVERY time I turn on the TV or read a newspaper, it is completely acceptable for me to express my disapproval of his/her actions. If you want to keep it to yourself, do so, but that's not possible when your "Leader of the Free World" (BS) is in MY face everyday.

If you are so proud of your decisions and elected politicians yet don't want others to comment on their performance, don't cram them down our throats and expect us to bear arms when TOLD to.

When was the last time you saw the Canadian PM making a speech on five of your news reports, unless your president has something to say about it.

If you want people to be quiet, shut him up.
If he's in everyone else's face, it is everyone else's opinions you will have to listen to. Get it yet?

As for who SHOULD be running your country, try ALF. He's a friendly alien life form that hasn't seen much work lately, I wouldn't even mind him being on during the news.

Question: Who do YOU think should be PM of Canada?

by mrbill-

If he is on your TV channels don?t blame us. I don?t have any control over your news agencies. If the canuk PM says things with international bearing, guess what, we see it on our news too. Do we want to see him on our TV? NO, but if the networks think it is news we will see it.

by road-dog

Everything has it's place. His postings belong on democraticunderground.com where you don't have to apply logic, reason, or simple courtesy.

It's a haven for his fellow tinfoil hat wearing, irrational, ill-mannered, venomous, shallow, and myopic people can spout their ill considered and unsubstantiated ramblings.

Here, he is a gnat and a peripheral annoyance, there he would be GOD!!!!!!!!!!!

by maxwell edison

To Everything (Turn, Turn, Turn)
There is a season (Turn, Turn, Turn)
And a time for every purpose, under Heaven

A time to be born, a time to die
A time to plant, a time to reap
A time to kill, a time to heal
A time to laugh, a time to weep

To Everything (Turn, Turn, Turn)
There is a season (Turn, Turn, Turn)
And a time for every purpose, under Heaven

A time to build up, a time to break down
A time to dance, a time to mourn
A time to cast away stones, a time to gather stones together

To Everything (Turn, Turn, Turn)
There is a season (Turn, Turn, Turn)
And a time for every purpose, under Heaven

A time of love, a time of hate
A time of war, a time of peace
A time you may embrace, a time to refrain from embracing

To Everything (Turn, Turn, Turn)
There is a season (Turn, Turn, Turn)
And a time for every purpose, under Heaven

A time to gain, a time to lose
A time to rend, a time to sew
A time to love, a time to hate
A time for peace, I swear it's not too late

-Pete Seeger
(Words adapted from The Bible, Book of Ecclesiastes)

by oz_media

It is an excellent piece of art. However too american. Do you really need to paint a rock with all the Patriotic images and quotes of commitment from American Presidents?
I can see that a memorial to those who have given their lives to protect freedom, and I applaud the efforts of these brave men and women.

It is just the type of tacky and oh so American Patriotism that makes people see you as war mongers though.

Images of fighter pilots, dying men and quotes such as Some gave all, all gave some and coupling that with so many images of America's victories and tradgedies is something tha belongs, in Iowa.

Nice to remember, a memorial is forever remembered, no matter how talented the artist, this is tacky American Patriotism.

Perhaps that's it, it's not that you're patriotic that offends others, it's that is is done with such a commercial tackiness to it.

by generalist

Do consider that other countries have much more visible monuments and artwork that can be considered tacky patriotism.

China and the USSR both have art styles that glorify patriotism and that often feature the weapons that demonstrated their military might.

And if you want truly tacky patriotic art work, check any country run by a second rate dictator. Odds are that their patriotic artwork would also be considered to be tacky.

by road-dog

Unless the ropes around it and the "get your picture taken on the rock: $5.00" sign is out of the frame.

That's where we differ from much of the world.

We Honor our war dead... Past, Present, and those to come.

Our nation was largely unsettled and dangerous only one century ago. Our adventurous and individualist nature has tempered only slightly since.

That's the big rub. Many nations cannot fathom how Americans are so individual, yet so together on so many issues. They believe that this President has legions of blind followers.

I'll clue everybody in. Dubya isn't in charge of this American assertiveness on the world stage. He is just the face out in front. The pragmatism, directness, and rugged individualism Mr. Bush presents to the world is a reflection of millions of faceless Americans.

The people of this country are tired of backing down to savages and zealots in the name of gentility and diplomacy, only to have the atrocities continue.

That rock is symbolic of the cost we've paid to be allowed to live our lives in our own way. We pay tribute to those who have protected our way of life from imperialism, fascism, communism, and now terrorism.

It's an individual expression of a collective gratitude....

by jimhm

Oz - you need a little Prozac or Zanx - Negative - Negative - Negative - Smile Life isn't that hard.

Bro - Me thinks you need something to smile about

Difference between - Prison and Work

IN PRISON...you spend the majority of your time in an 8X10 cell.

AT WORK... you spend the majority of your time in a 6X8 cubicle. ______________________________________________________
IN PRISON...you get three meals a day.

AT WORK...you only get a break for one meal and you pay for it.
___________________________________
IN PRISON...you get time off for good behavior.

AT WORK...you get more work for good behavior.
_______________________________________________________
IN PRISON...the guard locks and unlocks all the doors for you.

AT WORK...you must carry around a security card and open all the doors for yourself.
______________________________________________________
IN PRISON...you can watch TV and play games.

AT WORK...you get fired for watching TV and playing games.
______________________________________________________

IN PRISON...you get your own toilet.

AT WORK...you have to share with some idiot who pees on the seat.
______________________________________________________
IN PRISON...they allow your family and friends to visit.

AT WORK...you can't even speak to your family.
______________________________________________________
IN PRISON...all expenses are paid by the taxpayers with no work required.

AT WORK...you get to pay all the expenses to go to work and then they deduct taxes from your salary to pay for prisoners.
_____________________________________________________
IN PRISON...you spend most of your life inside bars wanting to get out.

AT WORK...you spend most of your time wanting to get out and go inside bars.
______________________________________________________
IN PRISON...you must deal with sadistic wardens.

AT WORK...they are called managers.

HAVE A GOOD DAY!!!!!!!!!!!!

by jimhm

Oz - as an thought about your comments - I am coming to the conclusion that Canadians aren't as proud of their country or its abilities as Americans.

That's too bad - National Pride is what built America to what it is today. The lack of National pride will bring it down. When you aren't proud of something - you don't care about it. When you have pride and are proud of its accomplishments then you care for it.

Sorry to see that at least one Canadian (Oz) doesn't have pride in his country...

by oz_media

Yes I agree, if our PM has something of international bearing, something that MAY effect the American economy or something that needs to be a concern/addessed by your President, then YES it should be available to the American public.

BUT...

How many times have you seen the Canadian PM on your TV with nothing to say to the American people or that has no effect or bearnig on America?

In Canada, the US networks plaster our TV's with GBjr all day EVERY day. You can't evade it, unless you're watching PBS all day.

We don't live in a society that cares the least little bit about GBjr's plans to SAVE AMERICA (or anything our own PM says for that matter). We just don't care what he does, we have lives to live that don't entail Canadian political moves.
the PM is rarely on TV here and if he is it is in a short clip about him slapping a reporter or stepping in dog doo.

someone told me this morning that Americans are politics nuts and that you are all gun crazy killers that want to detroy peace in the world to create your OWN peace.

I used to feel similarly but several people here have shown me otherwise so I don't see it is harsh as that anymore.

The point here is, we don't care about BUSH yet we are bombarded with everything he says, and all the specualtive news reports to boot.

As a result of all this, we have grown to despise BUSH and his ridiculous ramblings (due to the amount of non presidential BS from all the reportersa "will he say...", "What he should say..." and the ever popular "third party political analyst" "If Bush was to..." blah, blah, blah. You may care , we don't, there's nothing we can do about the news etc.

This is why we all have an opinion of BUSH, he's in our face day and night.

As for what you do about it, I don't care just keep it out of my face.

I know you guys love the Pres and fell he has your better interests in mind, in fact I think the President and politics is almost a religion in the US.

Can't you all focus on something different? Of course not, it is how you are bred and raised, the President is GOD and that's that. Maybe you could el;ect someone who has something worthwhile listening to next time.:-)

by jardinier

Whinge, whinge; bitch, bitch; complain, complain: Is there anything constructive that you wish to say?

However I will take you to task on the title of your discussion ... "BUSH IS EVIL !!"

My own opinion of GW Bush is not relevant here. However I doubt that anyone would disagree that many people in many countries consider that George Bush is: misguided and/or ill informed; over zealous and patriotic; potentially dangerous (as he is the leader of the most powerful country in the world) and let's add just plain stupid to cover all possibilities.

So perhaps you could justify your assertion that Bush is evil.

An evil person wilfully commits destructive, violent or cruel acts. A person who stuffs up because of poor judgement (or in this case perhaps faulty intelligence information) is not evil.

I am neither defending nor criticizing GWB. It is the title of your discussion that causes me ire.

by jellimonsta

Jim, in defense of OZ. I do not feel he was necessarily being negative in this respect, merely stating an opinion. Also, he has posted many positive comments as of late to individuals perplexed with the state of the current IT sector.
Here is an excerpt of one such comment
------------------------------------------
[q] think it is all in the timing, right place at the right time. Just keep hammering the doors and making a case as to why they should upgrade, how much you can help them save and why they should hire you to do it. You ever met a passive saleman that's successful? How can a passive tech succeed in an inundated market?[/q]

See :)

by onbliss

Jim:
I agree with what you said about pride and taking care of something. But it does not apply to everything. There is this 'love' that can make one take care of something.

For example, our kids, spouse, parents, friends, . Ofcourse there is an element of pride involved, but love is the dominating feeling. And, becos of it we take care of them not becos we are proud of them. We might be proud of their accomplishments but that's another issue.

So the love towards one's country can equally make one take care of the country.

by monkeybutter

A lot of highly quotable historical figures have a lot of bad things to say about patriotism, however argumentum ad verecundiam doesn't help anyone.

It can be argued that the American obsession with patriotism is just as destructive as any fundamentalist regime or fanaticism based on personal righteousness. There is, to my knowledge, no such mechanic in effect in any other major nation in the world pertaining to the country itself with as much fecundity and veracity as in the US.

It's a perfectly valid statement to make concerning Canada's comparative lack of pride in their nation when held up to the US, and such a statement would likely hold true for any country. It's almost institutionalised, rife through what can be seen of the American educational system, and literaly paraded through every crack and crevace it can gain purchase in.

It's a pervasive meme, and when taken to extremes, as it is likely to do, becomes destructive to those around it. Inherent as it appears to be in the human psyche, it needs no magnification or nurturing, lest it gets out of hand.

by maxwell edison

....obsession with patriotism is just as destructive as any fundamentalist regime or fanaticism based on personal righteousness".

Okay, go ahead and make your argument supporting that assertion, and I'll reply accordingly.

(Yes, that's a challenge.)

by monkeybutter

George Bernard Shaw said it best with "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all others because you were born in it." It's an overwhelming coincidence, otherwise, that so many people from all over the world feel a need to express how their country is "the best".

We can therefore assume that patriotism is endemic to the human race, one way or another. If you bring this point to a fierce patriot, they'll likely respond with "yeah, but my country really is the best", and if they're even remotely worth listening to, they'll then provide you with a list of reasons as to why their nation is superior to all others in every way that matters.

Trouble is, the notion of "best country" is an incredibly subjective one, since the previously mentioned "every way that matters" will change from person to person. It's not like the Nobel Prize people run a "best goddamn country in the whole damn world" section, and whittling down some criteria accepted by everyone isn't going to happen. In summary of this point, you cannot prove, in a way acceptible to most people, or even a particularly meaningful fraction of people, that your country is "the best".

So people just shout about it a bit, wave flags and cheer people on at the Olympics or during the World Cup. By and large, barring armed conflicts and radicalist political parties, it's all in good fun. "My dad's bigger than your dad" jibes, and everyone laughs about it afterwards over a big jug of sangrea.

Then we come to America. I'm serious about this, there is not one nation in the world (and I've been to my fair share) that employs such rampant, ego-bolstered, nationwide, testosterone-enhanced, propoganda-garnished, macho, penis-waving patriotism as the US. It scares me, actually physically scares me, that you feed your children this. Other nations throughout history have tried and failed to achieve the level of state-worship that the US enjoys. How the country actually managed to achieve it is an astonishing notion in unto itself.

So I don't class American patriotism in the same way I'd class that of other nations, since it's in a league all of its own. Being American is seen as a way of life. It's continuously referred to with those exact words, and activities or practices that deviate from it have also been commonly addressed as "un-american". There's also a precedent for people saying or doing things that are considered "unpatriotic" to be mocked, derided or shunned. You don't see that anywhere else.

Well, you do, but not concerning nationality. You see it a lot with regard to religion, creed, race and the like, in areas where such things are in high contention. It's only in these arenas that you get the same fierce "my [splat] is the best [splat] in the world" competition to anything remotely resembling the lofty platform that the American sense of patriotism graces. People are far more likely to fight and die for these things, to commit heinous acts in their name, to use it as justification for all sorts of unspeakable actions.

It goes deep. It's a soul-conviction. People will defend it to the hilt in positions it cannot be succesfully defended from. People will follow it without regard for the consequences, because they *know* without any logical or reasonable justification that they have to, because it just *is*.

It's the same horse, with a different jockey.

Now, let's compare the potential destructive might of the US with similar soul-conviction-bearing parties. There's a lot of disparity there, and it's genuinely impossible to claim otherwise. One of the most influential, richest, well-armed nations in the world. It rolls over, the whole world panics. No-one can predict the consequences of its actions, so complex and dynamic they end up unfolding.

What America is prepared to do for America sets the benchmark for how much the world gets screwed up. What America is *capable* of doing for America sets the maximum destructive yield.

And Superman gets confused when Truth, Justice and The American Way all become mutually exclusive.

by jimhm

I think if my history books were correct that - it was the Patriots of the United States - that whipped Cornwallace and helped kick the British rulers out of this country ....

Hum - interesting points - defend your points - I wait for your response - if you have one..

by monkeybutter

You know, it's quite funny.

Really; not in a laugh-out-loud sense, but as a wry-grin-and-occasional-chuckle moment. Americans really don't know how to wind up the British. They just can't do it. The most amusing one they try is the whole "we kicked your ass in the American war of independence" trick, and it's a shame, but most British people couldn't even tell you what this war was even about, let alone still be "licking their wounds" a few centuries down the line.

I do know what this war was about. I'm also aware the version most American schoolkids get taught is a little skewed, and doesn't go into the necessary historical detail and root causes necessary to fully understand it. I'm *painfully* aware the version most people are familiar with via The Patriot (a pox on Mel Gibson films) is so much Scotch Mist, and that the ultimate effect of the entire debacle was denying yourselves a piece of a much stronger commonwealth.

None of this has anything to do with the original point on patriotism. It's just a cheap shot that's so wide of the mark, it makes your bombing campaigns look accurate.

(Oh look...there's my cheap shot :-))

As for defending my points, I have to ask, defend them against what? It's not like you've put up much of a harsh or scathing critique of them. Please, by all means, have a stab at it, but don't expect me to feel particularly moved.

by jimhm

"Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death"

A speech delivered by Patrick Henry on March 23, 1775.

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free--if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength but irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

- This could be a speach given today - They say America was weak that's why we were attacked on 9/11/01 - No Longer - do we show the face of weakness to the world - We will lend a hand to any friend and appose any foe from that day forward. A Patriot in America today is one sme one in 1775 -

by monkeybutter

Actually, a lot of people would say America was attacked on September 11th because they were monopolising various aspects of world economy and flooding unwilling parties with their culture.

People going into more detail might speculate that it's the continuous growth of American ideals onto Muslim soils that inspired the most likely suspects to do what they did.

Being a ubiquitous element throughout the world can't really be percieved as "weakness". Funnily enough, the most likely word, in context, to describe this property is "strength".

So no, it doesn't really wash. In putting a strong front forward you're actually bolstering the image that made you the target in the first place.

by maxwell edison

George Bernard Shaw? You've got to be kidding. You take a quote from George Bernard Shaw, and then base your entire argument on his political philosophy? Why not include Karl Marx and Chairman Mao while you're at it?

George Bernard Shaw, a devout socialist - indeed was a socialist spokesman throughout his life - was one of the founding members of the Fabian Society and served on its executive committee for more than 25 years. He had as a goal the establishment of a socialist state in Great Britain. He wanted to change the voting system because, as he said, voters didn't know what they were voting about. He also supported the abolition of private property, preferring instead that all property be state owned. Moreover, the British government nearly tried him for treason during the first world war.

Okay, but we now know where you're coming from.

Want to try again?

by monkeybutter

What did I say about argumentum ad verecundiam? Although I suppose we're now moving into argumentum ad hominem, liberally seasoned with a hint of "straw man".

It was a quote, to express a point. My argument is not based on any political philosophy but my own, and I'd challenge *you* to find exclusive parallels in my argument with the source you're claiming. You'll be looking for a long time, as they don't actually exist anywhere outside of your own imagination.

How about you try and debunk my arguments based on their own merits and lack thereof, as opposed to coming up with phantom origins to try and discredit?

I'd also suggest, for your own benefit, to not make assumptions about my socio-political leanings. Mother of all proverbials, and all that.