The U.S. Government

[Channing]

The U.S. government literally has been in a very slow decline for some time now. I noticed this when I was younger. The most prevelent knowledge I have is very specific in nature. I have lived overseas during the time of the Gulf War. I've seen things many children shouldn't see at that age. I really unnerves me how much this nation has changed. And it's not necessarily the president. If you logically think about it. The president is a leader of the nation. But his power is extremely limited. Sure he can pose outrageous restrictions but congress will undoubtedly filter the nonsense.

I noticed we've had such an onslaught of natural disaster. It's totally depleting American funding. But with the current catastrophes things must be arranged. So spending is thrown out the window for the better of the people.

Naturally a democrat in office speeds things up. Which can be very well. If a bad time in America is happening it will hastily be removed. A republican in office slows down the economy and general being as a whole. So it's best to have democrats in hard times, and republicans in good times. So I'm not quick to judge a president when it comes to natural disaster. Because it's not literally his will that proceeds the charity. But rather the office as a whole.

And with 9/11. (Which nearly was impossible to prevent. And once again I raise the issue that of course people can claim Bush was wrong in not stepping further but then again it takes years to get good intelligence and further more that intelligence funding was completely denied by Clinton himself. So you see how the chain works. Inaction will bring action. And so on.) It completely destroyed the American economy. It's really hard to remember what things were like before 9/11. I remember peace and rare mention of the president. Ever since then... Everything has been quite stressful.

I am a college student and in all honesty I have been paying more attention and trying to look at the bigger picture before jumping on the bandwagon like most agreeing with their psuedo-elitist friends in hopes of garning support with comments like "f*** Bush!" It just seems to me like this was a building phase. And not something that was immediately a result of 1 presidency alone.

How do you feel?

[blackline77]

i think bush is a strong leader. no matter what other countries or people say.

[Teek]

America is at the threshold. Times are changing. You're right to recognize that it is not only the president who makes the entire system bad. Either we strive to go back to the way things were, either we make America the bastion of liberty and justice for all, or America won't be a superpower by the time I am gone.

[bipper]

Hachifusa should run for office. DO IT!

I have had about the same opinions. With the democrats run filibusters just because they do not have house majority they are degrating and exposing loopholes in our system. I know loophole is not a great word for it, as a filibuster is simply slangish for one whom abuses his time on the floor to prevent a subject from going through.

I personally think what we are seeing is a weekness in our Democratic Republic. (Now that am in the know on this ) It seems very good, except there is so much going on that when people get lazy in thier jobs, (President to us voters) it is often over looked. People need to remember that the Government works for us! The system is great, but like any other system in the world, it has its weakness, and it is in the lazyness of our political retards filling the seats.

I admint I do not even know as much about my local representation as I should. I have strong opinions on several, but the others just barley exist in my mind. It is a LOT harder to find material on the local representatin, even in the local papers. You may find them voting on somthing, but you can only do so much once they have voted. I need to be able to see what their beleifs are before I vote for them. I klnow every pamplet says imporve jobs, raise wages, lower taxes, and world peace..

I would like to think that we should almsot have localized websights for our state governemnts. Almost like a forum set up where people can publicly post concerns and questions of our representation. I think that would be an amazing concept to impliment, and would probally up the efficancy of our government 10 fold

Bipper

[cookieface]

I personally think Bush is a weak leader, because he's splitting up the people of the country, and the world in general. I also don't agree with the alarmed and defensive tunnelvision of that side.
But you're right that, in reality, the president is responsible for little. Take GWB for example. Half love him, half hate him. That's just about it, that's what he represents. If it wasn't him, it would have been another candidate representing those beliefs. But I think it will forever remain true that a person that conveys such a lack of curiosity isn't a good idea for a candidate in the long run, because it aggrevates the separation.

The "**** bush" type of comments happen from both sides. Sheeple just go around doing their thing for, basically, just entertainment purposes. It doesn't really matter to me. That's why I don't title myself after any party.

[edczxcvbnm]

I would say government has been in decline since Nixon. Kennedy was okay. LBJ was great minus vietnam. Then we get to nixon. I just choose him as a starting point because everyone since him has been okay and not good or great. Not bad(except our current prez). It is about that time also that TV really started to grab a bigger overall audience with elections and news I believe.

[bipper]

Our government being in a decline, and our representation being in a decline are two different things. I don't think we have had good leadership in a long while.

Our Government is begining to decline, due to rules and split opinions running things. Look at this instance(All facts are not 100% accurate, but they do illistrate my point - so bear with me): The republicans belive that Immigrants would be a great source of low income workers to take the smaller jobs that we don't take ourselves (they are out there, and this point is good). This gets the family in as a low income American, and lets them be better off than they may have been in thier own country. While the Democrats belive that these people then, as poor Americans, need several legs up so they can become 'standard Americans'. This gets immagrants free college, grace periods on Taxes, Free college gratns, no intrest loans, and several other benifits. Next thing you know, immagrants have it better than we Americans do, and the plan backfired. (This is really happening, as I have met several foreiners in college.)

The above example is not intended to pose my views in anyother area, save for the fact that our republic grows weak with split representation all getting thier ways in different areas. This is what I mean by the evil power of the filibuster. One side will use it (usually the minority) to draw out debates into sencless jibber-jabber. Eventually both parties buckle down and get a working agreement done. It just does not seem healthy.

/shrug
Bipper

[animaonline]

I hate bush and I'm not even liven in the U.S.... lol

[udsuna]

So, what's wrong with a little decline? We've been the prevailing nation for the last half century. The sole (effective) super-power for the last quarter-century. Let someone else do it for a while. It's about time we said "screw you guys, we're going home" and worry about our own borders for a while.

Our own founding fathers told us to stay away from Europe. And, to keep Europe out of this hemisphere. We did good for ourselves, following that rule, until WW1. After that war, we've just been getting into everyone else's mess, and making plenty of trouble for ourselves in the process. Nothing good has come of it for us. So, decline is good, it means everyone else will stop pestering us for whatever reasons.

[Cuchulainn]

So, what's wrong with a little decline? We've been the prevailing nation for the last half century. The sole (effective) super-power for the last quarter-century. Let someone else do it for a while. It's about time we said "screw you guys, we're going home" and worry about our own borders for a while.

Our own founding fathers told us to stay away from Europe. And, to keep Europe out of this hemisphere. We did good for ourselves, following that rule, until WW1. After that war, we've just been getting into everyone else's mess, and making plenty of trouble for ourselves in the process. Nothing good has come of it for us. So, decline is good, it means everyone else will stop pestering us for whatever reasons.

Being isolationist has its plus' but also its minus'. Your forefathers came from Europe, the majority of the people that have held power since have been European by descent.

Isolationism to the letter doesn't work. You cannot cut yourself off from world events. It builds distrust and lack of understanding and distrust and a lack of understanding are two of the major causes of a war in the first place. You must interact with the other nations otherwise you may forget that the world is round.

[udsuna]

It worked really well for every other nation in history that has done it. At least, until they broke it. Russia was doing great until one of the Tzars decided to emulate the west. The orient was similarly advantaged. The few great nations that were in Africa fell when they started interaction with Europe. Even Mexico was a strong mini-empire until it invited the US citizens to help populate Texas.

Isolationism may not breed trust, but it rarely breeds distrust. In most cases, everyone adopts an "eh, oh well" mentality and goes on existing merily along as they always did.

[Cuchulainn]

It worked really well for every other nation in history that has done it. At least, until they broke it. Russia was doing great until one of the Tzars decided to emulate the west. The orient was similarly advantaged. The few great nations that were in Africa fell when they started interaction with Europe. Even Mexico was doing great until it invited the US citizens to help populate Texas.

Isolationism may not breed trust, but it rarely breeds distrust. In most cases, everyone adopts an "eh, oh well" mentality and goes on existing merily along as they always did.

The only truely isolationist nation in the modern world now is none other than North Korea. The most mistrusted nation on earth.

I agree there may have been a time when it was a viable option, but since WWI, it failed. It's near impossible to uphold and the reasons those countries you listed broke it was because it was becoming a strain on their economy. FDR was a born isolationist, even he couldn't stand the tide of change. Lend-lease was crippling him more than actually going to war.

[udsuna]

The only truely isolationist nation in the modern world now is none other than North Korea. The most mistrusted nation on earth.

And their (not-so) clandestine nuclear weapons program, not to mention lying through their teeth to the U.N., had nothing to do with this?

And I think Switzerland is a great example of what an isolationist country should be like. Thailand, too, to a lesser degree. Come, visit, meet the locals, spend your money, and GO HOME!!! But in a polite way. They don't send their officials to pester other countries. They just hand out tour guides and sit back and obey only the international laws they feel like.

All of Switzerland's population is a military resource. Every adult male has spent time serving their armed forces. They could shred to pieces an invasion from land or air without any advance warning. They have surface-to-target missile bases to a concentration that is unrivalled anywhere else in the world. Their border is virtually impregnable... you'd take lighter losses invading America after giving them a 2-week warning and the exact location of your attack.

And they do all of this without anyone even noticing they exist. Except for barely-legal bank accounts and ski slopes.

[Traitorfish]

i think bush is a strong leader. no matter what other countries or people say.

'Strong' and a good for the country are two different things. Stalin was a 'strong' leader. Ghenghis Khan was a 'strong' leader. Strength means nothing if you exploit and harm your own countymen.
Anyway, it's questionable how strong Bush is. He may invade other countries, and ignore all critiscism, but he's not strong. Ghandi was strong. Dr. King was strong. Che Guevara, Kier Hardie, Ho Chi Mihn, they were strong.
Bush, he's just a small-minded aristocrat, controlled by blood-thirsty corporations. Not strong.

[Brian The Pink Shark]

Funnily enough i dont remember hearing anything about Iraq after september 11, it was all Afghanistan this and Saudi Arabia that, Bush is just trying to finish of his Father's work and look what he's done, he's destroyed Iraq without taking a care for his own country (ie. Katrina). Also America's supposed to be a democracy, the protests before and after the war have shown her people do not want this, Bush doesnt seem to go the opposite way and is hust seeking revenge for Sept 11, Gulf war etc