Slashdot Mirror
Mock World Vote
beaverbrother writes "As an experiment, a group of engineers from around the world created us-election.com. People over 18 from around the world can vote on the site. Its amazing the difference between U.S. viewpoint and world viewpoint. Kerry leads on the site overwhelmingly, while Bush is ahead in the U.S."
This website brought new light to the many third parties we have in this country. I, for one, will be voting for Charles Jay, boxing promoter, and Marilyn Chambers, porn star, for the next President and Vice President of the United States.
God bless democracy.
You have to think though, that most of the rest of the world doesn't have access to, or at least doesn't pay attention to most of the campaigning. Much of the rest of the world will go against Bush in a heartbeat based on one or two issues because the rest doesn't affect them. Americans though are the ones that have judge based on not only all of the issues, but also how they want to be represented.
oh yeah, fp
The overwhelming majority of votes are from North America, where Kerry supposedly holds a commanding lead. This is just a great example of why web-polls are not scientific.
Its amazing the difference between U.S. viewpoint and world viewpoint.
It's only amazing if you haven't been paying any attention for the past 2.5 years or so.
However if you have, for example, watched some television news, you could probably predict the current state of their vote reasonably well.
no thanks
this is the deal...
BUSH:
870 Votes
20%
KERRY:
3,154 Votes
72%
how does this match the story text of "Kerry leads on the site overwhelmingly, while Bush is ahead in the U.S."?
Seriously, how can you compare this to a real poll among a representive portion of U.S. population (even if there is a "people who own phones" bias in our polls)?
According to the results at the current moment, bush only has 20%, while Kerry has 72%. I guess the slashdotting brought in the liberal(progressive) crowd to the site.
I'm voting for Badnarik and the Libertarian Party.
Chris
But already after 5 posted comments, Kerry leads overwhelmingly with 72% against 20% for Bush in the US as well ...
...because of its inherent flaws:
-you have to know about the site as opposed to the General Election where basically EVERYONE knows how and where to vote
-there is no true validation of age, so you will no doubt see many votes representing MANY underaged voters
-you could vote multiple times because there is no specific validation
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
This is such a sham. I don't see a single rigged Diebold machine!
Read the descriptions of George Bush and John Kerry. Kerry is described in glowing terms, as the Vietnam war hero who led the fight against the war, while Bush consistently supports tax cuts "despite the increasing budget deficit".
Kerry is described as being for free trade and "led the effort" for permanent normal trade relations with China, and sponsored a bill to commit $100 million to fight AIDS in Africa.
While giving Kerry glowing credit for these modest proposals, the article refuses to mention the $15 billion in African AIDS assistance proposed by President Bush in his last State of the Union address. And, of course, it does not point out that Kerry is more for "fair trade" than "free trade".
It seems to me that most peoples biggest problem with Bush is the fact that he invaded Iraq, yet it seems that Iraqies themselves prefer Bush by what would be considered a landslide. (I myself voted for Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik)
We want what is best for us. That, according to the common polls right now, is viewed as Bush. The rest of the world wants what is best for them. They want the hand outs which are going away under Bush, but is perceived to continue under Kerry as he is viewed as more socialist than Bush. People are voting for their self-interest.
"All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power." - Ashleigh Brilliant
"Its amazing the difference between U.S. viewpoint and world viewpoint."
I see no reason that a citizens and residents of foreign countries would vote in our best interest. Maybe they'd vote in their best interest, and maybe their best interest would coincide with ours, but that seems far from likely. It's almost like I decide to give you check rights on my bank accounts. Yeah, you might use those rights to pay my bills for me, but you might equally well use my account to pay your bills. Given human nature, I think that the latter is more likely than the former.
So, the fact that foreign countries concerned about U.S. "dominance" would elect a president going for some kind of vague international consensus before acting doesn't seem like a suprise at all.
Imagine you live far away from the U.S. Most of your news comes from the clearly biased BBC (remember the big battle they lost with Tony Blair, when it turned out there reporter misquoted the expert who wound up committing suicide) or Al Jazeera. Then you stumble on to this site.
You read the descriptions of George Bush and John Kerry. Kerry is described in glowing terms, as the Vietnam war hero who led the fight against the war, while Bush consistently supports tax cuts "despite the increasing budget deficit".
Kerry is described as being for free trade and "led the effort" for permanent normal trade relations with China, and sponsored a bill to commit $100 million to fight AIDS in Africa. While giving Kerry glowing credit for these modest proposals, the article refuses to mention the $15 billion in African AIDS assistance proposed by President Bush in his last State of the Union address. And, of course, it does not point out that Kerry is more for "fair trade" than "free trade".
How would you wind up voting then? The electorate works just like computers it follows the old GIGO rule. If you put garbage in, you get garbage out. Fortunately in the U.S. there are plenty of news media outlets to get information to counteract blatant untruths, but the rest of the world is not always so fortunate.
Top 10 Reasons to Vote for John Kerry:
10. John Kerry would handle the war in Iraq differently. I think.
9. He's got better hair.
8. John Kerry will personally create thousands of jobs in America.
7. He has a plan for America's future. I think.
6. George Bush stole the last election.
5. I think John Kerry may have served in Vietnam.
4. George Bush didn't go to Vietnam, AND he skipped a physical!
3. The french people and the rest of the world all like him best.
2. Didn't he get some medals in Vietnam?
1. He's Not George Bush! (TM)
Top 10 Reasons to Vote for George Bush:
10. George Bush is Tough on Terrorism.(TM)
9. He supports educating children.
8. George Bush freed all those Afgan and Iraqi people. Personally.
7. He will lower your taxes.
6. George Bush was President on September 11th, 2001.
5. John Kerry's medals are fakes.
4. Those CBS memos were forged, duh.
3. The french people and the rest of the world all hate him most.
2. He's not as rich as John Kerry.
1. George Bush will keep America safe.
You probably shouldn't click this.
Did anyone else notice that Parker was winnin by a landslide in the carribean? What's up with that? Is Parker from that area of the world or is he famous there?
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
It's hard to believe that the sampling is any good when this site's results have Kerry up 72% to 20% among USA voters..
George W. is a feared man. He doesn't lay any bed of crap about what his intentions are, or what he's going to do. We've gone through these four years knowing exactly what he was up to, and he's done it whether we protest it or not. This is the reason for fear.
Fear leads to anger, anger leads to aggression, aggression leads to the dark side. They fear him, they are angry with him, and now, albeit puny, they've aggressively "voted" against him.
It's amusing, though. The votes online are mostly from the US, where it's more likely that the web surfing learned are going to put in a vote for Kerry, and the untech people don't have that representation.
As long as the dems don't pass a law that makes it legal for non-citizens to vote, we'll be ok. Take everything else with a grain of salt, and a shrug of the shoulders. In American politics, the opinion of the rest of the world amounts to about the same as toilet water.
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
- As with all web polls, it is totally unscientific.
- There is no real protection from people setting up vote-bots. Even kapchas (sp) don't offer real protection.
- There is no protection from people lying about their age, gender, or other factors.
- The source country can be manipulated if one has access to computers in different geographics. At most large companies this is easy - In my case I just change the proxy firewall my browser goes through to proxy.(country).(mycompanynamewhichi'mnotdisclosi
n g).com and voila, I am a voter from UK, or Israel, or any of several other countries our intranet spans.
Given all the above, and the lack of information or facts the site gives, posting it by the story pickers shows at best poor judgement for story selection, or at worst the story pickers are as desparate about Kerry's implosion as the main stream media is and are frantic to put up anything that supports Kerry.The reality is that control of Congress is not going to change with this election. The current administration is too efficient at implementing its agenda. I'd be saying this if they were all Democrats, too.
Getting opposite parties between Congress and the Presidency is one simple, overriding reason to vote for Kerry. Extremes at both ends will get blocked out by one party or the other. What *really* needs to get done will get done because both will work together on it.
Most of what both left and right really want to get done, doesn't really need to be done. The *real and immediate* needs of the country *will* get done, under thread of the voters' wrath. Unfortunately those less obvious *needs* probably won't get done, but they probably wouldn't have under same-party rule, either.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Because cheaters prosper they can monopolize. Monopolies enforce ignorance and discourage thought. Sheep follow dominance. Greed seduces the selfish.
And yet there is hope.
Bush fears your votes.
Cheap Labor Conservatives will go to great lengths to keep sheeple minds uncluttered (media refuses PAID ads, SS removes counter tshirts, administration hides history, freepers lie hysterically about draft dodgers). Why bother when they already 0wn the voting machines? Why so scared?
Because truth is infectious.
Bush fears your votes.
This is the first time I heard about this. I'm thinking it is being promoted in more liberal circles.
Also shows that these web polls are very inaccurate and can be padded just by promoting in certain places.
Post this same link on Rush Limbaugh's website and watch the numbers change in the other direction.
66% of respondents who claim to be from Iraq say they prefer bush. In fact, it's the only other country other then Israel where a majority are Bush supporters (the US tally now sits at 70% Kerry).
I don't think that's too accurate, though.
By the way, anyone else think it's ironic that this site only comes in English?
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Oddly enough most of the U.S. election poll are based on result from interviews with less than 1,000 people.
The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
I have had this discussion with many people already. It goes something like this:
"I just read a study that showed that some tremendous number of people abroad would vote for Kerry over Bush" (some university of maryland professor did that study.)
"Huh? It's OUR election."
"Yes, but what the rest of the world thinks DOES matter."
"Not in our election."
"Yes if the votes will influence how the world will see us. Fewer people hating us is a good thing. Both for better security and for better economic relations. Image is everything. Ask any businessman."
"Explain."
"People have to be persuaded to hate us and want to kill us. They are not born that way. If it is really obvious that we are a wonderful nation -- so obvious that any susceptible kid will likely realize it -- then we are making the population of to-be-terrorists-and-general-america-haters smaller. That is good. As for economics -- the more people like america the more they are willing to buy american stuff and sell stuff to america. pretty simple stuff."
"but we shouldn't have to buy everyone's love. why should we spend money helping them? it's not our fault they are poor and can't even govern themselves!"
"okay. simple math. if we can reduce the need for future wars by half (by bettering our image) then any amount we spend that is less than 1/2 the cost of a war is us spending less money in the long term. not to mention the lives saved."
"hmm... but you can't know that it will reduce future wars."
"true. we can't really know. a lot of things are not quantitative. the reduced possiblity of war due to our money spent to improve our image is one of the. that doesn't mean they are not important. it just means that more people need to think about it so we can come up with a better estimate and an even better appreciation for it. wars might be easier to calculate mathmatically... but they also cost a considerable amount more both monetarily and in terms of human life."
sometimes it works. sometimes it doesn't. i don't have a lot of time so i don't know if i'll respond to any responses but i promise i'll read them. please try to stay civil.
What comes first, finding a teacher or becoming a student?
BetaVote.com does the same thing.
I'm just always made so sad when the Constitution Party, the party that takes seriously the ideas of the Founding Fathers and the importance of limited constitutional governemnt loses to the socialists... Sigh.
Considering the the we are one of the very few countries that has the freedom of the press written into our core documents, and even one of the fewer yet whow actually respect that right, I am not surprised that the rest of the world thinks John Kerry is better.
For one, the rest of the world doesn't have access to the opposition voice of CNN and CBS. That means they never hear the other side of the story. For another, the rest of the world is actually submitted to the press that their government endorses, if not writes itself.
One of the freest societies in the world - South Korea - even has problems with the press. For instance, several stories of key importance to the South Korean people have never reached their ears. Take the latest scandal over the gold medal in the Olympics. All of my relatives and friends in South Korea never heard that the judges missed an extra turn by the South Korean that would've docked the South Korean by even more points. In other words, they should be grateful that the judges stood by their decision.
And personally, as an American, I am upset that we would even ask what the rest of the world thinks! This isn't a beauty contest, this is about securing our freedom now and in future generations. Let the other countries worry about their own freedom, because we have enough on our plate right now.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
Kerry and Bush are running neck and neck in Iran!
Latest values on site show Kerry WAY out front in every country INCLUDING the U.S. So, looks like it's in the bag for Kerry. Yup, he's got it made. It's a done deal. Slam-dunk. Touch-down. Game-over. Might as well start planning the inauguration. Or running for re-election.
...
See ya on November 3rd
[Insert pithy quote here]
Thank God we live in America, not "the world".
--riney
Heh. Have it one way, he's cowering in a classroom. Have it another, and he's not paying attention to education.
He was safe enough in a classroom, I imagine. There isn't much anyone could have done during the attack. I think that his actions following were appropriate enough.
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
So whereas Europeans (rightfully!!! --Added so that someone can mod me flamebait if he wants to) like to blame US citizens for their ignorance of the rest of the world, this shows that my fellow Germans are not much better informed about US politics.
The system relies on self-reporting to determine what country you are in. It just let me (in the U.S.) register and vote from Denmark. And then it let me register again and vote from Iraq. So there's no guarantee that U.S.-based Democratic activists aren't casting votes for Kerry left and right all over the world.
People outside the U.S. have a different agenda. What they want has no correlation to what is best for the citizens of the United States. For instance, someone with a dislike of America might favor a weak, incompetent candidate in the hopes that he might diminish America's position in the world. Likewise, Americans might favor a candidate for the French presidency who would be a yes-man and kowtow to all of the United States' policies. A French voter, however, would likely not share this priority.
Not accurate for anything other than registering the views of those who choose to participate, at any rate. There is an extreme self-selection bias, for one thing.
And most such polls on hotly-contested issues such as the U.S. presidential race can be quickly overwhelmed and influenced by campaign activists for each side.
Who would have known that people in New Caledonia loved David Cobb so much?
Amazingly, they don't. Why? Because some jackhole from the US just registered a vote as though he lived there. Hell, I did it twice.
Real useful, this site is.
But who fears President Bush? I would suggest that those that have had deals with countries that support terrorists.
It has been proven beyond all doubt that France, Germany Russia and many other members of the U.N. (Including Kofi Annan) were profiting from the 'Oil for Food' program. The two main countries not involved in the 'Oil for Food' scam were the U.S. and the U.K. Also not involved are the 30 some other countries that are supporting the U.S. in it's 'unilateral' action to stop terrorists.
To those that suggest that George W. Bush and his supports hold the minority opinion should remember this quote by Andrew Jackson: "One man with courage makes a majority."
Heh. Have it one way, he's cowering in a classroom. Have it another, and he's not paying attention to education.
Both, you assume he could read that childrens book. When the twin towers were attacked pom-pom-Bushie was the child left behind.
He was safe enough in a classroom, I imagine. There isn't much anyone could have done during the attack.
Is that the Republican ideal for leadership? Hiding in a grade school classroom? If pom-pom-Bushie hadn't dodged the draft maybe he would have had some Kerry-like combat experience. Maybe pom-pom-Bushie would have done more than stare blankly like a newbie and wait for someone to lead him by the nose.
I think that his actions following were appropriate enough.
What, running and hiding? Protecting his Saudi backers? Abandoning the pursuit of Al Qaeda? Establishing Stalinistic domestic policies?
My, such a turfy useful idiot.
When asked the follow up question the trend was about the same. Do you want a strong American President or a weak American president? The poll came out about the same with a weak presiedent (John Kerry is one) leading over a strong president (Like George Bush). Like American wants to let the rest of the world walk all over us.....
Yeah, _real_ amazing.
Wow! It's a game of "How do you feel?" I can contribute to that!
How do you feel about the fact that Bush's education improvements in Texas were at least partly Fraud?
How do you feel about George W. Bush holding hands in public with Saudi Arabia's "Prince Bandar", especially since al Qaeda's prime complaint is that the U.S. government is interfering with Saudi politics, and the U.S. government is, in fact, doing that, partly through this man the Bush family calls "Bandar Bush"? (See the network TV footage shown in the movie "Fahrenheit 9/11" for the hand holding.)
How do you feel about the fact that the U.S. government has engaged in 24 wars since WW2? The U.S. government seems to create fear to get support from the people, so rich people can profit from violence.
How do you feel about the fact that Bush and Cheney are the most arrested U.S. leaders in history? Bush says he has been arrested 3 times, once for the very serious crime of driving while drunk. Cheney has been arrested at least twice, both times for driving while drunk:
George W. Bush DUI, 1st record of arrest
George W. Bush DUI, 2nd record of arrest
Dick Cheney DUI, record of 1st arrest
Dick Cheney DUI, record of 2nd arrest
DUI means "Driving Under the Influence" of alcohol. A DUI is a conviction for a very serious crime, a crime that endangers everyone on the road, a crime that often kills people. A DUI conviction means that the driver felt such a strong need to be drunk that he or she was willing to take a chance of murder.
How do you feel about the fact that family life is so stressful in the U.S. that children turn to drugs to try to cope:
"The daughter of Florida Gov. Jeb Bush was arrested...
George W. Bush's daughters seem to be imitating their alcoholic father. The BBC article, Alcohol sentence for Bush daughter, says that "Barbara and Jenna Bush were both charged." Ask yourself, why do these teenage women feel they need a drug like alcohol so badly that they are willing to break the law?
So far Kerry has 100% of the Cambodia vote. Must of made a really big impression during his Christmas visit there.
[Insert pithy quote here]
There's merit to that argument.
Your argument that the rest of the world is exposed to more of the issues in the American campaign is not only wrong but irrelevant.
Whatever issues they consider, Americans will choose based on what they think most likely to benefit themselves, Americans, and non-Americans will choose based what they think most likely to benefit themselves, non-Americans.
Whether correctly or not, the French and Russians tend to blame their waning importance in the world on America. Certainly the Chinese feel that if it weren't for America, the violent crushing of Taiwan's multiparty democracy would be a fait accompli. Yes, the choice of American President seems to have a big impact on them, so you think that means there's merit in letting them have some say in who should lead America.
By that argument, wouldn't there be some merit in letting the opposing team have some say in who your team's quarterback will be in the Superbowl? Wouldn't your choice have a big impact on them? Isn't that criterion sufficient to give the idea merit? I hear this silly blather all of the time from "enlightened" liberals. "Neanderthal" conservatives don't fall for it (though they fall for a lot of other foolishness).
And while it's true that there are many ways in which nations cooperate as well as compete, there is no reason to assume that the decisions of the vastly more numerous "happily uninformed, strongly-opinionated and emotionally-swayed peasants" in the rest of the world would put helping Americans high on their priority lists. There are plenty of people in the world who would argue that they were only being cooperative when they concluded that, "it would be better for BOTH of us if things were better for ME and worse for YOU."
It's not who is "exposed to more issues" or who is influenced in some way by the choice that matters. If you aren't motivated to help Americans, Americans shouldn't be very interested in your electoral preferences, except in the form of a warning. If the French, Russians, or Chinese felt that Kerry would be best for *them*, would that automatically make Kerry more likely to be best for Americans?
[And if you reply by simply bashing Bush, you are logic impaired. I OPPOSE Bush, but that is irrelevant to the above argument.]
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
I noticed that Kerry and Bush are neck-and-neck in Mexico. Then I noticed that each had 13 votes -- that's even more meaningless than the US vote count at the moment.
So not that it matters much (and I suspect the numbers the site comes up with won't get too much media play)... but does anyone know what measures they're using to prevent ballot-stuffing, or lying about the country you're in?
I know someone who was part of Dick Cheney's social circle when he worked at Halliburton. She said he was a heavy drinker and womanizer.
George Bush has said he had a serious problem with alcohol.
Both have the personalities of people who are dry alcoholics. Stopping drinking does not completely change the alcoholic's personality.
The Bush daughters have serious problems with drugs, not minor teenage experimentation problems, like you seem to have had.
Being an alcoholic is very different from being a teenage experimental drinker.
To quote the parent:
Now, imagine replacing the word survey with the word election, and then not caring about the accuracy but rather about the changes you can make.Of course, I'm sad to see the candidate I would vote for in the real election only has 5% of the vote. After reading the summaries of all of the candidates, Nader is getting my vote this time around (it was Brown in the last election).
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
Drill baby drill - on Mars
Because we all know that other countries around the world have only the best interests of the U.S. at heart and would vote for the man who would make America even more powerful and prosperous.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
Really? Can you provide any information to back this up? ie. actual statistics, as opposed to blogs. I'd heard exactly the opposite.
we can settle this here... check out iraqs votes!
n =a si&country=iq
http://www.us-election.com/wv-results.php?regio
What about Swaziland? Apparantly their opinion doesn't count.
One thing I've learned: Most people in the U.S. know very, very little about what their government is doing. There is a strong component of fantasy, and very little factual knowledge.
This would be far more informative if they used approval voting: for each candidate, do you approve or disapprove? Maybe there should be a no opinion option as well. It would be nice to see each candidate's approval rating by region independent of the other candidates who might be running.
I also wonder how many respondents in Iraq are really American military personnel or contractors (or ballot stuffers who don't really live in Iraq). It is possible that Bush is popular with a few of the less vocal non-AK47-weilding demographic of Iraq.
Here are the results of an actual (controversial) poll of iraqis. One interesting result:
-jim
Just read the two provided bios of Bush and Kerry; there's not any doubt that the site is heavily tilted toward the latter:
(Particularly one-sided parts are bolded)
Bush:
President Bush has built his re-election campaign around his War on Terror and an economic plan based on his consistent support of tax cuts and opposition to new taxes despite the increasing budget deficit.
He supports:
* A Constitutional amendment to ban marriage between two people of the same sex
* Pre-emptive military action anywhere in the world to prevent potential threats toward the United States
* Addressing the budget deficit, if at all, by cutting government spending (except for defense spending) rather than raising taxes
* Delivering Federally funded social services and poverty aid through religious and other non-profit organizations
* Opening more forests in the US to logging and opening more Federal land to oil exploration, including the Arctic National Wilderness Reserve
He opposes:
* Permitting US citizens to be held accountable by international institutions that infringe on the sovereignty of the US, such as the International Court of Justice in The Hague
* Abortion, except where necessary to save the mother's life
* Most restrictions on gun ownership although he favors renewal of the current ban on assault weapons
Kerry:
Senator John Kerry became a national political firgure in the 1970's, when he was one of the organizers of Vietnam Veterans Against the War. A war hero himself, his called the Vietnam War a "mistake" and demanded that the US leave Vietnam. As a Senator, he has supported free trade. He led the floor fight for permanent normal trade relations with China and sponsored a bill to commit $100 million per year to a fund to fight AIDS in Africa. He has won the support of most labor and environmental groups.
He also supports:
* a woman's personal right to choose whether to have an abortion
* President Bush's War on Terrorism
* Restoring the Bush cuts to the Clean Air Act
* Increasing use of solar and wind power
* Some increased restrictions on guns and firearms, such as limits on sales of guns at gun shows
* Earned legalization of status for illegal immigrants to the US who work and pass a background check with amnesty for any illegals in the US for more than 5 or 6 years
* Repeal of part of President Bush's tax cuts to help pay down the deficit
* A continued but declining American presence in Iraq until multi-national organizations are prepared to provide the needed stability
He opposes:
* Same sex marriage
* Unilateralism in international affairs, favoring a multilateral approach with international institutions like the United Nations and with America's traditional allies
* The increased trade embargo with Cuba
* Limitations on welfare benefits for the children of legal immigrants
I wonder who is running on the "I hate the Bush and the US" ticket.
The US-pig is a disgusting animal whose only priority in life is luxury at the expense of the rest of the world.
Guys, you're really starting to get to us. Fix it, or we'll have to.
I'd vote for the Prohibition Party because I don't like Americans.
Just kidding.
Plays violent online games as: Nerfherder76
Interesting but irrelevant, seems like political fluff. I do think it is flawed, though, in that the site offers links to other sites with information on the candidates. People should do their own research without being pointed to any particular list of sites. Opens the door to slanting.
Slashdot - Where the slash is most definitely to the left.
Hot off the press: The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty.
Another subject: An alcoholic told me that alcoholics use cocaine because that helps them drink more.
Seriously, the US numbers put Kerry ahead of Bush 3-1, which makes it about as reliable as a /. poll.
How come I, Anonymous Coward, am not on the site as a presidential nominee?
And what's wrong with that? If we were continuously at the beck and call of the rest of the world, we'd no longer have our freedom. The US is the most powerful country in the world. I think that instead of bitching about it, maybe the other countries would try to notice the reasons why we are the most powerful.
Face it. If the opinion of the rest of the world mattered in American politics, the US would effectively be flushed down the toilet.
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
... it's OK to talk to yourself, but when you start having a conversation with yourself, it's time to either switch shrinks or up your dosage ...
My affinity for hyperbole knows no bounds
My, what a savage troll.
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
You didn't mention the real story, in the very article you linked:
Quote: Kelley "has notes to corroborate both these conversations," Herz said, and Bush "understood that anything she said could be used for publication."
And:
"Ms. Kelley met with Sharon Bush over the course of a four-hour lunch on April 1, 2003, at the Chelsea Bistro in Manhattan."
And:
The next day, Herz said, Kelley had a 90-minute phone conversation with Bush in the presence of Peter Gethers, her Doubleday editor. Gethers confirmed the accuracy of the statement yesterday.
George W. Bush has ADMITTED his alcoholism. Alcoholics use cocaine to heighten their alcohol experience. The story is at least plausible.
You don't know alcoholics, I think. Call AA and ask them if you can speak to a recovered alcoholic.
Not beyond all doubt. There is good evidence suggesting the food for oil program "scandal" was blown out of proportion by conservative anti-UN media, possibly as a diversion from shady coropate involvement.
The blame lies not with the UN, but the member states, who set up the program and knew the contracts very well. They monitored the program and ran the comittees. So said Dennis Halliday, former UN Undersecretary for humanitarian aid. French Ambassador Jean-David Levitte noted in the LA Times that the full contracts were only circulated to the United States and Britain, which had expressly asked to review them. The UN's complicity in the scandal is based on an accusation by Ahmed Chalabi, based on documents found in the Iraq Oil Ministry, that are still to be made publically available, AFAIK. Also forgotten is that the program did actually save lives that would've been lost during the harsh sanctions. Investigations into corporate connections in the "scandal" have allegedly been obstructed by the Bush administration.
Also, please make a distinction between the governments of the countries you list and their citizens. Although I am personally opposed to Bush and many of his beliefs, I do not make the mistake of assuming all americans are of his mindset.