Political parties aren't "little groups" (they number in the tens of millions of registered voters). Political parties also have a completely different structure of leadership. They are basically set up as a board where you have multiple elected officials and a chairman. The board basically sets the political agenda. Through a delegate vote, they nominate a "head of party." Once there is a head, the board basically takes a backseat; however, should something happen to the head, the board can quick set the course for the future. A power vacuum is never permitted to form.
In US maybe a political party consists of tens of millions of registered voters, but in the end there's
only two parties playing games there.
In here we've quite a few parties, at least in Germany/Austria it's not any different. I dont know about the rest of EU though, prolly England has the same as USA. To let the total civilization count away of this, from what I meant is that at least for us there's a party with members and actually people from the party. I dont call those members, which are basicly just dedicated voters helping their party as much as possible in the society, the actual party.
Maybe this is seriously different in USA, but a party here of course has some roots with certain people because of their ideology. But eventual people from the party are allowed, be it in reasonable terms, to say what they think there should be changed. That's why the VVD in our country got so popular because Wilders could say things a lot of people wanted to hear, be it balanced by the rest of the party. He left the VVD and set up his own PVV, resulting mostly the rooted liberal still support VVD anyway but the popularity of PVV didnt show since Wilders could actually express everything resulting in like Islamapobia and only specializing on that and certain immigration issues but had nothing else to offer. That's what I mean with a political party being 'small', at least compared to a real ideology from say national socialism, anti-western etc.
I think Powell was right on that account: The best way to counter the bin Laden types is to get involved economically. The only reason the ideals of bin Laden are permitted to exist is because of the economic disparity of the people in the region. If the economic disparity is removed, there is no more fuel for the fire. That's the long term solution.
You know Taliban was actually given money from USA government right? Besides that, it's plain rubbish to be honest. Bin Laden has been the one using economical warfare for all the time, both against Russia as well as against USA. Actually, Taliban isnt permitted to excist by, AFAIK, any Mid East countries but I could be wrong on that.
In the short term, bin Laden has the blood of thousands of innocent civilians on his hands--he needs to be brought to justice.
That's quite hypocrit, Bush has just as much innocent blood on his hands if not the whole USA government for the past 16 years.
It's a bit like what was first? The egg or the chicken. I said it a few times already, Osama's actions did not came out of the blue as a "haha lol, lets mess with USA". There's a weird history between USA and Taliban. Although, Im not praising those actions from Osama, but at 9/11 I cared more if my food wasnt too cold than about that really, and lots of people cared as much as I did.
I won't argue about the current situation in Iraq. I'll leave that to the Iraqis. What I will say is violence is way down from where it was a year ago.
I still see them they want USA to leave though, it was only two days ago on the news
Violence maybe became worse, will it stay at that level though? What does it change?
No one commits suicide unless they are mentally unstable to begin with. There has never really been an enormous number of suicide bombers and the few that are willing to do it are slowly, ehm, dying off.
I meant from both sides, USA soldiers are just as much comitting suicide there for their 'ideology'.
The Taliban are/were in Afghanistan. They never had any significant presence in Iraq. They were removed from power in 2001 but they have become resurgent since 2004. That story is still i nthe works...
Seriously, they'll remain in Afghanistan and Pakistan at least. Word wide recruitment has been going on for years now. It's not a bunch of friends who knew each other from a 2K population town.
Perhaps you forgot about China. In turn, the failure of capitalism is in progress.
China isnt all that communistic anymore, at least it's pretty much using capitalistic movements now to or not to boost it's communistic structure. China is one of the most communistic countries and it worked/works for a long time but it's not the real communism either, they've a mix. But currently China is slowly getting hit by the capitalistic fall in the west too.
Good for you. Everyone needs a vacation now and again.
Well, we actually went 1 week to Turkey cause my sister was getting married. Was pretty cool though, but one week is way too short:shadedshu
Unfortunately that 'dream' of "having whatever I need" is induced by what? Oh, Government Involvement - that's right, Government.
Please get out of that shell and actually read what I say.
Im saying at some point everything is working so nice everyone is taking risks which actually pay very well. More risks are taken untill a huge amount of the population, banks and compagnies actually have no clue what exactly is going on, but this doesnt matter at that moment because it just 'works'... for that moment. Certain factors are being an issue for certain parts of the structure and it all falls down and the destruction isnt even clear thus far.
And by this I mean that the government actually should just, well, be it records of everything. Not as a serious control or whatever, but if some part of the structure is taking risks what might cause a global scrapheap I do think a government is allowed to warn that certain part of the structure.
No, the stupidity goes to the democrat party and jimmy carter for thinking that, by forcing banks to lower their standards, you'll get poor people into houses. Well he was right on that part... but the lower the standards went, well...
Funny as I saw Bush in '02 I think saying that he wanted special deals from certain banks for poor people who have been known not to pay their credit back, being a complete asshat regarding money etc so they could buy their own houses.
Of course, that's because government gets involved. "To protect you"...
While this whole Housing debacle started, it started with the Variable rate loans given to people who could not meet good lending standards. Call it what you will, corporate greed is a favorite term, the fact is, the government set the standard that let people qualify without income documentation, and at the same time made it illegal for the bank to re-negotiate those loans. A third brilliant thing that they did was pass this 'regulation' called 'write down to mark'.
So here we have 3 nice examples of Government "helping"...
1 - let virtually anyone qualify (even illegal immigrants who could not document their social security number!)
2 - make it illegal for the bank to re-negotiate terms without re-contracting completely. When the Federal reserve and LIBOR rates went up, these banks could have said "hmmm, these 5% of our loans on Variable rate are having trouble paying already... rate going up a point? that's not going to be good.... "
3 - write down to mark... if a bank has, for example 10 homes in an area (in the US, that area would typically be defined by zip code or even zip+4 neighborhood), and they repossess one of those homes, and they sell it at a loss, they have to write down the asset value of the other 9.
This results in their debt to asset ratio artificially going up, which makes them - according to the government - insolvent.
It's quite ironical, it's like the USA army 'helping' as the USA government is 'helping.
Helping does not automatically mean 'helping', I do hope you know that. I dont know how exactly things should be done but if you seriously believe that how it currently was going was all good then Ive to ask you why communism is so bad, because it's just as good.
Of course, the media feeding frenzy didn't help. The fact that they report nothing but bad news, which scares poor bob and joan, so they postpone buying their new car (which they may have even been on the way out to do when they saw the news...), which impacts the auto industry, and so on.
It was actually the government, at least in EU, crapping their pants even before the media could fart. But on the otherhand, we've been seeing this crisis coming for how long now? Im a big fan of libaralism though, but all the 'losses', be it jobs or houses which
have to be sold, are all those losses bought thanks to the dream or not? That's quite hard to describe since
everything and
everyone was pulled into this dream.
It's a bit like Igarus, it all goes higher and higher till a certain point, then everything is lost.
laissez Faire / trickle down economics are the BEST. Government should have nothing to do with it. They should not be the largest buyer of any commodity, except TANKS and Bombers, of course...
wut
I seriously dont think tanks and bombers are the number one on the fucking shopping list of a government. FYI, that's another part to blame the current crap in the USA on, Bush and Clinton playing Rambo in Serbia, Mid East and as desert a missile defence system in EU
Then to think Iran is having their own space program, I think that's quite funny though
No seriously, Im not saying all that Rambo loving is to blame for the crisis, but it was a big catalyst, if not
the.
BJ, chosing a president does not only have to do with economy. It has to do with a lot of things. Only for the lol that Palin is so called 'pro-life' but does support guns
Hell, even Paris Hilton would be a better asset for McCain