Of course you're correct both Desert Dweller and Megia,

But hope springs eternal that one day, Ignacio can face the truth about the world's problems and wean off the psychodelic mumbo-jumbo socialistic crap that prevails in media. One day I hope he'll stumble across the truth like I had to do, that it's individualistic freedom, not government that makes the world a better place.

Ignacio,

I hope you didn't think I mean that Europeans are deadbeats and useless. I was thinking about politicians. Even most of ours could never get a job other than in politics. Who the heck would hire Kerry? One of the reason I admire the current administration is because a lot of them have shown their metal in the private world. How can a person incapable of running a business or even a family run our nation?

I don't know if the majority of Spaniards like or dislike President Bush. I don't know if the majority of Americans like or dislike President Bush. I really don't care. :p However if you aren't going to help us in our war, and you don't have any other solutions to terror besides appeasement, you're pretty much useless as a world leader.

Good idea to clarify that, Gazpacho.

I am in agreement with you largely. Politicians, no matter where they come from, are inherently a little aloof, and with charateristics that are difficult to read and therefore trust.

We all want to believe that there is someone that represents 'us.' When we think we see that person, human nature is to cling on to that because that's the closest you will have to 'your own voice.' I am just making this up as I go along, so it may be pure rubbish. But it sounds reasonable to me...

But I also like to believe that I base my political orientation upon empirical evidence; like supply-side economics, and the idea that you work for what you get. Encouraging mediocrity is a great way to get people to depend upon you, though, which is why the means-tested social program evangelists ( Jackson, Edwards, Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi, gosh i could name them all!) have such great success -- but not enough! They lost a good amount of control in the last election, fine by me.

Oh, and, I love Spain!

What I have learnt is that people like you who send false info, in the end, ends up uncoverd when the proofs are shown, like I am doing with you all the time.

ALL polls are biased? Because all say the same.

And you're wrong that people know. They come here to get info, because this is one of the resources they have to learn about Spain (for many may be the most helpful), as you can see with their questions. That's what makes your misinformations more painful.

Thank you, DD, for clarifying. I had came to think that I might have been a little too quick to judge you at first, but now I see I was right.

That's because the USA is behind most problems in the world. Maybe if the USSR was the Power, it would be worse, but they aren't and now, the ones who are exploting people, invading countries and generating greenhouse effect (mainly) are the USA. For me, the link fanatic/superconservative people-oligopolistic conciensceless corporations- corrupt demagogic politicians is THE DEVIL. I can't imagine a higher corruption based on such some blind fanatic masses.

True. I don't care a damm if americans like Zapatero either, but, since the topic was that, I prefer people not be fooled by false info. If any (independent) member of the board comes to Spain now or in the near future and care to ask, they'll tell you. I am not inventing anything, but somebody is shameslessly lying, no matter that the topic may be irrelevant.

Ignacio,

Take a serious look at the Kyoto agreement. The US was the only major nation who would have to "cut back" on the emissions, while most nations would be allowed to "increase" their emissions.

What kind of an agreement says that one nation should shoulder the responsibility, while others are told... "You can pollute more! It's okay! The US won't pollute as much!"

If you want to make an agreement to stop pollution, everyone shoulders some of the blame, and takes actions to cut their own emissions as well.

The whole concept of Kyoto is to make the US the fall guy for the world's pollution.

Now, here's a fair plan. Make all nations cut their emissions by 36%, including the US. That sounds fair, doesn't it?

According to Kyoto, less than 25% of the factions that voted for it would still vote for it because it required them to "cut their own emissions," and the plan was only meant to keep the US in check.

If that's a legitimate reason for Spaniards to "dislike Bush and the US," you're really barking up the wrong tree. We have absolutely no obligation to cut emissions any more than any other nation. If you want to knock Bush for not signing it, knock your own nation for not putting themselves in for an equal amount of emission control.

Wolf

Wolf:

If the USa would have to cut their emissions that's because...

... because it's the most contaminating country in the world.

The EU, being much more respectful towards environment, would have also to reduce greatly the emissions, and Japan and Russia will too. And it wii, there are some rules being issued at Brussels.

The problem is that the USA damages the wordl but doesn't get the responsability. Other countries damage it, but make themselves responsible and work against it.

There had to be a global, agreement, because reforming the industrial processes is expensive, and would cut some profits, so either most important countries do it at the same time, or won't work because the egoistic major country that doesn't would get all their industry, because it would move there. That's the game the USA is playing, as usual, their own benefit short-place and f*ck the rest... ... and their own future with more cancer, hurricanes, depletion of energetic resources, and so on.

It's not the same the situation in the underdeveloped countries, where energetic consume needs to increase while they become somewhat industrialized, and they are able to afford some heating or electric ventilation (much of the electric power comes from fossile combustible burning, or atomic), that the USA, where cars, for example, don't care about consumption because oil? is cheap, and there are hundreds of millions, or where thousands of factories don't care a d*mn about pollution.

They need to develope. We need to mantain our development but make it cleaner.

All the developed nations (including USA) signed the Kyoto protocol, but GWH rejected confirming the signature. And all are trying to start the reductions, but if one of the partners don't - one as big as the USA - the reduction won't go very far because it could ruin us all for theinvestment that would lead to the USA, the contaminers'paradise.

We have had an excellent oportunity to make a better world and avoid the horrible consequences, but it had to be all like one. Now, when you horrify yoursel about skin cancer, hurricanes, floodings, lunga cancer, et al, increases, you now who to blame.

Ignacio,

You've totally missed the point. Nations should not be allowed to "increase their pollution," even if they are underdeveloped. It would only be right that they develop without increasing their pollution, period.

As for those nations that do pollute, you can point at the US and say we're the worst, but we're also the biggest consumer in the world. The fact is, no country should have to reduce their emissions any more than their counterparts throughout the world. In other words, if we reduce by 36%, so does Spain, Germany, France, the UK, etc....

But saying the US should unilaterally destroy their economic base "for the good of the world," is preposterous. You'd have us make our goods unsellable, and make us a ward of the world's lesser nations who would now be in the catbird's seat when it comes to everything dealing with commerce.

Like I said... When EU demands a 36% cut in their emissions, and the deal doesn't hand the keys to world industry over to underdeveloped nations for the "good of the world," but offers them help in building a non-toxic industrial base, I'm game. Until then... as far as I'm concerned, the whole thing is a ruse to make the US "toe the line" of world opinion not for greenhouse reductions, but to steal our commercial base.

It's bad enough that countries paying as little as $2 a day for workers is stealing our industry. I'll be damned if I'd sit back and watch the rest of what we have left abandon our country because it would "be nice" for underdeveloped nations and those that wouldn't have to match our changes.

Wolf

Ignacio,

I guess you got your devils and I have mine. For me, I can't imagine an evil greater than a government that doesn't encourage competition, that is, one that encourages mediocrity. These are the true demagoguers who promote complacency and stagnation for a false sense of security.

This becomes a dangerous and unstable condition for the world when a country that has become an inefficient producer can no longer supply the needs of it's people. When this happens, these countries often look to other countries to fulfill their needs either by peaceful methods, such as living off of a superpower, or by invading and confiscating the resources of another country. Then the phone call goes out to you know who.

Nobody said that, it has to be all together. That's why the agreement of all the big ones but for the USA is not enough. It's just the opposite, here in the EU we are more concienced of the environment problem, and are willing to sacrifice some of our money for it, along with others liket the USA; but if the USA don't join we can't, same as the USA wouldn't be able to apply if we didn't or the asian tigers.

You can not ask the person in the underdeveloped country that he can not put some heating in his cold hut, whereas you have a never ending pole inside tropical Miami buildings.

If an american spends, say, equivalent to 2,000 gallons of oil for his car, heating and the electricity for communications, air conditioning, ..., and a chinese man who goes on a bike, has no heating and just a few bulbs spends the equivalent to 20, ...

...Do you think they shoud BOTH decrease their consume? or should the american rationalise his car consume, use less the air conditioning and maybe throw away less of the comparatively (for him) cheaper heating, while the chinese should be able to have some heating and maybe a mope, and, thus, spend more energy?

Well, yes, that's bad, and we have some of this back here too. There must be a way to protect our markets to some extent and let them be too. I have my ideas but it's too long to write here, I have too many debates open. In fact, these days I have had very few work and I spent about six hours of my work time with the forum. I am a little ashamed although I still, haven't duty left, but I can't do anymore, haha.

Gazpacho:

I guess you are writing on the communists. For me, they are not necessarily the worst, but they are bad.

But, hey! Didn't you know? Communism is almost erradicated, such as pure capitalism. The socially advanced nations of the world go towards social-capitalism, like 3/4 capitalism with 1/ communism.

It's still capitalism, but humanized. That's what I am for, as long as we all don't die of cancer or get ruined by floods or hurricanes etc in the meantime.

Ignacio,

Socialism, communism, it's all collectivism to me, and therefore evil.

Ignacio,

The situation of $2 a day laborers can be resolved through strict enforcement of international laws that forbid slave-labor. But will it happen? Probably not. Why? Because too many people are on the bash wagon against the US, and refuse to focus their attention on any other problems throughout the world, saying; "It's none of our business."

I'm afraid it's everyone's business, and the slave-labor acceptability is essentially through socialistic forms of enterprise, even though they try to say it's because of democratic principals "taking advantage of these people."

So, when is the average Spaniard going to be able to afford buying a home? In a socialistic form of government, it would seem everyone would not only have that right, but it would be a priority to make it happen. But it isn't, is it? Within socialism is a breed of it's own, that usurps almost all the wealth onto themselves, and nobody seems to get the picture that it's happening.

I guess one of the major things that people in other countries dislike about Americans is the fact that we stand up for our rights, have purchasing power beyond most people's imagination, and can own things that are only a dream to them at home. I can understand why this would be, but it's called jealousy, not concern.

Wolf