USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[harley 3 1185 0]

It could be argued that the trappings of wealth have made the U.S. substantially more reactionary since any time before the Civil War. The richer you become, the more conservative you get in order to protect your earnings; however, some people try and make up for this by giving money away; which is certainly laudable-and then there are those who don't, and just keep accumulating money until there's so much the heirs will have multiple heart-attacks trying to sort out the legacies.

This is not helped by the fact that President Bush's economy deliberately favours the wealthy to an extent which is so ridiculous even Reagan didn't do it. Due to this, the gap between rich and poor will grow and continue to grow at a greater rate than in the Clinton and Bush Sr. years. With the record number of small business bankruptcies and large conglomerates laying-off workers, as well as the normally huge influx of migrant and illegal workers, this gap will continue to widen, until quite honestly the United States may literally become top-heavy economically and God knows what would happen next.

Luckily I've never studied economics; if I could understand half the stuff I read and right on the subject I'm sure I'd have nightmares for the rest of my life...

[Sophion-Black 0]

Well well there is some problem about the calculation methods between the US and the EU... I didn't find the original source on the net yet...

LOOK HERE AND YOU SHALL SEE

sometimes you have to click on links.

[Sophion-Black 0]

Bush and his government surprised me with his stupidnes again... The pope announced to the african countries that are troubled with AIDS, that they should stop using condoms and just dont have sex..

Glad I'm in the US... how will they pull off surviving if no one has sex

[SFWanabe 0]

I might as well cut off my dick if thats my future.

[denoir 0]

A powerful EU also scares the hell out of the US who I'm sure has funded tons of the anti-EU campaigns.

psst...

Quote[/b] ]

CIA Publication

Domestically, the European Union attempts to lower trade barriers, adopt a common currency, and move toward convergence of living standards. Internationally, the EU aims to bolster Europe's trade position and its political and economic power. Because of the great differences in per capita income (from $10,000 to $28,000) and historic national animosities, the European Community faces difficulties in devising and enforcing common policies. For example, both Germany and France since 2003 have flouted the member states' treaty obligation to prevent their national budgets from running more than a 3% deficit. In 2004, the EU admitted 10 central and eastern European countries that are, in general, less advanced technologically and economically than the existing 15. Twelve EU member states introduced the euro as their common currency on 1 January 1999. The UK, Sweden, and Denmark do not now participate; the 10 new member states may choose to adopt the euro when they meet the EU's fiscal and monetary criteria and the member states so agree.

...EU is less than one-half the size of the US

...EU Gross Domestic Product is $ 11,650,000,000,000 growing at 2.40% compared to the U.S. $ 11,750,000,000,000 growing at 4.40%

...the unemployment rate of the EU is 9.50% compared to the US rate of 5.50%

I'd say you were a little off on saying that the EU could scare the US. We have yet to find a country to fill in the USSR's shoes to scare us into conflict. I'm not sure if theres been any anti-EU campaigns but I'll keep my eyes open. As harley 3 1185 said, its more of an economy scheme. its not going to pull military threat behind it. If it ever goes that way, look out for another cold war. This time, we hold the majority of the nukes.

Not scared militarily at all. The EU states put together have about a tenth of the military force of the US. We're talking about economics here and it's a love/hate relationship on both sides. The threat from the EU is that suddenly from having two dozens of small economies you have a huge one - the largest in the world. So in terms of competition, there is a great threat. At the same time EU is the primary trading partner of the US. From that perspective, dealing with one large economy is more beneficial. So it's both competition and cooperation.

As for the figures you showed from the CIA world fact book, especially the GDP are not quite relevant because of two factors. 1) They're old, 2) The GDP there is the PPP GDP (purchasing power parity), rather than the nominal value. The PPP is measured relative the local consumer price index, making it a good measure for tracking changes in one country, but a bad one for comparing countries.

What you are looking for is the nominal GDP, which is a straight comparison.

For nominal GDP and 2005 values look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29

Quote[/b] ]

— World 44,168,157

1 European Union 13,926,873

2 United States 12,438,873

3 Japan 4,799,061

4 Germany 2,906,658

5 United Kingdom 2,295,039

6 France 2,216,273

7 People's Republic of China (Mainland) 1,843,117

8 Italy 1,836,407

9 Spain 1,120,312

10 Canada 1,098,446

...

You should also take into consideration that the EU GDP is bound to increase rapidly when we get the new Eastern and Central European members' economies fixed.

The country however that has the potential to overshadow both the EU and the US is China. They are the biggest threat (and potential largest trading partner) for both.

Espectro:

Quote[/b] ]Man, is the US really that old-fashioned? I mean, im not bullying any1, but this just seems so... well, 3rd country-like, ey?

The US is rather unique in that respect. They are ultra-liberal (libertrarian) economically and to a certain degree  when it comes to government, but they are ultra-conservative when it comes to the social questions while they at the same time hold the nation state model very dear. I think it has a lot to do with the people who founded the country. You have the "Founding Fathers", who were mostly inspired by the French enlightenment ideals - that's where the liberalism comes in. At the same time you had lots of Calvinists (puritans etc) who were religious fundamentalist sects that moved out from Europe so that they could practice their religion as they wished. That combination produces some pretty strange results.

[Sophion-Black 0]

For nominal GDP and 2005 values look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29

Quote  

— World 44,168,157

1 European Union 13,926,873

2 United States 12,438,873

3 Japan 4,799,061

4 Germany 2,906,658

5 United Kingdom 2,295,039

6 France 2,216,273

7 People's Republic of China (Mainland) 1,843,117

8 Italy 1,836,407

9 Spain 1,120,312

10 Canada 1,098,446

...

1) the rank above you posted is incorect by the origanal site, it shows the EU at no rank copy it right.

Quote[/b] ]— European Union 13,926,873

1 United States 12,438,873

2 Japan 4,799,061

3 Germany 2,906,658

2)

Quote[/b] ]The data here is an estimation for the year 2005...

estimates work sometimes but not always. Natural disasters, Terror attacks, and even threats, or the differance between member countries that threaten to leave or create war. Things that can ultimitely lower the producution are not calculated. It was estimated 2 months ago. How can you trust this, its like trusting a weather man to tell how the forcast is going to be like. Its the basic idea, It may end up to be "better off the same" if its off by just $100,000.

You see, political conflict is good if limited to just a few sides that are close to the same power. In this case you have varying power ranging from "ignored" to "policy" in 25 differant countries. My guess is that, in time, we might see it fail.

The country however that has the potential to overshadow both the EU and the US is China. They are the biggest threat (and potential largest trading partner) for both.

that, my friends, would be the country to fill in the USSR's shoes. China has been on our radar since Mao Zedong came in the picture (after WWII). Ever since the Soviets we've been scared to hell with this Commie buisness, and it still continues today. How would you feel if you were staring at a force that is 5 times the sizes of yours?

and in answer to the theory of anti-EU campaigns... I would say we would keep them around in case Chinia deciedes to go nuts.

[denoir 0]

Nah, military strength is of basically no consequence at that scale. The Chinese may be communists per ideology, but today they have a market economy. Trade is important to all sides. Why try to kill a good customer? Plus, the cost of war is far too high when all sides are armed with nukes.

China might at most invade Taiwan. While this is bad news for the Taiwanese, for the rest of the world, it doesn't really matter. Sure, it wouldn't be nice, but it's not something the US would go to war with China for.

[harley 3 1185 0]

Let's face it - Nuclear war is never going to happen. We may be stupid but we aren't that stupid. And if some terrorist were ever foolish enough to detonate a nuke, communications now are so good that noone would start nuclear bombing one another (unless, of course, some idiot has created a Doomsday Device as conceived in 'Dr Strangelove'; then we are screwed).

As far as I can tell, the only source of war in the future (apart from Border quarrel or if China decides to annexe another territory) between the major powers would be sparked by trade disputes. e.g. you Americans realise that you've out sourced so much stuff to the Chinese that it would irrevocably harm your economy, then the Chinese laugh in your face; and it all escalates . Then the Submariners of the world can earn their Dolphins and start sending container ships to the bottom faster than you can say "Anchors Aweigh".

Otherwise, we can look forward to fluctuating markets but no war for the next few decades. Yay.

[Sophion-Black 0]

Nah, military strength is of basically no consequence at that scale. The Chinese may be communists per ideology, but today they have a market economy. Trade is important to all sides. Why try to kill a good customer? Plus, the cost of war is far too high when all sides are armed with nukes.

China might at most invade Taiwan. While this is bad news for the Taiwanese, for the rest of the world, it doesn't really matter. Sure, it wouldn't be nice, but it's not something the US would go to war with China for.

huh? I don't think you know what the US thinks about China:

1) BIG

2) BAD (commies)

3) WOLF (agressive because they're commies)

why would the US go to war with China? its like giving up about half (what it seems like) our products. Kids back home will play with sticks lol.

Theres a romur going around that Al-queda relocated thier base to Somolia, I think if its right then Somolia would be next. Or France if they keep up being stuborn and not look at how many times we put our asses out on the line for them (INCLUDING VIETNAM )

[denoir 0]

1) the rank above you posted is incorect by the origanal site, it shows the EU at no rank copy it right.

Quote[/b] ]— European Union 13,926,873

1 United States 12,438,873

2 Japan 4,799,061

3 Germany 2,906,658

Actually, when I copied it, it had rank. Check out the history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w....history

The last revision was:

Quote[/b] ](cur) (last)  00:52, 13 Jun 2005 Cantus (rv -- no proof about claims on Afghanistan, unrank EU)

Apparently, if you look at the history, there's a war going on there between three sides, one that is trying to remove the EU from the list, one that is trying to remove the rank and one that is trying to include and rank it. Apparently a question of bad timing.

Here's the revision that I copied it from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w....5091975

[denoir 0]

Theres a romur going around that Al-queda relocated thier base to Somolia, I think if its right then Somolia would be next.

It's called Somalia.

Quote[/b] ]Or France if they keep up being stuborn and not look at how many times we put our asses out on the line for them

Heh, well, that depends on how much you like to be nuked.

[harley 3 1185 0]

Nah, military strength is of basically no consequence at that scale. The Chinese may be communists per ideology, but today they have a market economy. Trade is important to all sides. Why try to kill a good customer? Plus, the cost of war is far too high when all sides are armed with nukes.

China might at most invade Taiwan. While this is bad news for the Taiwanese, for the rest of the world, it doesn't really matter. Sure, it wouldn't be nice, but it's not something the US would go to war with China for.

huh? I don't think you know what the US thinks about China:

1) BIG

2) BAD (commies)

3) WOLF (agressive because they're commies)

why would the US go to war with China? its like giving up about half (what it seems like) our products. Kids back home will play with sticks lol... Or France if they keep up being stuborn and not look at how many times we put our asses out on the line for them (INCLUDING VIETNAM   )

Sure, if China invaded Taiwan and the U.S. did nothing about it, you'd be preserving that 'half' the consumer goods you use over there-but lose Taiwan and that's another quarter gone , leaving the rest of your market share to the EU and the Mexicans.

And dare I start the ball rolling here but in French Indochina (Vietnam before 1954) the U.S. had no actual say in tactical and strategic policy. What the U.S. did do was supply the French with huge amounts of military aid in the selfish belief that the French fighting in Indochina would halt the fall of Communism in South East Asia (self-determination for Vietnam NEVER came into it).

It is noteworthy that the Vietnamese rebels fighting the French were mainly supplied by the Communist Chinese; who in turn had obtained most of their weapons from the Nationalist Chinese after the latter's defeat in 1949, who in turn recieved all their equipment from the United States in the first place. Also the rebels tended to capture large weapon stocks from the French, so conveniently supplied by the Americans.

After the French admitted defeat after the fall of Dien Bien Phu (which would make an excellent OFP map by the way), it was decided that there would be a conference at Geneva to determine the future of Vietnam. Instead of allowing a unified state to be formed, with free elections, the United States forced the seperation of the country into North and South, because it knew that the Communists under Ho CHi Minh would win easily. Under the American proposal, it would be possible to create an American-friendly regime in the south, where the Communists had less influence.

Even the French, who had just fought constantly for nine years, were opposed to this plan, due to the travesty it was making of 'self-determination'.

And the rest, they say, is history.

Seeing as the United States was the most powerful country in the world in 1954 yet deliberately refused to get its hands dirty in propping up a bulwark against communism can hardly be seen as 'putt(ing) our asses on the line for them'.

After the Saintly Eisenhower's deliberate hijacking of the Geneva Accords, America got itself involved through no fault of the French for the next 21 years and 50,000 American dead.

[walker 0]

Hi all

Is it me?

Or are a certain section of this community acting guilty paranoid?

Kind Regards walker

[Supah 0]

Am I alone at finding the Bush UN report incredibly funny? The is really the pot calling the Kettle black Also, I don't think a nation that has failed to pay its membership fee for years should have such a big mouth about the organisation. You want reforms? Well good pay the money you owe us and we will see how far it stretches. The Bush Administration manages to make America look even more stupid then they allready have.

[harley 3 1185 0]

Hi all

Is it me?

Or are a certain section of this community acting guilty paranoid?

Kind Regards walker

I don't know what you're talking about.

Being British, I have absolutely nothing to feel guilty or Paranoid for, aside from maybe feel shamed for the smooth customer who is my head of Government.

[SPQR 0]

Or France if they keep up being stuborn and not look at how many times we put our asses out on the line for them

[ - Ironical Mod ON - ]

Yes please, invade us in order to get us rid of Chirac, an unpopular dictator (more than 80% in the last presidential elections) with WMD in hands, and bring back the true and peaceful american-like democracy  

The rest of the world is so irresponsible and so ungrateful.

Also, thank you for not having fired upon Florence Aubenas and Hussein Hanoun, when they got realesed  

[ - Ironical Mod OFF - ]

Otherwise, I greet warmly my other american friends, more representative of this great nation and its ideals  

[SFWanabe 0]

Quote[/b] ]Yes please, invade us in order to get us rid of Chirac, an unpopular dictator (more than 80% in the last presidential elections) with WMD in hands, and bring back the true and peaceful american-like democracy

YES my little French pet grobble at my feet. Just kidding dude.

Lets liberate France a 3rd time.

[SFWanabe 0]

Quote[/b] ]Otherwise, I greet warmly my other american friends, more representative of this great nation and its ideals

You have to do more than ass kissing to get liberated now days.

[harley 3 1185 0]

Never forget that America would not exist at all if it weren't for the French interefering with Britain's plans for World domination twice.

'I'd have gotten away with it too if it weren't for you pesky kids!'

[SFWanabe 0]

Yea I remember,Battle of Yorktown. But lets not forget June 6th 1944 where many americans,british,and canadains died trying to get a foothold in France to liberate it. I respect the French,because they arent afraid to say "We dont like the way you run things". Also if your refer to the 2nd time as the War of 1812,the French really didnt help as much and they were pissing us off,lol.

[harley 3 1185 0]

Oh, worry not, I'm not criticising the French (although I do wish they'd had a more cohesive defense policy in 1940); I love them-otherwise I would not have bothered learning to speak the language.

They're full of themselves in a way we Brits can only reminisce about.  La France, as they say, is eternal...

I was also referring to the War of 1812, SFWanabe, and indirectly the French were a source of you not getting your asses kicked;  just imagine if every battle-hardened regiment from France, Spain, Portugal, Egypt and India had been sent to the U.S.A. instead of fighting Napoleon.  Then the s*** would have really hit the fan...

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]and in every response there after, you try to dilute the situation by saying "everyone is not clean". In that case, you would be admitting that GOP has problems. however, while you try to prove that point with zeal, you do not say that "What Helms said is wrong". In other words, you are more interested in defeding Helms, while simultaneously depict Dems as trash. turning a blind eye this is.

I'm not defending Helms comments and etc. but to say that GOP is bias, in sense of Helms, because of one man beliefs is ridiculous. Granted, GOP is bias, in an general sense, but so is the Demo. Party. Individuals, like him (loosely), exist in both parties and hence, both parties have trash.

Quote[/b] ]Pat Buchanan was not born an incubator with GOP gene. What he is is an individual joining a party. If he had wrong view, it would have been a lot better if he was asked to calm down or stand on the side. but he was a fierce speaker for conservative cause.

He considered a RINO..  

Quote[/b] ](need I mention that military failed to meet the recruitment goal last month?).

Only the Army and it's "affiliates" missed it goal. Marines, Navy, and AF made their goals.

[Warin 0]

And representative of French cowardice, those bastards lost more men fighting the Boche in the first world war than the US has lost in all of it's wars combined. (including that insane total of 600,000+ casualties where y'all were killing each other!)

Chickenshit cowards! Cheese eating surrender monkeys, the lot of them

I wish the "bash the French" thing would just go away. it is ignorant and represents an opinion totally without basis in reality.

[walker 0]

Hi all

I think the bash the french thing is linked to the guilty paranoia thing.

Kind Regards Walker

[Fork122 0]

Quote[/b] ]Hi all

I think the bash the french thing is linked to the guilty paranoia thing.

Kind Regards Walker

I personally think the whole bash the french thing (for americans at least) orginated after the French decided to not go to Iraq. People here in America were going crazy, they had stickers that said "First Iraq, Then France". We also started calling French Fries, "Freedom Fries". Amazing how a bunch of people who have no idea about the French and how they helped America will get together and be angry at the French.