Obama has won

The problem with the American economy is the fact that many people think its the governments job to make sure they don't fail, and there are plenty of politicians who build this belief up and pander to it. The reason why people want to come to the U.S. is you can be an absolute failure and live pretty darn good off of the labor of others.
I hope Mr. Obama is leads wisely and the country flourishes, but Socialism and big government are not the answer. While I think George Bush is a man of integrity, he has definately down some things I do not agree with. Gun and ammo sales have gone through the roof in the U.S. since Tuesday, with gunowners fearing that anti-gun legislation and tax increases are on the way. I fear my 2-M1 carbines and my M1 Garand will be made illegal. If there is trouble in the middleeast it will involve Isreal, as they may want to strike Iran before Bush is out of power.

 

"The reason why people want to come to the US is you can be an absolute failure and live pretty darn good off the labor of others."

This is false. The immigrants I know worked as hard as if not harder than anyone else. If you are under the illusion that you can "live darn good off the labor of others" in the US, you try to survive doing that. I know people that I love and respect who had moved to the US.

I take it as a personal insult that epithets were flung at them by someone who doesn't know them.

 

I came to the US from the UK last year , i dont see how anything less than 100% effort and hard work is going to get you anywhere here.
One thing ive noticed about Americans , they appreciate a hard grafter and will work just as hard as they ask others to do for a fair days pay.
Id like to know this great secret of living off the labor of others , thats nonsense.

 

Just about what I forwarded , so guys (Reps. ) don't worry - he won't even touch on those gun control laws - besides mentioning it, so as to get some publicity when the present one wears of soon enough.

Regards
Kruska

 

the man won't be officially President for another 70 days, so don't blame him (yet) he's not even in charge.

 

My statement was not worded well and I apologize if I offended anyone. Most people who immigrate to the U.S. know more about working hard and succeeding than people who were born here. The fact that many come here with little and make good lives for themselves show the opportunity that exist here. The success of Barak Obama is another testimony of it. Yet we have people who go through life doing nothing to better themselves except crying to the government about how they need another handout. The saddest part is that these values are passed on to thier children.

Man is not free unless government is limited... As government expands, liberty contracts.
-Ronald Reagan

 

This demonstrates the power of the ballot. In a typical election, 40% will vote Dem and 40% will vote Republican, usually without regard to the candidate. The battle is for the middle 20%. Every president MUST be a centrist in his or her first term or there will not be a second term. Rahm was a catalyst for the capital gains tax cuts under Clinton and he will be a major stabilizing factor who pulls Obama to the center, at least during term number 1.

The dead fish does kind of concern me. There is a bit of a Chicago mob or Chicago Tammany Hall feel to him.

 

Interesting, you've almost paraphrased Charles de Gaulle's famous quote word for word: "No nation has friends only interests."

I agree 100% with you on this.

Please, do tell which countries you feel are not living up to the definition of being true "Allies".

Exactly!!

How else to disagree with another country's foreign policy than to repudiate it? How else are they supposed to disagree with us? Say "No" publicly but say "yes" privately, or vice-versa? I'm not sure what you're trying to say with your last paragraph as it seems a little contradictory.

The two of you have touched on an interesting point though, and I'm interested in knowing what is your definition of "true Allies". As an American, I would argue that to defend our interests abroad does not mean others cannot do the same without the risk of being labeled as untrustworthy. If for example, other countries decide not to support a war which was obviously not very well concieved to begin with and grounded on very dubious intelligence, and especially when it comes at the expense of another war which as of yet is not finished and quite possibly becoming worse by the day- well then, is that not their right too? Not too mention, some of those countries ARE supporting us in the war in A-stan and making sacrifices there, but they are not supporting us in Iraq. So how does that make them untrustworthy? Should we begin to label them as "half-allies"?

If we choose to throw a tantrum like angry children and call our friends names, insult and ridicule them because they do not kow-tow to our demands, and boycott their products, that makes them no less an ally than before, but it does say a lot about us doesn't it? Unfortunately, the immature way in which many of my fellow citizens have chosen to express themselves is something of an embarassment on the world stage, to put it mildly.

To me, a true ally and friend will tell me when I'm wrong and warn me of the concequences. To ignore that, would make me the untrustworthy ally. Given our severely damaged credibility in foreign affaires as of recently, I do not believe we are in any position to make the distinctions of who is more or less of an ally than before.

 

Yes, better worded and I do agree with this. Call it what you want but when God/Good morals/etc were taken out and is in constant attack by the ACLU, the American people are more and more moving away from striving to better themselves. $$$$$ is the God for more and more Americans making them more selfish and greedy. So much for America Being the most charitable nation in the world

 

Exactly, look at the whole 'freedom fries' thing, sorry but that is a nation behaving like a 5 year old. I'm sorry but just because a nation decides not to charge to war with you (and lets keep in mind the French already have troops fighting in Afghan etc, so they are actually supporting the coalitions efforts) doesn't mean they are no longer your allies, simply that they can't/dont want to get drawn into every conflict you do. Actually when you look at it, it seems like a pretty shrewd decision to me, after all, they haven't got thousands of soldiers fighting an unwinnable war against an enemy we can't see are they?

 

I always thought the freedom fries thing was Bush and his cohorts at their best.
It amazes me people call for impeachment on a president who got a little naughty in the oval office with some daft woman , yet a president guilty of war crimes and genocide is hailed a hero..well..a chump actually..but you see my point?

Before anyone starts throwing stones , a sovereign nation was invaded and its president executed by brute force much to the delight of those who didnt understand what was happening.
Much disgrace has been heaped on the US by antics of its forces , the Iraqi's want the coalition gone , so why are we still there ?
Spare me the " poor dumb iraqis cant sort things out by themselves"

 

So if Johnny keeps throwing rocks so should we ?

I appreciate your information on details with clinton , i wasnt and still am not political or was knowledgable on him , he does have a chequered and shady past come to think of it.

I do remember the coalition forming though and how keen the US was on countrys to join , some we'd never heard of before.
Like it or not the US is seen as a leader of the coalition and main aggresser , they call the shots as it were (no pun intended).

I wasnt actually refering to the US when i said why are we still there , its a general term meaning the coalition , im Scottish so a we doesnt just mean America , i apologise for that confusion.


I didnt always oppose the action Slipdigit , its only in the light of the facts i see it as wrong , we were decieved into a war with blatent lies , we know that , so whats the problem , seems the right thing to do is call an end to hostilities.
Look at Northern Ireland , you cant police a people who dont want you there , even down the barrel of a gun.

 

Blair's fall from political grace in the UK is virtually complete, with journalists in 'moderate' newspapers now routinely referring to 'the horrors of the Blair years'. True, he will not be impeached - but he is someone apparently obsessed by his 'legacy' and it is becoming clearer by the day how he will be viewed in retrospect.

Yo, Blair !

 

It does seem politics requires an "Ego" large enough to see past inadequacies, and mistakes. To live in a dream world of legacies & libraries & monuments ... even if you're a total screw-up.

"Twas ever thus " ... Mr.Natural

 

Bush had nothing to do with "Freedom Fries", it was members of Congress and the national media who pushed that little bit of silliness. But the tradition of that sort of thing goes back to WW I when a German department store was seized in Hawaii and renamed "Liberty House".

Your concern about any disgrace the US has suffered is of course exaggerated and depends on what you wish to focus on. As far as I'm concerned, there's no disgrace in toppling a dictator who robbed, exploited and tortured his own people as much as possible, thumbed his nose at the international community, ignored international law, and started two bloody wars in the Mid-east.

You throw around accusations of war crimes and genocide without any evidence or basis at all. Then you wonder why Congress DID impeach Bill Clinton, not for his disgraceful sexual conduct, but for lying under oath (perjury), obstruction of Justice, and abuse of power. You better get some facts straight, if you want anyone to take your rant seriously.

And as far as far as attacking a sovereign country, that was first done by Bill Clinton when he ordered the bombing of Kosovo (a territory belonging to the sovereign country of Yugoslavia) claiming that genocide had been committed there by Yugoslavia. A UN court subsequently ruled that genocide had NOT occurred in Kosovo, but of course that decision was conveniently swept the rug because Clinton was the darling of the national media. At least Bush had the excuse that the Iraqi president was not abiding by the peace terms, and was almost daily shooting at US aircraft which were legally patrolling the UN mandated ceasefire lines.

I'll wait and let history judge Bush's foreign policy, but I will say that most people, and I certainly include you, are operating with little or no real understanding of the issues or stakes in the Mid-east, and making sanctimonious moral judgments based on nothing more than what they are fed by a highly biased and mostly ill-informed media. I say spare us the high-minded moral outrage that has become almost obligatory whenever a Leftist mentions anything to do with the Bush administration, it is foolish and misdirected at best.

 

Well worded devilsadvocate , of course you swerve any issues and paper over the cracks with excuses.
Im obligated to keep this on an Obama track as suggested by Slipdigit so i wont go into what i mean by other comments ive made.
Id of course participate in any thread that wants to go there

 

Speaking of factual accuracy, I was under the impression that Yugoslavia disintergrated in the early 90's and that actually Kosovo had declared independance which was disputed by Serbia. Either way, Yugoslavia isn't and wasn't a sovreign entity.

 

Well America was the land of oppartunaity 100 years ago for a better life,now people are living in proverty in the USA.

Australia is the new America, not cause i'm Australian. It's just facts.
Nothing againsts america and the american people.