protests

AP -
MAR DEL PLATA, Argentina - More than 1,000 rampaging anti-American protesters set a bank ablaze Friday as the Summit of the Americas opened, shattering shopfront windows with wooden clubs and throwing rocks. Scores of riot police with plastic shields responded with tear gas. The violence capped a day of protests by more than 10,000 demonstrators who marched through the streets and shouted slogans against President Bush.
--------------------------------------------------------


When will these people understand that America is the best thing for them. We have kept them safe for over 200 years from invasions from other countries. No body is going to mess with any South American country because the USA would jump in and kick there butt. When will they understand? America is the greatest country in the world! South America has to understand that the US and them can live together in peace, there is no reason for acting out against our President. He is a good man.

DS

I respect their rights to protest, and I don't care what they are protesting about. But to cause all that destruction and destroy buisnesses is just wrong. Who ever heard of peaceful protest? Not them obviously.

Geoff should change your user name to Walter "Smitty" Conkite!

"Reporting live, from the gangsterbb, your very own Walter Smitty Conkite. With both world and local news." :p




Don Cardi

Are you nuts?

America is not the best thing for everyone. America is messing around in other nations' affairs.

How would you like it if Venezuela started interrupting the oil supply? How about that?

People have the right to protest. Americans have the right to protest. By being an American you support freedom of speech. Stop being a hypocrite. These people wouldn't get so pissed off if Americans left them alone.

Last time I checked they won their own damn independence. Protect them from invasion? Invasion from who?

The only nation "invading" is the USA.

Here we go again! Round 257 coming up.


Don Cardi

Did they have the ceremonial burning of the American Flag?

Maybe I should now start about the CIA murdering Salvador Allende, and installing a extreme-right dictator.
Maybe I should not ...

I thought Allende killed himself with a machine gun given to him by Castro, in light of more recent evidence?

I think I'll stay out of this one.

For now, at least.

Salvador Allende did kill himself but I think Scifo meant to refer to the coup that ousted him from power. According to Wikipedia: "After Pinochet assumed power, U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger told U.S. President Richard Nixon that the U.S. 'didn't do it' (referring to the coup itself) but had 'created the conditions as great as possible', including leading economic sanctions. Recently declassified documents show that the United States government and the CIA had sought the overthrow of Allende in 1970, immediately before he took office ('Project FUBELT'), through the incident that claimed the life of then Commander-in-Chief, General René Schneider, but claims of their direct involvement in the 1973 coup are not proven by publicly available documentary evidence. Many potentially relevant documents still remain classified. See U.S. intervention in Chile." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Allende#The_coup
The parallels to the ouster of Mohammed Mossadegh are quite interesting to note - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossadeq#Plot_against_Mossadegh Ironically, if the U.S. had not intervened in 1953 Iran might be a secular democracy today. However, this does not excuse Iran's actions since the Revolution of 1979 and we can only hope that one day democracy will return to the country.

I'm going to the concession stand Plaw, want a popcorn or a Hot dog?


Don Cardi

It's just, I find it rather stupid, wanting to replace a democratic goverment, lead by a socialist/communist (he was somewhere between them), by an extreme-right dictator?
But that's IMO... Other people might think differently.

It's just, I find it rather stupid, wanting to replace a democratic goverment, lead by a socialist/communist (he was somewhere between them), by an extreme-right dictator?
But that's IMO... Other people might think differently. [/b][/quote]If the dictator is pro-American, and is willing to support interests that would be in our favor, those reasons are considered by many to be valid. Though I think it is interesting that the people who were being replaced are thought of as "democratic" or in some way peaceful, most of them were just as if not more corrupt than their replacements.

Then again, you could have someone like Castro come to power...

I know that ideology is often less important than the own interests in the world-politic, but IMO, an extreme-right dictator should never be supported, even when it's an easy way of removing a leadership you dislike. Being against the extreme-rightwing is just a fundamental duty, I believe.

I do think Allende was democratic and not very corrupt. And even if he was, at least he was a socialist and thus very preferable above an extremerightwinger. But I think you won't agree with this...


Communism like it was meant to be just doesn't work. Too bad...

Speaking from a South American country myself, you could say that many people (those who can form an opinion anyway) do not agree with US policies. I'm speaking for myself here, and I don't wish to 'insult' anybody's ideas, but for me, US foreign policies are too bothersome to the countries that do not want to have the US behind them at all times. I don't think it is their place as a superpower to meddle with some other country's businesses, and the fact that the original poster stated those comments would also lead me to think that many people think the same as he does: that it is the US' duty to get into foreign affairs and intervene as they think it is right.
They act on the grounds of enforcing democracy, but democracy is completely relative, and is open to different interpretations, therefore I think the US should stay out of world affairs and let an un-biased national organization (of course not the UN) intervene if a country has problems that are difficult to solve without help.

And this is not just me, but I think thousands of people who write articles or run protests or whatever. I don't think that would solve anything, but simply give them an inner peace. I simply hope a superpower would come out of somewhere to balance things out as they were during the Cold War. The US is the only superpower and therefore can act as they want.

I think that overall, the US acts too much or too little depending on the interests, but it is more than clear to me that if they intervene in foreign affairs it is not simply because they looooove freedom and democracy and they are simply eager to enforce it.

I know some of the gangsters on this board watch Real Time with Bill Maher. Many of us watched the seasons finale last night. He had the Former President of Ireland, Mary Robinson, on his show. They were discussing foreign affairs with the United States and how countries are reacting to the Bush Administration. I think she said it best when she talked about how America was founded under great principles. Our founding fathers were great men who were concerned for liberty and justice. This country is adored by other countries, but our administration is despised. Bill also had a good point when he talked about how conservatives will say that he hates the United States (which of course, is untrue). He loves this country, however he doesn't love the way it is being run. I agree with him, and so do many of our citizens as well as those in other countries, like Argentina.

Argentinians are Americans, anyway. South Americans. America is a continent, not a country.

Smitty, do you own a passport?

Hot dog, please. With ketchup and onions.

Mick

Why would I want to step outside the greatest country in the world? Of course i do not own a passport.

DS

:rolleyes: Wow. I think your ignorance just reached ana all time high.

Earth is a beautiful place, full of wonders. Don't let your beliefs compromise your imagination. I do hope, that someday you will discover a world of new thoughts and perspectives.

I don't know, when the hypnotic trance takes full effect?

America is the best thing for the rich.

Thats why five percent of the people control 95 percent of the wealth.

Thats why the rich get tax breaks and the poor face rising bills for healthcare and essentials.

And the federal government spends ten times more on laser guided satellite bombs than it does on Medicare.

And America is the "best thing" for them... them being the normal people, the poor, the working class.. how??

Good job. Keep posting more inaccuracies and false statements that have little truth or, better yet, convoluted facts.

About the rich - well, capitalism works. And sure, there are corrupted people, no doubt about that. Enron would be an excellent example.

About five percent - Inquiry - how much land and wealth do the Royal Family of your country hold again? Oh, right. Aren't they some of the richest people on the planet? There are poor people in the U.K., last time I checked, why don't they give some of their money away?

About the tax breaks - again, I'm glad that you continue to ignore facts, it makes my job easier.

From my article at The American Patriot: The top tax rate (rich) dropped from 39.6% to 33% is a 6.6 point drop. The bottom rate (poor) dropped from 15% to 10%, a 5 point drop. Now, for those liberals and those in the media who choose to look no further than their noses, that's a 6.6 point drop for the rich, and a 5 point drop for the poor. Clearly, that's Bush's favoritism for the rich. Not so. 39.6 to 33 percent is a 16.6% reduction in taxes for the rich. 15 to 10 percent is a 33% reduction for those in the lower brackets. Most choose to ignore these figures though, and bash Bush for his "tax cuts to the rich."

About not spending on Medicare - well, why continue to dump more and more money into a system that is arguably corrupt and will have to be replaced within the coming decades?

Besides, last time I checked, spending money on satellite-guided bombs not only helped our national defense, but they also boosted the economy and created jobs, unlike Medicare, which creates...how many jobs?


So communist dictatorships are okay though?

No, I won't. I think you have to look into the facts, because, much like when the number of deaths resulting from Stalin were prevented before you, it appears you aren't willing to acknowledge the reality of the situation.

It doesn't help with a dictator who has no idea how to handle an economy claiming to boost his people through sperm-crossing experiments with bovines that turn out to be useless and purging (read - killing) the people that actually were running the economy well under Batista when Castro took power.

But at what cost...

Allende was not a dictator, and he wasn't really a communist.

Communist dictatorships are no worse than capitalist dictatorships.

The communist individual (an oxymoron?) is fine.

Mick

Allende was not a dictator, and he wasn't really a communist. [/b][/quote]I didn't say he was. You spoke negatively of right-wing dicatorships, so I was just wondering if you applied the same bias against left-wing dictatorships.

Dictatorship = Dictatorship = Always bad.

However, if really had to choose between them (but I don't want to!), I would choose that system in which I would have the less chance of starvation: Left dicatorship.

Talk about misleading....

First of all, a reduction from 39.6% to 33% is a reduction of 15.15%, not 16.6%.

But that notwithstanding, let's take a closer look at those figures:

So yes, while it's true that the reduction in tax rates for the wealthy was smaller than that for the poor, they save a greater percentage of their income through these tax cuts than the poor do.

When being taxed at a rate of 39.6, the rich got to keep 60.4% of their income, or $604 per $1,000 earned.

Now they keep 67.0%, or $670 per $1,000 earned.

So they are keeping $66 more per $1,000 earned.

However,

When being taxed at a rate of 15.0%, the poor got to keep 85.0% of their income, or $850 per $1,000 earned.

Now they keep 90.0%, or $900 per $1,000 earned.

So the poor are getting to keep only an additional $50 more per $1,000 earned.

Seems to me that the rich are making out better here.

Talk about fuzzy math.....

Explain to me again how the poor make out better on this deal than the rich do.

Sorry for posting off-topic. I just read Plaw's post and the quoted words of DJ. I think there is no contradiction in what both of them say.
The new tax rate is less favorable to rich compared to the previous rate, but still more favorable than that of the poor. It means that it was a step in the right direction, but not enough.
Disclaimer: I have no idea about the actual tax rates, my reply is based solely on Plaw's post. And I am not good at math

I have no idea what the actual tax rates are either.

I'm just going by what JJ posted.

I think we need Tom Scarborough in charge.

Dictatorship = Dictatorship = Always bad.

However, if really had to choose between them (but I don't want to!), I would choose that system in which I would have the less chance of starvation: Left dicatorship. [/b][/quote]I would argue that the chance of starvation is actually higher in a left dictatorship - I think that historical evidence will back me up... But it is always dangerous to choose, a dictatorship is a dictatorship and no matter what economic and social politics it advocates it holds back the freedom for the individual.