I agree with you and would like to add a little extra. Current data collecting techniques definitely seem to point out that the average temperatures on Earth have not gone up since we starting tracking them. But the problem I have is how to explain what effect or how much of an effect human beings have on it.
It has been show that Mars is also experiencing rapid global warming is humanity responsible for this also? We do not know enough of our own geological past to know whether or not the current trend is part of some long geological cycle (maybe the climate is moving to a point similar to Mesozoic Era).
The fact is Earth has had much higher average temperatures and much lower average temperatures in its past that have lasted for 100s, or 1000s of years. Maybe the current temperature shift is do to Earth's magnetic poles shifting again (which it does approximately every 700,000 years and it has been approx 780,000 years since the last one).
This difference now from then is that the human population is much much larger now and and a larger portion of the population is more likely to be affected in an adverse way than in the past. However, some parts of the world could be affected in a good way also. To say that we know enough to say that the only good Earth is one that does not change but instead stays exactly the way we remember it and want it too is the height of human arrogance.
It just may turn out that global warming whether caused by humanity or not could put the Earth in a new steady state that will in the end be better for us in the long run...
I don't think it is possible to argue that the average temperatures on Earth have gone up since we starting tracking them. But the problem I have is how to explain what effect or how much of an effect human beings have on it.
It has been show that Mars is also experiencing rapid global warming is humanity responsible for this also? We do not know enough of our own geological past to know whether or not the current trend is part of some long geological cycle (maybe the climate is moving to a point similar to Mesozoic Era).
The fact is Earth has had much higher average temperatures and much lower average temperatures in its past that have lasted for 100s, or 1000s of years. Maybe the current temperature shift is do to Earth's magnetic poles shifting again (which it does approximately every 700,000 years and it has been approx 780,000 years since the last one).
This difference now from then is that the human population is much much larger now and and a larger portion of the population is more likely to be affected in an adverse way than in the past. However, some parts of the world could be affected in a good way also. To say that we know enough to say that the only good Earth is one that does not change but instead stays exactly the way we remember it and want it too is the height of human arrogance.
It just may turn out that global warming whether caused by humanity or not could put the Earth in a new steady state that will in the end be better for us in the long run...
Ok, I'll get back on topic now. It's just that the whole "Native American" term is a peeve of mine.
Firstly it is not just Christians that try to force their will on others, it is Muslims, atheists (e.g. U.S.S.R), various warring tribes of "Native Americans", various warring tribes in Africa, various warring tribes in aboriginal Australia, Persians, Egyptians, Hitites, Greeks, English, Germans, Chinese, Japanese, Indians, etc...
To be even more on point there are hundreds of groups in the US just like the PTC who lobby for a cause they believe in. Think Greenpeace (wanting to force their opinion of resource usage on others), PETA (wanting to force their opinion of the equality of animals on others), NRA, Planned Parenthood, American Muslim Council, NAACP, NOW, NAMBLA, etc... It is a fact of life that groups in this country organize to try and get the government to enact laws and regulations that will enforce their opinions/ways of life over others.
I disagree with almost all of these organizations but they very definitely have the right to do what they are doing.
Ok, instead of "Western Hemisphere" I will substitute the "Americas".
Are you really sure you want to say no humans started out here?
Yes I do. The first humans arrived here by either crossing on land bridges during the Ice Age or by small craft along coast lines making longer trecks to cross the Bering Straight. Genetic mapping has been done to show that early American settlers (i.e. "Native Americans") are of central Asian descent.
Do you really want to say that humans were able to evolve in multiple parts of the world independently?
Actually isn't she an American Indian if you really want to classify her?
She is not more native than I am. All peoples in the Western Hemisphere are migrants. Some came earlier than others but they are not "native" anymore than the Irish of the 19th century.
I did a little PL/I programming for about a year. I really liked the language. The only problem I had with it was that it had billions of options for how to handle parameters and stuff. I even did some JNI programming to use some PL/I parsing/scanning code that I helped develop.
The syntax is pretty old-fashonned by compared to todays languages but it was still a pretty fun language to pick up.
Of course if I had to develop in it full-time for years I may have gone of the deep end.
I have that book. It is in really bad shape compared to the rest of my 1st ed books but I still use it (now playing 3rd edition). I can't figure out why no other version of the Dieties and Demigods book has been that cool. They had the most pantheons including the fictional ones like Melnibonean, Cthulu, and at least one other I can't remember.
I started out playing D&D basic (red box) way back when and then moved to AD&D. I remember moving to 2nd addition but found myself always referencing the original books instead.
I now play 3rd addition but still use the 1st additon DMG with the table of gems and their properties as it is kind of cool to make magic items and such containing gems relating to the appropriate abilities/powers.
However, unlike some people I really like the 3rd edition rules because they seem to be much more streamlined and coherent and don't seem to interfere with the way we want to play as much as 2nd edition did.
You are correct of course. If more people only bought products Made in the USA the economy would be in much better shape. However I bet if you polled most of the/. readers from the US and asked what they drive a very large chunk of them (including those complaining about jobs going overseas) drive foreign cars and other foreign products instead of American products.
This is a real shame, I have never nor will I ever buy a foreign car specifically because it is bad for the US economy. I also attempt to buy only American products whenever possible (it's now almost impossible to buy any American electronics).
I can see why you liked Kerry so much. He waffles on issues not knowing where he stands and you waffle on citizenship not knowing where you stand. Make up your mind.
You really seem to have a lot of hate and venom built up inside. It might be a good idea for you to go to anger management.
An Evangelical Christian (which I am not) is not the same as these little radical groups like you seemed to join. Your little group would be more precisely described as a Doomsday Cult, there are many of them around this country and the world. However, they are a very small (I would guess less than.01%) part of the population.
Have you attempted to join any other cults since then?
It seems that so many non-American's have two things to say about America.
1) "We do not think the US is that important, why do they consider themselves important".
2) "America is so important I can't stop thinking about it, in fact I think about it so much it affects my emotional well being".
Everyone has a right to their opinion but geez, get a life and get consistent.
Also, if I were a Canadian I would be thanking the US people for electing Bush, your economy is dependent on the US economy, we are your largest trading partner (NAFTA is much better for you than us), and you are benefit from the shipping of American jobs abroad. Kerry wanted to put a stop to all of this.
I actually agree with Kerry on these issues as it seems to me we get the short end of the stick in almost every trade agreement we are involved in.
This was the highest voter turnout in US elections since the 60's (as a percentage of eligible voters). However, nobody seems to pointing out one thing. Popular thought was always that high turnout favored Democrats but the Republicans are the ones that benefited from the very high voter turnout (President, House and Senate).
Yes this election is still close but I doubt that a large portion of the population despises him, more likely a large portion of the population disagrees with him and his policies, these are definitely not the same thing.
As far as declaring a mandate, every single President in moden history has declared a mandate and a will of the people including Clinton twice even though he only one a plurality of the vote both times not a majority. The declaration of "mandate" is just useless political noise (unless of course someone got something absurd like 70% of the vote).
To use your own argument, doesn't "your side" usually vote a single issue: evironment, abortion, welfare, same-sex marriage, etc... Logic and intelligence have no effect on these people.
I thought "your side" was supposed to be much more open minded with respect to people who have different belief systems than you do, I guess I was wrong.
here are places in the UK a couple of hundred miles away where I can't understand most of what they're saying -- and others where they speak a totally different language altogether. You have large populations of Central American and Hispanic origin; we have large populations originating in the Indian subcontinent, and many other immigrants from the Pacific rim and from eastern Europe (though not as many as the newspapers go on about...).
We have very large populations centers not just from Central America but also East Asia and India. These populations centers are large and robust in certain parts of the country and many continue to speak their native languages.
Additionally you have obviously never experienced the diversity of the English language spoken in the US. There really are parts of the country that have very great difficulty understanding other parts of the country. All you probably ever hear is Standard Midwestern which is considered our standard accent or highly softened versions of our southern dialects. You have probably not hear the true language of Appalachia, Mississippi, Creole, or the African American Vernacular spoken in some cities of our country. They are very close to a foreign language for some in this country.
And in much of Europe, it's only a short drive to somewhere where they have completely different language, TV broadcasts, books, newspapers, history, traditions, culture, food, government, laws, attitude, working practices, architecture, popular music... Of course, these differences are less than they used to be, but IMO they amount to a substantially greater culture differential than you'd find in the US.
You obviously have not spent much time in this country or you would know that other than the broadcast television the culture from one part of our country to another is very diverse. There are large differences in traditions, culture, food (my favorite part), attitude, and everything else you mentioned. What you see on in our entertainment is definitely not a very good representation of the diversity of this nation.
I have been to Europe and traveled in several of its countries (Spain, France, Italy, Germany and England). Can you say the same about this country? Have you visited New Mexico, Louisiana, Northern California, Montana, West Virginia, Hawaii, Alaska, etc...? I have and the differences in culture across these areas is huge an unmistakable. This country does have a single national identity (which Europe seems to want with the EU) but we are not a homogenous society or culture.
If you support the Bush administrations military and foreign policy you do support these things where you like it or not or believe it or not.
I do support Bush's foreign policy but I think we view the end result a little differently. I do not believe his policies are an example of imperialism or global domination I believe that he is trying to make the people of the country safer by chasing down those people that pose a danger to it. I believe that this is what creates such a distinct divide in our country as to what is going on. It's a matter of do you believe that Bush wants to become a "colonial" power or does he want to destroy those that would pose a danger to this country, I believe the secnd option, you believe the first. It's not likely that we will be able to convince each other of our opinions but we can try.
If you like their domestic policy its presumably because you are on the winning side of the wealth divide and like tax cuts for the wealthy in particular or maybe you like massive deficit spending or outsourcing?
I agree most of his domestic policies (did not like him enlarging the government with the prescription drug plan as an example). Every single person in the country got a tax cut and he increased the minimum income neccessary to pay any taxes putting several million more people in the 0% tax bracket. I got a tax cut just like everyone else, but I sure am not "rich" whatever that means.
However, I would prefer to make income tax unconstitutional and instead implement a National Sales tax system, this system would make certain neccesities such as food, cleaning, and some clothing non-taxable. This would make it so that the rich could not hide their money in tax shelters and such as they buy the most and would therefore pay the most.
If you support them because of their positions on abortion and gays then it suggests you are supporting them on a religious and moral basis.
I believe that life begins at conception. Therefore aborting a child is murder. I know that that is not a popular opinion in some circles but that is what I believe. What exactly is his "stance" on homosexuality? I know that he has a stance on what the definition of a marriage is that aligns with the definition used throughout most of recorded history. He has never said homosexuals are bad/evil or anything else, I do not believe these things either, they are just people like everyone else I know, they are good/bad, smart/stupid, rich/poor, etc... I can also point to the fact that I have a couple of homosexual friends (which I do) but I can neither prove this to you nor does it matter to me, they are just my friends and nothing else.
Yes, many probably most studies say the earth is getting warmer, and I believe it very well may be. What I do not know is if we as a species are the cause of it or if it is a natural cycle of things relating to magnetic pole on earth or the sun. Or the Sun's position in our region of the galaxy or anything else. I cannot find the link anymore but space.com had a story of how the average surface temperature on Mars has increased something like 10 degrees (Celsius) in the last 15 years, is our warming related to this?
I also believe in protecting natural resources in our world and reducing pollution (whoever doesn't must be a fool). I think that alternative sources of energy are not just a good thing theoretically but also something we should strive to attain. I believe that we as a people should attempt to reduce our footprint on the world around us, but I also know that a certain balance between "the environment" and "the needs of the people" must be struck. The problem with some environmentalist is that they would like to see the majority of humanity wiped from the surface of the earth and the rest to live in natural caves with clothing from plants (can't kill animals) and know fire (have to cut down trees). These extremists ruin it for everyone by turning off most people with their radical agenda (people like houses, insulation, microw
They like the idea of America dominating the world politically, economically and militarily.
I support the current US administration but this description definitely does not apply to me. I support the current administration for various none of which has anything to do with imperialism or global domination.
Unfortunately America has a huge born again fundamentalist Christian block, something you probably dont have anything quite like in Europe
There are also many in the country that would say that America has a large number of enivornmental extremists which they would describe as unfortunate.
There are also many in the country that would say that there is a large number of socialist in this country which "they" would describe as unfortunate.
I tend to agree more with the group that you mentioned and tend to disagree more with the two groups I mentioned but hey why would we all want to think the same thing (that would be really boring).
The German people were to blame for the Nazi's and the American people are to blame for the new Republican party.
Come on, is this another one of those Repubs=Nazis remarks?
I like reading your posts, you tend to have positions that disagree with mine and are thoughtful in your postings. We do however agree occasionally. But this particular line is beneath what I have come to expect from your posts
Bush's stance on stem-cell research seems to be misunderstood. Bush is against embryonic stem-cell research which is harvested from an aborted child. Bush has nothing against the research using cord stem-cells.
First of all every government security agency in the world believed that Saddam had WMDs. You cannot call someone a liar if they act on what they believe to be truthful information.
The US is the possibly the most globally orient country in the world. Just look at the financial relations that exist between the US and everyone else. We have an extremely open market with possibly (though not proven) the lowest tarrif rates of any other country in the world. If we were so anti-global we would create tarrifs on imports that duplicate the tarrifs our good face when exported to other countries. Almost every country in the world has much more severe barriers to foreign competition and foreign ownership or acquisition of companies than the US.
The US government sends more aid to other countries than any other country in the world. They probably (unsubstantiated) send more aid to other countries than the entire EU combined. The American people also donate more to charities foreign and domestic than any other country in the world (and that includes as percent of GDP and GNP).
What an Orwellian phrasing. "Exporting security"... that's quite a lot of security we've exported to Vietnam, Nicaragua, and Iraq. Look at what great shape those countries are in now.
What about postwar Germany and Japan.
What about Kosovo where we had to place troops on European soil because they don't care to build up a large enough security for of there own or just don't want to put their own troops in harms way.
The western Europeans have wanted both ways forever. They want the US to put forces wherever "they" choose no questions asked and cry foul if the US asks for aid (financial or substantial). Or when the US ask for help in protecting our country.
Iraq is better off now than under the thumb of Saddam and will be ven better off as time goes by and the "minority" of people that make up the terrorist groups over there killing their own people for getting jobs and taking care of their own families are finally taken care of.
Actually, it seems that Europeans have always had a high level of resentment and/or hatred for the US.
The UN is a joke, it seems that every organization in the UN is headed by someone from a despotic corrupt government (e.g. anti-Semitic Libyan head of "Human Rights").
When the UN has cleaned up its own house and becomes an organization that really does care about the "entire" world it can start casting stones.
This is not really that suprising. Most people think the US is not interested in the rest of the world and in a way they are right.
But try looking at it like this for a seconds:
Since the end of WWII until the end of the Cold War most of the world paid very close attention to the US and USSR because they were the two countries that could destroy most of the life on this planet. During that time most Americans could name who the leader of the Soviet Union was and it was important for them to know this as he had the ability to destroy us.
The US also encompasses a much larger land area than any European country. Most Europeans think about other countries because the countries are smaller and they are as likely to travel from say Germany to France as an American is likely to travel from Georgia to Louisiana. When Americans in say Virginia here news about say California (3 time zones away) this is equivalent to someone in Portugal hearing news about something in Greece (2 or 3 timezones away?).
These couple of things are something to consider before you start saying that Americans don't pay attention to the rest of the world. The US from east to west encompasses many disparate regions and subcultures easily as varying as any two European countries. Consider that someone from San Francisco California and Mobile Alabama barely speak the same language let alone have anywhere near the same value system.
I was not really thinking of going very far back in history actually but that was pretty interesting. Plus if you really want to go far back in history you could also have pointed out that Lincoln (a Republican) did more to wrest control from the states than most other Presidents before and after.
Actually I am a firm believe in very small government. I do not believe the Libertarian party has the answer as I believe that their path would lead to more corporate power (they are already too strong) or anarchy (my opinion on what the actual result would seems to change based on the side of the bed I woke up on).
I am more of a Reagan Republican than I am of the current ilk in this party. My belief system more closely aligns now with the Constitution Party than any other actual political party.
I believe that the biggest example of excessive use of power on the left is the constant push for hate speech/hate crime laws. I truly believe if you kill someone (anyone) then you are probably a hate filled individual. I also believe that if I want to say really mean things to someone I should be able to (of course I may get punched for it but oh well). For specific examples of speech and opinion censorship look on many of our college campuses (campi?). FIRE. is sort of a watchdog group for freedom of expression on our campuses (again campi?).
As a side note, it seems to me (my opinion) that the left (and in the case the Democratic party) really does seem to want to promote class warfare. The party as a whole always seems to want to classify people into specific groups and then tell each group that the other one is being unfair and hates and deserves to be hated or resented. I believe that in the long run this is very destructive to the fiber of our country.
I always thought of Clinton as someone that would have been fun to go drinking with and probably someone that would have been a good friend. I never thought of him as someone who would make a great friend because I figure he would turn on me if he thought he had too. I also figured he was not the kind of person that I would want my daughter to bring home as her fiancee.
But I still think he would be an excellent drinking buddy that your wife doesn't like you hanging around with.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with you and would like to add a little extra. Current data collecting techniques definitely seem to point out that the average temperatures on Earth have not gone up since we starting tracking them. But the problem I have is how to explain what effect or how much of an effect human beings have on it.
It has been show that Mars is also experiencing rapid global warming is humanity responsible for this also? We do not know enough of our own geological past to know whether or not the current trend is part of some long geological cycle (maybe the climate is moving to a point similar to Mesozoic Era).
The fact is Earth has had much higher average temperatures and much lower average temperatures in its past that have lasted for 100s, or 1000s of years. Maybe the current temperature shift is do to Earth's magnetic poles shifting again (which it does approximately every 700,000 years and it has been approx 780,000 years since the last one).
This difference now from then is that the human population is much much larger now and and a larger portion of the population is more likely to be affected in an adverse way than in the past. However, some parts of the world could be affected in a good way also. To say that we know enough to say that the only good Earth is one that does not change but instead stays exactly the way we remember it and want it too is the height of human arrogance.
It just may turn out that global warming whether caused by humanity or not could put the Earth in a new steady state that will in the end be better for us in the long run...
I don't think it is possible to argue that the average temperatures on Earth have gone up since we starting tracking them. But the problem I have is how to explain what effect or how much of an effect human beings have on it.
It has been show that Mars is also experiencing rapid global warming is humanity responsible for this also? We do not know enough of our own geological past to know whether or not the current trend is part of some long geological cycle (maybe the climate is moving to a point similar to Mesozoic Era).
The fact is Earth has had much higher average temperatures and much lower average temperatures in its past that have lasted for 100s, or 1000s of years. Maybe the current temperature shift is do to Earth's magnetic poles shifting again (which it does approximately every 700,000 years and it has been approx 780,000 years since the last one).
This difference now from then is that the human population is much much larger now and and a larger portion of the population is more likely to be affected in an adverse way than in the past. However, some parts of the world could be affected in a good way also. To say that we know enough to say that the only good Earth is one that does not change but instead stays exactly the way we remember it and want it too is the height of human arrogance.
It just may turn out that global warming whether caused by humanity or not could put the Earth in a new steady state that will in the end be better for us in the long run...
Ok, I'll get back on topic now. It's just that the whole "Native American" term is a peeve of mine.
Firstly it is not just Christians that try to force their will on others, it is Muslims, atheists (e.g. U.S.S.R), various warring tribes of "Native Americans", various warring tribes in Africa, various warring tribes in aboriginal Australia, Persians, Egyptians, Hitites, Greeks, English, Germans, Chinese, Japanese, Indians, etc...
To be even more on point there are hundreds of groups in the US just like the PTC who lobby for a cause they believe in. Think Greenpeace (wanting to force their opinion of resource usage on others), PETA (wanting to force their opinion of the equality of animals on others), NRA, Planned Parenthood, American Muslim Council, NAACP, NOW, NAMBLA, etc... It is a fact of life that groups in this country organize to try and get the government to enact laws and regulations that will enforce their opinions/ways of life over others.
I disagree with almost all of these organizations but they very definitely have the right to do what they are doing.
Ok, instead of "Western Hemisphere" I will substitute the "Americas".
Are you really sure you want to say no humans started out here?Yes I do. The first humans arrived here by either crossing on land bridges during the Ice Age or by small craft along coast lines making longer trecks to cross the Bering Straight. Genetic mapping has been done to show that early American settlers (i.e. "Native Americans") are of central Asian descent.
Do you really want to say that humans were able to evolve in multiple parts of the world independently?
Actually isn't she an American Indian if you really want to classify her?
She is not more native than I am. All peoples in the Western Hemisphere are migrants. Some came earlier than others but they are not "native" anymore than the Irish of the 19th century.
I did a little PL/I programming for about a year. I really liked the language. The only problem I had with it was that it had billions of options for how to handle parameters and stuff. I even did some JNI programming to use some PL/I parsing/scanning code that I helped develop.
The syntax is pretty old-fashonned by compared to todays languages but it was still a pretty fun language to pick up.
Of course if I had to develop in it full-time for years I may have gone of the deep end.
I have that book. It is in really bad shape compared to the rest of my 1st ed books but I still use it (now playing 3rd edition). I can't figure out why no other version of the Dieties and Demigods book has been that cool. They had the most pantheons including the fictional ones like Melnibonean, Cthulu, and at least one other I can't remember.
I started out playing D&D basic (red box) way back when and then moved to AD&D. I remember moving to 2nd addition but found myself always referencing the original books instead.
I now play 3rd addition but still use the 1st additon DMG with the table of gems and their properties as it is kind of cool to make magic items and such containing gems relating to the appropriate abilities/powers.
However, unlike some people I really like the 3rd edition rules because they seem to be much more streamlined and coherent and don't seem to interfere with the way we want to play as much as 2nd edition did.
You are correct of course. If more people only bought products Made in the USA the economy would be in much better shape. However I bet if you polled most of the /. readers from the US and asked what they drive a very large chunk of them (including those complaining about jobs going overseas) drive foreign cars and other foreign products instead of American products.
This is a real shame, I have never nor will I ever buy a foreign car specifically because it is bad for the US economy. I also attempt to buy only American products whenever possible (it's now almost impossible to buy any American electronics).
I can see why you liked Kerry so much. He waffles on issues not knowing where he stands and you waffle on citizenship not knowing where you stand. Make up your mind.
You really seem to have a lot of hate and venom built up inside. It might be a good idea for you to go to anger management.
.01%) part of the population.
An Evangelical Christian (which I am not) is not the same as these little radical groups like you seemed to join. Your little group would be more precisely described as a Doomsday Cult, there are many of them around this country and the world. However, they are a very small (I would guess less than
Have you attempted to join any other cults since then?
It seems that so many non-American's have two things to say about America.
1) "We do not think the US is that important, why do they consider themselves important".
2) "America is so important I can't stop thinking about it, in fact I think about it so much it affects my emotional well being".
Everyone has a right to their opinion but geez, get a life and get consistent.
Also, if I were a Canadian I would be thanking the US people for electing Bush, your economy is dependent on the US economy, we are your largest trading partner (NAFTA is much better for you than us), and you are benefit from the shipping of American jobs abroad. Kerry wanted to put a stop to all of this.
I actually agree with Kerry on these issues as it seems to me we get the short end of the stick in almost every trade agreement we are involved in.
This is definitely not true (as you can see below the 3rd party candidates didn't make any difference):
From CNN:
Ohio
Florida
This was the highest voter turnout in US elections since the 60's (as a percentage of eligible voters). However, nobody seems to pointing out one thing. Popular thought was always that high turnout favored Democrats but the Republicans are the ones that benefited from the very high voter turnout (President, House and Senate). Yes this election is still close but I doubt that a large portion of the population despises him, more likely a large portion of the population disagrees with him and his policies, these are definitely not the same thing. As far as declaring a mandate, every single President in moden history has declared a mandate and a will of the people including Clinton twice even though he only one a plurality of the vote both times not a majority. The declaration of "mandate" is just useless political noise (unless of course someone got something absurd like 70% of the vote).
Wow, that was extremely rude and narrowminded.
:-)
Are you sure that isn't "hate speech"
To use your own argument, doesn't "your side" usually vote a single issue: evironment, abortion, welfare, same-sex marriage, etc... Logic and intelligence have no effect on these people.
I thought "your side" was supposed to be much more open minded with respect to people who have different belief systems than you do, I guess I was wrong.
We have very large populations centers not just from Central America but also East Asia and India. These populations centers are large and robust in certain parts of the country and many continue to speak their native languages.
Additionally you have obviously never experienced the diversity of the English language spoken in the US. There really are parts of the country that have very great difficulty understanding other parts of the country. All you probably ever hear is Standard Midwestern which is considered our standard accent or highly softened versions of our southern dialects. You have probably not hear the true language of Appalachia, Mississippi, Creole, or the African American Vernacular spoken in some cities of our country. They are very close to a foreign language for some in this country.
And in much of Europe, it's only a short drive to somewhere where they have completely different language, TV broadcasts, books, newspapers, history, traditions, culture, food, government, laws, attitude, working practices, architecture, popular music... Of course, these differences are less than they used to be, but IMO they amount to a substantially greater culture differential than you'd find in the US.You obviously have not spent much time in this country or you would know that other than the broadcast television the culture from one part of our country to another is very diverse. There are large differences in traditions, culture, food (my favorite part), attitude, and everything else you mentioned. What you see on in our entertainment is definitely not a very good representation of the diversity of this nation.
I have been to Europe and traveled in several of its countries (Spain, France, Italy, Germany and England). Can you say the same about this country? Have you visited New Mexico, Louisiana, Northern California, Montana, West Virginia, Hawaii, Alaska, etc...? I have and the differences in culture across these areas is huge an unmistakable. This country does have a single national identity (which Europe seems to want with the EU) but we are not a homogenous society or culture.
I do support Bush's foreign policy but I think we view the end result a little differently. I do not believe his policies are an example of imperialism or global domination I believe that he is trying to make the people of the country safer by chasing down those people that pose a danger to it. I believe that this is what creates such a distinct divide in our country as to what is going on. It's a matter of do you believe that Bush wants to become a "colonial" power or does he want to destroy those that would pose a danger to this country, I believe the secnd option, you believe the first. It's not likely that we will be able to convince each other of our opinions but we can try.
If you like their domestic policy its presumably because you are on the winning side of the wealth divide and like tax cuts for the wealthy in particular or maybe you like massive deficit spending or outsourcing?
I agree most of his domestic policies (did not like him enlarging the government with the prescription drug plan as an example). Every single person in the country got a tax cut and he increased the minimum income neccessary to pay any taxes putting several million more people in the 0% tax bracket. I got a tax cut just like everyone else, but I sure am not "rich" whatever that means.
However, I would prefer to make income tax unconstitutional and instead implement a National Sales tax system, this system would make certain neccesities such as food, cleaning, and some clothing non-taxable. This would make it so that the rich could not hide their money in tax shelters and such as they buy the most and would therefore pay the most.
If you support them because of their positions on abortion and gays then it suggests you are supporting them on a religious and moral basis.
I believe that life begins at conception. Therefore aborting a child is murder. I know that that is not a popular opinion in some circles but that is what I believe. What exactly is his "stance" on homosexuality? I know that he has a stance on what the definition of a marriage is that aligns with the definition used throughout most of recorded history. He has never said homosexuals are bad/evil or anything else, I do not believe these things either, they are just people like everyone else I know, they are good/bad, smart/stupid, rich/poor, etc... I can also point to the fact that I have a couple of homosexual friends (which I do) but I can neither prove this to you nor does it matter to me, they are just my friends and nothing else.
Yes, many probably most studies say the earth is getting warmer, and I believe it very well may be. What I do not know is if we as a species are the cause of it or if it is a natural cycle of things relating to magnetic pole on earth or the sun. Or the Sun's position in our region of the galaxy or anything else. I cannot find the link anymore but space.com had a story of how the average surface temperature on Mars has increased something like 10 degrees (Celsius) in the last 15 years, is our warming related to this?
I also believe in protecting natural resources in our world and reducing pollution (whoever doesn't must be a fool). I think that alternative sources of energy are not just a good thing theoretically but also something we should strive to attain. I believe that we as a people should attempt to reduce our footprint on the world around us, but I also know that a certain balance between "the environment" and "the needs of the people" must be struck. The problem with some environmentalist is that they would like to see the majority of humanity wiped from the surface of the earth and the rest to live in natural caves with clothing from plants (can't kill animals) and know fire (have to cut down trees). These extremists ruin it for everyone by turning off most people with their radical agenda (people like houses, insulation, microw
I support the current US administration but this description definitely does not apply to me. I support the current administration for various none of which has anything to do with imperialism or global domination.
Unfortunately America has a huge born again fundamentalist Christian block, something you probably dont have anything quite like in EuropeThere are also many in the country that would say that America has a large number of enivornmental extremists which they would describe as unfortunate.
There are also many in the country that would say that there is a large number of socialist in this country which "they" would describe as unfortunate.
I tend to agree more with the group that you mentioned and tend to disagree more with the two groups I mentioned but hey why would we all want to think the same thing (that would be really boring).
The German people were to blame for the Nazi's and the American people are to blame for the new Republican party.Come on, is this another one of those Repubs=Nazis remarks?
I like reading your posts, you tend to have positions that disagree with mine and are thoughtful in your postings. We do however agree occasionally. But this particular line is beneath what I have come to expect from your posts
Bush's stance on stem-cell research seems to be misunderstood. Bush is against embryonic stem-cell research which is harvested from an aborted child. Bush has nothing against the research using cord stem-cells.
First of all every government security agency in the world believed that Saddam had WMDs. You cannot call someone a liar if they act on what they believe to be truthful information.
The US is the possibly the most globally orient country in the world. Just look at the financial relations that exist between the US and everyone else. We have an extremely open market with possibly (though not proven) the lowest tarrif rates of any other country in the world. If we were so anti-global we would create tarrifs on imports that duplicate the tarrifs our good face when exported to other countries. Almost every country in the world has much more severe barriers to foreign competition and foreign ownership or acquisition of companies than the US.
The US government sends more aid to other countries than any other country in the world. They probably (unsubstantiated) send more aid to other countries than the entire EU combined. The American people also donate more to charities foreign and domestic than any other country in the world (and that includes as percent of GDP and GNP).
What an Orwellian phrasing. "Exporting security"... that's quite a lot of security we've exported to Vietnam, Nicaragua, and Iraq. Look at what great shape those countries are in now.
What about postwar Germany and Japan.
What about Kosovo where we had to place troops on European soil because they don't care to build up a large enough security for of there own or just don't want to put their own troops in harms way.
The western Europeans have wanted both ways forever. They want the US to put forces wherever "they" choose no questions asked and cry foul if the US asks for aid (financial or substantial). Or when the US ask for help in protecting our country.
Iraq is better off now than under the thumb of Saddam and will be ven better off as time goes by and the "minority" of people that make up the terrorist groups over there killing their own people for getting jobs and taking care of their own families are finally taken care of.
Actually, it seems that Europeans have always had a high level of resentment and/or hatred for the US.
The UN is a joke, it seems that every organization in the UN is headed by someone from a despotic corrupt government (e.g. anti-Semitic Libyan head of "Human Rights").
When the UN has cleaned up its own house and becomes an organization that really does care about the "entire" world it can start casting stones.
This is not really that suprising. Most people think the US is not interested in the rest of the world and in a way they are right.
But try looking at it like this for a seconds:
Since the end of WWII until the end of the Cold War most of the world paid very close attention to the US and USSR because they were the two countries that could destroy most of the life on this planet. During that time most Americans could name who the leader of the Soviet Union was and it was important for them to know this as he had the ability to destroy us.
The US also encompasses a much larger land area than any European country. Most Europeans think about other countries because the countries are smaller and they are as likely to travel from say Germany to France as an American is likely to travel from Georgia to Louisiana. When Americans in say Virginia here news about say California (3 time zones away) this is equivalent to someone in Portugal hearing news about something in Greece (2 or 3 timezones away?).
These couple of things are something to consider before you start saying that Americans don't pay attention to the rest of the world. The US from east to west encompasses many disparate regions and subcultures easily as varying as any two European countries. Consider that someone from San Francisco California and Mobile Alabama barely speak the same language let alone have anywhere near the same value system.
-- Just some food for thought.
I was not really thinking of going very far back in history actually but that was pretty interesting. Plus if you really want to go far back in history you could also have pointed out that Lincoln (a Republican) did more to wrest control from the states than most other Presidents before and after.
Actually I am a firm believe in very small government. I do not believe the Libertarian party has the answer as I believe that their path would lead to more corporate power (they are already too strong) or anarchy (my opinion on what the actual result would seems to change based on the side of the bed I woke up on).
I am more of a Reagan Republican than I am of the current ilk in this party. My belief system more closely aligns now with the Constitution Party than any other actual political party.
I believe that the biggest example of excessive use of power on the left is the constant push for hate speech/hate crime laws. I truly believe if you kill someone (anyone) then you are probably a hate filled individual. I also believe that if I want to say really mean things to someone I should be able to (of course I may get punched for it but oh well). For specific examples of speech and opinion censorship look on many of our college campuses (campi?). FIRE. is sort of a watchdog group for freedom of expression on our campuses (again campi?).
As a side note, it seems to me (my opinion) that the left (and in the case the Democratic party) really does seem to want to promote class warfare. The party as a whole always seems to want to classify people into specific groups and then tell each group that the other one is being unfair and hates and deserves to be hated or resented. I believe that in the long run this is very destructive to the fiber of our country.
So the mainstream media exists to support the opinions of those on the left/progressive side :-)
I always thought of Clinton as someone that would have been fun to go drinking with and probably someone that would have been a good friend. I never thought of him as someone who would make a great friend because I figure he would turn on me if he thought he had too. I also figured he was not the kind of person that I would want my daughter to bring home as her fiancee.
But I still think he would be an excellent drinking buddy that your wife doesn't like you hanging around with.