Second: Nations don’t have friends, they have interests. Thus we should not snivel if the Korean government tries to squeeze us for all they can get.

Small point for @Jaso: In re; George W’s “long holidays”. In U.S. English, we would term those “long vacations”.

The Supreme Court needs to define public/personal space regarding phone calls.

Erm. Pretty sure they’ve done that. Repeatedly. I could pull up case names for you if you like, but I’m almost 100% certain that the Supreme Court decided this issue about fifty years ago, and in many cases since then. Since phone lines, although public, have an expectation of privacy attached to them, they get Fourth Amendment protection, and tapping a phone line qualifies as a search. The current controversy seems to center more around whether or not the wiretaps in these cases are reasonable or not without the warrants, not whether or not phonecalls are protected by the 4th Amendment.

I would think my comments to now would have been clear enough that I view any increase in governmental authority as the worst possible thing a government could do. I think Bush has been a moderately BAD president. It is only relative to other governmental figures that I might hold a higher opinion of him. But what’s the use of comparing rats to pigs…they all stink. My only approvals of Bush are of his tax cut, which didn’t go far enough in my opinion, and of his nomination of Roberts to the SC…and Roberts only. That’s it!

As far as extrajudicial wiretaps, you are right that they are illegal and dangerous. Did I ever say otherwise?? However,! they are not made explicitly illegal through the constitution. To say so would be a gross extrapolation. Such actions were only “made illegal” through later law which has yet to have its constitutionality tested. The Supreme Court needs to define public/personal space regarding phone calls. There is no intrinsic way to view phone calls as private as they utilize public space to be executed; so why insist on viewing such conversations as privy to privacy rights when private property is no longer even viewed by the Supreme Court as privy to the same privileges.

“Just let me drive, cousin and we won’t let anybody fu*ck with us anymore!”

Of me you say, “Typical of an ignoramus,” yet you attempted to link the illegal actions of a few in Iraq to all Americans, and then tried to portray China (a nation that can’t even let it’s currency float) as having the world’s central economic role. A major disconnect in logic, intelligence, or both. Again, if you don’t see the problem with that, I see why you don’t. Please feel free to attack one of my typos to make yourself feel better.

I totally agree with you. But this is all stating-the-obvious. Did you know that we can buy food-stuff from stores in the US? If the product is bad, you can RETURN it too! It’s true! Ok, great.

If you don’t want the answer, don’t ask the question. Very simple.

I’m sorry - living in a shoe box? Who in Europe lives in a shoebox?

Actually Americans who are considered to be in “poverty” have much more living space than the average European (no need to find stats for Asia - we all know spaces are even smaller there):

As Table 4 shows, U.S. housing (with an average size of 1,875 square feet per unit) is nearly twice as large as European housing (with an average size of 976 square feet per unit.) After adjusting for the number of persons in each dwelling unit, Americans have an average of 721 square feet per person, compared to 396 square feet for the average European.

The housing of poor Americans (with an average of 1,228 square feet per unit) is smaller than that of the average American but larger than that of the average European (who has 976 square feet per unit).

As I said, shoeboxes. And mostly not air-conditioned either, which is fine in the north but can be hellish in the south – it was this summer.

Paying 50% of their income in taxes to directly impose less freedoms? Who in Europe lives with less freedoms in return for 50% income tax? Do you understand the benefits they receive in turn for their tax? Health care subsidies, education costs, emergency support funds, the list goes on. “Good living”? You are definitely confused.

High taxes, mandatory unions in many cases, less or no choice in medical care, high unemployment, low productivity, etc. are the benefits of a socialistic welfare society. If you’ve ever dealt with a powerful union, you will know that you defiantly loose freedoms (and money). That entire structure makes you depend upon the government and its regulation. Yes, I absolutely qualify that as less freedom.

Ireland, however, has broken free from that mold. I’ll give you a hint, LOW TAXES. Others can learn from that or not. Seems like most are not, including you. So yes, socialism is broken, and the cure is capitalism.

Actually, I’m not from the coast. Take away both coasts and Texas? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Ok, lets apply your logic to any other country. Let’s take away their coastal districts/regions/provinces/municipalities and one arbitrary larger districts/regions/provinces/municipalities - now show me the proof. Again, is this your assumption? If it is, just say so rather than making it sound like fact.

The reason I say it’s wrong to look at the U.S. crime rate and think of the entire nation as ‘dangerous’ is due to the fact that it is so large and diverse, making the average useless for blanket statements about the entire nation. A comparison of rates in the U.S. to say Hong Kong is completely meaningless in practical terms.

It’s a fact that the coasts and Texas have much higher crime rates. Midwestern metropolitan areas also have lower crime rates than U.S. coastal urban areas. This is common knowledge for educated people and is not controversial. Google it and I’ll explain any data you have trouble understanding.

How are my ‘arguments lame’? I presented the international view of us, backed up by our own in published articles.

Information Clearinghouse? Why not save time and just refer directly to the CPUSA website?

The Geneva Conventions, as written, do not cover al Quada or other terrorists as they do not meet the criteria to be considers “prisoners of war,” which is (Article 4:2): b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance. . . d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. The Supreme Court can make its decision, but it is not based on the text contained within the Geneva Conventions.

We know that if we compile a list of all violations of Geneva Conventions, there are numerous, heinous violations along with our own.

Crimes have been committed, some violations of the Geneva Conventions, some not (but still illegal under the rules of war that U.S. soldiers operate under). The people who did those things are responsible and should be punished. As should more of those of the command structure of Abu Ghraib. But their actions can in no way be blamed upon the U.S. as a whole. Those who try to are fools.

If you believe Gitmo violates any rights prisoners might have under the Geneva Conventions, you would be wrong:

Where, in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

Enough, for now.