13-03-2007, 18:16
|
||
|
Citaat:
__________________
In Memoriam: Matthew Shepard(1976-1998)-Wake up, meet reality! mccaine.blogspot.com|geengodengeenmeesters.blogspot.com
|
|
| Advertentie | |
|
|
|
|
13-03-2007, 18:20
|
||
|
Citaat:
__________________
"Republicans understand the importance of bondage between a mother and child." - Dan Quayle
|
|
|
13-03-2007, 18:26
|
||
|
|
Citaat:
__________________
In Memoriam: Matthew Shepard(1976-1998)-Wake up, meet reality! mccaine.blogspot.com|geengodengeenmeesters.blogspot.com
|
|
|
13-03-2007, 18:35
|
|
|
|
700.000-800.000 lijkt me sterk. Hier vlak boven citeerde ik al twee boeken die spraken over 1,5 miljoen mensen op elk moment die slavenarbeid deden na arrestatie. 50-92% sterft in een jaar.. Wordt vervangen tot rond de 1,5 miljoen, weer sterven daar een hoop mensen van..
Al met al praten alleen al in de tijd van stalin over miljoenen doden.
__________________
"Republicans understand the importance of bondage between a mother and child." - Dan Quayle
|
|
13-03-2007, 18:57
|
||
|
|
Citaat:
1934: 26.295 1935: 28.328 1936: 20.595 1937: 25.376 1938: 90.456 1939: 50.502 1940: 46.665 1941: 100.997 Komt nog een hoeveelheid doden bij voor tijdens de oorlog en doden en route, zodat Khlevniuk het totaal voor de GULAG in de periode 1934-1945 schat op zo'n 500-600.000. Dan nog een aantal voor de periode 1945-1953, vermoedelijk ongeveer half zo veel (hierover weten we veel minder). En nog een hoeveelheid zieken en ouderen; omdat deze altijd uit de GULAG werden vrijgelaten in zulke gevallen weten we niet hoeveel elders overleden maar wel zouden kunnen worden toegerekend aan de GULAG, zogezegd. Dus laten we zeggen voor het hele GULAG-systeem, inclusief Kolyma, over de periode van Stalin's tyrannie zou een getal als 1-1.5 miljoen redelijk zijn denk ik. Jouw sterftecijfers zijn, zoals ik hierboven laat zien, extreem onjuist. Het sterftecijfer in de GULAG lag zo tussen 5-9%, nogal afhankelijk van het politiek klimaat, zogezegd.
__________________
In Memoriam: Matthew Shepard(1976-1998)-Wake up, meet reality! mccaine.blogspot.com|geengodengeenmeesters.blogspot.com
|
|
|
13-03-2007, 19:49
|
|
|
|
Hmm, ik weet niet of we het over hetzelfde systeem hebben. Mijn boek hier focust op migratie, en in dit geval op het gebruik van slavenarbeid in de Sovjet unie, waarin ze een boek van Tolstoy uit 1981 voor enige extra onderbouwing.
Citaat: "By 1941, it was estimated that slave labour was responsible for fully 25 percent of the output of the soviet economy, with perhaps 18-25 million slaves being employed at any one time. Conditions were such that mortality rates of 50% per year were not unknown of in the early part of the war, rising to 60-70% by it's end." Daarna halen ze een voorbeeld van Tolstoy aan over het vermoorden van 7000 slaven in de goudvelden van Kolyma, waarna het verder gaat met: "Because of such losses, there were always 1.5 million slaves in transit at any point in time." Dan hebben we het dus over gedwongen arbeid, niet eens noodzakelijk in een kamp. Dan kom je met die cijfers op miljoenen slachtoffers uit.
__________________
"Republicans understand the importance of bondage between a mother and child." - Dan Quayle
|
|
13-03-2007, 19:50
|
|||
|
|
Citaat:
Citaat:
 .En in die 20 miljoen doden is het grootste deel toe te schrijven aan Mao. Van de schattingen over de doden onder Stalin's regime is het minimum 3 miljoen, en het officiële doden-getal van Mao's 'grote stap vooruit' is 14 miljoen, wat hoogstwaarschijnlijk wat aan de lage kant is. Dus 20 miljoen als schatting van mensen die hun leven verloren door Stalin en Mao is niet 'extreem onjuist', of doelde je daarmee niet op mij? Maar goed, on topic?
__________________
Liever een leeuw voor een dag, dan een gazelle voor honderd jaar.
|
||
|
13-03-2007, 19:54
|
|
|
|
T_ID, alsjeblieft!
Slavernij in Amerika! Miljoenen indianen verdreven en vermoord! Zelf geen kolonie willen zijn en dan.... zelf kolonisator worden! Hou op! Alsjeblieft!
|
|
13-03-2007, 19:59
|
||
|
|
Citaat:
Een heel heldere instelling vind ik zelf, je zou het zelf eens moeten proberen, zaken los van elkaar of in verband met elkaar zien.  De discussie: MA opperde dat de Sovjet-Unie en de VS vergelijkbaar zijn, en de VS zelfs een beetje erger was. Dat bleek nonsens. Nu gaat het over een numerieke kwestie over de terreur van de Sovjet Unie.
__________________
"Republicans understand the importance of bondage between a mother and child." - Dan Quayle
|
|
|
13-03-2007, 20:53
|
||||||||||||||
|
Citaat:
Citaat:
Citaat:
Citaat:
 Het klopt uiteráárd dat de VS niet 'de bron van alle kwaad' in de wereld is, dat spreekt voor zich. Mensen die menen dat uit mijn posts te halen, maken (opzettelijk?) een karikatuur van mijn kritiek. Ik wil maar zeggen dat de VS door teveel mensen nog steeds gezien wordt als een altruïstische goeddoener, en dat beeld behoeft de nodige correctie. Citaat:
Citaat:
Citaat:
Citaat:
Citaat:
Guatemala: 200.000 doden Zuid-Oost Azië: 4.000.000 doden Chili: 5.000 doden El Salvador: 70.000 doden Nicaragua: 30.000 doden Panama: 3.000 doden Irak, door VS opgelegde sancties: ongeveer 500.000 kinderen gestorven Made in the USA. Citaat:
Citaat:
Citaat:
 Citaat:
Laatst gewijzigd op 13-03-2007 om 21:03.
|
|||||||||||||
|
13-03-2007, 21:40
|
||
|
|
Citaat:
__________________
"Republicans understand the importance of bondage between a mother and child." - Dan Quayle
|
|
|
13-03-2007, 21:44
|
||
|
|
Citaat:
Irak, door VS opgelegde sancties: ongeveer 500.000 kinderen gestorven Wat ben je toch een kinderachtig ventje. 
|
|
|
13-03-2007, 21:53
|
||
|
|
Citaat:
Net als Zuid-Amerika, altijd maar wijzen naar de VS, terwijl daar net zo goed plaatselijke strubbelingen rondom falende economiën werden uitgevochten. Meet de zaken toch eens eerlijk voor de verandering.
__________________
"Republicans understand the importance of bondage between a mother and child." - Dan Quayle
|
|
|
13-03-2007, 21:54
|
||
|
|
Citaat:
 Ga iemand anders vervelen, wil je.
|
|
|
13-03-2007, 23:23
|
||||||
|
|
Citaat:
Het ligt inderdaad ook deels aan de mentaliteit van de leiders van een land. De mentaliteit van George W. Bush is niet om over naar huis te schrijven en ik hoop dat de instelling van de volgende president van de VS meer gericht is op het 'algemene goed'. Maar toch, als George Bush leider zou zijn geweest van, ik zeg maar wat, Nieuw Zeeland, zou hij minder ellende kunnen veroorzaken aangezien Nieuw Zeeland er gewoon erg weinig toe doet op het gebied van wereldpolitiek en de wereldeconomie. Citaat:
Ja in de tijd dat de VS geld en middelen gaf aan Bin Laden en Hoessein lag 'het gevaar' meer in de hoek van Iran en de Soviet Unie, begrijpelijk dat de VS het op deze manier wilde 'oplossen', aangezien ze zelf enkel geld en wapens zouden hoeven geven, beide dingen waarvan ze genoeg hebben. Inderdaad dom om te doen, ze hebben de onheil zeker een beetje over zichzelf uitgeroepen. Ik blijf er echter bij dat de VS haar macht (die ook zit in de welvaart van een land; 'American Way Of Life') gewoon niet op wil geven, en er grote moeite in stopt deze te behouden. Citaat:
Aan de ene kant is het heel makkelijk, aan de andere kant ook weer niet. Waarom de VS goed is, staat volgens mij duidelijk in de Bill of Rights. (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_%28VS%29) Met als voorproefje, wat er in het Eerste Amendement staat: Citaat:
Iran is slecht omdat men niet al die rechten en vrijheden heeft die wij wel hebben. Wat dat trouwens duidelijk aangeeft is het feit dat er nóóit mensen naar Iran emigreren, het is vrijwel altijd van Iran naar een ander land. Zelfde met Noord Korea, als de mensen konden zouden ze allemaal weg gaan, daarom is het voor de overheid nodig om daar zware straffen op te leggen anders blijft er geen kip meer over. Het is, in een notendop, de welvaart en de vrijheid. Aan de andere kant, het is praktisch onmogelijk om álle landen op de wereld onze welvaart te geven, daar is (letterlijk) de energie niet voor. Citaat:
Het kán liggen aan het toegenomen aantal gruwelijkheden, dat klopt. Maar goed, dit is iets wat slechts de 'normale' burger in Irak kan weten, en jammer genoeg ken ik er geen. Anders houden we het op; 'de situatie is even slecht, zei het op een andere manier'.
__________________
Liever een leeuw voor een dag, dan een gazelle voor honderd jaar.
|
|||||
|
14-03-2007, 01:48
|
||
|
|
Citaat:
(2) Tja, ik viel beetje midden in die discussie. Half on topic dan... Ik denk dat probleem met VS is, dat ze heleboel dingen wel willen qua internationale samenwerking, en internationaal recht en zo... maar dat ze zelf altijd daarboven willen staan. Tja, dat kan natuurlijk niet!
|
|
|
14-03-2007, 02:16
|
||
|
|
Citaat:
__________________
In Memoriam: Matthew Shepard(1976-1998)-Wake up, meet reality! mccaine.blogspot.com|geengodengeenmeesters.blogspot.com
|
|
|
14-03-2007, 12:35
|
||
|
Citaat:
__________________
Daedalus:GlobalNode:Scholieren//FORUM//RESTRICTED//923.128.6430/Login
|
|
|
14-03-2007, 18:41
|
||||
|
|
Op punten waar ik niet op reageer, ben ik het met je eens.
Citaat:
Citaat:
Citaat:
Ik doelde met mijn vraag meer op de internationale verhoudingen: waarom vinden we de VS goed voor de wereld (denk aan Afghanistan, Irak, Oost-Euopese martelcellen, Guántanamo Bay etc.) en Iran slecht? Laatst gewijzigd op 14-03-2007 om 20:26.
|
|||
|
14-03-2007, 20:29
|
|
|
|
Senate breaks deadlock, debates Iraq pullout
White House issues veto threat over measure proposing withdrawal date WASHINGTON - Breaking a parliamentary roadblock, the Senate on Wednesday began its first formal debate on the Iraq war since Democrats took control of Congress, taking up a Democratic resolution calling for President Bush to withdraw U.S. combat troops by the end of next March. The White House swiftly issued a veto threat. The 89-9 vote paved the way for consideration of the Democratic legislation, which would start troop withdrawals within four months and calls for — but does not require — the complete removal of combat troops by the end of March 2008. The vote came after many Republicans abandoned the tactic they had used twice earlier this year to prevent the Senate from considering legislation aimed at forcing an end to the war. Despite the vote, most Republicans opposed the Democratic bill and it was expected to eventually fall short of the 60 votes it will need to pass. Even so, the debate would give Democrats a chance to put Republicans on record as opposing a timetable on the war at a time when most American voters oppose. “This is the message the American people delivered to Congress on Nov. 7, 2006, and this is the message we must send to President Bush,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., referring to an election day in which Democrats captured both chambers. GOP drops objections to debate The Senate breakthrough came after Republicans abandoned demands for assurances that a debate on the war include consideration of various GOP proposals, including a resolution vowing to protect funding for troops. Fearful such a measure would undercut the anti-war message Democrats wanted, Senate Democrats had refused. But confident the latest Democratic proposal would fail, Republicans agreed to let debate begin. Republicans have argued that Congress should give the troop increase Bush ordered in January time to work. Bush says the increase — 21,500 combat troops plus thousands of additional support troops — is needed to help stabilize Iraq, where U.S. forces are now commanded by Gen. David Petraeus. “It is a clear statement of retreat from the support that the Senate only recently gave to Gen. Petraeus,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., contrasting the Democratic measures with the chamber’s recent approval of Petraeus’ nomination as commanding general of the Iraq war. White House weighs in The White House said the resolution “infringes upon the constitutional authority of the president as commander in chief by imposing an artificial timeline to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, regardless of the conditions on the ground or the consequences of defeat,” according an administration statement. The Senate measure is weaker than legislation being considered by House Democrats that would demand troops leave before September 2008. However, several Senate Democrats have been reluctant to impose a strict deadline on the president. In the House, Democratic leaders continued to try to rally members behind spending legislation aimed at ending the war. The House passed a nonbinding resolution in February stating opposition to Bush’s decision to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq. The $124 billion measure would includes $95.5 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The money for the Defense Department is $4 billion more than the president requested — extra money intended to enhance operations in Afghanistan and pay for added training and equipment and improved medical care for U.S. troops. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17610442/ Laatst gewijzigd op 14-03-2007 om 20:44.
|
|
14-03-2007, 20:44
|
|
|
|
Oh ja, de VS zorgt toch zo goed voor haar burgers. Zo goed dat het Witte Huis zelfs de rechterlijke macht manipuleert, één van de belangrijkste zaken in een land.
Een overheid die de rechtsgang ten faveure van zichzelf verandert, hoe vind je die? Ik heb het natuurlijk over het zoveelste schandaal rondom de regering-Bush, over de ontslagen rechters.  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Gonzales Lied Under Oath, Said All Bush-Appointed Attorneys Would Be ‘Senate-Confirmed’ A little-noticed provision slipped into the Patriot Act in 2005 allows the President to appoint “interim” U.S. attorneys for an indefinite period of time, without Senate confirmation. On Jan. 18, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales assured the Senate Judiciary Committee that the administration never intended to take advantage of it: GONZALES: "And so let me publicly sort of preempt perhaps a question you’re going to ask me, and that is: I am fully committed, as the administration’s fully committed, to ensure that, with respect to every United States attorney position in this country, we will have a presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed United States attorney. I think a United States attorney who I view as the leader, law enforcement leader, my representative in the community — I think he has greater imprimatur of authority, if in fact that person’s been confirmed by the Senate." But in mid-December, an e-mail by Gonzales’s chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson (who resigned yesterday), showed that the Justice Department clearly intended to skirt the Senate altogether and use the Patriot Act provision to appoint U.S. attorneys that would serve until the end of Bush’s term: There is some risk that we’ll lose the authority, but if we don’t ever exercise it then what’s the point of having it Gonzales also told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the Justice Department was “working with home state senators to get U.S. attorneys nominated.” But as the Washington Post notes, e-mails show that “as early as last August,” Justice officials “discussed bypassing the two Democratic senators in Arkansas, who normally would have had input into the appointment.” UPDATE: Also on Jan. 18, Gonzales stated, “I think I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney for political reasons or if it would in any way jeopardize an ongoing serious investigation. I just would not do it.” http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/13/gonzales-lies/ Het Witte Huis/de president heeft alle macht, dankzij de Patriot Act kan de Senaat gewoon gepasseerd worden. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ‘Loyalty’ to Bush and Gonzales Was Factor in Prosecutors’ Firings, E-Mail Shows WASHINGTON, March 13 — Late in the afternoon on Dec. 4, a deputy to Harriet E. Miers, then the White House counsel and one of President Bush’s most trusted aides, sent a two-line e-mail message to a top Justice Department aide. “We’re a go,” it said, approving a long-brewing plan to remove seven federal prosecutors considered weak or not team players. The message, from William K. Kelley of the White House counsel’s office to D. Kyle Sampson, the chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, put in motion a plan to fire United States attorneys that had been hatched 22 months earlier by Ms. Miers. Three days later, the seven prosecutors were summarily dismissed. An eighth had been forced out in the summer. The documents provided by the Justice Department add some new details to the chronicle of the fired prosecutors but leave many critical questions unanswered, including the nature of discussions inside the White House and the level of knowledge and involvement by the president and his closest political aide, Karl Rove. The White House said Monday that Mr. Bush and Mr. Rove had raised concerns about lax voter fraud prosecutions with the Justice Department. And several of the fired attorneys told Congress last week that some lawmakers had questioned them about corruption investigations, inquiries the prosecutors considered inappropriate. The documents do not specifically mention either topic. While the target list of prosecutors was shaped and shifted, officials at the Justice Department and the White House, members of Congress and even an important Republican lawyer and lobbyist in New Mexico were raising various concerns. In rating the prosecutors, Mr. Sampson factored in whether they “exhibited loyalty to the president and attorney general,” according to documents released by the Justice Department. In one e-mail message, Mr. Sampson questioned a colleague about the record of the federal prosecutor in San Diego, Carol C. Lam. Referring to the office of the deputy attorney general, Mr. Sampson wrote: “Has ODAG ever called Carol Lam and woodshedded her re immigration enforcement? Has anyone?” Ms. Lam was one of the seven fired prosecutors. Two others, Paul K. Charlton in Arizona and Daniel K. Bogden in Nevada, were faulted as being “unwilling to take good cases we have presented to them,” according to another e-mail message to Mr. Sampson, referring to pornography prosecutions. Another United States attorney, David C. Iglesias of New Mexico, was added to the hit list in the fall of 2006 after criticism from his home state, including a demand by Senator Pete V. Domenici, a Republican, to meet with the attorney general to discuss the performance of Mr. Iglesias’s office. The fallout from the firings came swiftly, according to the documents. Within a day, messages were flying between the White House and the Justice Department about reaction to the dismissals. Administration officials were aware that the decisions were likely to be controversial, and the plan for carrying them out included a warning to “prepare to withstand political upheaval.” An aide to Senator Domenici was said to be “happy as a clam” over the dismissal of Mr. Iglesias. But Senator John Ensign, Republican of Nevada, was said to be “very unhappy” about the decision to dismiss Mr. Bogden, who Mr. Ensign said “has done a great job for Nevada.” Mr. Sampson, an ambitious young Republican lawyer who was the Justice Department’s point man for the plan, resigned Monday. Mr. Gonzales, who approved the idea of the group firing, has been under fierce criticism from lawmakers of both parties over the dismissals, which have provoked charges that they were politically motivated. Shortly after Mr. Bush’s second term began in January 2005, Ms. Miers proposed dismissing all 93 serving federal prosecutors, part of a broad review of political appointees. The Justice Department and Mr. Rove rejected that plan as impractical. But her proposal set in motion the series of events that led to December’s smaller-scale housecleaning and a major black eye for the White House. The extensive consultations between the Justice Department and White House over which United States attorneys should be ousted started as early as March 2005, the e-mail messages show. That is when Mr. Sampson, Mr. Gonzales’s aide, sent a document to Ms. Miers ranking the nation’s federal prosecutors. “Bold=Recommend retaining; strong U.S. Attorneys who have produced, managed well, and exhibited loyalty to the president and attorney general,” the e-mail message from Mr. Sampson said. “Strikeout=Recommend removing; weak U.S. Attorneys who had been ineffectual managers and prosecutors, chafed against administration initiatives, etc.” From the start, the “strikeout” list included Ms. Lam, Margaret M. Chiara of Michigan and H. E. Cummins of Arkansas, all of whom ultimately lost their jobs. But the “bold” list of stellar performers included Mr. Iglesias and Kevin V. Ryan of San Francisco, who would also be removed. As the months passed and the list was refined, a broad range of parties provided comment, either by directly naming prosecutors or raising an issue that touched on them. J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois, then speaker of the House, for example, appeared in one exchange among Bush administration officials inquiring why the United States attorney’s office in Arizona was apparently not prosecuting marijuana possession cases involving less than 500 pounds. Representative Lamar Smith, Republican of Texas, also asked a White House official to explain why prosecutors were pursuing charges against illegal immigrants only if they had been counted entering the country illegally eight or more times. And Senator Domenici called the Justice Department in January 2006, “because he wants to discuss the ‘criminal docket and caseload’ in New Mexico,” an e-mail message sent among senior Justice Department officials said. As the lawmaker’s inquiry is followed up, a copy of Mr. Iglesias’s generally glowing 2005 performance evaluation was produced, along with a series of critical questions that Justice Department officials wanted answered. “I assume the senator is hearing from either judges or others back home,” said the e-mail message written by William E. Moschella, who was then an assistant attorney general for legislative affairs. The focus on Mr. Iglesias intensified in June 2006, when Mickey Barnett, a Republican Party activist in New Mexico, requested “a meeting with someone at DOJ to discuss the USATTY situation there.” The e-mail message alerting Justice Department officials, sent by a senior official in the White House Office of Political Affairs, noted that Mr. Barnett is “the president’s nominee for the US Postal Board of Governors. He was heavily involved in the president’s campaign’s legal team.” The next day, Mr. Barnett and Patrick Rogers, a New Mexico lawyer who has led a campaign against voter fraud, met with Justice Department officials. Conservatives often worry that Democrats will inflate their vote count with fraudulent or illegal immigrant voters. The plan for firing seven United States attorneys was refined in November and December in consultations between Mr. Sampson and Ms. Miers’s office. The five-step blueprint for the removals was finally approved by the White House counsel’s office on Dec. 4. Along with detailed instructions on how to carry out the firings, the plan advised officials to tell any of the fired prosecutors who asked “Why me?” to respond, “The administration is grateful for your service, but wants to give someone else the chance to serve in your district.” In choreographed phone calls on Dec. 7, the head of the liaison office for United States attorneys at the Justice Department informed the seven prosecutors that they were being removed. At the same time, Mr. Gonzales and officials in the White House communications office called senators and other lawmakers in each of the affected states. In executing the plan, Mr. Sampson wrote that it was “very important” that the calls to prosecutors and courtesy calls to lawmakers in the affected states occur “simultaneously.” The dismissal of the seven prosecutors was preceded the previous summer by the removal of Mr. Cummins in Arkansas. He was succeeded by J. Timothy Griffin, a former prosecutor who had once worked with Mr. Rove. In a Dec. 19 e-mail message, Mr. Sampson wrote: “Getting him appointed was important to Harriet, Karl, etc.,” a reference to Ms. Miers and Mr. Rove. Mr. Sampson’s e-mail message, sent to the White House and Justice Department colleagues, suggested he was hoping to stall efforts by the state’s two Democratic senators to pick their own candidates as permanent successors for Mr. Cummins. “I think we should gum this to death,” Mr. Sampson wrote. “Ask the senators to give Tim a chance, meet with him, give him some time in office to see how he performs, etc. If they ultimately say ‘no never’ (and the longer we can forestall that the better), then we can tell them we’ll look for other candidates, ask them for recommendations, interview their candidates, and otherwise run out the clock. All this should be done in ‘good faith’ of course.” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/14/wa...ewanted=1&_r=1 En al de usual suspects zijn weer betrokken, zie ik. Dus nu worden er ook al Officieren van Justitie ontslagen om bevriende Officieren van Witte Huis-medewerkers te installeren?  ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gonzales resists calls for his resignation Bush ‘not happy’ about handling of attorney firings, but stands by AG WASHINGTON - Embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Wednesday it is up to President Bush whether he remains in the administration and said he wants to stay and explain to Congress the circumstances surrounding the firings of eight U.S. attorneys. “I work for the American people and serve at the pleasure of the president,” Gonzales said. Defending himself amid an escalating political row over the replacement of a host of federal prosecutors, Gonzales said he had done a good job in the country’s top law enforcement position. “I think you can look at the record of the department in terms of what we’ve done ... going after child predators, public corruption cases,” he said on NBC’s “Today” show. “I think our record is outstanding.” Gonzales acknowledged, as he had on Tuesday, that mistakes were made in the handling of the U.S. attorney firings and said he wanted to remain in the job to make things right with Congress. “I think we’ve done a good job in managing the department. ... Things are going to happen,” he said. “We are going to work with Congress to make sure they know what happened. ... We want to ensure that they have a complete and accurate picture of what happened here.” President defends AG Bush, speaking in Mexico, said Wednesday he was troubled by the Justice Department’s misleading explanations to Congress about the firings and expected Gonzales to address the problem. Bush said he stood by Gonzales amid calls for his ouster. “Mistakes were made. And I’m frankly not happy about them,” Bush told reporters at a news conference in Merida, Mexico, where he is wrapping up a weeklong trip to Latin America. Criticism from Democrats The dispute over the prosecutors has become the latest clash between Bush’s Republican Party and the newly empowered Democratic majority in Congress. Democrats, who have long accused Republicans of running roughshod over opponents, have portrayed the firings as part of a campaign of intimidation and obstruction by the Bush administration and Republican lawmakers. Several Democrats have called for Gonzales’ resignation, among them presidential candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards. “The buck should stop somewhere,” Clinton said in an interview with ABC’s “Good Morning America” which was broadcast Wednesday morning. She added that Bush “needs to be very forthcoming — what did he say, what did he know, what did he do?” and that high-level White House adviser Karl Rove also “owes the Congress and the country an explanation” for his role in the affair. The firestorm of criticism has erupted in the wake of the disclosure of e-mails within the administration which showed that Gonzales’ chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, had discussed the possible firings of U.S. attorneys in early 2005 with then-White House Counsel Harriet Miers. Gonzales accepted Sampson’s resignation this week; Miers had left the administration earlier this year. ‘He’s a standup guy’ It was the second time in as many weeks that Gonzales came under withering criticism on Capitol Hill. Last week, he and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller admitted that the FBI had improperly, and at times illegally, used the USA Patriot Act to secretly pry out personal information about Americans in terrorism investigations. Gonzales, himself a former White House counsel, has been friends with Bush for years, going back to when he served as Bush’s secretary of state in Texas. Bush retains full confidence in the attorney general, spokesman Dan Bartlett, traveling with Bush in Mexico. said Wednesday during the president’s visit to Mexico. “He’s a standup guy,” Bartlett said of Gonzales. As for the firings, Bartlett said White House officials had heard complaints from members of Congress regarding prosecutors and Bush had raised the subject during an October 2006 meeting with Gonzales. He described the exchange as “offhand” and said Bush did not name any specific prosecutors but did identify their states. “This briefly came up and the president said, ‘I’ve been hearing about this election fraud issue from members of Congress and want to be sure you’re on top of it as well,’” Bartlett said. Bartlett said that Gonzales had responded, “I know, and we’re looking at those issues.” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17607199/ Ja, Bush is bezorgd en Gonzales kijkt ernaar, natuurlijk. Net zoals het Witte Huis persé wilde weten wie de naam van valerie Plame had gelekt zodat ze diegene zouden kunnen straffen, zeker? -------------------------------------------------------------------------- White House Signals It Will Fight To Block Rove Testimony During a press briefing yesterday, presidential counselor Dan Bartlett signaled that the White House will fight congressional efforts to have Karl Rove testify about his role in the U.S. Attorney purge. "I find it highly unlikely that a member of the White House staff would testify publicly to these matters, but that doesn’t mean we won’t find other ways to try to share that information." Press Secretary Tony Snow was also resistant: "Well, as you know, Ed, it has been traditional in all White Houses not to have staffers testify on Capitol Hill. So I think what we have been trying to do is to work in a way to be as forthcoming with members of Congress — you saw all the emails coming out today — give them all the information so that they can make a fair judgment about it." Of course the White House doesn’t want Karl Rove to testify. Just last month, a top Justice Department official told Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) in a letter that the “Department is not aware of Karl Rove playing any role in the decision to appoint [Rove ally Tim] Griffin” as U.S. Attorney in Arkansas. Now the White House acknowledges that Rove “served as a conduit for complaints about federal prosecutors.” In emails released yesterday, former Gonzales aide Kyle Sampson writes, “I know that getting [Griffen] appointed was important to Harriet, Karl, et cetera.” When a GOP chairman in New Mexico complained about a U.S. Attorney, Rove reportedly told him, “He’s gone.” And news reports indicate that Rove’s office may have been involved in problems involving the U.S. Attorney from Washington state, John McKay. Thankfully, Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy (D-VA) isn’t backing down. Last night on PBS, Leahy referred to Tim Griffen as Rove’s “acolyte,” and said he will “insist” that senior White House officials testify “in public, in sworn testimony, under oath“: "I intend to bring the attorney general up here. I am requesting several other people to come up here, certainly Mr. Sampson, Ms. Miers, I assume eventually Karl Rove. If they don’t come, then I’ll seek to subpoena them up here, because the story changes almost every time we pick up the newspaper. […] What I want to find out is what happened, why we’ve been given different stories. And I want those answers, not in an informal briefing; I want those answers in public, in sworn testimony, under oath before my committee. As chairman, that’s what I insist." http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/14/...rneys-testify/ Een democratie? Een vrij land? Een 'goed' land? Ha! Het lijkt wel een dictatuur. 'Trouw aan de partij' enzo. In Iran gebeurt dit ook, maar dan tenminste openlijk, en dan spreken wij er schande van.
Laatst gewijzigd op 14-03-2007 om 21:16.
|
|
15-03-2007, 09:55
|
|||||
|
|
Citaat:
Ik ben het met je eens dat het tijd wordt voor een andere president die gaat proberen alle ellende die Bush heeft veroorzaakt terug te draaien. Citaat:
Wederom, het is tijd dat Bush weggaat. En 40 miljoen is inderdaad veel, maar dat neemt niet weg dat het percentage mensen die onder de armoedegrens leven min of meer stabiel is gebleven in de afgelopen 35 jaar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty..._United_States). Citaat:
Citaat:
Maar eigenlijk is er dus geen 'goed' en 'slecht', we zijn wat dat betreft allemaal even slecht, je moet echter de keuze maken 'waar profiteer ik meer van'... Maar hoewel we allemaal 'slecht' zijn, moet je niet vergeten dat we in het Westen toch echt de meeste vrijheid hebben ten opzicht van de rest van de wereld, en dat zie ik als een 'goed' iets.
__________________
Liever een leeuw voor een dag, dan een gazelle voor honderd jaar.
|
||||
|
15-03-2007, 14:50
|
||
|
|
Citaat:
__________________
In Memoriam: Matthew Shepard(1976-1998)-Wake up, meet reality! mccaine.blogspot.com|geengodengeenmeesters.blogspot.com
|
|
|
15-03-2007, 16:05
|
|||||
|
|
Citaat:
Citaat:
Citaat:
Citaat:
Hier het artikel waar ik het over had: In US, record numbers are plunged into poverty: report Sat Feb 24, 7:35 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - The gulf between rich and poor in the United States is yawning wider than ever, and the number of extremely impoverished is at a three-decade high, a report out Saturday found. Based on the latest available US census data from 2005, the McClatchy Newspapers analysis found that almost 16 million Americans live in "deep or severe poverty" defined as a family of four with two children earning less than 9,903 dollars -- one half the federal poverty line figure. For individuals the "deep poverty" threshold was an income under 5,080 dollars a year. "The McClatchy analysis found that the number of severely poor Americans grew by 26 percent from 2000 to 2005," the US newspaper chain reported. "That's 56 percent faster than the overall poverty population grew in the same period," it noted. The surge in poverty comes alongside an unusual economic expansion. "Worker productivity has increased dramatically since the brief recession of 2001, but wages and job growth have lagged behind. At the same time, the share of national income going to corporate profits has dwarfed the amount going to wages and salaries," the study found. "That helps explain why the median household income for working-age families, adjusted for inflation, has fallen for five straight years. "These and other factors have helped push 43 percent of the nation's 37 million poor people into deep poverty -- the highest rate since at least 1975. The share of poor Americans in deep poverty has climbed slowly but steadily over the last three decades," the report said. It quoted an American Journal of Preventive Medicine study as having found that since 2000, the number of severely poor -- far below basic poverty terms -- in the United States has grown "more than any other segment of the population." "That was the exact opposite of what we anticipated when we began," said Dr. Steven Woolf of Virginia Commonwealth University, a study co-author. "We're not seeing as much moderate poverty as a proportion of the population. What we're seeing is a dramatic growth of severe poverty." US social programs are minimal compared to those of western Europe and Canada. The United States has a population of 301 million, but more than 45 million US citizens have no health insurance. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070225...y_070225003515
|
||||
|
15-03-2007, 16:06
|
|
|
|
Dozens in GOP Turn Against Bush's Prized 'No Child' Act
By Jonathan Weisman and Amit R. Paley Washington Post Staff Writers Thursday, March 15, 2007; Page A01 More than 50 GOP members of the House and Senate -- including the House's second-ranking Republican -- will introduce legislation today that could severely undercut President Bush's signature domestic achievement, the No Child Left Behind Act, by allowing states to opt out of its testing mandates. For a White House fighting off attacks on its war policy and dealing with a burgeoning scandal at the Justice Department, the GOP dissidents' move is a fresh blow on a new front. Among the co-sponsors of the legislation are House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), a key supporter of the measure in 2001, and John Cornyn (R-Tex.), Bush's most reliable defender in the Senate. Rep. Eric Cantor (Va.), the House GOP's chief deputy whip and a supporter in 2001, has also signed on. Burson Snyder, a spokesman for Blunt, said that after several meetings with school administrators and teachers in southwest Missouri, the House Republican leader turned against the measure he helped pass. Blunt was convinced that the burdens and red tape of the No Child Left Behind Act are unacceptably onerous, Snyder said. Some Republicans said yesterday that a backlash against the law was inevitable. Many voters in affluent suburban and exurban districts -- GOP strongholds -- think their schools have been adversely affected by the law. Once-innovative public schools have increasingly become captive to federal testing mandates, jettisoning education programs not covered by those tests, siphoning funds from programs for the talented and gifted, and discouraging creativity, critics say. To be sure, key lawmakers would like to reauthorize the law this year. Ranking Republicans on the House and Senate education committees are pushing for a renewal. And key Democrats, including Rep. George Miller (Calif.) and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.), the chairmen of the House and Senate committees responsible for drafting an updated No Child Left Behind Act, are strong supporters, although they want large increases in funding and more emphasis on teacher training and development. Still, Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), author of the new House bill, said the number of Republicans already backing the new measure exceeds the 41 House Republicans and Democrats who voted against the original legislation in 2001. Of the House bill's co-sponsors, at least eight voted for the president's plan six years ago. "President Bush and I just see education fundamentally differently," said Hoekstra, a longtime opponent of the law. "The president believes in empowering bureaucrats in Washington, and I believe in local and parental control." As Congress considers reauthorizing the No Child Left Behind Act, the GOP rebellion could grow, conceded Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon (Calif.), the ranking Republican on the House Education and Labor Committee and a key ally of the president on the issue. "It was a struggle getting it passed last time. It'll be even more of a struggle this time," he said. Under Hoekstra's bill, any state could essentially opt out of No Child Left Behind after one of two actions. A state could hold a referendum, or two of three elected entities -- the governor, the legislature and the state's highest elected education official -- could decide that the state would no longer abide by the strict rules on testing and the curriculum. The Senate bill is slightly less permissive, but it would allow a state to negotiate a "charter" with the federal government to get away from the law's mandates. In both cases, the states that opt out would still be eligible for federal funding, but those states could exempt any education program but special education from No Child Left Behind strictures. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) said that advocates do not intend to repeal the No Child Left Behind Act. Instead, they want to give states more flexibility to meet the president's goals of education achievement, he said. As a House member in 2001, DeMint opposed No Child Left Behind when it first came to a vote, but he voted for it on final passage. "So many people are frustrated with the shackles of No Child Left Behind," DeMint said. "I don't think anyone argues with measuring what we're doing, but the fact is, even the education community . . . sees us just testing, testing, testing, and reshaping the curriculum so we look good." Parent unrest in places such as Scarsdale, N.Y., and parts of suburban Michigan could affect members of Congress. Connecticut has sued the government over the law, while legislatures in Virginia, Colorado and heavily Republican Utah have moved to supersede it. Republican lawmakers involved in crafting the new legislation say Education Secretary Margaret Spellings and other administration officials have moved in recent days to tamp down dissent within the GOP. Since January, Spellings has met or spoken with about 40 Republican lawmakers on the issue, said Katherine McLane, the Education Department's press secretary. "We've made a lot of progress in the past five years in serving the children who have traditionally been underserved in our education system," McLane said. "Now is not the time to roll back the clock on those children." But so far, the administration's efforts have borne little fruit, Republican critics said. "Republicans voted for No Child Left Behind holding their noses," said Michael J. Petrilli, an Education Department official during Bush's first term who is now a critic of the law. "But now with the president so politically weak, conservatives can vote their conscience." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...031402741.html
|
|
15-03-2007, 17:51
|
||||
|
|
Citaat:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image  overty_59_to_05.pngDe poverty rate schommelt, sinds 1970, tussen de 11 en 15%. Je moet natuurlijk wel naar procenten kijken en niet naar absolute getallen. Of zie ik iets over het hoofd? Citaat:
Citaat:
Maar goed, ik verheug me al op de presidentiele verkiezingen van 2008 in de VS en hopelijk hebben de Amerikanen dan iets geleerd van de afgelopen 8 jaar.
__________________
Liever een leeuw voor een dag, dan een gazelle voor honderd jaar.
|
|||
|
15-03-2007, 18:53
|
||||
|
|
Citaat:
Citaat:
Citaat:
|
|||
|
16-03-2007, 10:13
|
||||
|
|
Citaat:
Ja, misschien wel. Maar die groepen zijn in de VS stukken groter, en hebben veel meer geld, dan in Rusland en China. Citaat:
Ik weet het ook niet hoor. Misschien hebben we er gewoon niks aan, maar Balkenende is echt geen domme man, hij is niet zoals Bush, hij zal vast wel een goede reden hebben om te kiezen om mee te doen in Irak. Citaat:
__________________
Liever een leeuw voor een dag, dan een gazelle voor honderd jaar.
|
|||
|
16-03-2007, 11:25
|
||
Verwijderd
|
Citaat:
|
|
|
16-03-2007, 16:23
|
|
|
|
Juist omdat ik zo links ben:
Ik hoop dat de VS, ook onder andere president, doorgaan met druk uitoefenen op landen als Libie, Iran, Noord-Korea. En doorgaan met actief verspreiden van de democratie. Appeasement heeft ons geleerd... in de jaren 30.... de oplossing niet te zien. Leve de Verliching En hopelijk durven we nou eindelijk ook eens China aan te pakken. Tibet, Taiwan.... Veiligheidsgaranteis aan Taiwan geven en misschien zelfs Amerikaanse troepen stationeren daar lijkt me goede stap!
|
|
16-03-2007, 16:39
|
||
Verwijderd
|
Citaat:
|
|
|
16-03-2007, 16:43
|
||
|
|
Citaat:
Maar wat hoop je dan... Weer een president die niet moreel handelt, maar pragmatisch. Weer een real-politiker... Ik ben het vaak niet met Bush eens. Maar wel met zijn aanpak van dictaturen. Helaas gaat hij nog niet ver genoeg. Pak China eens aan. En wat enge regimes in Azie. Wij zijn veel sterker joh. We zijn het Westen! Wij zullen altijd 'winnen' doordat ons systeem door de vrijheid verkrachtiger, efficienter en vooral creatiever is!
|
|
|
16-03-2007, 18:29
|
|||||
|
|
Citaat:
Citaat:
 ROFLCitaat:
Citaat:
Er bestaat een groep, zo'n 30% van de Amerikanen, volgens de polls, die Bush onvoorwaardelijk blijft steunen. Ach, hun mening zal toch nooit veranderen.Wie steun je bij de presidentsverkiezingen? Met de kandidaten die nu in de race zijn, hoop ik dat het Barack Obama wordt. Hij is wel een beetje onervaren, maar veel progressiever en idealistischer dan Hillary Clinton. Plus dat Clinton altijd de oorlog in Irak heeft gesteund en daar geen afstand van heeft genomen. Bovendien, als Clinton het zou worden, zou je in de VS kunnen spreken van een aristocratie van twee families ipv een democratie; Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. 
|
||||
|
16-03-2007, 20:07
|
||
|
|
Citaat:
|
|
|
17-03-2007, 00:26
|
|
|
|
Het wordt nog wat, met zoveel schandalen tegelijkertijd: Walter Reed Hospital, de vervangen procureur-generaals én de zaak-Plame (waarvoor Libby al veroordeeld is). Hoeveel ballen kan het Witte Huis tegelijkertijd in de lucht houden?
-------------------------------------- Editorial Phony Fraud Charges In its fumbling attempts to explain the purge of United States attorneys, the Bush administration has argued that the fired prosecutors were not aggressive enough about addressing voter fraud. It is a phony argument; there is no evidence that any of them ignored real instances of voter fraud. But more than that, it is a window on what may be a major reason for some of the firings. In partisan Republican circles, the pursuit of voter fraud is code for suppressing the votes of minorities and poor people. By resisting pressure to crack down on “fraud,” the fired United States attorneys actually appear to have been standing up for the integrity of the election system. John McKay, one of the fired attorneys, says he was pressured by Republicans to bring voter fraud charges after the 2004 Washington governor’s race, which a Democrat, Christine Gregoire, won after two recounts. Republicans were trying to overturn an election result they did not like, but Mr. McKay refused to go along. “There was no evidence,” he said, “and I am not going to drag innocent people in front of a grand jury.” Later, when he interviewed with Harriet Miers, then the White House counsel, for a federal judgeship that he ultimately did not get, he says, he was asked to explain “criticism that I mishandled the 2004 governor’s election.” Mr. McKay is not the only one of the federal attorneys who may have been brought down for refusing to pursue dubious voter fraud cases. Before David Iglesias of New Mexico was fired, prominent New Mexico Republicans reportedly complained repeatedly to Karl Rove about Mr. Iglesias’s failure to indict Democrats for voter fraud. The White House said that last October, just weeks before Mr. McKay and most of the others were fired, President Bush complained that United States attorneys were not pursuing voter fraud aggressively enough. There is no evidence of rampant voter fraud in this country. Rather, Republicans under Mr. Bush have used such allegations as an excuse to suppress the votes of Democratic-leaning groups. They have intimidated Native American voter registration campaigners in South Dakota with baseless charges of fraud. They have pushed through harsh voter ID bills in states like Georgia and Missouri, both blocked by the courts, that were designed to make it hard for people who lack drivers’ licenses — who are disproportionately poor, elderly or members of minorities — to vote. Florida passed a law placing such onerous conditions on voter registration drives, which register many members of minorities and poor people, that the League of Women Voters of Florida suspended its registration work in the state. The claims of vote fraud used to promote these measures usually fall apart on close inspection, as Mr. McKay saw. Missouri Republicans have long charged that St. Louis voters, by which they mean black voters, registered as living on vacant lots. But when The St. Louis Post-Dispatch checked, it found that thousands of people lived in buildings on lots that the city had erroneously classified as vacant. The United States attorney purge appears to have been prompted by an array of improper political motives. Carol Lam, the San Diego attorney, seems to have been fired to stop her from continuing an investigation that put Republican officials and campaign contributors at risk. These charges, like the accusation that Mr. McKay and other United States attorneys were insufficiently aggressive about voter fraud, are a way of saying, without actually saying, that they would not use their offices to help Republicans win elections. It does not justify their firing; it makes their firing a graver offense. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/16/op...in&oref=slogin ------------------------------------- Top Bush Official Reveals White House Never Investigated Plame Leak Dr. James Knodell, director of the Office of Security at the White House, revealed today that to his knowledge the White House has never ordered a probe, report, or sanctions as a result of the outing of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame. “I have no knowledge of any investigation in my office,” he said. Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) said he was “shocked” by Knodell’s testimony, adding that the White House’s lack of action was a “breach on top of a breach.” Knodell claimed the White House did not investigate because there was an outside investigation taking place. But Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) noted that the investigation “didn’t start until months and months later, and [only] had the purpose of narrowly looking to see whether there was a criminal law violated.” Waxman asked, “But there was an obligation for the White House to investigate whether classified information was being leaked inappropriately, wasn’t there?” Knodell answered, “If that was the case, yes.” Shortly after the leak was revealed by [Robert] Novak, Bush said he wanted an investigation to identify the leaker: A senior official quoted Bush as saying, “I want to get to the bottom of this,” during a daily meeting yesterday morning with a few top aides, including Rove. Bush: “If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is.“ E&P reports, “The White House had first opposed Knodell testifying but after a threat of a subpoena from the committee yesterday he was allowed to appear today.” UPDATE: Rep. Waxman wrote a letter to White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten asking him to explain why the White House failed to conduct any investigation following the disclosure of Valerie Plame Wilson’s covert CIA employment. http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/16/...se-plame-leak/ (incl. video)
|
|
17-03-2007, 01:42
|
|
|
|
Grappig:
Video: Great moments in Presidential speeches Probeer de bijna vijf minuten te bekijken zonder kramp te krijgen van het lachen; het lukt je niet. Dat deze man echt *president* is, ongelooflijk.
|
|
17-03-2007, 14:04
|
|||
|
|
Citaat:
Citaat:
__________________
Liever een leeuw voor een dag, dan een gazelle voor honderd jaar.
|
||
|
17-03-2007, 15:11
|
||
|
|
Citaat:
Clinton? Keek je toen al... Iig ja, is lachen! Maareh, toch vind ik dat Bush gelijk heeft: verspreid vrijheid en UITEINDELIJK wordt het allemaal leuker en veiliger!
|
|
|
17-03-2007, 15:41
|
|
|
het is natuurlijk grappig om te zien watvoor domme verhaspelingen ie maakt, maar toch zitten er ook stukjes in dat filmpje dat ie een bepaalde manier een grapje maakt, waardoor ik wel kan zien waarom veel amerikanen vinden dat ie charisma heeft.
__________________
He thought the diaries of Anne Frank were "an Adrian Mole sort of thing"
|
|
17-03-2007, 16:32
|
|||
|
|
Citaat:
Ik vind het jammer dat senator Russ Feingold niet in de race is (voor zover ik weet, tenminste). Dat is de enige senator die tegen de invoering van de Patriot Act stemde. Hij stemde ook tegen de inval in Irak. Ik heb hem meerdere keren zien en horen spreken in de Senaat: heel anders dan alle andere politici. Hij durft als enige rechtuit te zeggen bijv. dat een non-binding resolution tegen de 'surge' van Bush een slappe maatregel is, en dat de Senaat Bush gewoon zou moeten overrulen. Senator Joe Biden is ook in de race voor de Democraten. Ik was eerst niet zo weg van 'm, maar de laatste tijd begin ik te twijfelen. Hij zal geen partij zijn tegen Clinton, Obama en John Edwards, maar hij lijkt me toch erg oké. Vooral dit interview met Bill maher (HBO) vond ik overtuigend: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dgGnj8Zuhg Misschien stapt Al Gore nog in de race, als Clinton en Obama elkaar in de primaries afgemaakt hebben. Zou ik ook steunen. Citaat:
Ik volg zo'n beetje alles wat hij doet. Z'n show is (voor mij) ook informatief. Het biedt ook een inkijkje in de Amerikaanse media; die zijn ongelooflijk.'Great moments...' is trouwens een terugkerend onderdeel uit The Late Show van David Letterman. Het filmpje hierboven is een compilatie. Laatst gewijzigd op 17-03-2007 om 16:36.
|
||
|
18-03-2007, 01:04
|
|
|
|
Dit fragment van Bill Maher wil ik jullie toch niet onthouden. Hier kan iedereen het mee eens zijn. Onverdacht, want uit niet-linkse hoek:
New Rules: America isn't number 1
|
|
18-03-2007, 10:44
|
||
|
|
Citaat:
__________________
Velen denken te weten, weinig weten te denken.
|
|
|
18-03-2007, 11:23
|
||
|
Citaat:
|
|
|
18-03-2007, 11:27
|
|
|
|
Maar inhoudelijk slaat het stukje natuurlijk nergens op...
De kracht van een land meet je aan haar militaire kracht, mate van industrialisering, wetenschappelijke status, het aantal octrooi-aanvragen, enz.
|
|
18-03-2007, 11:32
|
||
|
|
Citaat:
Maar Amerika beweerde altijd aan de goede kant te staan en de beste te zijn (democratisch, vrijheid, kennis, etc) . Het land van de vrijheid dat op persvrijheid maar plaats 44 scoord, is dus duidelijk een voorbeeld van dat ze niet meer nummer 1 zijn, (als ze dat al ooit uberhaupt geweest zijn).
__________________
Velen denken te weten, weinig weten te denken.
|
|
|
18-03-2007, 11:43
|
||
|
|
Citaat:
Maar überhaupt is die man melig: "Literacy: 55th. Do you realise there are 12-year olds in this country, who can't spell the name of the teacher they're having sex with?"
__________________
"Republicans understand the importance of bondage between a mother and child." - Dan Quayle
|
|
|
18-03-2007, 11:57
|
||
|
|
Citaat:
Ik denk eerlijk gezegd niet dat de VS veel minder democratisch is geworden dan vroeger. Het ligt meer aan de perceptie in Europa, dat het positieve uit de VS niet meer automatisch voor lief neemt, en het negatieve negeert. En dat komt weer doordat de wereld niet meer is gescheiden in twee groepen (kapitallisme vs communisme). Iedereen staat er alleen voor. Amerika is niet meer een vriend, maar een concurrent.
|
|
|
18-03-2007, 17:26
|
|||
|
|
Citaat:
Citaat:
|
||
|
19-03-2007, 10:08
|
||
|
|
Citaat:
|
|
|
19-03-2007, 12:28
|
|
|
Hij heeft wel humor. Of kan dat niet Mark?
__________________
I’d say the purpose of life is joy in the present moment, and anyone who tells you different is a lying conniving asshole. -- Pat Condell over religie.
|
| Advertentie |
|
|
 |
«
Vorige topic
|
Volgende topic
»
|
|
Soortgelijke topics
|
||||
| Forum | Topic | Reacties | Laatste bericht | |
| Nieuws, Achtergronden & Wetenschap |
Welke coalities zie jij op het toneel graag verschijnen & bepaalt dit je stemgedrag? Gatara | 230 | 21-11-2006 00:05 | |
| Nieuws, Achtergronden & Wetenschap |
Verenigde Staten van Europa TisKicking | 38 | 08-12-2005 14:02 | |
| Nieuws, Achtergronden & Wetenschap |
Verkiezing Jongerenvertegenwoordiger van de VN sirdupre | 7 | 19-10-2004 22:18 | |
| Nieuws, Achtergronden & Wetenschap |
Ramp in Jordanië voorkomen na verijdelde aanslag Gatara | 11 | 02-05-2004 21:25 | |
| Nieuws, Achtergronden & Wetenschap |
'Massavernietigingswapens niet de reden voor oorlog' Martian | 4 | 30-05-2003 09:53 | |
| De Kantine |
Wat staat er op dit moment in je klembord? Chimera | 84 | 15-04-2002 15:27 | |
Alle tijden zijn GMT +1. Het is nu 19:11.
Adverteren