S. C. DIXON

Firstly, as near as I know, NO NATION's population enjoys a higher standard of living than those in the U.S.A.

It is sometimes unfortunate, however, with what we choose to do with our wealth. Recently Clinton chose to give 200 million dollars of it to Vietnam, which I find unfathomably strange.

Now he is granting last-minute pardons to his Whitewater buddies while Leonard Peltier, an American Indian activist, rots in a cell in Leavenworth, Kansas for a questionable "crime" committed 30 years ago (even after another man admitted that it was he, not Peltier who killed an FBI agent who was admittedly working outside his jurisdiction within the soverign boarders of the Sioux Nation. Even had Peltier been found guilty of first degree murder {which he was not) he would have been out of prison years ago. But, this is America. He has no politcal clout and no money, so he will most likely die in prison... but I digress).

Give the average American male an SUV in the driveway, a sweat suit, a 12 pack, a couch and a big-screen tv with hours of mindless, seemingly unstoppable sporting events and, believe me, he can give a red rat's rear about anything else that might be happening in the world, let along in his own country.

As far as its being a shame that more American's didn't vote, here in the Midwest, the very last bastion of a hard work ethic, family values and the American Dream of success through your own labour, not through the kindness of some huge, Socialist Big Brother, we call that "bull%*&^".

If one is NOT going to bother to learn the issues, to judge beyond a candidate,s looks, ability to produce "user friendly" sound bytes and the size of their check book(s), please, PLEASE do the world a favor and stay home.

PLEASE DON'T VOTE!

I shudder when I recall reports during the first Clinton election of American women coming from the polls and proudly announcing that they voted for Willy because he was the "best looking" and/or the "sexiest" candidate.

God help us all.

That aside, Merry Christmas to my friends in America AND in Europe.

xxx

s.c.dixon

Switzerland and Luxembourg to name just two.
The propoganda pumped into Americans minds reminds me of a communist state.

xxx

XXX:

Sucks being wrong, doesn't it? And by the way, who are you to say who will have the last word on a public forum? Isn't that exactly what YOU were trying to do with your last post? Typical liberal hypocrite.

Merry X-Mas and Happy New Year

Marzy

My big concern: That Dubya is gonna jack up things enough so that the hotel room I confirmed for $150 US dolloars will cost me $200 by the time I get to Europe next summer. On the other hand I can tell my kids I am smarter than a sitting president. What a joke!

abcd

Marzy:

You are smarter than a sitting president? Somehow, I doubt it. On what do you base this ASSumption? To me, you sound petty ignorant to make a statement like that. What are your credentials?

Tom

Marzy,

...and exactly when did you get your degrees from Yale and Harvard?

Until you do, I'd suggest that you are wrong. Now you may be smarter than Bubbba, but GWB is another matter altogether!

Amik

The problem is not so much that Bush is, how to say, not very intelectual - because he isn't, or that he doesn't know too much about the world, because he does not, or that being the leader of the free world is much too big on him... He IS a likable guy, certainly more likable and charming than Gore.

The problem is that Bush Jr. is a PUPPET, a tool in his father's hands and his friends', the revenge for the 1992 defeat by Clinton. They didn't give Clinton one day of grace.

And we alrady see how the extreme right, the religious right, the ultra conservatives are starting to show up among the new administration nominees. With them in power this country is going to wipe out 10-15 years of progress. The NRA will have a ball, every citizen will be encouraged to carry a gun, and every small domestic dispute will be solved with a shot between the eyes.

And THAT IS SCARY. Had a strong, intelligent person like McCain won the presidency, I wouldn't be as worried. At least he is modern, and he IS pushing to do something about election financing reform, which Bush wouldn't...

Amik.

XXX

xxx

Yes it was! I actually want to have the last word, again I will say Switzerland and luxembourg.

Happy Christmas ;-)

Tom

Amik,

First, Merry Christmas!

Second, I think you make far too many broad generalizations. I own a gun, but haven't shot anyone to date. Law abiding citizens have the right to own guns, it's the law of our land. If however, you commit a crime with a gun, you should go to jail. Someone needs to tell that to the Clinton administration that used guns as a political issue, but never prosecuted those that broke the laws.

I'm a Christian, but I do not impose my will on anyone. Why do you believe that Christian appointees will?

Exactly which "right wing extremists" are you talking about? Colin Powell, Christie Todd Whitman....come on, I'm laughing out loud here, exactly where are they?

Look GWB may not be Einstein, but he does have 2, count them 2, earned degrees, one from Harvard, and one from Yale. Now unless, I misssed it, they do not just give those degrees out.

Once again, please think before you make those general, one brush paints all statements.

Thanks,

Anona

Just a couple things I've heard on the news recently: Gore was on the long list of candidates to be, I believe, president of Harvard. However, according the article (in a piece of quite frank journalism) Gore is not likely to be chosen because he lacked the educational and intellectual requirements. I'm not saying he is dumb, but I find it laughable that any of us can suggest that Gore is brilliant and/or Bush is dumb. To do so only reveals our own ignorance. Another thing, as we all (in the US) know, it has been a tough year for the economy. GWB has noted that we may be looking at a recession. The Clinton admin. and the liberal press are up in arms saying don't say the "r" word. According to them and many Dems, the good economy is due solely to Clinton's tenure, and not such capitalistic functions, such as market forces (i.e. the tech boom). The downturn scares the Dems b/c it disproves the theory that a Democratic pres. = good economy. In fact, some Dems and/or liberal press members (hard to tell the difference sometimes) are already characterizing this turndown as the "Bush" recession, and he hasn't even taken office, just to try to pass the buck. Talk about propaganda.

Joann

Anona, Propaganda? propaganda is what your message seems to be! WOW, talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Smoke screen, anybody?

abcd

The truth hurts, doesn't it, Joann? Run and put your head in the sand when presented with facts like a good little liberal. Why not throw in some ignorant comments for good measure...c'mon, we know you can do it! Use all the liberal buzz words - "racist," "homophobe," "Nazi," etc. if it'll make you feel better! You might even proclaim that you are smarter than a president-elect. We want you to feel better about yourself, so knock yourself out!

anona

Joann -- All I did was report what I am reading in the press. If that is propaganda then you have subscribed to my point. It concerns me greatly that a great number of posters here suggest that GWB is dumb and/or that they are smarter than GWB, as they (like me) pine away about travel instead of doing something a little more substantive, like run and win the presidency of the US. Don't get me wrong: I'm content to pine away here and don't fault others for the same, but geeez, give GWB some credit. Whether you like him or not and even if he isn't as slick as the current Pres (thank goodness) doesn't mean he isn't smart. Gore was, according to most press reports, a great debater and part of the intelligencia. However, his debating (sigh) left much to be desired (sigh, eyeroll) and compared to the true intelligencia (according to the article I read) he doesn't compare. Don't write me off as too partisan just yet, b/c I would concede that Clinton is very intelligent, probably much more so that Gore, Bush, you and me but, alas, he has some judgment and zipper problems. As for the recession issue, if there is propaganda it is in those already trying to suggest that it is Bush's fault. Hopefully, such an effort is stunted before it grows.

rightmoderate

anona,

I support Predident-elect Bush but Cheney and Bush coming out and talking "recession" is pure politcal play which is the very thing Clinton has been acused of in the press and by yourself. I don't know how old you are, but have you ever lived through a true recession? OF course, the markets are down, as they well should be after dot.com reality and slower growth in revenue. But this is not a recession by the defined term. I personally believe Cheney/Bush are doing it for several reasons of 1) is) to push for the tax cut they want 2)to insure that the term "recession" is coined to the Clinton presidency, (for the future) 3) create an "evil" for the which the right/far right is so famous for (communists, liberalism, etc....) Again, I support Bush, but but your comments about "as for the recession issue, if there is propaganda it is in those already trying to suggest that it is Bush's fault."----I am not sure if your statement is true but I am positive that it was Cheney who started the recession talk and tried to pin it on the left. Also, I do not think CLinton has said that he deserves all the credit for the good economy. As much as I hate to say it, you get what comes under your administration. And I do believe there has been certain strong leadership in the White House and both parties in Congress. It just bothers me to go back to "cold war" tactics of having/fighting an "evil" out there. It is not a progressive direction to take, especially so early.

anona

Rightmoderate: Good points. I would like to think that Cheney's discussion of a recession is not an effort to pin it on Clinton -- I think it would be difficult to state that Clinton caused a recession, any more than he caused the economic upturn. Instead, I think Cheney's bringing it up is likely a defensive effort to say: "if the economy tanks and we head into an actual recession, then remember we didn't cause the downfall" b/c there will be those who will try to blame it on the coming administration. I can't blame Bush/Cheney for that. Again, though, I don't think they should try to pin a recession on Clinton or visa versa.

rightmoderate

anona,

Good points but I still say that Cheney's intention was not a discussion on Recession. He brought it into the vocabulary which I believe was the wrong thing to do. Then the press picked up and Bush started to use it. In the meeting between Bush/Clinton, Clinton came out looking like the "smart guy" when he gave the definition after Bush basically said the word and nothing else. (which pushes the "dimwit" theory) I just think it is the wrong way to go and will end up hurting Bush in the long run. Yes, we are seeing layoffs but when we have the employment statistics that we have now, there is no resemblence to past recessions of the 70's, 80's and early 90's. Both the right, moderate and left wing press are waiting to pick-off mistakes that Bush/Cheney make like this one. (Novak for one right wing). This is the "cold-war" mindset that is not progressive. Like it or not, the last 8 years was a progressive time and the majority, Bush fans or Gore fans, got use to it.

Val

For all those who are calling the recent US election as a strike against democracy due to the fact that Gore lost but won more popular votes, let me talk a little about the 1974 British election. Heath's Conservatives defeated Wilson's Labour 37.9 to 37.3 but Labour won 301 seats to 297 for the Tories. The Liberals won something like 15 seats and formed a coalition with Labour with the Libs being the junior partner. Absolute democracy did not win then. Just recently, the Canadian Liberal Party won absolute control of Canada's parliament though they won only about 45 % of the vote.

international

Val, no. The strike against democracy came whith the unsigned partisan Supreme Court decision that undermined individual rights, while cloaking its disjointed logic in an absurd application of 14th Amendment equal protection. This was collusion by five partisan justices that in the past have undermined the application of equal protection, so it was a double slap. This might be a hard concept for a non-American to understand. Democracy suffered not because of the the popular vote inversion, although in itself ironic in a "democratic" sense, but because 5 partisan Supreme Court justices ran out the clock in order to ensure a technical victory for their candidate. Does anyone but the staunchest Bush partisan really believe that recounts would have declared Bush the winner? No, he lost in Florida too.
Enough has been reported about the partisan ties of Scalia, Thomas, and O'Connor. Their decision was one of the most clearly partisan and worst written ever, i.e., no legal precedent. They did not even pretend otherwise. See the scathing dissents. That's what undermined democracy.

abcd

International:

I'm wondering if you feel the same way about the liberal Democrat activist judges on the Florida Supreme Court who overstepped their bounds, ruling in favor of Gore, changing the rules in mid-game desperately trying to get their guy in office? Hmmmmm....?

Come on, tell me you have the intellectual honesty to admit their partisanship?

international

The Florida Supreme Court was doing its job in interpreting FLORIDA LAW. It was put in a catch 22 by the conservative majority in the US Supreme Court, who deliberately RAN OUT THE CLOCK. Had the FLA SCT set up enforceable standards, it would have been post-election standard-setting. In its decision, which Bush appealed, it allowed for hand recounts in ALL FLORIDA. Now, are you going to tell me that you actually think Bush would have won in a state-wide recount?

The Florida Supreme Court, in its directions to apply the FLORIDA RECOUNT statute within the context of FLORIDA LAW (get that, state's rights proponent?) went with the language in the STATUTE, i.e., the clear intent of the voter. As was utilized in the hand recount that Bush requested and got in New Mexico, consistent with New Mexico law. Did the Gore campaign appeal to the Supreme Court?

But this is not about the rule of law, which is why history will not be kind to the Renquist court, and we are fully entitled to skepticism and civil uncooperation towards a Bush presidency, the FIRST EVER President-Select.

Much already has been said about the clear Republican partisanship exhibited by Scalia, Thomas, and O'Connor.

According to the independently conducted recounts being conducted by the media, there have been 130 double votes gained by Gore in a Bush county where pople WROTE IN THE NAME IN ADDITION TO PUNCHING THE HOLE. If that's not clear indication, I don't know what is.

The Bush Dynasty has suppresed the truth, and if that's the kind of America you want, the world grieves. So much emotion, so little intellectual honesty.