What do you think leads to anti-americanism?

[Kenneth T. Cornelius]

Hello Urethra,

You are quite right when you acknowledge our dominance of the world. now we are in WTO, our growth exceeds even our greatest expectations. It seems every position in job market is for company supplying and supplanting USA control.

By the way i think Mr Bush is in your pretty city these days - will you give him warm welcome ?

Fried Rice is very cold today.

Nice to see that the Chinese government is participating in our humble forum.

 

[Kenneth T. Cornelius]

<snip>we would not be in this war if Clinton had done his job when he was in office.

It would not, of course, occur to a rebooblican that Saddam would not have been there if BushI had finished his job.

Jan 16 2003---- UN inspectors discover 11 undeclared empty chemical warheads in Iraq

That right there tells you they cant be trusted.And keep in mind the US is looking for something the size of a garage in the land area of California.

Yep, more than 1500 dead Americans and gosh knows how many Iraqis for 11 empty warheads. I wonder how many full warheads we've got right now?

 

[Kenneth T. Cornelius]

LOL LOL LOL. Hmm, lets see - no free healthcare, tens of thousands of gun related deaths, inadequate elementary and high school education, food stamps (food stamps! I don't even know if they have them in the UK!), I seen the slums in the US - not pretty.

Whats the point in being superpower when you can't give good services to benefit the people? Truthfully I'd rather live in Canada to be honest.

If you spent less money on the military and more on social aspects like free healthcare, education etc. I might then be envious of the US.

Free health care? Tell me, ol' buddy, how long do you have to wait for your free medical care? My brother in law in Vancouver had to wait almost a year for a badly needed hip replacement, and he is nowhere near as enthusiastic about Canada's system as he used to be.

 

[GarzaUK]

Free health care? Tell me, ol' buddy, how long do you have to wait for your free medical care? My brother in law in Vancouver had to wait almost a year for a badly needed hip replacement, and he is nowhere near as enthusiastic about Canada's system as he used to be.

Yeah that is true, Uk's National Health Service is a joke (no offence naughty nurse). But I'd rather a longer waiting line than the poor having to take out a second morgage to save their live or a live of a loved one. What's the US health system like? Although American would be my first choice to live, I would like to live in San Franciso - seems like a nice city - could fry my pasty Northern European skin though

I do admire the US Kenneth in some ways,

 

[Naughty Nurse]

Yeah that is true, Uk's National Health Service is a joke (no offence naughty nurse).

None taken, sweetness. The NHS is a joke, and I escaped to the charity sector long ago. Wild horses wouldn't drag me back to the NHS!

 

[Kenneth T. Cornelius]

Yeah that is true, Uk's National Health Service is a joke (no offence naughty nurse). But I'd rather a longer waiting line than the poor having to take out a second morgage to save their live or a live of a loved one. What's the US health system like? Although American would be my first choice to live, I would like to live in San Franciso - seems like a nice city - could fry my pasty Northern European skin though

I do admire the US Kenneth in some ways,

Here is a from memory outline of the development of the US health care system. Ironically enough it started off as a way for employers to substitute cheaper health benefits for more expensive pay raises. That was actualy a good idea at the time when medical costs were far lower than they are now. This did have the disadvantage for the worker of being contingent on the job. At the time well paying jobs were plentiful and nobody had to worry much about getting another with benefits. What has changed, of course, is that employers are offering far fewer benefits; medical costs have skyrocketed; and there are far fewer well paying jobs.

For those of us blessed with a stable employer or able to retire and retain benefits, the health care system works well. Even there, though, a catastrophic illness could be ruinous.

BTW, San Francisco is an attractive city all right, but it is also fantastically expensive and the climate is not much of an improvement on England.

 

[Pacridge]

(Your lesson for today as you seem to be picking up French so well: con = idiot. Strange that in "their" language it's also short for "conservative" :rofl )

Con is also short for Convict as in someone convicted of a crime. If you didn't already know.

 

[Pacridge]

Ya but when you say were imperialistic thats not true we were allowed to attack him if he violated any of the cease fire agreements of 1991. And he violated every single one during the Clinton administration and Clinton did nothing, we would not be in this war if Clinton had done his job when he was in office.But how much time could we have given the UN weapon inspectors, Saddam wasn't cooperating and the more time we give them the more time they have to hide the weapons. And they would have lied to the UN inspetors just like they did in on

Dec 7 2002
----Iraq submitted a 12000 page declaration on it's chemical, biological and nuclear activities, Claiming it had no banned Weapons.
Jan 16 2003---- UN inspectors discover 11 undeclared empty chemical warheads in Iraq

That right there tells you they cant be trusted.And keep in mind the US is looking for something the size of a garage in the land area of California.

The key words here are empty chemical warheads now had they actually contained something. Then you sir might have a point. And making statements like "they would have just lied to the UN inspector's"- you have no way of knowing what they would or wouldn't have done. No one does now because we invaded. But if you interested in actual facts of what was going on heres a copy of the Duelfer report that shows they didn't have WMD's and we're making WMD's.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/

 

[Pacridge]

Ya but when you say were imperialistic thats not true we were allowed to attack him if he violated any of the cease fire agreements of 1991. And he violated every single one during the Clinton administration and Clinton did nothing, we would not be in this war if Clinton had done his job when he was in office.But how much time could we have given the UN weapon inspectors, Saddam wasn't cooperating and the more time we give them the more time they have to hide the weapons. And they would have lied to the UN inspetors just like they did in on

Dec 7 2002
----Iraq submitted a 12000 page declaration on it's chemical, biological and nuclear activities, Claiming it had no banned Weapons.
Jan 16 2003---- UN inspectors discover 11 undeclared empty chemical warheads in Iraq

That right there tells you they cant be trusted.And keep in mind the US is looking for something the size of a garage in the land area of California.

The key words here are empty chemical warheads now had they actually contained something. Then you sir might have a point. And making statements like "they would have just lied to the UN inspector's"- you have no way of knowing what they would or wouldn't have done. No one does now because we invaded. But if your interested in actual facts of what was going on heres a copy of the Duelfer report that shows they didn't have WMD's and we're making WMD's.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/

 

[Pacridge]

I see. Hate Bush=Hate America. :spin:

It's even better than that Cornelius, if you don't Love Bush then you hate America. Same thing with the press if you haven't noticed. If they don't gush over his policies then they're just Bush Bashing.

 

[freedom69714]

First think let me make one thing perfectly clear I feel this whole thing about ANTI-AMERICANISM is being blown way out of portion !!

Lets that the France just because they disagree with us on IRAQ does not mean they hate US remember they did support US in Afghanistan ??(spelling)

You have to remember if TWO country disagree on something does not mean they HATE US it means they disagree with US

Remember we have the U.N the all country's within the U.N have A vote if every time they disagree with US we say they HATE US what is the sense of having A VOTE

Now as far as the liberal MEDIA goes please STOP DRINKING THE KOOL-AID this is something that FOX and
The right wing WACO'S made UP I made a $ 5000 bet if some one can prove this liberal media B .S !!!!!!!.
i.e the right wing talk shows etc.

For every story you can show me about the media leaning LEFT I can show you them leaning RIGHT !!!
i.e How many hundreds of story's of Bill Clinton was in the news i.e whitewater ??did the Clintons KILL Vince Forster ??

I saw 60 minutes and 20/20 cover both of these story's AS well as a whole lot more

Please remember I have been listing to the NEWS for 40 + years and I also listen to talk radio formore years than I'd like to SAY

I listen to the RIGHT the LEFT and every thing in between

So my offer still stands if you can show me the LIBERAL media I'll pay you $5000 however if you can not you PAY ME $5000

Sure you can show ONE or TWO story's that lean / bend left that's is easy anybody can do that I'm saying day after day!! story after story!!,Week after week !!, Month after month!!, Year after year!!,

I'm waiting

FREEDOM69

 

[Squawker]

Sure you can show ONE or TWO story's that lean / bend left that's is easy anybody can do that I'm saying day after day!! story after story!!,Week after week !!, Month after month!!, Year after year!!,

Air America is all Liberal BS. The old media -- CBS, NBC, and ABC has always given the news a left slant which doesn't mean they lied about the right. What I found was that they didn't report about what position the right had on any issue unless it was something demeaning. For instance, if a man was convicted of fraud they would mention if he was a Conservative, but never mention party affiliation if he was a Liberal or Democrat. It is a very subtle form of brainwashing, but brainwashing non the less.

 

[alienken]

Squawker... This is a good example of media bias without lying................ In Iraq our military had to defend themselves when fired apon by demonstrators. The headlines was something like this...." U.S. Military Fires on Demonstrators".... not returns fire..so when they leave out one word they destort the whole meaning. This actually happened from our press.

 

[freedom69714]

Hi Squarwker I have to use Paul Simon words again!!!!!!

A man hears what hear and disgrards the REST I think you are being brain washed BY the RUSH'S , Bill OReilly's , Sean Hannity's etc's

I never see Tim Russert , or Peter Jenning etc. DAY after day after day bash the right any where near the way the right does!!!

 

[Squawker]

In Iraq our military had to defend themselves when fired apon by demonstrators. The headlines was something like this...." U.S. Military Fires on Demonstrators".... not returns fire..so when they leave out one word they destort the whole meaning. This actually happened from our press.

An excellent example Alienken.

 

[Pacridge]

Squawker... This is a good example of media bias without lying................ In Iraq our military had to defend themselves when fired apon by demonstrators. The headlines was something like this...." U.S. Military Fires on Demonstrators".... not returns fire..so when they leave out one word they destort the whole meaning. This actually happened from our press.

Where was this in print? What outlet?

 

[Pacridge]

i.e How many hundreds of story's of Bill Clinton was in the news i.e whitewater ??did the Clintons KILL Vince Forster ??

FREEDOM69

That's actually true. The media ran stories day and night about Clinton. Let's see there was White Water, Travelgate, Troopergate, Gennifer Flowers, Ken Starr, Vince Foster, Susan McDougal, Jim Guy Tucker, Vernon Jordan, Paula Jones, Susan Carpenter-McMillian (sp?), and of course Monica Lewinsky. And that's just the one's I can remember. Oh, almost forgot Linda Tripp. This stuff was on 24/7. But to hear it now nobody in the press every said anything negative about Clinton.

In fact because of this topic I've been making an effort to watch more Fox. I turned the channel to FNC the other day and Hannity's looking into the camarea saying "I tell you what folk's- you didn't get these kind's of negative stories when Clinton was President." Good grief who's he kidding. I turned the channel.

 

[Kenneth T. Cornelius]

In fact because of this topic I've been making an effort to watch more Fox. I turn the channel to FNC the other day and Hannity's looking into the camarea saying "I tell you what folk's- you didn't get these kind's of negative stories when Clinton was President." Good grief who's he kidding. I turned the channel.

Yeah, the poor dears bayed so long and loudly they lost their voices. Nowadays with so much more to bay at, you don't hear a peep out of them. :rofl

 

[Pacridge]

Yeah, the poor dears bayed so long and loudly they lost their voices. Nowadays with so much more to bay at, you don't hear a peep out of them. :rofl

Quite amazing isn’t? This is much like the current situation regarding some private conversations of Bush that have recently surfaced on tape. Have you heard any of the positions the conservative pundits are taking on this? An outrage, a damnable outrage! Funny, I don’t remember Rush, Hannity, Coulter et el having this take on privately taped conversations when Linda Tripp did it. Maybe I just missed they’re outrage then, they are kind of know for keeping their outrages quite. I just love, or maybe it’s loath, the constant hypocrisy of many conservatives.

 

[KansasMeg]

I believe anti-Americanism (in American citizens) is caused by having such a polarizing group of leaders in power. When you have a narrowly focused administration you're bound to make a large portion of the citizens feel alienated. Who would be proud if their nation represented something they were totally against?

Bush had said, just after the 2004 election, that he would try his best to bring the nation back together. I haven't seen one bit of effort.

 

[Batman]

Have you heard any of the positions the conservative pundits are taking on this? An outrage, a damnable outrage! Funny, I don’t remember Rush, Hannity, Coulter et el having this take on privately taped conversations when Linda Tripp did it.

Tripp recorded her conversations because Monica began to imply she needed Tripp 'not to tell' about what she was saying about her relationship with Bill.
Tripp did that in part to protect herself if accused of trying to hinder investigation.

 

[Pacridge]

Tripp recorded her conversations because Monica began to imply she needed Tripp 'not to tell' about what she was saying about her relationship with Bill.
Tripp did that in part to protect herself if accused of trying to hinder investigation.

Began to imply? Monica didn't "imply" anything of the sort. According to the tapes she out and out said that. "You can't tell any one." There's no impling.

Why would she need to protect her self from an investigation? What charges could result from a man having an affair? And if she was indeed worried about hindering some investigation, which at the time didn't exist, how does recording a private conversation, which was illegal, help her?

You're facts are a little off. Here's an article on Tripp that expands on who she was and what her background was, may give a little insight into her motives:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/tripp012598.htm

 

[Batman]

Began to imply? Monica didn't "imply" anything of the sort. According to the tapes she out and out said that. "You can't tell any one." There's no impling.

Why would she need to protect her self from an investigation? What charges could result from a man having an affair? And if she was indeed worried about hindering some investigation, which at the time didn't exist, how does recording a private conversation, which was illegal, help her?

You're facts are a little off. Here's an article on Tripp that expands on who she was and what her background was, may give a little insight into her motives:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/tripp012598.htm

She arrived at the Clinton White House as a holdover from President George Bush's staff,
I guess that explains it.

 

[Pacridge]

She arrived at the Clinton White House as a holdover from President George Bush's staff,
I guess that explains it.

I don't think that just it. But I think that begins to explain, in part, her motivation. She started in the Bush Sr. White House and was moved the Pentagon. Several close to her say she was not happy about being moved. So, she may have had motivation to strike back at the Clinton Administration. None of that make any difference, really, as who really cares what was her motivation? What she recorded exposed Clinton as a serial womanizer and in a lot of ways destroyed any chance of him being able to leave a legacy of anything but. Still, doesn't make her recordings any of it any less illegal. Nor, does it give legitimacy to the punits now expressing such outrage when previously they were all for such activities.

I'm interested in Doug Wead and where, when and how he recorded his recordings. In what state? What were the laws of that state at that time? I mean Tripp was charged with wire tapping, I think in part because she taped a phone conversation. Why is it that Wead's recording are legal?

I guess it really doesn't matter. I still think it's a dirt bag move. Bush was obviously speaking to someone he considered a friend and never meant the conversation to become public. In fact, given who Wead is Bush may have considered this to be basically consulting his clergy. Which in my mind makes Wead an even bigger douche bag.

Speaking of Doug "douche bag" Wead. I saw a clip of him this morning talking about this. He said "I never meant for these conversations to be come so public." What exactly did he think was going to happen after he went to the New York Times and wrote about a book about them? Douche, complete douche.

 

[Pacridge]

I believe anti-Americanism (in American citizens) is caused by having such a polarizing group of leaders in power. When you have a narrowly focused administration you're bound to make a large portion of the citizens feel alienated. Who would be proud if their nation represented something they were totally against?

Bush had said, just after the 2004 election, that he would try his best to bring the nation back together. I haven't seen one bit of effort.

Bush also said during the 2000 elections he was "A uniter and a divider" I guess in a way he did unite us, we were basically united on 9-12-2001. Since that time we've quickly gone back to our respective corners.