That's exactly what capitalism does - hands control of the economy to a totalitarian regime.
Great, more slogans. Perhaps if you tried to substantiate your baseless assumptions with some sort of supporting evidence, I could debate the matter with you...
Communism is a response to this
So you admit that communism is reactionary? Interesting.
and puts the economy back under democratic control
Out of an immense number of communist revolutions and regimes, how many times has this happened? 0.
where it belongs.
Please prove your assertions.
You mean like the US government? Your criticisms of communism apply just as well to your favourite 'leaders of the free world'.
I'm all for reducing the size of the US government (I'm probably willing to go a lot further than you in this regard). I fail to see your point. The US government is just another socialist institution with far too much control over the economy. The fact that there are countries which are even worse does not make me worship the US (which hasn't had the world's freest economy in a long time).
What you are missing is that in a democracy, the people actually decide how the resources are used.
Who decides in capitalism? Magic fairies? If Bill Gates woke up tomorrow and decided take all his money and possessions and build the world's biggest dildo (which I'm assuming nobody would want to buy), he would soon find himself bankrupt.
You say that coure only outcome of an attempt at such a reorganisation is a totalitarian regime.
I "say" that the empirical evidence suggests something. You claim that the empirical evidence is worthless. I'm glad that you took time off from your Flat Earth Society meeting and your Intelligent Design club to share you wisdom with me.
I call bullshit!
Please back up your assertions.
You can't possibly say that this is the only outcome.
I guess you're right. Theoretically speaking, if I drop a rock, I cannot say that it will certainly fall. Certainly I have done this many times, and surely it has fallen before, but it might not the next time. After all, we cannot prove "cause and effect." It is an assumption on which we create our model of the world. Perhaps it is all a coincidence, and "cause and effect" really does not exist.
Actually, it was a joke from Steven Colbert's speech at the White House's Press Dinner of some kind a few weeks ago.
I thought I saw John Stewart use it on his show a while back. I could be mistaken though (I did use the term "I believe" to indicate my less than full confidence in my assertion). Perhaps I confused the two as Colbert used to be on Stewart's show.
And as such, I'm guessing he was just joking.
I acknowledged that it was supposed to be a joke in my original post.:)
It is unacceptable that stem cell research is being outlawed pretty much everywhere.
Stem cell researched is not "being outlawed pretty much everywhere." In the US, there is a ban on federally funding stem cell research (which means the federal government can't spend its tax "revenue" on stem cell research. Individual states, rich people, and venture capitalists are free to fund as much stem cell research as they want.
Laws shoudl be made about what is allowed to be done with stem cell research, for instance that you cant' clone whole humans, that seems nasty
Why? What right do you have to prevent private citizens from playing around with clumps of cells. You are no less authoritarian than those you claim to despise. The government has no right dictating to scientists what avenues of research they can or cannot pursue. I don't see how attempting to produce a full clone is any more morally questionable than people with hereditary diseases procreating (and the government doesn't do anything about that). In the worst case scenario, you just end up with a "broken" human being. There are plenty of those walking around at the moment, and the world has not collapsed yet.
The fact that many contemporary liberals have an affinity for incessantly regurgitating slogans and "jokes" (like the one above, by John Stewart, I believe) is one fact which definitely does not have a strong liberal bias. Since your assertion claims that all facts "have a strong liberal bias" (which I define as presenting liberals and positions held by liberals in a positive light), we encounter a contradiction; therefore, your assertion is incorrect. Quod erat demonstrandum.
Yet why should she be killed when there were people who were willing to take care of her?
Were they willing to finance her care completely out of their own pockets? If so, I agree with you. Otherwise, resources are finite and precious, and there is no sense wasting the state's resources even more than they are currently being wasted.
Just notice that even such "harmless" decisions as "1 child per family" program in China have some not-quite-expected consequences where there many, many more boys being born than girls.
There was nothing unexpected about that. Any moron could have figured out what was going to happen, and I'm sure the people who designed and implemented the policy were fully aware of it. The imbalance is not as large as you probably believe though (especially as the one child policy is enforced selectively (mostly in the cities) and not everyone is willing to murder their children).
They are heading to a big social crisis in 15-20 years this way (and they know it). Expect arrival of single horny chinese young men hunting for your daughters wherever you live.
If only there was something a government like China's could do with a surplus of young men... like send them off to die in some war to expand the borders of the Empire...
Up until the last 250 years or so just about everywhere was a totalitarian dictatorship
Do you even know what totalitarian means? Please read this. Until the 20th century, most states lacked both the resources and the desire to "regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior." Statist communism, on the other hand, required by definition that "nearly every aspect of public and private behavior" is regulated to ensure an equal outcome for all.
Was Hitler more evil because the jew-extermination was part of an ideology?
Stalin was quite the Jew hater and murderer himself. See this, this, this, and this. If Stalin didn't murder as many Jews as Hitler, it was only because Stalin died earlier than he planned.
Possibly because communism is a political concept that has very little to do with totalitarianism which can be allied to any economic philosophy.
Communism requires totalitarian control of the economy (and a big, powerful government to do it). Once you go down that path, well, we all know where it seems to end up... (historically speaking).
P.S. If anyone wants to reply with how the big, totalitarian government is only a transitory requirement which can be dismanteled once the communist utopia has been established, well, we all know how historically acurate that theory has proven itself to be...
So your point is what exactly? That Russia should now join the WTO simply to reaffirm its negative reputation for totalitarianism and suppression? What a brilliant plan.
All the crimes committed by the Russian/Soviet regimes are completely comparable to joining the WTO... I tip my hat to your understanding of history and your profound sense of historical perspective. In fact, if they don't join the WTO, I will personally forgive them for everything they have done to me, my family, and my ancestors, because by not joining the WTO they will have prevented a crime on the same scale and of the same atrocity as those they have perpetrated against me and my family, and millions and millions of others just like me.
Our copyright system is very peculiar, but very good for business so it will be imposed on the whole world.
Yes, no country in the world has a copyright system resembling anything similar to what is currently in place in the US... (see Bern Convention and this).
It is only piracy according to our intellectual property laws, which have very little philosophical or pragamtic basis.
Exactly! (see above).
I live in Russia and I don't really want my country to join the WTO, and it's a very widespread attitude here.
No doubt; after all, your management of your economy has thus far led to Russia having a GDP equivalent to the Netherlands (and I'm not talking per capita), and a GNP equivalent to Belgium. With such great economic results, I can see why you are so wary of listening to what the WTO has to say...
Our politicians have an incessent need to butt their noses in everyone else's business, despite the citizen base not wanting them to do so.
Russian leaders on the other hand has a long history of not butting their noses in everyone else's business... Just ask any Latvian, Lithuanian, Estonian, Fin, Armenian, Georgian, Romanian, Pole, Bulgarian, Ukrainian, and a whole bunch of other people you've never heard off because they were swallowed by the Soviet/Russian Empire. Just ask anyone who has been a citizen of the Soviet Union or any Eastern Bloc country about how Russian leaders like to keep to themselves, and never interfere in other people's business. Do you not even remember the Orange Revolution? (I understand a lot of that other stuff may have been before you were born and you never read any history books, but the Orange Revolution was pretty recent, and I'm sure it got some play in even your crappy media).
Claiming that only reason www-page using english and dollars as currency and located outside uk/usa just to ease piracy is bad excuse.
Dollars aren't used in the UK, and English is the official language of a lot of countries other than "uk/usa" (a lot more than you probably think).
Russia has over 30 official languages, so maybe english(although its not one of official ones) is used just for compatibility reasons?
Russia has all those languages because it is an empire. Russian is the only official federal language. Furthermore, pretty much everyone in Russia learns Russian in school, whereas English is mostly only for the privileged, so English would not be a better lingua franca for Russia than Russian.
Perhaps dollars are used just to ease the price comparison against iTunes et al?
The iTunes Store isn't available in Russia.
Russia is setting up to be a pretty big economic power.
Yeah, right above that "big economic power" the Netherlands, and quite a bit behind that other "big economic power" Mexico. Link. If we go by GNP, things are (as expected) even worse. By GNP, Russia is quite a bit below the Netherlands, and only a bit better than that "big economic power" Belgium. Link.
For simplicity's sake (!) we'll ignore US laws which bias our elections to favor only Republicans and Democrats. We'll also ignore that under the US Constitution the antiquated and undemocratic Electoral College selects the president and not the American people ('cause the American people clearly chose Gore in 2000).... As a Brit I don't expect you to be familiar with such dirty details like that.
In the British Parliamentary System (used in a lot more countries than you may think), someone can become the Prime Minister with less than 1% of the popular vote (theoretically). People elect representatives to the House of Commons depending upon their ridings ("Congressional district"). The leader of the party with the largest number of representatives in the House of Commons becomes the Prime Minister (so this person was not voted in by a simple majority popular vote, but rather by electing a representative in your respective district). The current Prime Minister of Canada, for example, only got 36% of the popular vote and tony Blair only got 35.3% last time around. These are not uncommon occurrences; on the contrary, they are quite common in parliamentary democracies (sometimes the % of the popular vote is even lower!). Compared to this, 49% (probably the worst case scenario for what portion of the popular vote Bush got in either elections) doesn't seem all that bad.
But it was the BBC's own Greg Palast whose investigations proved that the 2000 and 2004 elections were blatantly rigged using a wide variety of techniques -- ground-breaking journalism confirmed by others much later.
After reading that chap's website ("The theft of '08 and other tales of class combat in a dying regime"), my faith in the Beeb has "skyrocketed" (assuming this poor sod actually works or worked for the Beeb). If he was able to categorically prove your claim, pray tell why no major news reporting agency, eager to stick it to Bush especially if their main audience is outside the US (or inside for that matter... 30% approval rating after all) has picked it up thus far?
P.S. I browsed the site you're pimping in your sig (scholarsfor911truth.org). Too bad you/they weren't able to find any "webdevelopersfor911truth" to create a decent web site.:P
Well American corporations would stop selling goods,
In capitalism, you don't make money by not selling any goods. The US government would have to impose a trade embargo to forcefully prevent corporations from selling to Swedes. This move would piss off a lot of people, would get a lot of negative press, etc.
US would use allies in the EU to apply similar pressure.
What allies? Even if there were any (Poland?), the EU regulations almost certainly prevent one EU member from embargoing another.
Oh, and Hossain thought the same thing, that there was nothing the US could do.
The US tried all sorts of diplomatic maneuvers against Hussein. They tried embargoing Hussein. In the end, it changed nothing for Hussein. He stayed in power, and his personal life did not become much worse. It wasn't until the US used its military that they actually accomplished anything. After Gulf War II, and the way it was portrayed by the media and received by the public, the US won't be using military force anytime soon, and they certainly won't be using it against Sweden, so I fail to see your point.
The US can't convince Iran to give up work on its nuclear program (using either incentives or threats). The US State Department whines about all sorts of things to no avail all the time, and the US proposes all sorts of motions in the UN General Assembly and Security Council that get nowhere. If the government of Sweden doesn't want to do as the US asks, what is the US going to do? The US is a paper tiger; from time to time, it is also a bogeyman brought up to stir up the people -- nothing more, nothing less.
They threaten every democratic society they influence with their agenda.
Because the concepts of intellectual property and copyright were invented by the US, and the only people who benefit from those concepts are Americans (it's funny that you are actually implying that Americans are the only ones who produce decent intellectual property).
I think that, for starters, the US should be excommunicated from the U.N. and N.A.T.O. alliances for their behavior.
The US is supposed to pay 1/4 of the UN's expenses, and they get what in return? I don't think they'd mind all that much. As for NATO, the US provides almost all the logistical support for most NATO missions; it would be quite funny to see NATO try to operate without the US. Considering how and why NATO was formed, it would also be quite humorous to see the US kicked out of that one.
Differentiating by making iPod users seem like sheep [idont.com] is a pretty effective idea.... perhaps!
The funny thing is that anyone who changes their mind based on this stupid marketing campaign really is a sheep.
Because they cant get American labor to do it, they'd have to hire migrant workers. The irony.
Not a bad plan. Just make sure that the people who are building the fence are on the south side of it when they seal it up.
On another note, maybe the US could hire Mexican citizens living in Mexico to stand on the border and shoot Mexicans trying to cross over into the US. I'm sure quite a few people would be willing to do it, especially if the price was right. No one is thinking up creative solutions anymore...
Hmmm... what I would give if that woulda happened before Bush.. cuz ya have to be a US Citizen to be Pres, I believe..
George W. Bush was born in New Haven, Connecticut. Do you want to give Connecticut to Mexico as well?
Slashdot Mirror
That's exactly what capitalism does - hands control of the economy to a totalitarian regime.
Great, more slogans. Perhaps if you tried to substantiate your baseless assumptions with some sort of supporting evidence, I could debate the matter with you...
Communism is a response to this
So you admit that communism is reactionary? Interesting.
and puts the economy back under democratic control
Out of an immense number of communist revolutions and regimes, how many times has this happened? 0.
where it belongs.
Please prove your assertions.
You mean like the US government? Your criticisms of communism apply just as well to your favourite 'leaders of the free world'.
I'm all for reducing the size of the US government (I'm probably willing to go a lot further than you in this regard). I fail to see your point. The US government is just another socialist institution with far too much control over the economy. The fact that there are countries which are even worse does not make me worship the US (which hasn't had the world's freest economy in a long time).
What you are missing is that in a democracy, the people actually decide how the resources are used.
Who decides in capitalism? Magic fairies? If Bill Gates woke up tomorrow and decided take all his money and possessions and build the world's biggest dildo (which I'm assuming nobody would want to buy), he would soon find himself bankrupt.
You say that coure only outcome of an attempt at such a reorganisation is a totalitarian regime.
I "say" that the empirical evidence suggests something. You claim that the empirical evidence is worthless. I'm glad that you took time off from your Flat Earth Society meeting and your Intelligent Design club to share you wisdom with me.
I call bullshit!
Please back up your assertions.
You can't possibly say that this is the only outcome.
I guess you're right. Theoretically speaking, if I drop a rock, I cannot say that it will certainly fall. Certainly I have done this many times, and surely it has fallen before, but it might not the next time. After all, we cannot prove "cause and effect." It is an assumption on which we create our model of the world. Perhaps it is all a coincidence, and "cause and effect" really does not exist.
Actually, it was a joke from Steven Colbert's speech at the White House's Press Dinner of some kind a few weeks ago.
:)
I thought I saw John Stewart use it on his show a while back. I could be mistaken though (I did use the term "I believe" to indicate my less than full confidence in my assertion). Perhaps I confused the two as Colbert used to be on Stewart's show.
And as such, I'm guessing he was just joking.
I acknowledged that it was supposed to be a joke in my original post.
It is unacceptable that stem cell research is being outlawed pretty much everywhere.
Stem cell researched is not "being outlawed pretty much everywhere." In the US, there is a ban on federally funding stem cell research (which means the federal government can't spend its tax "revenue" on stem cell research. Individual states, rich people, and venture capitalists are free to fund as much stem cell research as they want.
Laws shoudl be made about what is allowed to be done with stem cell research, for instance that you cant' clone whole humans, that seems nasty
Why? What right do you have to prevent private citizens from playing around with clumps of cells. You are no less authoritarian than those you claim to despise. The government has no right dictating to scientists what avenues of research they can or cannot pursue. I don't see how attempting to produce a full clone is any more morally questionable than people with hereditary diseases procreating (and the government doesn't do anything about that). In the worst case scenario, you just end up with a "broken" human being. There are plenty of those walking around at the moment, and the world has not collapsed yet.
The fact that many contemporary liberals have an affinity for incessantly regurgitating slogans and "jokes" (like the one above, by John Stewart, I believe) is one fact which definitely does not have a strong liberal bias. Since your assertion claims that all facts "have a strong liberal bias" (which I define as presenting liberals and positions held by liberals in a positive light), we encounter a contradiction; therefore, your assertion is incorrect. Quod erat demonstrandum.
Yet why should she be killed when there were people who were willing to take care of her?
Were they willing to finance her care completely out of their own pockets? If so, I agree with you. Otherwise, resources are finite and precious, and there is no sense wasting the state's resources even more than they are currently being wasted.
Just notice that even such "harmless" decisions as "1 child per family" program in China have some not-quite-expected consequences where there many, many more boys being born than girls.
There was nothing unexpected about that. Any moron could have figured out what was going to happen, and I'm sure the people who designed and implemented the policy were fully aware of it. The imbalance is not as large as you probably believe though (especially as the one child policy is enforced selectively (mostly in the cities) and not everyone is willing to murder their children).
They are heading to a big social crisis in 15-20 years this way (and they know it). Expect arrival of single horny chinese young men hunting for your daughters wherever you live.
If only there was something a government like China's could do with a surplus of young men... like send them off to die in some war to expand the borders of the Empire...
Up until the last 250 years or so just about everywhere was a totalitarian dictatorship
Do you even know what totalitarian means? Please read this. Until the 20th century, most states lacked both the resources and the desire to "regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior." Statist communism, on the other hand, required by definition that "nearly every aspect of public and private behavior" is regulated to ensure an equal outcome for all.
Was Hitler more evil because the jew-extermination was part of an ideology?
Stalin was quite the Jew hater and murderer himself. See this, this, this, and this. If Stalin didn't murder as many Jews as Hitler, it was only because Stalin died earlier than he planned.
Possibly because communism is a political concept that has very little to do with totalitarianism which can be allied to any economic philosophy.
Communism requires totalitarian control of the economy (and a big, powerful government to do it). Once you go down that path, well, we all know where it seems to end up... (historically speaking).
P.S. If anyone wants to reply with how the big, totalitarian government is only a transitory requirement which can be dismanteled once the communist utopia has been established, well, we all know how historically acurate that theory has proven itself to be...
So your point is what exactly? That Russia should now join the WTO simply to reaffirm its negative reputation for totalitarianism and suppression? What a brilliant plan.
All the crimes committed by the Russian/Soviet regimes are completely comparable to joining the WTO... I tip my hat to your understanding of history and your profound sense of historical perspective. In fact, if they don't join the WTO, I will personally forgive them for everything they have done to me, my family, and my ancestors, because by not joining the WTO they will have prevented a crime on the same scale and of the same atrocity as those they have perpetrated against me and my family, and millions and millions of others just like me.
Our copyright system is very peculiar, but very good for business so it will be imposed on the whole world.
Yes, no country in the world has a copyright system resembling anything similar to what is currently in place in the US... (see Bern Convention and this).
It is only piracy according to our intellectual property laws, which have very little philosophical or pragamtic basis.
Exactly! (see above).
I live in Russia and I don't really want my country to join the WTO, and it's a very widespread attitude here.
No doubt; after all, your management of your economy has thus far led to Russia having a GDP equivalent to the Netherlands (and I'm not talking per capita), and a GNP equivalent to Belgium. With such great economic results, I can see why you are so wary of listening to what the WTO has to say...
Our politicians have an incessent need to butt their noses in everyone else's business, despite the citizen base not wanting them to do so.
Russian leaders on the other hand has a long history of not butting their noses in everyone else's business... Just ask any Latvian, Lithuanian, Estonian, Fin, Armenian, Georgian, Romanian, Pole, Bulgarian, Ukrainian, and a whole bunch of other people you've never heard off because they were swallowed by the Soviet/Russian Empire. Just ask anyone who has been a citizen of the Soviet Union or any Eastern Bloc country about how Russian leaders like to keep to themselves, and never interfere in other people's business. Do you not even remember the Orange Revolution? (I understand a lot of that other stuff may have been before you were born and you never read any history books, but the Orange Revolution was pretty recent, and I'm sure it got some play in even your crappy media).
Claiming that only reason www-page using english and dollars as currency and located outside uk/usa just to ease piracy is bad excuse.
Dollars aren't used in the UK, and English is the official language of a lot of countries other than "uk/usa" (a lot more than you probably think).
Russia has over 30 official languages, so maybe english(although its not one of official ones) is used just for compatibility reasons?
Russia has all those languages because it is an empire. Russian is the only official federal language. Furthermore, pretty much everyone in Russia learns Russian in school, whereas English is mostly only for the privileged, so English would not be a better lingua franca for Russia than Russian.
Perhaps dollars are used just to ease the price comparison against iTunes et al?
The iTunes Store isn't available in Russia.
Russia is setting up to be a pretty big economic power.
Yeah, right above that "big economic power" the Netherlands, and quite a bit behind that other "big economic power" Mexico. Link. If we go by GNP, things are (as expected) even worse. By GNP, Russia is quite a bit below the Netherlands, and only a bit better than that "big economic power" Belgium. Link.
More importantly (for me), the first official release of Xubuntu (Xfce) is out.
For simplicity's sake (!) we'll ignore US laws which bias our elections to favor only Republicans and Democrats. We'll also ignore that under the US Constitution the antiquated and undemocratic Electoral College selects the president and not the American people ('cause the American people clearly chose Gore in 2000). ... As a Brit I don't expect you to be familiar with such dirty details like that.
... 30% approval rating after all) has picked it up thus far?
:P
In the British Parliamentary System (used in a lot more countries than you may think), someone can become the Prime Minister with less than 1% of the popular vote (theoretically). People elect representatives to the House of Commons depending upon their ridings ("Congressional district"). The leader of the party with the largest number of representatives in the House of Commons becomes the Prime Minister (so this person was not voted in by a simple majority popular vote, but rather by electing a representative in your respective district). The current Prime Minister of Canada, for example, only got 36% of the popular vote and tony Blair only got 35.3% last time around. These are not uncommon occurrences; on the contrary, they are quite common in parliamentary democracies (sometimes the % of the popular vote is even lower!). Compared to this, 49% (probably the worst case scenario for what portion of the popular vote Bush got in either elections) doesn't seem all that bad.
But it was the BBC's own Greg Palast whose investigations proved that the 2000 and 2004 elections were blatantly rigged using a wide variety of techniques -- ground-breaking journalism confirmed by others much later.
After reading that chap's website ("The theft of '08 and other tales of class combat in a dying regime"), my faith in the Beeb has "skyrocketed" (assuming this poor sod actually works or worked for the Beeb). If he was able to categorically prove your claim, pray tell why no major news reporting agency, eager to stick it to Bush especially if their main audience is outside the US (or inside for that matter
P.S. I browsed the site you're pimping in your sig (scholarsfor911truth.org). Too bad you/they weren't able to find any "webdevelopersfor911truth" to create a decent web site.
Well American corporations would stop selling goods,
In capitalism, you don't make money by not selling any goods. The US government would have to impose a trade embargo to forcefully prevent corporations from selling to Swedes. This move would piss off a lot of people, would get a lot of negative press, etc.
US would use allies in the EU to apply similar pressure.
What allies? Even if there were any (Poland?), the EU regulations almost certainly prevent one EU member from embargoing another.
Oh, and Hossain thought the same thing, that there was nothing the US could do.
The US tried all sorts of diplomatic maneuvers against Hussein. They tried embargoing Hussein. In the end, it changed nothing for Hussein. He stayed in power, and his personal life did not become much worse. It wasn't until the US used its military that they actually accomplished anything. After Gulf War II, and the way it was portrayed by the media and received by the public, the US won't be using military force anytime soon, and they certainly won't be using it against Sweden, so I fail to see your point.
The US can't convince Iran to give up work on its nuclear program (using either incentives or threats). The US State Department whines about all sorts of things to no avail all the time, and the US proposes all sorts of motions in the UN General Assembly and Security Council that get nowhere. If the government of Sweden doesn't want to do as the US asks, what is the US going to do? The US is a paper tiger; from time to time, it is also a bogeyman brought up to stir up the people -- nothing more, nothing less.
They threaten every democratic society they influence with their agenda.
Because the concepts of intellectual property and copyright were invented by the US, and the only people who benefit from those concepts are Americans (it's funny that you are actually implying that Americans are the only ones who produce decent intellectual property).
I think that, for starters, the US should be excommunicated from the U.N. and N.A.T.O. alliances for their behavior.
The US is supposed to pay 1/4 of the UN's expenses, and they get what in return? I don't think they'd mind all that much. As for NATO, the US provides almost all the logistical support for most NATO missions; it would be quite funny to see NATO try to operate without the US. Considering how and why NATO was formed, it would also be quite humorous to see the US kicked out of that one.
The Swedish national police website has been taken offline by a denial of service attack which started Thursday night.
Because nothing increases support for your cause like DoSing a police website...
Differentiating by making iPod users seem like sheep [idont.com] is a pretty effective idea.... perhaps!
The funny thing is that anyone who changes their mind based on this stupid marketing campaign really is a sheep.
Because they cant get American labor to do it, they'd have to hire migrant workers. The irony.
Not a bad plan. Just make sure that the people who are building the fence are on the south side of it when they seal it up.
On another note, maybe the US could hire Mexican citizens living in Mexico to stand on the border and shoot Mexicans trying to cross over into the US. I'm sure quite a few people would be willing to do it, especially if the price was right. No one is thinking up creative solutions anymore...
Hmmm... what I would give if that woulda happened before Bush.. cuz ya have to be a US Citizen to be Pres, I believe.. George W. Bush was born in New Haven, Connecticut. Do you want to give Connecticut to Mexico as well?
Oops. My reply should have been attached to the parent of the post it is currently attached to. My bad.