the outcome of the election

[kandrathe]

...
The reason that Unions lost power is that they, under pressure from foreign competition, slowly started to kill the goose that laid the golden egg within my life time. Not everyone feels that has been a good thing.
...
[right][snapback]59282[/snapback][/right]

That was my experience as well. I worked for a stint in my career at one of the regional US railroads. There were at least a dozen unions involved, and most had worked in rules that had become antiquated that the unions refused to reconsider. The most outrageous were for the train men and engineers. Payroll was a nightmare as there would over 160 ways that the T&E might get paid, including going up a hill, having to back up the train, having to get off the train to throw a switch, or arriving at the station late. What was killing the railroad were rules dating back to the late 1800's where a train was required to run a six man crew, and drive no more that 100 miles in a day. The six man crew included a fireman to stoke the boiler with coal, two brake men to watch the left and right sides of the train in case they needed to stop, two engineers, and a conductor. Modern trains can be run by one or two people.

That railroad is now owned by the Canadian Pacific.

[smithy]

Not to get into this too far.  I think personally, for the Bush administration there was a conjunction of factors that spelled trouble.  The fact that Iraq had developed sophisticated WMD and had used them (and possibly even Sarin in the Gulf War ala GWS),  they had relationships with and had sheltered terrorists and terrorist organizations,  the sanctions regime was crumbling, and that they had ignored numerous UN resolutions since 1991.  The fear post 9/11 was that a nation would use a terrorist organization as a delivery vehicle for WMD.  North Korea does not fit that model, although they only have one saleable commodity, weapons.

But, if North Korea is known to have nuclear missles in launch readiness pointed at Okinawa, I think there would be some people in the US Defense Department with ichy trigger fingers.  You are esentially returning the US to a cold war stance with a much smaller foe, and there are some who are crazy enough to think we could win a theatre nuclear war.  I don't think anyone wants that to happen, including North Korea.
[right][snapback]59280[/snapback][/right]

Seems to me, and I'm no intelligence expert, that Islamic terrorist groups with millions (if not billions) of dollars to spend would be exactly the kind of customer North Korea would want.

"You are esentially returning the US to a cold war stance with a much smaller foe, and there are some who are crazy enough to think we could win a theatre nuclear war."

That is precisely what I don't want to happen. If the missles are already launched, then it is probably too late to do anything. (oops, we have that missle defense system... yay)

Why can't well just get along? :) Either that, or we should just send the stealth ninjas :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: to take out the nukes.

Smithy

[Occhidiangela]

Assuming you actually believe what you just typed, maybe you should worry less about what goes on in the USA and worry more about your own country.   ;)
[right][snapback]59239[/snapback][/right]

For what it's worth:

EDIT: I think this is actually replying to Chaerphon.

The majority of these votes for Bush were votes for single-minded self-determination. Fear and xenophobia have gotten him another four-year term. Self-determination is one thing and going it alone is something else altogether. The time is rapidly approaching at which America WILL NO LONGER BE ABLE TO GO IT ALONE.

America has not gone it alone since about 1898. Your misunderstanding of that, and your complete ignorance of American security policy to act as part of a coalition as a matter of deliberate habit may be to blame.

It only appears to a novice that America "goes it alone" due to the immense disparity of power between the US and the next player. My experience in NATO showed me how far apart in capability to act America, and our next closest allies, are. The gap has only grown wider in the years since I left Italy, 1998. Not bringing France and Germany along is NOT going it alone. Heck, the Germans ducked Bosnia, back when NATO had to unscrew that mess.

That said, it is a shame and a big disappointment that we could not find a way to bring the whole team in, as the post "major hostilities" phase could have been handled far, far, better from a team building perspective. Check the line up in Afghanistan sometime, why don't you? Going it alone? Nope.

EU. We shall see how it grows if it ever pays its own defense and security bill, which it still does not now. Still sucking on the American security nipple, though I am encouraged by the current indications of a change in that regard.

Your comment regarding "declining hegemon" has some merit. That is an economic phenomenon. I'd suggest that its first hints were in 1973, when John Galt rose up in a head dress and robes. I refer to OPEC. John Galt, or Achmed Galt perhaps, is alive and well, thanks to the modern industrial world's petroleum habit. He just has a new attitude now.

As the Pacific Rim continues to take on a new shape, the tides of economic power may shift again. American economic policy needs to stay ahead of that wave, or the real strength of America, its economic muscle, will atrophy.

Occhi

[smithy]

I'm utterly astounded that a thread of this size and on the most explosive topic of all (politics) has not yet fallen to a complete drivel of name calling and abuse.  Yes, it's been quite testy, but just about any other forum on the Net would have been useless reading past the 20th post here.  (round of applause to the Lurkers)
-Bolty
[right][snapback]59279[/snapback][/right]

Amen to that. A few moments, earlier today, on the worldofwarcraft "off-topic" forums had me ducking and running for cover.

Smithy

[Chaerophon]

Labor was very much an opponent of certain strains of government in my lifetime.  Labor is the fundamental power base of both Socialist and Communist parties, or was for about seven decades, as well as a vote sump for Liberals of less extreme stripes.  Yes, Socialism and Communism, as well as representative republicanism, all grew from early Liberalism, which most folks would probably not recognize by now, since it strikes me as having been a reaction to the Royal/Imperial/Capital system of Europe.

Yes, labour unions fight to retain wage levels. Yes, it is, in receptive societies, the fundamental power base of both Socialist and Communist parties. If you can explain to me how the presence of a weak labour movement and less-than-moderate interventionist policies means that socialism is alive and well in the U.S., then I'll concede the point to you. I don't see it. Nader is leftist. He's no socialist. Institutional socialism remains a bad word and, as I can see from your post, Americans (Canadians too) continue to blame the union movement for the fall of Keynesianism. I don't buy it, but that's just me. Consider the issue dropped, but respond if you will :)

[Butch27]

Why would you want to go on a tiger hunt? Is the tiger a threat to your security? Does the tiger's moral system threaten your own values? Does the death of a tiger preserve the sanctity of homo sapiens?
I have some serious qualms with your analogy, but it seems tragically appropriate. Personally, I don't want a firearm in the hands of the inept.

[whyBish]

Ah well, you've been explaining it(science is based on axioms(=assumptions)) every couple months for the last 4(?) years, I dare say we'll see it again in January :P

[whyBish]

Not that it's a bad thing when you go to Denmark or Sweden and every woman there is tall and blond.  :lol:

-Bolty

:giggles: OMG Bolty, your fly is undone and I can see your ... post count :P

[Chaerophon]

Either that, or we should just send the stealth ninjas    to take out the nukes.

I still don't understand why you guys have kept them locked up for so long. If they had just been allowed to do their thing in the first place, I think we could have avoided all of this hurt. :( ;)

[jahcs]

Speaking of axioms,

Quote (Pete, from page 4 of this thread)

Thus we all start with some fundamental assumptions, such as the existence of a universe to know anything about. Such as the existence of natural "laws". Such as our ability to know and understand those "laws". Such as causality. And homogeneity. These are things we take on 'faith'.

The first obstacle in the assumption that there is a universe is dealing with everyone's perceptions of who or what is the center of it.
The second obstacle is convincing each person it is not them.

[LiquidDamage]

I crossed over in the opposite direction (lifelong Republican to reluctant Democrat) in the last 12 years.  And the two biggest drivers of that crossing were the inexcusable behavior of the Republicans during Clinton's administration

But, given that Shrub claimed a 'mandate' with a *lost* election, I guess actually winning one does give him some bragging rights. ;)

Is it inexcusable for Republicans to hate a Democratic candidate so much when 57% of the nation votes against him, but excusable for Democrats to hate a Republican candidate when 52% votes against him?

Cover text of Time Magazine after the Clinton Victory in 1992: "Mandate for Change". Which is more of a mandate? 48% of the vote or 43% of the vote? I'd say neither was a mandate, but both of them apparently claimed one, pissing off the opposing party.

I did not vote for Bush, by the way. And yes, I did vote. I do agree that the Republican hatred for Clinton is what started us down this path, but the Democratic hatred for Bush was no better after he got elected in 2000. I understand that the reasoning for the hatred of Bush now is for what he did during his term, especially the Iraq war, but I have to wonder if things wouldn't be hunky-dory for Democrats if Gore had been the one that believed the intelligence reports and gone to war with Iraq. I know a lot of you will say Gore wouldn't have gone to war with Iraq, and that is a valid opinion to hold. I say we don't know what he would have done, and I think that is a valid opinion as well.

I talked to people I know and respect (for non-political reasons) before the election that firmly believe that Bush/Kerry is the better candidate, and Kerry/Bush will drive this country into the ground.

I see a lot of this as a big football game, where the quarterbacks of two teams are accused of rape, but the fans on each side firmly believe their guy is innocent and the other guy is obviously guilty.

I'm all for that third party you suggest, Pete.

[Lord_Olf]

Hail Occhi,

just one point I want to adress, quite possibly because of just having read that Alawi called Germany a "spectator state" in regard of the Iraq situation:

Heck, the Germans ducked Bosnia, back when NATO had to unscrew that mess. 

[right][snapback]59290[/snapback][/right]

Just for the record, I'd like to mention that the reluctance there is in deploying German forces abroad has historical reasons, and I'm sure you're aware of them. After Big Mistake No. 2, the Bundeswehr was designed as a rather pure defensive force, designed to hold off the Warsaw Pact forces, should they ever come.

This concept was implemented in the law, and up to the 1990's, sending German troops abroad would have been against the constitution. Granted; I'm pretty sure that this was not true anymore when the Balkan erupted, but it led to a psychological effect in Germany. In fact, Defense Minister Struck has just announced that a lot (100+) Bundeswher facilities will be closed as a part of reshaping the Bundeswehr, away from massive tank brigades in the Fulda Gap to a smaller, more mobile Rapid Reaction Force.

Well, don't get me wrong with what I say now, because I'n not accusing the US of warmongering here: It's just that because of the things mentioned above, Germany picks its out-of-area deployments very carefully, even, as I sometimes think, to the point of overdoing it.

Coming back on topic here:

I've seen people mention that some or a lot of Europeans now hate the US, and I've also seen people point out that this is surely not the case. I'm also pretty sure that "hate" is too strong a word for any feelings people here in Europe might have for American citizens, or even the US government.

What I'd like to point out is that Bush is perceived differently here than in the US. All the opposition to him here is due to the actions taken in Iraq, and maybe, Afgahnistan (which to me was a straight national-security action). As I read today, that topic was only number three among the things influencing the US voter's decision, social issues and "morality" being the number one and two reasons (source for this was an article on www.spiegel.de).

Now, all this is to say that when we're critizizing George W. Bush, it may well be for other reasons than you (the US citizens) may be critizizing him. The, shall we say, negative feelings here in Germany have their cause in the Iraq war, not in the fact that we generally dislike the President of th USA or it's people. And because of this, there is a lot of uncertainty as to what will happen in the next years, the USA being the last superpower.

Well, long post to say a simple thing... but I guess I'm finished for now.

Take care,

Lord_Olf

[Armin]

All the opposition to him here is due to the actions taken in Iraq, and maybe, Afgahnistan (which to me was a straight national-security action). [right][snapback]59335[/snapback][/right]

No, I wouldn't oversimplify the perception in Europe and especially here in Germany that much. The illegal preemptive war against Iraq, based on blatant lies and corporate interests, is just the most obvious argument.

That GWB is a blundering fool that can't speak in straight sentences, that he had no idea of the world prior of coming into office, that he's a right-wing religious nutcase and big business puppet who's main agenda is to help the rich get richer play a major role as well. :P

That he rules the contry with an amalgamation of fear, religious zeal and abused patriotism is plain frightening the hell out of me.

Also, people like me may be less alienated by US troops invading Iraq (again) than by the emergency powers, under which the guy who has the final say in deploying the world's largest arsenal of REAL WMDs, now rules (called the US Patriot Act).

I find it way more alarming that civil rights can be put on hold inside the largest military power on earth (after ONE attack by 20 fanatics with carpet knives!), people held indefinitely without trial, neighbors denouncing neighbors and that a nation that calls itself "Home of the free" can run a concentration camp almost unchallenged.

And yes, I'm German and I DARE call Guantanamo Bay a concentration camp, because that's what it is. Go flame me B)

[NuurAbSaal]

I guess I'll rather agree with you. After all I'm from Austria...

:ph34r:

for the record, I love America, or I'd like to, anyways...


Greetings

Nuur

[Ashock]

And yes, I'm German and I DARE call Guantanamo Bay a concentration camp, because that's what it is. Go flame me  B)
[right][snapback]59339[/snapback][/right]

Armin, Armin, Armin. So, Percy was a Naked Sturmbannfuhrer... To be honest with you, I would have thought that you are more sensible than that. However, evidently you are not. What can I say... I guess only a German could make a statement like that. Does that mean that I think all Germans think that way? Definately not. However, I think it does take one of two types of people to make that statement. 1) A fool and 2) A German. I know that you are not a fool.

My wife's whole family from the father's side (including 2 small children) was wiped out by your illustrious ancestors in one of those Guantanamo-like camps. I might decide to let her read your post and tear you a new one, as she has more beef with someone like you (not that I don't) and frankly she is more eloquent than I am. More likely however, she will choose not to waste her breath on you.... I have a bit less self control, so I wasted a couple.

Now, am I insulted? Definately not. However, some of my opinions (I could say suspitions, but they were more than that to start with) have been affirmed. Gaining extra knowledge is always appreciated and I thank you for that.


-A

[kandrathe]

... Go flame me  ...
[right][snapback]59339[/snapback][/right]

I think it would be more effective to ignore you. I believe those really are your opinions and that you should feel better now having expressed them. Many people would point out the distortions and try to convince you that your arguments are too extreme. But, I won't.

[BruceGod]

...I have some serious qualms with your analogy...
[right][snapback]59316[/snapback][/right]

That's because it's not an analogy; it's a metaphor. :angry:

But, here's a "scientific" experiment I want you to run before you claim that you don't understand me. Go to your local zoo, and step into the tiger's cage. Make sure it's a male tiger, and give said tiger a swift kick in the rear end. Then you may proceed to talk the tiger out of ripping you to shreds.

In any case, I was referring to a British requirement for members of Parliment: Would you trust this candidate on a tiger hunt? Or, in other words: would the candidate try to shoot the tiger or talk to it?

[whathuh]

Frankly, these topics are a good read up until about page 4, then it gets tedious to read it all. I'll just add my 2-3 cents here since I didn't read anything about it in the first 4 pages (after that it was a lot of toned down flaming).

GW Bush, I think is a hypocrite. So are all conservative christians. Christianity is based on Jesus, a liberal. I mean, he died for the world's sins, he insisted change in the laws of the time, gave to the poor as much as he could, how much more liberal can you be? The bible says plenty of things, including how there should be no gay marriages, but then again it also says we can't eat shrimp.

[kandrathe]

Frankly, these topics are a good read up until about page 4, then it gets tedious to read it all.  I'll just add my 2-3 cents here since I didn't read anything about it in the first 4 pages (after that it was a lot of toned down flaming).

GW Bush, I think is a hypocrite.  So are all conservative christians.  Christianity is based on Jesus, a liberal.  I mean, he died for the world's sins, he insisted change in the laws of the time, gave to the poor as much as he could, how much more liberal can you be?  The bible says plenty of things, including how there should be no gay marriages, but then again it also says we can't eat shrimp.
[right][snapback]59362[/snapback][/right]

Yeah, you just raised the bar.

"GW Bush, I think is a hypocrite. So are all conservative christians." tells me you are being a bigot.

Some would say that Christ was a radical revolutionary, using passive aggressive tactics to enflame the nation to confront the Roman Empire and its enslavement of Judea.

[gekko]

That's because it's not an analogy; it's a metaphor.  :angry:

But, here's a "scientific" experiment I want you to run before you claim that you don't understand me. Go to your local zoo, and step into the tiger's cage. Make sure it's a male tiger, and give said tiger a swift kick in the rear end. Then you may proceed to talk the tiger out of ripping you to shreds.

In any case, I was referring to a British requirement for members of Parliment: Would you trust this candidate on a tiger hunt? Or, in other words: would the candidate try to shoot the tiger or talk to it?
[right][snapback]59360[/snapback][/right]

If we're going to discuss this in terms of a tiger hunt, let's at leat make it a realistic comparison.

If the terrorists are a tiger, the W is certainly not a skinny human stepping into a cage with said tiger. W is more like a tank. Or robocop. Or the terminator. Or an attack helicopter cruising through the zoo, shooting missiles and machine guns at the tiger. He's the leader of a militar super power; of the country that has the greatest collection of things that go *boom* and the most recent active will to use them.

That's why your metaphor is useless. You're portraying the US as the weak, helpless victim, when they are in fact obviously in a position of strength. Are the terrorists a threat? Of course they are. However, there has to be more to foreign relations than simply shooting everyone who you consider a threat.

gekko