Sorry Everybody

[tyjet3]

I was recently told about this site...

Sorry Everybody

I was just wondering what you guys thought... Does a site like this really have any affect on the world at all??

[Darnoc]

Well, not on me, since I know that half of the US-citizens didn't vote for Bush and know that they are sorry. And not for most others, because they don't care and the difference between Europe and America will grow a lot more in the coming years, also the Anti-Americanism of the Europeans.

[nzdbox]

the difference between Europe and America will grow a lot more in the coming years, also the Anti-Americanism of the Europeans.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You can say THAT again. It's such a pain in the behind here in Italy. EVERY DAY, some fool says "Hahahaha all americans are just too stupid! They all voted for that dumb Bush guy! Hahahahahaha!". I TRY to tell them that it's not everyone's fault, that some people DIDN'T vote for him, but mostly they won't shut up in their ignorance.

It gets REAL tiring, I'll tell you that.

[Adras]

http://www.sorryeverybody.com/upload_files/se11.jpg

 

Now that was just a waste of cookies and crackers! Use pineapple next time ^_^

[Darnoc]

You can say THAT again. It's such a pain in the behind here in Italy. EVERY DAY, some fool says "Hahahaha all americans are just too stupid! They all voted for that dumb Bush guy! Hahahahahaha!". I TRY to tell them that it's not everyone's fault, that some people DIDN'T vote for him, but mostly they won't shut up in their ignorance.

It gets REAL tiring, I'll tell you that.

 

And I do say it again. It's even worse. The first time, most people could still say "Well, they didn't know really whom they were voting for. And Bush cheated anyway in Florida." But know everyone will say "After all he has done, they still have voted for him. How dumb are those guys in the USA?" I know that it is stupid to think that way, but that is how most people here will think.

[Luxar]

Perhaps most people in America think Bush did a good job and are not sorry for it?

 

 

That's the way I feel, at least. I suggest that any of you who get a chance pick of the 9/11 Commission's Official 9/11 Commission Report. It does a very good job of showing the actions that needed to be taken following 9/11, and how well(or poorly) they were carried out(or not).

 

 

Another thing to note is that this election was not about the war in Iraq or the war on terror. Both were going to happen no matter who was elected president. There are other issues in America that don't get played out in the international scene. Issues such as abortion, economy, social security, and healthcare.

[Rynos]

Another thing to note is that this election was not about the war in Iraq or the war on terror. Both were going to happen no matter who was elected president. There are other issues in America that don't get played out in the international scene. Issues such as abortion, economy, social security, and healthcare.

 

Which is partly why Bush got reelected, he is anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, pro-tax cuts, etc... and this is f*cked up...

 

Tax cuts will not help our failing economy, anti-gay marrige is going against everything this country is supposed to be about, and denying abortion to women is also in violation of their rights.

 

ah well...

[Peregrine]

Rynos, most of what you said is right, but your statement about tax cuts is absolutely wrong.

 

If taxes are cut, it means more money for everyone. People spend more, so businesses have to hire more, and the economy improves. It might not be a complete solution, but it can only help.

 

The problem with Bush's tax cuts was that:

 

1) They were too focused on the upper classes, people who aren't feeling any real effect of the failing economy.

 

2) They weren't followed with a matching cut in spending. Instead, the government spent even more than before the cuts.

 

So the end result is a failure, but not because that's something inherent about all tax cuts.

 

 

 

 

As for the initial post's question, the answer is "not at all". All it tells the world is that the US is a divided two party nation, with a lot of people who feel strongly about their party/candidate. If Kerry had won, we'd be seeing the exact same things but with different names.

[ImmortalSnafu]

Both were going to happen no matter who was elected president.

I hope you're kidding... The war in Iraq only happened because the Neo-Conservatives wanted a client state in the Middle East they could tap for oil. There would have been no war in Iraq if there had been a President Gore, and the war in Afghanistan would surely been better than the catastrophic failure it has become. :(

[Darnoc]

Which is partly why Bush got reelected, he is anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, pro-tax cuts, etc... and this is f*cked up...

 

Tax cuts will not help our failing economy, anti-gay marrige is going against everything this country is supposed to be about, and denying abortion to women is also in violation of their rights.

 

Another reason, why nobody here likes Bush. It is not only the war on Iraq, but also his neo-conservative aditude. Here in Europe about the same time someone was not elected for the exact same reasons why Bush was elected in the USA.

 

It seems that there is a fundamental difference in the way people think here and in the USA. We Europeans may not like it, but it is, as it is and we certainly can't tell you, whom you must elect.

 

Sometimes it even seems that people living on opposite sides of the Atlantic also seem to have opposite ways of thinking. Here, almost everyone is for abortion, for gay marriage. The question of taxes is about equally divided here between social democrates and the citizen's parties (social democrates want more taxes and more state institutions, while the citizen's parties want less taxes and less institutions).

 

If taxes are cut, it means more money for everyone. People spend more, so businesses have to hire more, and the economy improves. It might not be a complete solution, but it can only help.

 

That is the theory, yes. So called "Smaller economic cycle" (at least that is what it is called here). The other theory is the one with the economic waves. Meaning up-times are followed by down-times, but the mean is constantly going upwards.

 

As you might know, Peregrine, theory is mostly not the same thing as practice. Take for example the economy of Switzerland. Theoretical, the mean of the national salaries should go upwards about the same as the whole economy. Wrong in practice. The salaries here are dropping about 0.2% every year, while economy is rising about 1-2% a year.

 

As you also might know, poverty is on the move in the USA. The problem with the USA is now, that you don't really have any governmental institutions to help those guys like we have. We have, for example, unemployment insurance for everyone. Also the law says that everyone living legally in Switzerland must have at least some basic insurances (health, accident, some others I forgot). Now the problem with those is that they cost money, which the government has to pay from the taxes. At least the governmental insurances like unemployment insurance. So, when economy is bad, there are more unemployed. Meaning, the government has to pay more, meaning, taxes will go up. And that is exactly where the little theory crumbles. Because more people are unemployed, less people will buy. And the coorporations must pay even more taxes. So they will release lots of employees and those new unemployed will also be insured, which means, taxes will go up again.

 

Now that is how the situation is here in Europe. Now some guys began to invest again, so economy moves a little upward. But the taxes don't move downwards and the unemployment rates neither (they go even more upwards). So we can't expect that economy will go upwards a lot.

 

In the USA it is a little different. The governement is in high debt, but the debt is only as great as 80% of the whole economy of the country. Meaning, the USA will still get advance. As soon as the government debt is more than what the economy makes in a year, the USA will collapse. The real problem is the difference in classes. The USA may be the richest country on earth, but also the difference between the poorest and the richest is really huge. When about 10% of the population owns 90% of all the money, something is really not good.

 

Now you see the problem, Peregrine. If the economy improves in the USA, only about 10% (the richest of the richest) will even feel it. The rest... well, poverty will not advance as fast as before.