Well, it’s over and so I guess it’s time to try and predict what will happen next.
Here are my best/worst case scenarios for Bush’s next term
Best case
Bush decides to concentrate on uniting America, and reaching out to the world bringing love and happiness wherever he goes…
Iraq has successful elections - Most US, British, Polish etc. troops come home.
Bin Laden is captured/killed.
No more terrorist attacks.
Manages to control the debt.
Democrats win in 2008
Worst case
Bush decides he can do whatever the hell he likes now so…
Invades any or all of the following: Syria, Iran, North Korea (and anyone else he feels like.) Israel gets involved and goodbye world.
The rest of the world get even more fed up with him and America in general.
Iraq goes belly-up
Another, even deadlier attack, on US soil.
The American debt increases ten-fold.
Oil reaches $75+ (take your pick)
Oil drilling starts in Alaska, and the environment in general is screwed.
Rights for gays, minorities are rolled back in US.
Uses the Republican majority to ban the two-term rule and stays President forever.
Obviously for certain people my worst case scenario is their best case and vice-versa.
Edit: I had a picture of a nuke here but it’s no longer functioning.
Anyway, I hope all goes well. I doubt that any president in US history has caused so much divisiveness (except maybe Lincoln) or caused the US and its president to be hated by so many around the world. I fear the Bush administration, bolstered by an increasingly republican congress, will continue to destroy the environment, lose jobs, incite international conflicts, start wars, incur a massive deficit that my daughter will inherit, pass stupid constitutional amendments, appoint biased conservative judges with an agenda to push, pass “morality” and “anti-terrorism” based legislation that will deprive citizens of their rights, etc.
But, what’s done is done. They were elected. So I pray that somehow the above will not transpire, that somehow those in power will acquire some wisdom, humility and compassion, the divisiveness will heal and the people will work together for the good of all.
hmmm… German media see the end of the transatlantic alliance now. Spiegel.de, a very important political magazine, raises fears Europe and USA may be much more different than we thought.
Giving statements like:
Hollywood and Pop stars and standing together in the Cold War gave us the impression, we are the same kind, but now we see how puritanic USA is.
Raising fears, US will develop towards a christian-fundamentalistic country, were Abortion, Homosexuality and “sex before marriage” get people in jail.
Haha, sunday church visit will be mandatory or the local sheriff will come for a visit?
I personally tought USA voters would simply vote for their “commander in chief”, not to replace him in the middle of war.
But spiegel.de states, main reason for voting Bush were “moral values”.
Hmmmm…
Okay, so Europe must take care of its own, if the nasty White-Russians are attacking us with sharp vegetables (or what Fred pointed out).
Der Spiegel? Don’t make me laugh. Der Spiegel has been one of the most biased of all of Germany’s very left leaning publications. Thank heavens for Die Welt. If its editorial dept is weeping over George Bush’s re-election that is a good thing for German-American relations. Be of good cheer and read Die Welt instead. German-American relations are definitely on the upswing and will continue to improve. Wait and see.
[quote=“Musicfan”]Well, it’s over and so I guess it’s time to try and predict what will happen next.
Here are my best/worst case scenarios for Bush’s next term
Best case
Bush decides to concentrate on uniting America, and reaching out to the world bringing love and happiness wherever he goes…
Iraq has successful elections - Most US, British, Polish etc. troops come home.
Bin Laden is captured/killed.
No more terrorist attacks.
Manages to control the debt.
Democrats win in 2008
Worst case
Bush decides he can do whatever the hell he likes now so…
Invades any or all of the following: Syria, Iran, North Korea (and anyone else he feels like.) Israel gets involved and goodbye world.
The rest of the world get even more fed up with him and America in general.
Iraq goes belly-up
Another, even deadlier attack, on US soil.
The American debt increases ten-fold.
Oil reaches $75+ (take your pick)
Oil drilling starts in Alaska, and the environment in general is screwed.
Rights for gays, minorities are rolled back in US.
Uses the Republican majority to ban the two-term rule and stays President forever.
Obviously for certain people my worst case scenario is their best case and vice-versa.[/quote]
I notice in the “morgue” thread in which you write about John Peel, you imply that you are British.
Why do you care what the U.S. national debt is, or whether the U.S. drills in Alaska? Or about rights for “minorities” in the U.S.? You obviously don’t care about the rights of Arabs to live without repression, and odds are you don’t know a thing about ANWR beyond “there’s oil in that thar tundra!”
Are you looking into becoming a U.S. citizen, perhaps? If not, I fail to see why we should care what you feel would be the best/worst case scenarios for a second Bush term.
A lot of Americans like to brag about their being such a super power and having so much influence around the world and are then suprised and indignant that anyone has an opinion about what they do. Can you get anymore arrogant?
Nawww, we don’t brag, but we’ll TELL ya how much, when and why, and how we are a super power, and if you don’t like it then tough!!! Cause we are and that’s end of the story…lol
Worse case is all i see until we get pass the first 9 months of Bush’s 2nd term. Cause in his 1st we had 911. Hmm, and Osama did warn us, before 911 before the election. It’s a good thing I live in Illinois…
[quote=“MaPoSquid”]
Are you looking into becoming a U.S. citizen, perhaps? If not, I fail to see why we should care what you feel would be the best/worst case scenarios for a second Bush term.[/quote]
Well, if people nag so much about Spanish politics and blame their king or premier, a Spanish person will be offended.
I can understand the same goes for US citizen.
But as US is the only superpower left and thus affecting global life in a large extend, others feel free to discuss US politics more openly.
And a lot of this thread is about foreign politics of the US governement, so really every “Earth-citizen” should be free to discuss.
Okay, here in Forumosa are a lot of US citizens and a few other Anglo-Saxon offsprings and others like me. I think we just took over the habbit to join discussion also about US domestic politics like the US citizens.
I for my part like to do it also, but … a little diplomatic and give it a friendly tone usually. Because I remember I did not like our chief of gov. Kohl, but when a Frenchman blamed him, I suddendly became angry, because its inpolite.
Okay… so … we non-US should discuss US more diplomatic.
[quote=“bob_honest”][quote=“MaPoSquid”]
Are you looking into becoming a U.S. citizen, perhaps? If not, I fail to see why we should care what you feel would be the best/worst case scenarios for a second Bush term.[/quote]
Well, if people nag so much about Spanish politics and blame their king or premier, a Spanish person will be offended.[/quote]
It’s not even a matter of diplomacy, Bob. What is so completely fucking stupid about his gripes are that most of them are domestic issues. It’s like me telling the Brits that their “National Health” system is crappy. I’m not in Britain, I’m not a British subject, I’m not even planning to visit – what’s the point of my complaining? Or Germany’s six weeks of vacation per year – what a horrid policy, you lazy krauts, get back to work!
This idiot is whining about ANWR when he’s got about as much idea of what’s up there as what’s in Yellowknife, Yukon Territory – probably less, in fact. Oh yeah, ANWR has some caribou, whatever the f*ck those are, right? (Me, I’ve seen 'em up close and personal. Cute critters, and very tasty. ) He’s whining about the U.S. budget, which has no more effect on him than whether the U.S. legalizes marijuana, or whether the U.S. legalizes polygamy. What’s his point? He doesn’t like the U.S. so he wants to bitch about domestic issues? He can :upyours:
I really agree with Fred.
Spiegel is one of the worst weekly magazines in Germany, no fact only fiction. But still they have a lot of readers.
And i think German US relations will improve now because all parties already know what to expect from the other.
[quote=“Mapo the frequent critic of all things Canadian”]
This idiot is whining about ANWR when he’s got about as much idea of what’s up there as what’s in Yellowknife, Yukon Territory – probably less, in fact. [/quote]
Yellowknife is in the Northwest Territories. Why are Republicans so unrealiable with simple “facts” when they’re in an insulting mood?
Continues the war against terrorism in an aggressive fashion
Continues to push for lower taxes
Appoints a couple of conservatives to the Supreme Court
etc…
Worst case:
Continues the war against terrorism in an aggressive fashion
Continues to push for lower taxes
Appoints a couple of conservatives to the Supreme Court
etc…
It all depends upon which side of the ideological fence one stands.
How can you say that about the Sup Ct Justices, Tigerman, you’re a lawyer. I understand the point you’re trying to make, and I agree that different people will view military actions or tax cuts differently, but judges are supposed to be neutral and unbiased, right? When you say “conservative” judges, I assume you mean they will decide cases based on their “conservative” values or perspective. That would clearly be wrong, wouldn’t it?
How can you say that about the Sup Ct Justices, Tigerman, you’re a lawyer. I understand the point you’re trying to make, and I agree that different people will view military actions or tax cuts differently, but judges are supposed to be neutral and unbiased, right? When you say “conservative” judges, I assume you mean they will decide cases based on their “conservative” values or perspective. That would clearly be wrong, wouldn’t it?[/quote]
I can’t speak for Tigerman, but when speaking of Supreme Court justices, doesn’t the term “conservative” usually mean “strict constitutionalist”?
How can you say that about the Sup Ct Justices, Tigerman, you’re a lawyer. I understand the point you’re trying to make, and I agree that different people will view military actions or tax cuts differently, but judges are supposed to be neutral and unbiased, right? When you say “conservative” judges, I assume you mean they will decide cases based on their “conservative” values or perspective. That would clearly be wrong, wouldn’t it?[/quote]
I can’t speak for Tigerman, but when speaking of Supreme Court justices, doesn’t the term “conservative” usually mean “strict constitutionalist”?[/quote]
How does one decided cases today based on strict interpretation of a document that was written more than 200 years ago? What were the views of the drafters of the Constitution with regard to assault rifles, gay marriages, a woman’s right to have an abortion, taxing online sales of goods, etc? They didn’t have any views on such issues, because those issues did not exist then. Moreover, the world is a completely different place today. Didn’t some of the drafters have slaves? Should we therefore permit slavery today? Of course not. It doesn’t make any sense to try to decide cases based on a strict interpretation of how the drafters might have felt and in many cases it’s impossible.
[quote=“Mother Theresa”]
How does one decided cases today based on strict interpretation of a document that was written more than 200 years ago? What were the views of the drafters of the Constitution with regard to assault rifles, gay marriages, a woman’s right to have an abortion, taxing online sales of goods, etc? They didn’t have any views on such issues, because those issues did not exist then. Moreover, the world is a completely different place today. Didn’t some of the drafters have slaves? Should we therefore permit slavery today? Of course not. It doesn’t make any sense to try to decide cases based on a strict interpretation of how the drafters might have felt and in many cases it’s impossible.[/quote]
They had no abortions? Sorry, your education is sorely lacking. In the First Century BC, Catullus was writing of Roman women being interested only in aphrodisiacs and abortions. No gays?? What? Did homosexual relations just spring up in San Francisco in 1968?
The framers of the Constitution were a little bit brighter than you give them credit for…they gave us a way to change the Constitution. You’ve never heard of a constitutional amendment? The framers did not set up the Supreme Court justices to be the supreme rulers of the land as much as liberals and their ilk might wish otherwise.
[quote=“bob_honest”]hmmm… German media see the end of the transatlantic alliance now. Spiegel.de, a very important political magazine, raises fears Europe and USA may be much more different than we thought.
Giving statements like:
Hollywood and Pop stars and standing together in the Cold War gave us the impression, we are the same kind, but now we see how puritanic USA is.
Raising fears, US will develop towards a christian-fundamentalistic country, were Abortion, Homosexuality and “sex before marriage” get people in jail.
[/quote]
in every city and town across the country from new york city to provo, utah, the following is true:
abortion is more widely accepted than at any point in us history
homosexuality is more widely accepted than at any point in us history
pre-marital sex is more widely accepted than at any point in us history
add to that:
there is less racism than at any point in us history
there is less sexism than at any point in us history
there is more awareness and acceptance of foreign cultures than at any point in us history
europeans understand america much less than they realize.
i understand why europeans are so afraid of religion given your history, but you’re going to have a HUGE problem with the growing muslim population there if you can’t accept that religion isn’t necessarily such a bad thing.
) He’s whining about the U.S. budget, which has no more effect on him than whether the U.S. legalizes marijuana, or whether the U.S. legalizes polygamy. What’s his point? He doesn’t like the U.S. so he wants to bitch about domestic issues? He can :upyours: