Spending the last week in Britain and now Belgium, I have

[T Wolf]

been asked why we Americans still support Bush.

The only answer I can give is that most of the people do not but that our government is broken and not responsive to the wishes of the majority of us who do not support the criminals.

The next question is why we put up with a broken system. To that, all I can say is that Americans are too comfortable to risk taking action.

The final question is whether I think anything will change and what it would take to get us to make a change. Sadly, I have to say to tell them that I really do not think that we, the people, can be relied on to do what is necessary.

They just shake their heads and say that their opinion of and faith in us (and the US) has never been lower. The heroes that liberated Europe from the German Reich are long gone - the new Reich has no one to resist it. There is not really anger (yet), just sadness that we will not save ourselves, and by extension, the rest of the world.

[Captain Angry]

1. I got the same treatment in Canada.

I was up there teaching for a couple of weeks, and spent my breaks apologizing for the decision process of the average American.

[melody]

10. The average American hates Bush

However, it seems that a lot of non-Americans want to believe we don't.

[Captain Angry]

11. The average American doesn't realize what he's done yet.

My experience has been that most people don't think he's bad, they just think he's not good.

So, I keep hearing justifications and explanations from people for why Bush isn't as bad as I tell them he is.

This from people who are chomping at the bit to vote for Fred Thompson. And yes, these idiots invoke Reagan when they speak of him.

[melody]

15. Well, I'm in California -- Californians are ready to make him walk the plank

Everyone I know thinks he's a bastard.

[Captain Angry]

16. The people in Colorado, Wyoming, Nebraska aren't convinced yet.

Ugh.

[melody]

27. My friends in Colorado are ready to plank-walk him, too n/t

[rockymountaindem]

41. No, he's below 50% here.

Has been for a long time.

[Captain Angry]

42. I guess the people that I get stuck talking to are the other 50%.

I just can't believe that it's not 95% wanting him gone. Unreal.

[bvar22]

46. The Rest of the World cut us some slack until 2004...

..when bush* was "re-elected" by the American People.

Since 2004, the World holds the American Public responsible, and rightly so.
IMPEACHMENT, even if bush* is NOT convicted in the Senate would go a looooong way in regaining some respect in the World.

If the Democratic Party is successful in letting bush Run out the Clock and then lets the Rich White War Criminals go FREE in 2009, the American People will be the object of ridicule and scorn around the World for generations.

[melody]

65. The people who think he was "re-elected" wish to believe that

Anyone who really pays attention enough to political issues to warrant the consideration of an informed opinion should know better.

We're already objects of ridicule and scorn and have been for generations. It has little to do with George Bush. And since we've been around this topic before, that will begin and end my discussion of it.

[rockymountaindem]

40. I didn't

I lived there for four school years and most people, even though they don't like Bush, didn't expect me or any individual American to apologize. I didn't feel the need to either. They seem to understand quite well what's going on in the US, and they know we'll ride the storm out and come back to our senses eventually. Besides, since they elected Harper, they've got very little to say on the Bush matter.

[Clintonista2]

59. I think Canadians hate Bush more than any other country

Our last federal election was based on almost exactly the same premise of the American mid term election... The Liberals, NDP, and Bloc (liberal parties) running ads showing how the Conservative party is exactly like bush, and the Conservative party running ads showing how it's not like Bush. Up here, even the most die-hard conservatives can't stand him.

[MadMaddie]

2. Honestly I think now that the Rethugs are turning against

*, the anger is simmering below the surface of 70% of Americans...Gonzo and his ineptness, * unconditional support, the rich getting richer, manufacturing jobs all most non-existent, poisening of our food supply by China, Farmer being put out of business, Katrina, and the list goes on....

Not sure what the catalyst will be....

[indepat]

3. Those willing to give up liberty for a little security (perceived) will soon have neither

and neither have they have earned either.

[Hekate]

7. Part of the problem is we don't have any security & are afraid of our government

Thom Hartmann took this issue up in a recent broadcast, and I have to say it gave me a lot to think about.

Back in the 1960s if you lost your job you could get another one fairly quickly. That's long gone.

Worse, health care (insurance) is strictly tied to employment -- what kind and whether you have it at all. Lose your job and you're up shit creek. Get a disastrous illness even while employed, and lose your house. Lose your job and be reduced to beggary, literally.

It goes on.

The people of Paris can take to the streets on a regular basis and shut down the city in part because they have a social safety net.

Yes, complacency is a real problem here, in that we have trusted our government to remain sane and responsive long after it ceased to be. But that complacency is shot through with fear.

I don't know how this is going to turn out. I've started to feel like a villager in an outpost of the Roman Empire, too small to effect any change on events so far away. It's horrible. I used to feel like an American.

Hekate

[indepat]

19. We now are nearing the society 'pukes want and have brought us, especially since 1981,

with the Gipper's Raygunonics, i.e., trickle-down economics wherein: the wealth of the nation has been much further concentrated among a relative few; the very wealthy do not pay their fair share and burden of taxes; large corporations typically pay only a small percentage of their net profits in Federal income taxes; the middle class has become squeezed and is rapidly shrinking; those in/near poverty are burgeoning and access to medical care is unavailable to forty or so million people; the number of people incarcerated has increased alarmingly, with many for non-violent drug-related crimes; you get the picture, this is the society 'pukes have built because they like it this way as evidenced by their every piece of legislation and their every vote.

[MGKrebs]

4. Excellent answers. But now I am wondering why the rest of the world

puts up with us. Why aren't more governments speaking out? Sanctions? Boycotts? Tariffs?

[T Wolf]

8. Because the US is the 800-pound gorilla that cannot be

crossed without suffering dire consequences.

I think that in time this "noble experiment in democracy" will fall as all empires eventually do - the only question is how much damage we do to the rest of the planet before that happens.

[DutchLiberal]

17. Don't talk crazy. They still have to do business, don't they?

However, I deeply admire Hugo Chávez (Venezuela), Evo Morales (Bolivia) and other South-American leaders for speaking out against Bush. It makes me sad that my prime-minister is such a suck-up to Bush.

[MGKrebs]

26. Yup. They are waiting this out, just like we are.

If Dems somehow lose this time, perhaps we'll have a whole new ballgame.

[Always AskWhy]

38. Surely you jest,

please tell me you are not serious?

[comtec]

44. He's Serious, Harry Potter and the CDA has fucked up a once decent country

Bullshit, or whatever his name is (god knows I can't pronounce it) is the head of the CDA - Christian Democratic A (party). There are GLARINGLY OBVIOUS reasons why our ancestors LEFT Europe, I think this party (theory) being one of them.

The CDA are basically the GoP for the Netherlands, that is the more traditional GoP. Family values, fuck the poor, etc, but not as bat shit crazy as the GoP in the US is right now. Under balk-at-it-all-logical (harry potter because he looks like HP) immigration has become more vicious, under funded, and generally unpleasant. Schools have gone to shit (worse than before anyway). The cost of trains has probably doubled or more. The buses cost more and do NOT run on time (gotta love privatization!), health care once the domain of the government, now is a piss poor hodgepodge of insurance companies, that are GUARANTEED PROFIT/members, as if you don't make enough (or are on uitkering) the government will cover your medical costs. So while there is a measure of guaranteed medical care to an extent, there are three level of health care. Those getting assistance can ONLY choose the lowest, which does not cover most regular needs like insulin.

The CDA took a functioning, happy socialism (member it's a democracy so it's social care, where people care for those in their society) and turned it into a GoP lite heaven.

I would point out the parliament is a coalition. The CDA only has about 35% (and shrinking) and they took months to put a coalition together so they would be able to maintain plurality. The coalition does not include the SP (literally Socialist Party) which I think got 32%? Just small enough to not get a plurality. The hope is the next election - whenever that is - the CDA will loose plurality completely and a more sensible government can be formed.

I probably have some details wrong, and I trust my fellow Dutchman will correct my details.

[Always AskWhy]

50. Sorry.

I know nothing about Dutch politics, it was the admiration for Chavez I was referring to.

[DutchLiberal]

53. Chávez is a man of the people. I'm sorry Western media tries to blacken him so much. n/t

[Always AskWhy]

54. No, the western media is not to blame.

The man is a dangerous fanatic.

[DutchLiberal]

57. I see you have fallen for the lies from the Western media. Too bad.

They lied about the greatness and goodness of Bush and the Iraq War, so why would you believe them on Chávez?

[Always AskWhy]

60. Wrong again!

I did NOT believe their lies about Bush and the war and they have no influence on how I view Chavez.

A dictator is a dictator and I cherish my personal freedoms too much
to be taken in by the 'poor man's' duly elected president.
Oppose him and you risk death, no thanks, you can have him.

[DutchLiberal]

61. Nonsense. You have been told lies and you just repeat them like a parrot.

Venezuela has held half-a-dozen major elections for national offices and issues since 1998, the year of Chávez’s first presidential victory. That election saw Chávez beating his nearest rival by 16 percentage points, 56 percent to 40 percent, in a vote that former U.S. President Jimmy Carter called “a remarkable demonstration of democracy in its purest form.” (Chicago Tribune, 12/8/98.) In 2000, in a re-election required by the new Venezuelan constitution, Chávez increased his winning margin, 60 percent to 38 percent. In each case the elections were monitored and certified by a variety of observers including the Organization of American States, the European Union and the Carter Center.

A 1999 referendum backed by Chávez, which called for the convening of a constituent assembly to draft a new Venezuelan constitution, passed with 72 percent of the vote, in an election likewise certified by international observers. The resulting constitution, which strengthened the office of the president, also set up clear checks and balances between five branches of government, including a provision for a recall vote to remove the president after the mid-point in a presidential term was reached. (See box: “Unseparate and Unequal?”)

This provision was invoked in 2004 when the opposition amassed the required signatures over challenges by the Chávez government and a recall was held in August. Despite the U.S. bankrolling some of the opposition groups organizing the recall through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the secretive Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI), Chávez retained his office with 58 percent of the vote (Christian Science Monitor, 2/6/06).*

<...>

A legislative election in December 2005 ended with a twist when four opposition parties decided to withdraw their candidates, allowing Chávez allies to win virtually all the seats. Not that they would have done well had they stayed in the race. As Venezuela political observer and Chávez critic Alberto Garrido told the New York Times (12/5/05), “Chávez would have annihilated them anyway.’’ The predictable dominance of a Chávez-aligned coalition in the legislature was followed by a column by Washington Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt (12/26/05) that charged Chávez had “consolidated one-party rule.”

<...>

But rumors of communism in Venezuela are greatly exaggerated. The private sector has actually grown during his presidency. According to the Associated Press (7/7/06), Venezuelan central bank statistics show “the private sector accounted for more of the economy last year, 62.5 percent of gross domestic product, than when was elected in 1998, when it stood at 59.3 percent.”

This doesn’t mean Chávez isn’t a strong believer in the public sector and a government supported cooperative sector, particularly when it comes to programs for the poor. He has created a series of programs dubbed “missions” to fight poverty, malnutrition, disease, illiteracy and other pressing social problems. In many cases, the administration, budgeting and other decision-making for these programs have been delegated to neighborhood councils located in Venezuela’s poor neighborhoods. Even New Republic editor Franklin Foer (Atlantic, 5/06) conceded the impact of the missions.

<...>

Venezuela’s aggressive anti-poverty programs and “participatory democracy” have energized the poor and given them a stake in the country’s fortunes. By the democratic measure of citizen involvement, Venezuela is doing rather better than many democracies. And Venezuelans seem to agree; a 2005 Latinobarometro poll surveying opinion in 18 Latin American countries found Venezuelans near the top in their preference for democracy over other forms of government, and in satisfaction with how their democracy is functioning. The poll found Venezuelans considered their country “totally democratic” at a higher percentage than in any other nation in Latin America.

Source: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3009

[Always AskWhy]

63. HOGWASH!!!!!!!!!

[DutchLiberal]

68. Now, everybody: put your fingers in your ears, close your eyes and yell: "can't hear you, lalalala!"

[Clintonista2]

78. So how's your man Hugo doing now?

After promising to expel any foreigner who says anything mean about him? Y'know, just because Pat Robertson doesn't like something, doesn't make it(him) necessarily the best thing in the world

[DutchLiberal]

81. No, but I just posed what DOES. But I bet you won;t be bothered by the facts.

Facts are just nasty things that are an obstacle for your resent of Chávez.

[Clintonista2]

84. I simply pointed out the fact that he squashes any criticism of himself

If you choose to take that as "resentment", that's your choice.

[DutchLiberal]

92. Then why are there 3 right-wing tv stations airing in all of Venezuela?

For more information, I direct you to:

The myth of the muzzled media
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3022

I also urge you to read this thread:

Hugo Chavez is not a dictator
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1446813

Especially this point was excellent made:

The tired old "talking points" of the Bushites and the corporate media, on Chavez--are really quite tattered and obnoxious, but let me take them one by one, just briefly:

Chavez is suppressing dissent.

Nonsense! Chavez denied a license renewal to RCTV, because they had DIRECTLY participated in the violent military coup against the democratically elected government. (See "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised," which documents their actions.) If Faux News had called for the kidnapping of Nancy Pelosi, and the shutdown of Congress, and had hosted the coup plotters on their news shows, and spread disinformation in support of the coup, how long do you think Faux News would keep is license to the use the public airwaves, even with DICTATORS Bush and Cheney in the White House? I take that back. We are in real peril of just such a thing happening here. Let me put it another way: Would YOU support not renewing their license, if they did those things? These are PUBLIC airwaves, in Venezuela, as here. We have a RIGHT to regulate use of the public airwaves!

Dissent, and all manner of political discussion, has never been more lively in Venezuela. They have a lot healthier political culture than we do, by far. RCTV is STILL broadcasting, via cable. Most of the airwaves are STILL filled with rightwing news/commentary. The airwave that Chavez freed from RCTV is now open to INDEPENDENT producers, and to voices that never before had an outlet, for creative production or news/opinion--for instance, the indigenous and other minorities. This airwave is now being used in the way public airwaves SHOULD BE used--not dominated by corporate propaganda and the pushing of corporate products, but open to all views and to new creative efforts. The upshot is MORE diversity of opinion, not less. And how long do you think "free speech" would have lasted, in Venezuela, if the military junta that RCTV supported, had SUCCEEDED? Two seconds--then, out of the airplane with you commies; or, as they do in Colombia, chainsaw dissenters and throw their body parts into mass graves.

Chavez's remark that Venezuela should deport foreign visitors who criticize the government was prompted by a Mexican foreign minister, who was Venezuela's guest, who--parroting Bush--called Chavez a "dictator." Chavez's remark was intemperate, but understandable, in view of Mexico's rightwing government, its stolen election, its failure to represent the interests of the vast poor majority (whose candidate, Amlo, came within 0.05% of winning that election), and its toadying to Bush on everything from the horrible "war on drugs" to the exploitation of Mexico's work force via "free trade" agreements. Really, how dare a rightwing Mexican official call Chavez a "dictator" after what this rightwing Mexican government has done in Oaxaca (brutal repression of teachers union-led protest)?

As one objective commentator has said, Chavez doesn't have a "pause button." He speaks his mind freely. He is not diplomatic. But how many foreigners have actually been barred from Venezuela for criticizing the government? NONE!!!

[Always AskWhy]

90. Unless you have lived

under a dictatorship as I have, you have no idea what you are talking about. It may look good on paper but the reality is exactly the opposite.
Fear has a powerful effect on the populace.

My dictator was Franco of Spain so I DO KNOW whence I speak.

[DutchLiberal]

93. Comparing Franco to Chavez is like comparing Kucinich to Cheney.

Don't let the facts bother you. :eyes:

[Clintonista2]

94. I'm still waiting for you to answer me

Why does holy Hugo expel foreign critics from his country? Don't let the facts get in your way.

[DutchLiberal]

95. Maybe if you'd read up, you'd know the answer.

But how many foreigners have actually been barred from Venezuela for criticizing the government? NONE!!!

He was once the victim of a coup that was bankrolled by the US government and the coup got executed via public television. On foreign tv channels, American citizens are calling for his assassination. Don't you see he had to be protected? Or do you want a repeat of Chile, Nicaragua, Honduras, Brazil and all the other democracies that the US killed off in the 1970's and 1980's?

I bet Hillary wants to. Nice avatar.

[Clintonista2]

96. Probably because

The law was enacted less than a week ago. Give it time. Also, there's a difference between "calling for assassination" and "criticizing."

By the way, you just criticized me for supporting Hillary. Aren't you glad you're allowed to do that? In some places, you can't.

[DutchLiberal]

98. Pat Robertson called for the assassination of Chavez on American public tv

Chavez has always protected the voices of opposition in his country. Even the plotters of the 2002 coup against him were allowed to broadcast on tv nationally until the end of 2006. Still, there are right-wing television stations in Venezuela and the newspapers are free and write what they want. Also, protest marches against Chavez were held in the days after the refusal of Chavez to refuse RCTV's license (which was, by the way, a right the presidents has according to laws that were introduced before Chavez became president).

Wow, what a dictator! He allows free press, opposition running television stations and people protesting against him!

[Always AskWhy]

97. And how would you know?

Do tell.

[eridani]

101. Back then, could anybody who wanted to set up a low-power community radio station?

They can in Venezuela. What is called "pirate" radio here is perfectly legal there.

[DutchLiberal]

52. I wouldn't call CDA the 'GOP' of The Netherlands.

The way I see it, the GOP could be placed somewhere between the Reformed Party (SGP) and the Freedom Party. The Christian Democrats are, for all their faults you mentioned, still too much concerned with looking out for the weak and the minorities in our society. I won't vote for them, but I think they're still too moderate to call them 'the Dutch GOP'.

[comtec]

55. I suppose that is a little insulting, even to the CDA

But it feels like GoP-lite at times.

[DutchLiberal]

51. Why wouldn't I be serious?

Have you seen the images of prime-minister Balkenende and then Minister of Foreign Affairs Jaap de Hoop-Scheffer visiting Bush at the White House? They were drooling all over their American colleagues. They promised Bush their ever-lasting support. And they did support the invasion of Iraq. De Hoop-Scheffer defended that decision with the explanation that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and posed an imminent threat to the rest of the world. Recently, information has come out that showed that he and our prime-minister (and Minister of Defense) were well aware that the stories of the Bush-administration were made up. They continued to support Bush nevertheless... And not long after that, De Hoop-Scheffer became the secretary-general of NATO. Coincidence? I think not.

They made our country complicit in war crimes by supporting an illegal invasion and occupation of a sovereign country.

[struggle4progress]

34. Look at various world military budgets. Then look at the various "demonstration projects"

the US conducted under Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. Haiti's a good example: US ships into a small Caribbean nation, grabs the elected President, and flies him off to the Central African Republic.

[mahina]

5. My son just came home from the UK,

and got tired of the conversation.
"US politics suck! Why did you elect him"
"We didn't elect him, he stole it twice"
And then on about the elections, the media, etc.
So heartbreaking.
They want us to be the shining light, and we are blindfolded in the dark.
It is way past time to turn on the lights!

[Sarah Ibarruri]

22. "He stole it" doesn't make any sense to Europeans.......

You don't ALLOW stolen elections. What is this, some 3rd world, underdeveloped nation?

[Mark Twain Girl]

23. That's a good point -- frankly, in what kind of society is "he stole it" an excuse?

I'm reaching the point where I can see two alternatives that the world might reasonably draw: 1) the society really doesn't care and/or is too comfortable to care that elections were stolen or 2)the United States is in no way, shape, or form a constitutional republic, and the problem goes far beyond one regime that took advantage of that fact.

There are many countries where stolen elections, under the shadow of an unpopular regime that attacks civil rights and due process, simply would shut down the streets. It's a fair question, and I'm wondering what the answer is.

[MGKrebs]

33. I am not sure it is helpful to reduce a complicated situation to only two possibilities.

Other alternatives include:
- We DID use the system in 2000, and the Supremes said what they said. Rule of law and all that. We can follow the system and live with the results, or we can start a revolution. The other side is already breaking the rules you say? I'm not sure that working outside the system is the correct response to correct activities outside the system.

- While it's surely true that we are comfortable, there is a time component as well. The founders were wise enough to mandate election for president every four years. We are supposed to fix whatever mistakes we have made within that time period. (If elections are canceled or delayed, be worried.)

I have been an advocate of a more parliamentary system where elections are called rather than regularly scheduled, but I do see the advantage of the 4 year term. The chance to change the government is never too far away.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

74. I think it's #2. You're right. In other nations, stealing an election would cause mass hysteria

Here, we sit docilely by and obey... I say it's because our laws do not allow us to protest. Do you agree?

[melody]

66. We're a different culture

We're taught from very young that we must earn a voice. That we're nothing unless we contribute. "Entitled" here is a dirty word. We're taught to hide from the government, not seek out its
attention. In fact, when I am over in Europe, I'm amazed at the number of people complaining about stuff we would simply take in stride. I'm also amazed at the people commenting on stuff that Americans would consider "none of our business".

Now, that said, Europeans are as different from each other as we are from Mexico or some other similar country, but if we're to generalize, that's the generalization.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

75. Yet it's always the entitled that rule over Americans....

Corporate bigwhigs, the rich, and (to add insult to injury) politicians in our country cannot run for office without the approval ($) of the rich.

[melody]

83. yup, well said n/t

[bagrman]

70. No actually we're a bunch of spoiled children, waiting for someone to do it for us.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

76. Actually, there's nothing spoiled about Americans.....

Compared with Europe, Americans are slaves.....

Our cashiers are not allowed to sit down while working
Workers here can be fired at the whim of the employer
Our lack of a serious social net means many live in misery
We cannot take off at a whim to go protest without getting our butts fired
And so on, ad infinitum.

[bagrman]

88. Your right, wage slaves, "can't do anything to piss off the bosos least I loose my shit"

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

6. Sad, but probably accurate commentary...

...The new extremist Neocon power structure in this country has control of the electoral vote collection and secret counting process, and that's not something that will be overcome working within the system.

Eventually this regime will collapse under the weight of its own greed and lust for power driven policies -- meanwhile many many lost and ruined lives will be the price of our inaction.

[melody]

9. Do they watch the news at all?

Where are these people who supposedly approve of Bush?

[DutchLiberal]

18. Disapproval of Bush (as shown in the polls) isn't covered in our news stories

They only do stories on the US whenever the Bush-administration does something newsworthy (like the surge, firing the attorneys etc). However, I have seen a few short segments about Cindy Sheehan.

[melody]

28. There's a trend in some EU media toward playing down the US, just like Fox plays us up

Neither one is accurate or fair. :(

I'm in California -- we've hated Bush since the beginning. Is there any awareness at all that the elections were stolen?

[DutchLiberal]

32. I think most people believe Bush wasn't elected in 2000. 2004 is considered a 'fair' election.

Because there was no big controversy in 2004 like there was in Florida, 2000.

[melody]

39. 2004 is more clearly a stolen election, imho. n/t

[enid602]

12. Reich

What are the Europeans doing to offset our Rech? Little, I suspect.

[Imagevision]

13. You know this isn't the 60's where you could go out and protest sh*t, Rove

put the kabosh to that!

[struggle4progress]

35. Sure you can go out and protest stuff. If you think it was easier in the 1950s or 1960s, you

don't know your history:

http://casadelogo.typepad.com.nyud.net:8090/photos/uncategorized/rightwingjustice.jpg
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu.nyud.net:8090/MRC/pacificaviet/pentagon.jpg

[cliss]

14. Thanks for sharing.

I'm always interested in other peoples' opinions of us, considering I'm a European myself. The ugly fact is, there is NO support for our current leadership, at least not that I know of.

So the obvious question still remains: Then why is he still there? That's the obvious question. If public opinion is unanimous (which I believe is the same in the U.S.) then why can't we throw the cockroaches out?

Good question.....

[TheBaldyMan]

20. a few words in the defence of Americans

I would like to make one thing very clear, I have never held the American people as culpable for the crimes of the Bush administration. This view is common throughout the rest of the world, we know you voted for the other guy twice and both times the election was stolen. The US media has been largely monolithic in it's unwillingness to address the very serious issues that undermine democracy in your country.

Consequently, the rest of the world has no right to tar all US citizens with the same brush. In a society as diverse as the US it would be foolhardy to say "All Americans are ...", yes there is an uninformed mass but as time passes even the most reluctant will no longer stop there ears to the cries for justice.

Lay the blame squarely where it is deserved, at the feet of the Bush administration, their corporate paymasters and a spineless media.

The hope of the future is precisely that system that Bush et al seek to undermine. Bush seeks to supplant loyalty to the American people with personal loyalty to the Fuhrer. A concept so alien to your society is doomed to fail.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

21. Because Americans are stupid, sexist, racist, and uneducated? nt

[Celeborn Skywalker]

64. Speak for yourself.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

67. Sorry. I should've said "the majority" nt

[bagrman]

72. Actually they just value they possessions more then their freedom.

How many time have you said, I can't afford to go to a protest. What if I got arrested and missed a day of work.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

77. I can't afford to go to a protest.

I have to pre-arraange vacation. If it's impromptu and I ask for the time, it's usually not possible, and if I go anyway, I'll find my @$$ on the street.

[bagrman]

89. Kind of where the "wage slave" thing comes into play, if you've,

bought in to the American train of thought that you can buy your happiness with credit and are pretty much living pay check to pay check, you can't afford to fight for your freedom.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

99. I don't owe anyone. However, I need to eat to live. nt

[bagrman]

100. Debt free is a good place to be.

[Faygo Kid]

24. Same thing for me, 1973. Vietnam and Nixon. Now Bush and Iraq. The Europeans have a point.

I could pontificate about the greatness of America in 1973 as a college student turning 22. I can't come up with anything to legitimate George W. Bush in 2007. Except to apologize.

I would be angry, if I were in Europe, about what George W. Bush and his minions have done to Western civilization. Don't tell me about Muslims, or Hitler, or anything else. Let Bush stand on his own as the failure and destructive force he is. Damn.

[beachmom]

30. Europeans aren't angry -- they've got bigger fish to fry in their own countries.

That was the thing I noticed in Germany. The rage we feel in America about the war does not exist in Germany -- at least that I could see. They just think the war is over and somebody just needs to get that message to the WH so we can start pulling out. It is WE who are the most angry (apart from the Muslim world), not the Europeans, who don't feel a direct effect from the Iraq War, at least yet.

[Faygo Kid]

31. Interesting. Where are they with Muslim integration, and the Middle East generally?

We see all kinds of crap over here, and I have yet to see a dispassionate look at where post-Cold War Europe is today, with Muslim integration or much else. Would love to hear your take as to what's up over there. I may end up there in another decade, after I retire, if W. continues in control.

[DutchLiberal]

36. Muslim integration is a politically 'hot potato' and controlls the political debates for years now.

At least in The Netherlands, Belgium, Germany and France. In Belgium, right-wing extremist Filip DeWinter has led millions of Flemish people (one-third I believe, but that doesn't include the French-speaking Belgians) to vote for his ultra-nationalistic party. His entire party is built around the notion that immigrants and muslims are a direct and imminent threat to Flemish culture.

In The Netherlands, a similar figure has risen. His name is Geert Wilders and he leads the 'Freedom Party' which got 9 seats (out of 150) in the last election (november 2006). The manages to bring back all problems we face to the Moroccans and Turkish people who live here. Especially the 'threat to our national culture' is a common theme. Every time criminals of non-Western descent are in the news, you can bet he will be the first to respond with: "I told you so".

That's not to say that we *do have* problems with integration of muslims. For decades, our policy has been: "come in, nice to have you, now figure everything out for yourself, we'll leave you alone". And they have built their own 'separate' system inside our society. Many young boys of Moroccan or Turkish descent drop out of school, harass Dutch girls because they think they're whores for not dressing like Islamic girls, they get no education and no job, they get into the social security etc. And it's for a big part the responsibility of the government for not looking after them the past few decades.

Not everything goes wrong, of course, and there are signs of improvement. The rate of muslims getting college educations is growing, more muslims find jobs that pay better, more muslims are speaking Dutch. But positive trends are being downplayed by the media and politicians out of a fear of being perceived as 'weak'. Since 9/11 and the assassination of right-wing politician Pim Fortuyn (who spoke of Islamic culture as being "backward", but got killed by a white animals activist) and movie director Theo van Gogh, and the death threats to Ayaan Hirsi Ali (both done by would-be terrorist Mohammed B.), hostility towards muslims has increased significantly and support for a very hard stance on integration is supported by a majority of the people.

[Faygo Kid]

37. Thanks much. Best I have seen. Not a simple issue.

There is fault on both sides, but the bottom line is that unless there is assimilation and understanding, there will be destruction. I see this as exactly what is happening here in the U.S. with Latino immigration, legal and illegal.

We better find ways to deal with reality. The reality is that western Europe is not going to be the culturally dominant force it has been for 800 years. And the other reality is that neither the Muslim or Hispanic world will rule over China. \

We have work to do, my friend.

[DutchLiberal]

47. I prefer 'integration' over 'assimilation'.

I have no problems with people from different ethnicities to hold on to certain aspects of their own cultures. As long as they don't hold on to practices that violate our laws or our democratic principles, I don't mind. I don't mind them building a mosque, or dressing in traditional clothing. But they have to respect our democratic institutions, like the separation of church and state, equality between men and women, etc.

People like Wilders (the right-wing extremist) however, are being paranoid about muslim influence in ours and other European countries. One time, after he had read an article in a right-wing magazine about the muslims plotting to take over Europe and install the Sharia (the Islamic laws), he actually asked our Minister of Social Works if that was a concern the minister shared with him.

Cultures have always been changing. It's changing now, and now, and now... Every second that goes by, culture changes, because it's not a static, but a fluent phenomenon. Culture is formed by all the people that live together in a society. So in fact, there's already something like a christian-jewish-islamic tradition in The Netherlands, like our Minister of Integration said a few weeks ago. She got blasted by the right for 'surrendering' to 'muslim extremists' who want to 'take over' our country. They play the fear-card time and time again.

I hope in the future, emotions will calm down and we will be able to all live better together.

[comtec]

45. Don't forget the Nazi party - 1NL

That's one NL. I heard this ass hat's speech last year and was rather disturbed that the reporters didn't just laugh him off the podium as some kind of backwards idiot. Literally, the party line is/was Holland for the Hollanders (sound familiar? Duitsland vür Duits!)

thankfully they didn't even manage more than 1%. But that even 1% of the voting public voted for them is disturbing. They would kick out all alochtonen (a pejorative for foreigner) and close the borders - punt!.

Anyway like i said, the people of the Netherlands have far more sense than that. but that they could even be taken seriously to the extent of making a party is scary.

[DutchLiberal]

48. I think the 'Freedom Party' by Wilders is the Nazi party.

And they got 9 seats in the 'House'! It was Wilders who said things like: "I want as much muslims out of Holland as possible. I'll even help them if they want" and "If muslims want to live in The Netherlands, they have to tear to pieces half of the Qu'ran" and "Bring on the headscarves, I'll eat them for breakfast!" That kind of language scares the crap out of me. On the floor of the 'House', he proposed to launch a war with Iran (and got laughed at). He called for a stop to government subsidies to the public tv because he thinks they are "a gang of liberal thugs". He wanted two government officials to resign before they even got started working because they had two nationalities.

'OneNL' wasn't a Nazi party, in my opinion, not even a racist party. The leading man, Marco Pastors, was much more of a 'true' follower of Pim Fortuyn than Wilders, who only stole the Islam-theme from him and run on it. Pastors was a practical man, who has done good work Rotterdam, as a member of the city council. It's true he had a hard stance on immigrants and muslims and called for a harder policy when it comes to integration, but me was more moderate than Wilders, and I agreed with his party on a few points. But only a few, I would never vote for them.

[comtec]

56. that's even worse news then

Oh well. I guess the best I can do i keep my head down and work on my Dutch then. At least the PvdD got two seats :) I was amazed at the lack of real animal rights, even the most basic ones.

[DutchLiberal]

58. I'm glad to see an Animals' Party as well

But as long as the Christian Democrats are calling the shots, animals' rights will get worse and worse.

[comtec]

87. Can't get worse than Spain

That much I can be reasonably sure of. My in laws run a spain-> NL animal shelter from spain, and it's unspeakable the kinds of things Spaniards do to animals.

[jberryhill]

25. First off, a decided majority of Americans no longer support Bush

...however, the Constitution does not provide a mechanism of instant political gratification via opinion poll, and there are some mechanisms, such as six-year Senatorial terms, that were specifically designed to resist sudden snap changes in the government.

The fastest-reacting component of the American system of government is the House of Representatives, which can be entirely cleaned out in one shot.

What many foreigners don't get is that we don't have a system where the maintenance of, say, a prime minister, depends upon maintaining continuous majority support. In those systems then, yes, a sudden and sustained lack of confidence will result in collapse of the administration.

Our only mechanism for attempting to unseat a president short of the end of a four year term appears to be dependent on the president engaging in foreplay.

[Olney Blue]

29. Yes, I hear the same from my friends in Europe.

[huskerlaw]

43. Same here.

I'm currently in Belgium and I have had the same conversation. We are going to London tomorrow, and I expect the same. Thankfully, they also understand that all Americans aren't to blame.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

49. in the UK it was a similar problem with Blair

now we will see what Brown will do?

[sandnsea]

62. And who did Europe elect? All conservatives

As did Australia and Canada when they had a chance for change. It isn't just this country that elects fucked up right wingers.

[DutchLiberal]

69. Actually, Spain traded conservative Bush-buddy Aznar for socialist Zapatero

In Italy, a (far) left-wing coalition led by socialist Romano Prodi is in power. And although he supported the war in Iraq, Tony Blair was the leader of the Labor Party, which is, as I understand it, a moderate leftist party.

[sandnsea]

71. Blair was re-elected in 2005, against Liberal Democrats

Britain had a choice and didn't throw their warmonger out. Australia re-elected Howard. Germany elected Merckel. France elected Sarkozy. Canada elected Harper. I could go on and on. I get really tired of the US being called stupid when the rest of the world has been doing the exact same thing. I think there are some sort of social indicators that move the people of the world in a way we haven't paid attention to. Back when Hitler was rising, our own KKK was too. Things like that. It's very strange. It isn't just us.

[DutchLiberal]

73. Your comparison is entirely wrong.

Because yes, in other countries, conservatives get elected too, but do you think any of them even come close to Bush??? Comparing Merkel to Bush is like comparing Kucinich to Cheney: it makes no sense. I even agree with Ron Paul that Bush and co. aren't really conservative, I'd call them fascists.

[sandnsea]

79. The Bushes are pure Republicans

The John Birch Society makes more and more sense to Glenn Beck, that's what he just said. Ron Paul doesn't think there's a thing wrong with the Birchers.

And who are they? Oh, the frontrunners to the Heritage Society, Federalists and AEI. The same money that supported the Birchers in the beginning is the money that supports the current crop of neocons.

These are the same nutball Republicans that have always been. The ones who called FDR and Truman communists. The ones Kennedy defended against, well before Vietnam. Eisenhower, the only rational "Republican", was recruited by Democrats too, he could have gone either way and much like Clark, had no real political affiliation before his retirement. He just doesn't count. Teddy left the Republican Party. And if you read about Lincoln's platform, it was nothing like today's conservatism. Republicans have always been the aristocrats who think they have a right to rule the world.

The point is, the world has trended to the right in recent years. Our own growth of fundamentalist religious nuts matches the growth of fundamentalist religious nuts in other countries. It is not just us.

[DutchLiberal]

80. How does that support your comparison? It doesn't!

I don't know why you want to legitimize the Bush-administration so much, but the conservative governments in Europe are nothing like the Bush-administration. The European conservative leaders don't trample on their own constitution; they don't cite 'executive privilege' if the 'House' wants to investigate governmental affairs/policies; they don't put themselves above the law; they don't ignore subpoenas from 'Congress'; they don't have people as nuts and dangerous as Rove and Cheney running the country.

[sandnsea]

82. So McCain would be acceptable to you?

Some other blustering warmongering cowboy diplomacy Republican?? That's what they are. And the rest of the world doesn't do anything to elect leaders who will challenge these idiots, any more than we have. I'm not legitimizing Bush. I'm saying the rest of the world is full of shit and might want to take a look at the conservatives in their own midst before we lose another generation to right wing bullshit.

[DutchLiberal]

91. Why are you asking about McCain? That was not the point of discussion at all!

The point was that none of the other countries have elected leaders that are as bad as the American GOP. So they have every right to criticize the Bush-administration.

Besides, almost all of South-America has gone socialist. Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, Evo Morales in Bolivia, Nestor Kirchner in Argentina, Lula da Silva in Brazil, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua etc. So not the entire world is turning conservative. Besides, the conservatives you cite in Europe are mostly moderates.

[ProudDad]

85. Kick

too late to recommend...

[Anaxamander]

86. We get our chances to vote in elections to kick someone out

We're not one of those countries that riots every time someone gets elected we don't like. Many Europeans and South Americans see that as apathy, but I see it as stability.

I mean seriously, we hate Bush, and we demonstrate, but what's the step beyond that? Overthrowing the government and installing a new one? I don't want to live in a country where out-and-out rebellion is the first thing to try when your guy doesn't get elected.