kanga
Freshman Pole
Posts: 39
|
Post by kanga on Jan 20, 2008 20:41:41 GMT -7
Michael, I like the American people, but I think the US as a world leader is well and truly over, this has been brought about by poor leadership and greed, the candidates for the US Presidentcy have not the skills to change this. Everyday as the US sinks into recession a lot of people are saying the US are getting there just deserts, unfortunately the recession will have dire results in other countries (including Poland) This leads to a question as to who wants to be in partnership with the US...hmmm no one. they are becoming a liability. Hummmm Perhaps we could just cut out all that foreign aid and fix our economy, since no one wants to be friends with us. The 2007 budget for foreign aid was 21.3 billion, yes BILLION. It sure could be better used at home if no one else wants it! (of course I'm being sarcastic..) Read more here; www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2006/June/20060609155345AKllennoCcM0.3621942.htmlMary Mary 21.3 billion is nothing compared to the US budget, remember Mr Bush is giving 150 billion dollars in tax cuts to stop the pending recession in the US. This is of course nothing what it makes from the proceeds of war. Remember America is not the only country that gives freely to the people in need.
|
|
Mary
Cosmopolitan
Posts: 934
|
Post by Mary on Jan 20, 2008 20:52:25 GMT -7
Speaking of foreign aid: The US is usually the first to come to the aid of others in tragic times, Like the recent Sunami. Per population ratio Australians gave the most to the Sunami appear.. sorry. Why do Americans count the cost in whatever they do, my mother would always tell me you don't get credit points (graces) if you count the cost? Kanga, IMO it's not a competition...my point is that the US seems to get bashed by countries that are more than willing to take our money. I'm not picking on Australia, just getting tired of hearing how horrible the rest of the world thinks we are when our hard earned money is being used to help people all over the world. Mary
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Jan 20, 2008 23:46:17 GMT -7
+++my point is that the US seems to get bashed by countries that are more than willing to take our money.+++
Mary,
The US is not bashed for its charity spending but for its policies around the world, like unnecessary war in Iraq which costs MUCH MORE than the charity spending.
By the way, this 21.3 bln is not spend for charity only. The biggest client of American foreign help is Israel. It is POLITICAL, not charitable help.
If you really want to compare the charitable work, I bet European Union spends much more than the US government. I do not mean American people, they do help, but not their government.
If America (EU) wants to pay to foreign countries... this is also a way to control them.
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Jan 21, 2008 0:28:13 GMT -7
Kanga, Republican party has a real problem now. They do not even have one candidate to unite around. This is unheard of for many years! I wish some of our Republican friends will discuss the political and economical issues and the GOP, but they refuse. They would like to stick with Clinton marriage problems and do not admit that there is a real crisis in Rep. party now. here is a bit from today discussion in one of news channel (meet the press, MSNBC): www.crooksandliars.com/2008/01/20/peggy-noonan-says-the-republican-party-has-a-soul-problem/#more-25516MS. NOONAN: May I just throw in here that I think the Republicans have a tough time this year. The Democratic Party is trying to figure out of two candidates which one will take them to success, take them to the White House. The Republican Party is trying to refind its soul..... MR. BROKAW: Republicans and Democrats alike. I have never heard as many Republicans, gold-star, born and bred Republicans, so unhappy with the management of this country by a Republican president now.
MS. NOONAN: Totally true.
... MS. NOONAN: We haven’t mentioned it, but there is this Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton–I’ve called it a sickness. It is an odd way for a great democracy to comport itself in this strange–we have dynasties now backed by lobbyists, backed by machines and machinery. The fact that America’s doing this is giving so many people pause. It us unlike us. And I cannot help but think, as some people come forward and endorse on the Democratic side Mrs. Clinton, they must be thinking stop the dynasty. I know Republicans are thinking stop the dynasties.
|
|
Mary
Cosmopolitan
Posts: 934
|
Post by Mary on Jan 25, 2008 7:39:05 GMT -7
I thought this was a bit interesting. Our small local newspaper ran this on-line pole. You can see that H.Clinton has the most votes by a long shot, BUT; when adding up Democrat vs Republican votes it is 43% Democratic and 56% Republican. (where did the other 1% go?)
Never the less, the Republicans have their work cut out for them, they need a strong candidate to go up against the Clinton Machine.
How do the rest of you see it?
Mary
If you were voting today, who would you vote for? Hillary Clinton (D) (514 Votes, 30%) John Edwards (D) (76 Votes, 4%) Dennis Kucinich (D) (9 Votes, 1%) Barack Obama (D) (141 Votes, 8%) Rudy Giuliani (R) (81 Votes, 5%) Mike Huckabee (R) (224 Votes, 13%) John McCain (R) (255 Votes, 15%) Ron Paul (R) (177 Votes, 10%) Mitt Romney (R) (122 Votes, 7%) Fred Thompson (R) (98 Votes, 6%)
|
|
|
Post by valpomike on Jan 25, 2008 9:28:00 GMT -7
To all,
Who will you vote for, and why?
Michael Dabrowski
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Jan 25, 2008 19:16:39 GMT -7
+++the Republicans have their work cut out for them, they need a strong candidate to go up against the Clinton Machine+++
What does it mean a "strong" candidate and what does it mean "Clinton machine"? I am tired to hear the same slogans over and over again.
|
|
|
Post by valpomike on Jan 25, 2008 21:13:29 GMT -7
Jaga,
As it stands today, I could not pick the best candidate. Both sides, need prove to us, they can do the job. Neither has yet. Each side is fighting within, calling names of each other. It will take more time for me to pick my choice.
Michael Dabrowski
|
|
|
Post by justjohn on Jan 26, 2008 5:49:36 GMT -7
Jaga, As it stands today, I could not pick the best candidate. Both sides, need prove to us, they can do the job. Neither has yet. Each side is fighting within, calling names of each other. It will take more time for me to pick my choice. Michael Dabrowski You're absolutely correct Mike. Both sides appear as though they come out of the same shoe box.
|
|
|
Post by valpomike on Jan 26, 2008 8:17:01 GMT -7
To all,
I learned many years ago, a candidate will tell each group, what they want to hear, and go on to another group and say it different, and most after, if they get into office, do another thing all together. This is a hard job to pick the best candidate, but we must try and do it.
Michael Dabrowski
|
|
Mary
Cosmopolitan
Posts: 934
|
Post by Mary on Feb 4, 2008 8:01:22 GMT -7
Having trouble deciding who to vote for in 2008? This will compare your answers with ALL candidates. I found this to be of interest .... It might not select the candidate you had expected! Click on the website below www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460
|
|
|
Post by valpomike on Feb 4, 2008 9:37:13 GMT -7
Mary,
Great site, and worked out just as I was thinking before. More people should take this test, they could learn more.
Michael Dabrowski
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Feb 6, 2008 10:55:36 GMT -7
Here is a picture from the democratic caucus in Idaho Falls: I.F. throws raucous caucus Nearly 1,000 people showed up to help pick a Democratic candidate Barack Obama won the Bonneville County event, getting 17 delegates to Hillary Clinton's 4.
|
|
|
Post by justjohn on Feb 6, 2008 11:12:39 GMT -7
raucous caucus - - That's good!!! ;D ;D You're a poet and you don't know it.
|
|
Pawian
European
Have you seen my frog?
Posts: 3,266
|
Post by Pawian on Feb 6, 2008 11:25:26 GMT -7
;D ;D Yes, it is interesting that so many Americans want to vote for a coloured* man . I have just watched the news, they devoted a lot of time to reporting pre-elections in the USA, Hillary is said to have got votes from women and Latin guys, while Obama allegedly got votes from white men. I still remember the times of Martin Luther King and the racial segregation still alive in 60s. Afterwards the political correctness took an upper hand. It blurred the situation so I didn`t really know if white Americans really gave up their racial bias or the rules of correctness just made them keep silent about it but didn`t eradicate the bias itself. The current political preferences suggest that it wasn`t only political correctness, that Americans really don`t see a problem in people of coloured race. What can you tell me about it? Am I naively wrong and simplifying the image? Or may be I am unfair about Americans who in most States always appreciated coloured people and only Southern States were an exception? *(or may be another, more proper name should be used for people with darker skin who have African roots like Hawaian-born Obama?)
|
|