Most Dangerous in Western Hemisphere

[peacenluvbaby]

So what do people think?

The White House has been comparing Morales and Chavez to Nazis... is that fair? I havent heard of any recent genocides down there... only a trend to nationalize resources to fight poverty and US influence/control of their resources via US companies that bought rights often before democracy was fully established, and the majority of the indigenous people are dirt poor and live to about 40/50 years old because of their lives being really hard, and no medicines and such.

Peace!

[Laudate_Dominum]

gotta be chavez, anyone who wants to mess with oil has got to be part of the axis of evil.

j/k. I have no clue.

[OLAM Dad]

Fire is dangerous. Guns are dangerous, cars are dangerous.

The measure of how dangerous something is is dependant on it's potential to do harm.

Clearly, in this list President Bush has the most potential to do harm so he is the most dangerous.

As an American, I wouldn't have it any other way.

[Laudate_Dominum]

You forgot to put Haugen-Haas on your list.

[avemaria40]

At least Bush is trying to defend freedom, he's no dictator, and he wants to spread freedom in the Middle East in order to make peace. Personally, I would rather have Bush than any communist dictator who says we can't vote for whomever we want. At least people had a choice when it comes to Bush and he doesn't try and control our every day lives. He wants peace, he wants us to be able to keep the money we Americans work hard to earn, he wants to make life better for immigrants, he wants us to be able to enjoy Social Security and have that money not just for this generation but for the next, he defends family, he wants to clean the air and make use of other energy resources, he caught 4 out of 6 al-Quaeda terrorists, making America safer after 9/11, and he hates abortion (even though he makes exceptions to this, he still wants to reduce it, which can be said more for him than John Kerry). He would have sent Federal troops to help N.O. during Katrina, but the state health department didnt' want this(and I know this from a friend who knows somebody who gets sent to any place where there is a natural disaster in the US to help rebuild) I have a lot of respect for him as President and am gald he is in office. I voted null vote because I don't know much about the South American politicians, but I do know about Castro and Bush and don't think Bush is dangerous, but rather that he is doing what he has to do.

Edited February 5, 2006 by avemaria40

[morostheos]

Your pollis very clearly leading. I don't know enough about international politicsto make an informed decision.

[jezic]

the question doesn't even really make sense.

[ironmonk]

Bush has not reduced civil rights.

Non-citizens do not have civil rights. Felons do not have civil rights.

Suspicious activity opens up people to be checked up on.

If people are not doing anything illegal, then they do not have anything to worry about.

Privacy is not greater than protection of innocent lives. The mentality that so many people have been programmed with in regards to privacy is to fool you into supporting the reasoning of the murder of the unborn.

If someone is making a lot of calls to the middle east, I want law enforcement to make sure that the guy isn't a sleeper cell terrorist.

[God Conquers]

Wow... there is clearly no agenda in this poll... [sarcasm]

Paul Martin is the most dangerous.

But he's gone tomorrow!!!!

Woohooo! Prime Minister Steven Haper!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Didacus]

I'm just glad you didn't include Canada in there!

Canada, cold weather, keep to themselves, some of the nicest people in the world, lots of beavers, deers and bears.

Ya, we're a threat!


(beware the red nosed raindeer.... he is evil!)

[Desert Walker]

I wasn't able to vote on this because there are too many factors for which the questions do not account. Three out of four of the presidents are not the President of the United States, therefore, inherently they would pose a far lower threat to anyone except their own people. I think Fidel and Chavez pose a serious threat to the people in their respective countries. Beyond that they're of no consequence to the rest of humanity.

Bush on the other hand possesses at his command the most powerful military the world has ever known. I'd say that makes him a GIGANTIC threat to anyone who has set themselves up as an enemy of the United States.

So if you're doing things to bring about the death of United States citizens, or harm the national endeavors of this country, and you're NOT a member of the three branches of US government (such people being allowed to harm the country without having to worry about being hurt by it), I'd say Bush is the greatest threat, orginating from the American hemisphere, to YOUR safety.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Feb 5 2006, 11:47 PM']Bush has not reduced civil rights.
[right][snapback]876738[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Can you say "domestic eavesdropping"?

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Feb 5 2006, 11:47 PM']Non-citizens do not have civil rights. Felons do not have civil rights.
[right][snapback]876738[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Um, yes they do. They may not have all the same rights you and I do, but they still have civil rights.

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Feb 5 2006, 11:47 PM']Suspicious activity opens up people to be checked up on.

If people are not doing anything illegal, then they do not have anything to worry about.
[right][snapback]876738[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Who defines "suspicious activity"? What about that pesky little "due process" phrase in the Constitution?

[Desert Walker]

Sojourner:

Unless it has not already been verified beyond doubt, I think it is true that none of US (private citizens) can verify whether Bush has, under this spying program, allowed the men conducting it to spy on people on whom they did not (or DO not have) have a good reason to spy. It must be admitted, however, that the only thing we can do in this situation is TRUST that Bush's men are NOT being irresponsible! Otherwise we put ourselves in a situation of questioning the NEED for this program, which, under the resulting political and judicial pressure, could result in its termination.

For those who just don't like Bush as a President: while you're worried that his "obviously corrupt" administration is being allowed to get away with laying the first bricks of a Republican dictatorship, there are men who work for our federal government who have been able to use Bush's "sinister domestic eavesdropping" program to thwart the efforts of OTHER men who are trying to KILL some of us! My question is simple: if you're looking for something in a very dark room full of a bunch of OTHER somethings for which you are NOT looking, do you try to feel around with your hands until you (hopefully) run into it, or do you take the flashlight out of your pocket so that you can actually make it out?

I'm putting my trust in the smart guy who uses his flashlight to find the thing, even if he happens to point the flashlight at me for a moment or two and behold that which I do with my time. I'm not trying to kill anybody. I'd honestly prefer it if the smart guy with the flashlight found the guy trying to blow up my city with a Russian-made, 10 kiloton suitcase nuke as soon as possible. And you know what Sojourner? I'd rather the LAW not get in the way of the smart guy with the flashlight who also happens to be packing an M-16 rifle!

[Jaime]

[quote]. It must be admitted, however, that the only thing we can do in this situation is TRUST that Bush's men are NOT being irresponsible! Otherwise we put ourselves in a situation of questioning the NEED for this program, which, under the resulting political and judicial pressure, could result in its termination.

For those who just don't like Bush as a President: while you're worried that his "obviously corrupt" administration is being allowed to get away with laying the first bricks of a Republican dictatorship, there are men who work for our federal government who have been able to use Bush's "sinister domestic eavesdropping" program to thwart the efforts of OTHER men who are trying to KILL some of us! My question is simple: if you're looking for something in a very dark room full of a bunch of OTHER somethings for which you are NOT looking, do you try to feel around with your hands until you (hopefully) run into it, or do you take the flashlight out of your pocket so that you can actually make it out?[/quote]


No

No

Emphatically no!

This is not an issue of trust. It is not an issue of corruption. It is not an issue of "Bush hating" . It is an issue of constitutional rights and this flies in the face of them.

If our enemy does not play by the rules and we abandon the rules to fight the enemy, the enemy has won.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Feb 6 2006, 02:58 PM']No

No

Emphatically no!

This is not an issue of trust.  It is not an issue of corruption.  It is not an issue of "Bush hating" .  It is an issue of constitutional rights and this flies in the face of them. 

If our enemy does not play by the rules and we abandon the rules to fight the enemy, the enemy has won.
[right][snapback]877410[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Thank you.