The Europeanization of America and How to Stop It.

[jasonk282]

Is there anything new here? Conservatives just blame "Liberals" for everything and conveniently forget all the decades of power they had and how they ruined the country on their watch....

73rd Congress (1933-1935)

Majority Party: Democrat (59 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (36 seats)

Other Parties: 1 Farmer-Labor

Total Seats: 96

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

74th Congress (1935-1937)

Majority Party: Democrat (69 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (25 seats)

Other Parties: 1 Farmer-Labor; 1 Progressive

Total Seats: 96

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

75th Congress (1937-1939)

Majority Party: Democrat (76 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (16 seats)

Other Parties: 2 Farmer-Labor; 1 Progressive; 1 Independent

Total Seats: 96

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

76th Congress (1939-1941)

Majority Party: Democrat (69 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (23 seats)

Other Parties: 2 Farmer-Labor; 1 Progressive; 1 Independent

Total Seats: 96

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

77th Congress (1941-1943)

Majority Party: Democrat (66 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (28 seats)

Other Parties: 1 Independent; 1 Progressive

Total Seats: 96

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

78th Congress (1943-1945)

Majority Party: Democrat (57 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (38 seats)

Other Parties: 1 Progressive

Total Seats: 96

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

79th Congress (1945-1947)

Majority Party: Democrat (57 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (38 seats)

Other Parties: 1 Progressive

Total Seats: 96

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

80th Congress (1947-1949)

Majority Party: Republican (51 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (45 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 96

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

81st Congress (1949-1951)

Majority Party: Democrat (54 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (42 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 96

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

82nd Congress (1951-1953)

Majority Party: Democrat (49 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (47 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 96

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

83rd Congress (1953-1955)

Majority Party: Republican (48 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (47 seats)

Other Parties: 1 Independent

Total Seats: 96

Note: See Senate Membership Changes During the 83rd Congress

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

84th Congress (1955-1957)

Majority Party: Democrat (48 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (47 seats)

Other Parties: 1 Independent

Total Seats: 96

Note: Strom Thurmond (SC) was an Independent Democrat during this Congress until his resignation on April 4, 1956. In November of that year he was elected as a Democrat to fill the vacancy created by his resignation. The Independent member listed above was Wayne Morse (OR), who changed from an Independent to a Democrat on February 17, 1955.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

85th Congress (1957-1959)

Majority Party: Democrat (49 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (47 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 96

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

86th Congress (1959-1961)

Majority Party: Democrat (65 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (35 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

87th Congress (1961-1963)

Majority Party: Democrat (64 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (36 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

88th Congress (1963-1965)

Majority Party: Democrat (66 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (34 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

89th Congress (1965-1967)

Majority Party: Democrat (68 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (32 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

90th Congress (1967-1969)

Majority Party: Democrat (64 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (36 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

91st Congress (1969-1971)

Majority Party: Democrat (57 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (43 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

92nd Congress (1971-1973)

Majority Party: Democrat (54 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (44 seats)

Other Parties: 1 Conservative; 1 Independent

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

93rd Congress (1973-1975)

Majority Party: Democrat (56 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (42 seats)

Other Parties: 1 Conservative; 1 Independent

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

94th Congress (1975-1977)

Majority Party: Democrat (60 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (38 seats)

Other Parties: 1 Conservative; 1 Independent

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

95th Congress (1977-1979)

Majority Party: Democrat (61 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (38 seats)

Other Parties: 1 Independent

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

96th Congress (1979-1981)

Majority Party: Democrat (58 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (41 seats)

Other Parties: 1 Independent

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

97th Congress (1981-1983)

Majority Party: Republican (53 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (46 seats)

Other Parties: 1 Independent

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

98th Congress (1983-1985)

Majority Party: Republican (54 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (46 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

99th Congress (1985-1987)

Majority Party: Republican (53 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (47 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

100th Congress (1987-1989)

Majority Party: Democrat (55 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (45 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

101st Congress (1989-1991)

Majority Party: Democrat (55 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (45 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

102nd Congress (1991-1993)

Majority Party: Democrat (56 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (44 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

103rd Congress (1993-1995)

Majority Party: Democrat (57 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (43 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

Note: Party division changed to 56 Democrats and 44 Republicans after the June 5, 1993 election of Kay B. Hutchison (R-TX).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

104th Congress (1995-1997)

Majority Party: Republican (52 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (48 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

Note: Party ratio changed to 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats after Richard Shelby of Alabama switched from the Democratic to Republican party on November 9, 1994. It changed again, to 54 Republicans and 46 Democrats, when Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado switched from the Democratic to Republican party on March 3, 1995. When Robert Packwood (R-OR) resigned on October 1, 1995, the Senate divided between 53 Republicans and 46 Democrats with one vacancy. Ron Wyden (D) returned the ratio to 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats when he was elected to fill the vacant Oregon seat.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

105th Congress (1997-1999)

Majority Party: Republican (55 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (45 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

106th Congress (1999-2001)

Majority Party: Republican (55 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (45 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

Note: As the 106th Congress began, the division was 55 Republican seats and 45 Democratic seats, but this changed to 54-45 on July 13, 1999 when Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire switched from the Republican party to Independent status. On November 1, 1999, Smith announced his return to the Republican party, making the division once more 55 Republicans and 45 Democrats. Following the death of Senator Paul Coverdell (R-GA) on July 18, 2000, the balance shifted again, to 54 Republicans and 46 Democrats, when the governor appointed Zell Miller, a Democrat, to fill the vacancy.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

107th Congress (2001-2003)

Majority Party (Jan 3-20, 2001): Democrat (50 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (50 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

________

Majority Party (Jan 20-June 6, 2001): Republican (50 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (50 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

______

Majority Party (June 6, 2001-November 12, 2002 --): Democrat (50 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (49 seats)

Other Parties: 1

Total Seats: 100

_____

Majority Party (November 12, 2002 - January 3, 2003): Republican (50 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (48 seats)

Other Parties: 2

Total Seats: 100

Note: From January 3 to January 20, 2001, with the Senate divided evenly between the two parties, the Democrats held the majority due to the deciding vote of outgoing Democratic Vice President Al Gore. Senator Thomas A. Daschle served as majority leader at that time. Beginning on January 20, 2001, Republican Vice President Richard Cheney held the deciding vote, giving the majority to the Republicans. Senator Trent Lott resumed his position as majority leader on that date. On May 24, 2001, Senator James Jeffords of Vermont announced his switch from Republican to Independent status, effective June 6, 2001. Jeffords announced that he would caucus with the Democrats, giving the Democrats a one-seat advantage, changing control of the Senate from the Republicans back to the Democrats. Senator Thomas A. Daschle again became majority leader on June 6, 2001. Senator Paul D. Wellstone (D-MN) died on October 25, 2002, and Independent Dean Barkley was appointed to fill the vacancy. The November 5, 2002 election brought to office elected Senator James Talent (R-MO), replacing appointed Senator Jean Carnahan (D-MO), shifting balance once again to the Republicans -- but no reorganization was completed at that time since the Senate was out of session.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

108th Congress (2003-2005)

Majority Party: Republican (51 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (48 seats)

Other Parties: Independent (1 seat)

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

109th Congress (2005-2007)

Majority Party: Republican (55 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (44 seats)

Other Parties: Independent (1 seat)

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

110th Congress (2007-2009)

Majority Party: Democrat (49 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (49 seats)

Other Parties: 1Independent; 1 Independent Democrat

Total Seats: 100

Note:Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut was reelected in 2006 as an independent candidate, and became an Independent Democrat. Senator Bernard Sanders of Vermont was elected as an Independent.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

111th Congress (2009-2011)

Majority Party: Democrat (58 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (40 seats)

Other Parties: 1 Independent; 1 Independent Democrat

Total Seats: 100

Note: Senator Arlen Specter was reelected in 2004 as a Republican, and became a Democrat on April 30, 2009. Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut was reelected in 2006 as an independent candidate, and became an Independent Democrat. Senator Bernard Sanders of Vermont was elected in 2006 as an Independent.

There have been 38 session of Congress since 1938 and out of the 38 session the Conservatives have had the majority only 11 times so in 71 years the republicans have only had control for 22 years or a little more than 1/4 of the time.


Can you explain to me which decade they ruined the Country?

 

[JacknCoke]

JackingCock hiding behind the mods is hilarious! :rofl:

Excuse me? I am hiding behind the MOD's? Surly you are mistaken...:eek:

 

[E-Ann-Hilden]

Yes, anti-American. :hatsoff:



:eek: :nono:



I didn't vote for either one of them. :hatsoff:

Ok, then! Have you seen the wage gap between the average worker and the CEO?

Last year American CEOs earned 262 times the average wage of their workers-up tenfold from 1970.

So much for trickle down economics.. i am not blaming one party at all, since this decline has happened under both partys. But your blame is far misplaced...

 

[titsrock]

Whoopsy ~


Speaking of repubs- Quote: TR :
With both houses of congress controlled by dem majorities, the reps are shut out in the realm of proposals, by default the repubs are a party of non ideas w/ kooky, greedy and obnoxiously wealthy pelosi up on the podium. :hammer:

Then let the Dems truly have a free-reign and not have to deal with filibuster bullshit. The GOP lost. They should have NO SAY IN ANYTHING ANYMORE. Sorry, what good are elections if they don't mean anything:dunno:

If the Dems are given free reign, and they pass whatever they want to their hearts content, and it doesn't fix the nation, then the GOP won't have to work very hard to take back control.

Being nothing but obstructionist only cements the animosity. It seems as if the GOP would rather let America burn than step aside and let the party in power make all the decisions, and take all the credit if it all works out, of course. That's only fair too.

 

[titsrock]

Can you explain to me which decade they ruined the Country?

Sure. But you do know that there are two branches of Congress, right? Not just the Senate.

1981 -- 2006 --these are the decades that matter to me. Based on this, the Democrats should get more credit for the Golden 50's of AMerican Economic power and the Dems should be held more accountable for letting that coward Joe McCarthy run amuk....

Cowboy Reagan began running up deficits and oversaw various periods of stagnation/inflation/recession, HW Bush led the nation into a recession for which the First Gulf War ultimately did nothing except protect Kuwaiti sovereignty, Clinton rescued the nation economically and rode the techno bubble, by the time he left there was a smallish surplus to which Dubya turned into a $6Trill deficit in 8 years.

I certainly have no problem being mad at the Dems for not ending Dubya's wars on his watch.

But the pattern of American incompetence began under Cowboy Reagan and has only gotten worse under every Republican President. The Republican majorities in Congress--from '94 on either directly facilitated the messes or indirectly assisted...:wave2::hatsoff:

 

[titsrock]

It means that the camel's nose (the govt) is in the tent more and more each day and Americans are becoming increasingly dependent on what little the government has to offer, exchanging liberty for what they believe to be security... is this a giant step forward ?
Where is it written that it's the role of government to 'care for' otherwise perfectly healthy able bodied American citizens ? Handle it yourself, the 'ol American way ! Seek the assistance of others as a last resort, NOT as a primary means .... pooose-ies :shy: !

I'm supposed to be living in a land of free people I though,
I don't need a chaperone looking after me like the kids at a 7th grade dance !
Assume personal responsibility... become a man already god am it !!

:flame:​

:1orglaugh

America was setup for the wealthy to maintain power at the expense of the middle and the working class. All you're basically asking for is the status quo to remain the same. White people prosper in the safety of the suburbs while the urban centers decay.

Demographics have changed, population growth has changed, corporate power has changed, so that the status quo is nothing but the faint gleam in our grandparents eyes.

The camel's nose in the tent is no longer a relevant metaphor. It's really the ostrich's head is in the sand. That's what those who cling to the outdated past (and the gods and bibles :wave2 are doing.


All the bellyachin' that non-Obama voters have done since Jan 20, 2009, is really sad and pathetic. But it's not like people in America are going to vote out every Dem in 2010 and hand over power to the Republicans. There aren't enough GOP voters anymore. Half the GOP has splintered off into the Ron Paul World and 20% are playing around with the Teabag Militia Constitution Party. The GOP has basically lost it's entire voting base and will have to spend countless months trying to convince angry lunatics to vote for them again? :rofl::rofl2:

Good luck with that!! :thumbsup:

3rd Parties, in Contemporary America, are nonfactors. How'd that Ross Perot party do anyway....he was atleast more of a serious "threat" than Ron Paul

 

[jasonk282]

America was setup for the wealthy to maintain power at the expense of the middle and the working class. All you're basically asking for is the status quo to remain the same. White people prosper in the safety of the suburbs while the urban centers decay.

Demographics have changed, population growth has changed, corporate power has changed, so that the status quo is nothing but the faint gleam in our grandparents eyes.

The camel's nose in the tent is no longer a relevant metaphor. It's really the ostrich's head is in the sand. That's what those who cling to the outdated past (and the gods and bibles :wave2 are doing.

Are not a HIGH MAJORITY of urban centers like Chicago(Richard M. Daley D), San Fran(Gavin Newsom (D)), NY(Michael Bloomberg (I), who was a life long democratic before he ran for office), LA(Antonio Villaraigosa D), Pittsburgh(Luke Ravenstahl D), New Orleans(C. Ray Nagin (D)) under DEMOCRATIC Mayors and City Council and they are declining urban centers for DECADES. Like I said if the Deomcratic party is for the poor and impoverished, why are the poor and impoverish never succeding under their leadership?

 

[titsrock]

^
It's the way taxes are distributed Jason....America is setup and compartmentalized racially and when taxes and services are tied to where people live....it's easy to understand why the ghettoes and barrios never become anything more than focused crime zones. It's convenient to keep all the crime located in one specific part of the city or town, huh?

You want to turn America around....breakdown the racial zones--white suburbs, ghettoes and barrios....

 

[jasonk282]

^
It's the way taxes are distributed Jason....America is setup and compartmentalized racially and when taxes and services are tied to where people live....it's easy to understand why the ghettoes and barrios never become anything more than focused crime zones. It's convenient to keep all the crime located in one specific part of the city or town, huh?

You want to turn America around....breakdown the racial zones--white suburbs, ghettoes and barrios....

Ah yes the "redistrubitation". I live in the Suburbs and there are MORE black, indian, latinos here than I actually see when I go downtown. How can we break the walls down when the Dems won't let anyone else help?

 

[sporty_carr]

]

Yeah - Free market capitalists, sellin out America! Takin everything over to China! Bunch of greedy pervert whore pushers without a shred of decency in their bodies! They took our jobs! :mad:

DEY TOOK ER JOBS!!!!!!

Also, Obama's ratings continue to fall.
Looks like he will be a one term failure. :thumbsup:

Yes, if Obama's approval rating continues to drop there will only be one man he'll be able to beat next election. His name.............George W. Bush.

Not every American regrets their vote, I would doubt of McCain had won in one of the toughest times ever, it would be any different.

Probably not.

As for this thread, It's one of the funniest I've ever read on freeones :1orglaugh Here you are pointing fingers, making accusations, calling each other names and thinking of it as a fight of us against them. Democrats vs republicans, left vs right, right vs left, white vs black, white vs hispanic, black vs hispanic, hispanic vs black, Christians vs Atheists, Atheists vs Christians. All you do is fight fight fight and all the while your government is doing everything it can to keep you afraid and devided and you still don't understand why nothing ever changes.

Both sides think that they are playing some kind of a game. Winning is all that matters. Both are out of touch with what the country needs. Republicans need to stay out my home and Democrats need to stay out of my wallet.

These are the posts of the thread imo because they're right. I also noticed how only one person responded to Boothbabe's post and then the rest of the members continued to bicker about whose side is right.

One of the biggest problems with this country seems to be how Dems and Reps try to upstage one another and point fingers (like this thread) and in the meantime the public suffers due to their little power struggle. If we don't do something different soon (make new parties or overhaul our existing ones) then I fear our country is only going to get worse. :2 cents:

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

All the bellyachin' that non-Obama voters have done since Jan 20, 2009, is really sad and pathetic. But it's not like people in America are going to vote out every Dem in 2010 and hand over power to the Republicans. There aren't enough GOP voters anymore. Half the GOP has splintered off into the Ron Paul World and 20% are playing around with the Teabag Militia Constitution Party. The GOP has basically lost it's entire voting base and will have to spend countless months trying to convince angry lunatics to vote for them again? :rofl::rofl2:

Good luck with that!! :thumbsup:

3rd Parties, in Contemporary America, are nonfactors. How'd that Ross Perot party do anyway....he was atleast more of a serious "threat" than Ron Paul

Face isn't a republican (or conservative [I think]) and you should know this. He's probably more in line with the tea baggers - who don't believe either wing - left or right - is looking out after the good of the folks.

 

[Will E Worm]

Leave Georges alone. :nono:

He is trying to tell you the truth and you will not receive it.

Yes, if Obama's approval rating continues to drop there will only be one man he'll be able to beat next election. His name.............George W. Bush.

Sounds good.

 

[JacknCoke]

]



DEY TOOK ER JOBS!!!!!!



Yes, if Obama's approval rating continues to drop there will only be one man he'll be able to beat next election. His name.............George W. Bush.



Probably not.





These are the posts of the thread imo because they're right. I also noticed how only one person responded to Boothbabe's post and then the rest of the members continued to bicker about whose side is right.

One of the biggest problems with this country seems to be how Dems and Reps try to upstage one another and point fingers (like this thread) and in the meantime the public suffers due to their little power struggle. If we don't do something different soon (make new parties or overhaul our existing ones) then I fear our country is only going to get worse. :2 cents:

Interesting post for sure. I totally agree with that last sentence you posted. I think both parties are completely out of touch with "we the people". Which is scary since the country is suppose to be about making improvements that are best for us and no for their wallets. Maybe if we brought in a neutral 3rd party we could put a little balance into the mix and possibly get things done to improve our situation instead of just bitching about the "other side" make it worse. Wishful thinking though...

 

[marquis2]

Interesting post for sure. I totally agree with that last sentence you posted. I think both parties are completely out of touch with "we the people". Which is scary since the country is suppose to be about making improvements that are best for us and no for their wallets. Maybe if we brought in a neutral 3rd party we could put a little balance into the mix and possibly get things done to improve our situation instead of just bitching about the "other side" make it worse. Wishful thinking though...

Trouble with this is that it sounds great but doesn't mean anything."The people" are simply a mass of individuals who by definition won't all be able to agree on anything.What's best for one is unhelpful to another.There are always winners and losers, change the rules and some winners become losers and the other way round.It's possible to arrange things so there are more winners but it won't remain that way for long as things change.
Just look at the fuss being made about what should be the biggest improvement in the lives of the people - a healthcare system available to all.

 

[Red Spyder]

Back in the year when the pilgrims came over and our founding fathers were still faithful British subjects, Europe was ruled mostly by absolute kings, France would be the best example of it. When America became independent, our founders wrote the constitution but on what did they base themselves to write it? The magna carta? the writ of habeas corpus? the bible? Common sense? I guess whatever they could to write the rules that would prevent government intrusion into their lives, as they had seen during the years leading up to the revolution. Whatever they did, it worked just fine as our country grew up to become a world power in less time than it took many nations in history. George Washington took office in 1789 and in 100 years our country was quickly becoming a world power, if it wasn't one by then already.

Fast forward a couple centuries. 1989, most of Europe's governments are run by people with socialist leanings. Yes, lots of benefits, weeks of vacation and health insurance among the most popular I've seen written about here. But at what cost? Their economies were definetely not as good as America's back then. How about unemployment? Nowadays they are doing well, but if you look at their current governments, particularly in France, Germany, Italy, those are people who would be considered conservatives here in the U.S. Anyway, Europe has lots of things that we definetely should copy here in the U.S., copy what works, not what doesn't, to make this country better. Their education system is one, wherever the parents choose to send their kids, the money is sent there. The money is not attached to the schools like it is here.

Now, this is not about stopping imported wines or fine women from coming over. If that was what Europeanization of America was about, sure, I'm all for it. But it is not. This is about stopping America from becoming one more nanny state. I mean, we are adults, aren't we? Do everyone of us needs a nanny to take care of us? I can take care of myself, thank you very much. I don't need you (the four meanest word you can tell a liberal). A land of free people cannot become a nanny state and call itself free.

Our markets haven't really been free for a long time, when the government forces banks to lend money to buy houses for people who can't pay it (the Community Reinvestment Act), or when the American oil industry is restricted from drilling in their own country (environmental restrictions), and then there's American industries closing shop here and opening up in China because, how ironic, they find it easier to deal with a communist country's regulations than American regulations. Remember kiddos, excessive government regulations add to the cost of producing anything, is that really a free market?

Now my fellow liberals, we conservatives have to stop you. We have no choice. There is not one place on earth where we could go. You liberals have too many choices. For example, if health coverage is so important to you, take a drive to Canada. Then you have your choice of what level of socialism/communism you want. I mean, Venezuela is heading that way, why not go and help Hugo get things started? There's lots of beautiful women there. If you're really hardcore commie, there's always North Korea.

Oh, shit, I'm hungry and I'm getting a headache but I couldn't avoid going on a little rant.

 

[titsrock]

Face isn't a republican (or conservative [I think]) and you should know this. He's probably more in line with the tea baggers - who don't believe either wing - left or right - is looking out after the good of the folks.

There is no real difference between 90% of Facetious's comments and a GOP voter. The Teabaggers are a complete joke.

Maybe Facetious will join Glenn Beck's parade of sadsacks, aka the 9/12 Gang? There are so many fractured segments of conservatism these days that it really looks unlikely all of them will coalesce around non-GOP candidates. Most will pull the GOP lever in the end, and the others won't show up to vote:dunno:

 

[Namreg]

i didn't bother to read the thread, because i know what's in it:
xenophobia, hate-mongering, and various narrow-minded individuals pretentiously sharing their ill-informed second-hand opinions with other blowhards in a patronising manner.

the truth is:
- "europe" is not a country. to me, as a german, poland is as different from germany as mexico is to a US american. "europe" contains democracies, monarchies; rich and poor countries; good food, bad food, and british food (which is uncategorisable). which europe are we talking about here?

- most americans have never been abroad, and not just because they aren't welcome anywhere in the world. they are simply not interested in seeing anything other than the familiar, and thus they never venture outside the trailer park much. what do they (and by implication, you) know about any country in europe, or the rest of the world? nothing.

- what would be bad about becoming a bit more like (western, i presume) europe? actual democracy (and not demockracy like in the states), more money in education and healthcare than in the military, legal prostitution, non-retarded speed limits...

- or should we become like you? overtly corrupt government, crime-ridden cities, shitty education, shitty social services and healthcare, third-world infrastructures, but a massive arsenal of nuclear weapons... ?

i'm glad i'm not american.

 

[Namreg]

and don't get me wrong: the perfect country (or government) does not exist. but i like where the EU is heading a hell of a lot better than the ghetto the US is quickly turning into.

 

[jasonk282]

i didn't bother to read the thread, because i know what's in it:
xenophobia, hate-mongering, and various narrow-minded individuals pretentiously sharing their ill-informed second-hand opinions with other blowhards in a patronising manner.

the truth is:
- "europe" is not a country. to me, as a german, poland is as different from germany as mexico is to a US american. "europe" contains democracies, monarchies; rich and poor countries; good food, bad food, and british food (which is uncategorisable). which europe are we talking about here?

- most americans have never been abroad, and not just because they aren't welcome anywhere in the world. they are simply not interested in seeing anything other than the familiar, and thus they never venture outside the trailer park much. what do they (and by implication, you) know about any country in europe, or the rest of the world? nothing.

- what would be bad about becoming a bit more like (western, i presume) europe? actual democracy (and not demockracy like in the states), more money in education and healthcare than in the military, legal prostitution, non-retarded speed limits...

- or should we become like you? overtly corrupt government, crime-ridden cities, shitty education, shitty social services and healthcare, third-world infrastructures, but a massive arsenal of nuclear weapons... ?

i'm glad i'm not american.

Your first second sentence and your last paragraph is just the Pot calling the Kettle Black. :wave2: Do as I say and not as I do.:thumbsup:

Well lets see I know a bit about Germany since I was stationed there for a few years with the United States Army. Also I have been to France, Italy, Spain and Monaco. So how about if you want to defend Europe you not make xenophobia, hate-mongering, and various narrow-minded statements about America.

Conservative or Liberal, GOP or Dem I love my country and have SHED BLOOD for my country in Kosovo and Iraq and will defend her till the bitter end.

I have served with German, French, Greek, Polish and British Troops in Kosovo and Iraq and I hear them talk about how they wish they had some of the freedoms that us Americans have. Sure America ain't perfect but really what country is, yours? Germany is FAR from perfect.

 

[Namreg]

why? because i pointed out that your government is overtly corrupt? your cities ARE crime-ridden, your social services the laughing stock of other nations, your children don't know how to spell properly in their own language, and you have invested untold billions into nuclear weapons. it's all fact.

and if you think it's any better in quebec, where i currently live... the roads are worse than in northern africa ( i spent 3.5 years there, so i know), and the power goes out every time there's a stiff wind blowing.