Are you speaking personally, or the Country as a whole or what? I really want to know, because personally, I am not happy about the situation in Iraq--how could anyone be? I didn't vote for Bush either (although I constantly get accused of doing so here for some reason). However, I don't think it is the worst thing that ever happened to us. Also, I cannot imagine that at any time during the 35 years I have been on the planet that business has been better. I think I may actually be able to retire ten years earlier than I planned and that is of our own accord, not taking into consideration anything but personal planning and no outside windfalls.

I know where Surf is coming from--I don't think he thinks everything is perfect either, but the sky isn't falling and those who waste their time consumed with that thought and nothing but complaining really should put it to more productive use. A little $$ and maybe buy a boat or something and the world may seem a whole lot better off to you.

Would this statement ever make it to a jury's ears?

The answer is telling to its value as truth.

Just how bad is it? Our national nightmare? What are you talking about? GWB isn't perfect, and has made plenty of mistakes, Iraq is likely near the top of the list. But, I'm not seeing how bad things are. The economy is roaring along; we haven't been attacked since 9/11; taxes are lower than they've been is years. There are other good things too.

I know some would think that I'm wearing rose colored glasses. And yes there are problems in the world - but to blame them exclusively on the US or Bush is naive.

__________________
DS
2010 CL550 - Heaven help me but it's beautiful
87 300D a labor of love
11 GLK 350 So far, so good
08 E350 4matic, Love it.
99 E320 too rusted, sold
87 260E Donated to Newgate School
www.Newgateschool.org - check it out.
12 Ford Escape, sold, forgotten
87 300D, sold, what a mistake
06 Passat 2.0T, PITA, sold

Las Vegas NV

I'm in similar circumstances as yourself.

On one hand, my business has been very successful and the pleasure of working for myself and not for "the man" cannot be understated. I don't see the possibility of such success anywhere else in the world other than this country. I could retire tomorrow if I so chose.

On the other hand, the economic success of an individual should not be the measure of whether the country as a whole is on the right track politically and socially for the next 50 years. There are plenty of people in this country who have the very narrow minded view of the fact that they have a huge $hitbox and a giant place to $hit and, therefore, everything and everybody else can just go pound sand. Things are wonderful.

I'm not one of those people.

Hit the nail on the head. Thanks JD.

__________________
---------------------------
No matter how many times you explain it to me, I'm still right.....Surf-n-Turf

Judging from your past posts on this subject I thought you would be quite happy with telling the Israelis to leave their land.

__________________
---------------------------
No matter how many times you explain it to me, I'm still right.....Surf-n-Turf

So your answer is?

And we already know yours.

I have to admit that once I saw the power of the people's stupidity I was certain of the amazing opportunity in this country to fleece said people.

There are some very telling parallels between the present state of the US and the state of the British Empire during the heights of the Victorian Period.

1) Business had never been better for the wealthiest members of society, who felt the UK had reached its pinnacle based on the ability of entrepreneurs to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, innovate, take chances and generate wealth. The masses, of course, had a very different experience and many lived in poverty and endured horrific living conditions as they provided the necessary power to make the economy happen. The wealthy merchant class and titled upper class had that "let them eat cake" mentality.

2) Britain had assumed the role of world police force in order to protect their commercial interests. They developed a navy powerful enough to overcome any obstacle and often used it aggressively to make their point in trade disputes. The navy cost a staggering amount of money to keep and grow in order to maintain technological and numerical superiority over potential enemies.

So what happened to the UK? Their great society literally rotted from the inside out and the working class finally had enough and forced the changes they wanted through collective action. At the same time the cost of the military nearly bankrupted the country, compounded by the cost of WW1. By the time 1918 rolled around the UK was a second rate power. This, after being the dominant global force for over 150 years.

Now I'm not saying that the US is on the road to ruin. I think it is at something of a crossroads. Military expenditures are enormous, and are felt necessary for the protection of commerce. Lots and lots of people are feeling left out of the prosperity they keep hearing about, and from a social perspective enough of the country is rotting from the inside out (schools, health care, infrastructure, etc) that it will become an issue. How the US chooses to deal with these challenges will be instrumental in terms of global positioning in the next 20 years. I fear that a "business as usual" approach will only lead to Chinese hegemony by the middle of this century.

__________________
Jonathan

2011 Mazda2
2000 E320 4Matic Wagon
1994 C280 (retired)

You mean the Putin who refused world assistance when the submaine Kursk went to the bottom with all hands lost? That Putin?
Or the Putin who kissed the baby's belly ??


Meanwhile, back in the world.......

HEILIGENDAMM, Germany - Russian President Vladimir Putin, bitterly opposed to a U.S. missile shield in Europe, told President Bush on Thursday that Moscow would drop its objections if the radar-based system were installed in Azerbaijan.

Putin told Bush he would not seek to retarget Russian missiles on Europe if the United States agreed to put the system in the central Asian nation of Azerbaijan, a former Soviet republic.

National Security Adviser Steve Hadley called it an “interesting proposal.”


“Let’s let our experts have a look at it,” Hadley said.

Bush has proposed putting the radar and rockets in the Czech Republic and Poland.

“This will create grounds for common work,” Putin told Bush as they met on the sidelines of a summit of the world’s eight major industrialized democracies being held at this seaside resort.

Bush, speaking before Putin, said that the Russian president had presented some interesting suggestions and that they would pursue the issue during two days of talks beginning July 1 in Kennebunkport, Maine, at the Bush family’s oceanfront compound.

“We both agreed to have a strategic dialogue,” Bush said. “This is a serious issue.”

Putin’s proposal to put the system in Azerbaijan was a surprise.

‘We asked the Russians to cooperate’
The Russian leader said the proposed relocation would alleviate Russia’s concerns about a missile shield based in Europe. Moreover, he said an Azerbaijan-based system would cover all of Europe rather than part it.

Hadley did not rule out the possibility that the end result would be some mix of the Russian and the U.S. proposals.

“We asked the Russians to cooperate with us on missile defense, and what we got was a willingness to do so,” Hadley said after the Bush-Putin meeting.

Putin laid out several conditions that would lead Russia to drop its opposition to a new missile shield:

Taking Russia’s concerns into account.
Giving all sides “equal access” to the system.
Making the development of the system transparent.
“Then we will have no problem,” the Russian leader said.

‘Complex’ relations
Bush this week put Russia on a par with China, calling U.S.-Russian ties “complex” and criticizing democracy as having being “derailed” under Putin. The remarks carried extra sting because they were delivered publicly and in the Czech Republic. The NATO membership of the former Soviet satellite, which threw off communism in 1989, along with others, is a thorn in Russia’s side.

Putin next month will become the first world leader during Bush’s presidency to come to the Bush family’s summer compound on the Maine coast. The two — once so close in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks — last met in November, in Hanoi, Vietnam.

Blair, too, is scheduled to meet Putin privately. He is expected to speak to Putin about Russia’s worsening relations with the U.S. and Europe, as well as the case of an ex-Soviet spy poisoned in Britain.

Britain’s relations with Russia have soured considerably over the November poisoning death of ex-Soviet agent Alexander Litvinenko, a fierce Kremlin critic who pointed the finger at Putin from his deathbed.

Britain has requested the extradition from Russia of Andrei Lugovoi, the only named suspect in Litvinenko’s murder — a request Putin characterized as “stupidity.”

The Kremlin warned Britain against “politicizing” the Litvinenko case.

Meanwhile, Litvinenko’s widow, Marina, urged world leaders to press Putin about the source of the polonium-210 that poisoned him. It is widely believed that around 90 percent of the world’s supply of polonium comes from a single Russian laboratory.

Ah yes... but for it is our great nation that learns not from history.

Definitely not.Neither would that statement.

I don't know the reason that happens, but it happens to me as well. A week or so ago I asked whether Dick Cheney was a neocon. Based on that question, one of the regulars said that I had adopted GottaDiesel's book on neocons. People like to generalize.I agree with all of that (although I don't have a strong desire to own a boat, but that's not your point anyway).

One thing that bugs me is when people equate opposition to W with
opposition to America.