Why the world hates the US of A

[Buddhas Hand]

Lol. You need a history lesson.

Who do you think drew the current borders in the middle east? Who invaded Afghanistan first? Who funds Syria?

Historically the borders of many Arab countries, including those in the Arabian Peninsula, are largely artificial constructs cobbled together from fragments of the Ottoman Empire and based on Anglo-French agreements partitioning spheres of influence in the Arab world after World War I. Alexander the Great in 330 BC. Russia .

[Pouria]

Lol. You need a history lesson.

Who do you think drew the current borders in the middle east? Who invaded Afghanistan first? Who funds Syria?

Am learning new things everyday from posters like you, like Harper is a great PM and US never intervenes with the politics in the middle east. Next thing I might learn is that nuclear exposure might be good for you.

[Pouria]

I can't really understand how it's possible that a majority of Canadians hate him, since he did win a majority after all.

Maybe just the loudest people hate him? Wouldn't really think to look on Facebook for accurate political statements...

I don't know a whole ton about politics tbh, but he just seems like a better PM than all the other alternatives...

Majority of Americans voted for Obama, does that mean that majority of Americans like him now? People's perception change and their opinions of someone can change drastically before and after election. I just go based on my observation and what people have been saying on the internet and outside the internet medium. Unless there is a recent poll that shows the opinions of most Canadians, I can only go based on what I have heard and observed through media and the outside world.

[aeromotacanucks]

The world doesn´t hates Americans. the world hates the American government and the American media...

1) Americans are nice people just anybody else on this planet, they´re just living their lifes on their way...

2) the American media shows and "teach" (teach?) that USA owns the world, so Americans think they really own the world...

3) when your country is invaded and bombed for a weak reason it´s pretty easy hate the invader. so that´s why middle east don´t like USA. maybe if US politics stop deciding invading other countries for stupid reasons people there will stop hate USA...

4) as a result of a racist education many Americans have a wrong idea of the entire world. so Americans think Canadians as wussies living on ice with their igloos (when Canada is more developed than USA in some points), Russians are a bunch of Commies (when Moscow have the big number of billionaires living there), Brazil is a big jungle (when we have Embraer and 75% of our jets fly in USA), Muslims are all terrorists (when USA have domestic terrorists attacks) etc etc etc

5) The USA politics arge against each other to see what party is more powerfull when they should listen the people, who cares what politician is Democrat or Republican? the American people care about what they´re doing for the entire country...

6) the racist segregation is USA is wierd. many schools refuse to teach Evolution because they think it´s wrong, they treat immigrants as a second-class humam just because they came from another country but USA can´t survive without the cheap work of them...

resuming. thw world doesn´t hates USA, the world hates the American government....

[taxi]

Am learning new things everyday from posters like you, like Harper is a great PM and US never intervenes with the politics in the middle east. Next thing I might learn is that nuclear exposure might be good for you.

I didn't say either of things. However the UK, Russia, and China all have long histories of interfering in other countries. Russia especially. So your logic that you hate the US more than those countries due to the fact those counties don't interfere was based on ignorance.

[Raoul Duke]

- The Hawaiian Islands

- California

- Vegas

- Seattle

These are the reasons I love the U.S. Yah, they're government is shambles, but that shouldn't be a reason to hate. The people are actually pretty gosh darnit friendly.

[Alchemy Time]

Majority of Americans voted for Obama, does that mean that majority of Americans like him now? People's perception change and their opinions of someone can change drastically before and after election. I just go based on my observation and what people have been saying on the internet and outside the internet medium. Unless there is a recent poll that shows the opinions of most Canadians, I can only go based on what I have heard and observed through media and the outside world.

Oh I have no problem admitting that opinions can change, but Harper had already been PM for like, what, 5 years? They should have already known what he was like as a PM, and yet he gained seats, meaning that more people liked the job he did as PM.

The most recent poll I can think of that shows the opinions of Canada is the 2011 election, so you may have a point.

I just think he has done a far better job then any of the opposing leaders would have.

[Henrik Kesler]

As an American, this thread just makes me angry.

[aGENT]

I can't really understand how it's possible that a majority of Canadians hate him, since he did win a majority after all.

Maybe just the loudest people hate him? Wouldn't really think to look on Facebook for accurate political statements...

I don't know a whole ton about politics tbh, but he just seems like a better PM than all the other alternatives...

Here's a link for you.

http://www.shd.ca/

A brief summary would be that he governs via ideology (and a flawed one at that), that he's selling off the oil sands (and our jobs, money and environment) to China. He's the least transparent/most secretive PM ever. He's now been caught in numerous lies. Prorogues parliament when he doesn't get his way. He's constantly attacking traditional Canadian values. Despite running on prudent fiscal management has spent more/increased debt more than just about any other time in Canadian history etc, etc...

[aGENT]

As an American, this thread just makes me angry.

Because people keep describing American people as friendly, good people...?

[Henrik Kesler]

Because people keep describing American people as friendly, good people...?

I should clarify. The title and OP are annoying, but I do like that people are coming in and saying that a distinction needs to be made between the people and the government.

[aGENT]

I should clarify. The title and OP are annoying, but I do like that people are coming in and saying that a distinction needs to be made between the people and the government.

I think the only thing as a rule that people don't actually like about the actual American people is their seeming unwillingness/disinterest/complacency in actually DOING something about correcting that government issue. (Don't get me wrong, we have the same problem here on a smaller, less advanced scale.) But as the USA you have a responsibility as people and a country, like it or not, to set the example.

You all continue along with the Republican vs Democrat debate as though either makes any difference. The pendulum swings left and then back to the right and yet the government gets further overrun by special interest groups and corporate interest regardless of whose in power. Further and further deteriorating government for and by the people. Further deteriorating the spirit, ingenuity and fairness that once made you the greatest nation. Yet you continue to repeat the same thing over and over and over....

And because of of your world wide influence - initially and rightfully earned by that once proud, greatness - that slow sinking is spread far and wide infecting other countries with similar problems of encroaching on freedoms, clawing of dollars and power, destruction of environments...

It's like watching our once strong, proud Olympic medalist older brother turn to a life of crime and illicit drugs. We're sad and we're disappointed. We see what you used to be and what you used to stand for...what you could have been and feel loss and we see you doing little or nothing to turn it around.

[Henrik Kesler]

I think the only thing as a rule that people don't actually like about the actual American people is their seeming unwillingness/disinterest/complacency in actually DOING something about correcting that government issue. (Don't get me wrong, we have the same problem here on a smaller, less advanced scale.) But as the USA you have a responsibility as people and a country, like it or not, to set the example.

You all continue along with the Republican vs Democrat debate as though either makes any difference. The pendulum swings left and then back to the right and yet the government gets further overrun by special interest groups and corporate interest regardless of whose in power. Further and further deteriorating government for and by the people. Further deteriorating the spirit, ingenuity and fairness that once made you the greatest nation. Yet you continue to repeat the same thing over and over and over....

And because of of your world wide influence - initially and rightfully earned by that once proud, greatness - that slow sinking is spread far and wide infecting other countries with similar problems of encroaching on freedoms, clawing of dollars and power, destruction of environments...

It's like watching our once strong, proud Olympic medalist older brother turn to a life of crime and illicit drugs. We're sad and we're disappointed. We see what you used to be and what you used to stand for...what you could have been and feel loss and we see you doing little or nothing to turn it around.

I agree on all fronts. I've been overseas to Germany, France, Italy, Spain, and Britain and it has helped me a lot to get perspective that the rest of the world is different from America, but it is NOT a crap hole like the media would like to portray it. I think America as a whole would benefit from having our younger population spending time overseas and seeing for themselves that the world is not what the media and our government would like you to think it is.

I agree that the US needs to set an example of how democracy should be. Unfortunately, the majority of the populous is sleep walking through their unimaginative lives and literally nobody can think for themself. It's quite sad, really. It seems the American ability to think outside the box and think for yourself died a long time ago. One bright spot is that I and all my friends from college seem to be independent thinkers, so there is hope, we just need 20-40 years before anyone in my generation will be wielding any real power to change things.

The Republican/Democrat thing pisses me off to no end. I am an independent voter because I think for myself and can see through the bullsh*t that both sides parrot. Politicians in America used to represent the people that elected them to DC. No longer. The lack of term limits allows politicians who are inept at doing anything but getting pork for their voting district to get entrenched and they are literally impossible to remove from office. Personally, I HATE that we have career politicians and ending this practice will be the first of many needed steps in getting America back on course.

Edit: To add, one of the biggest problems I see with how the government is run is that nobody in DC (or at the state level either) can sit down and have an adult discussion with the opposing party. Yes, they may represent different ideologies, but these ideologies are not so wildly different that they shouldn't be able to sit down and negotiate like grown men and women instead of the current in vouge course of action which is yelling at each other through the media mouthpiece.

[aGENT]

Edit: To add, one of the biggest problems I see with how the government is run is that nobody in DC (or at the state level either) can sit down and have an adult discussion with the opposing party. Yes, they may represent different ideologies, but these ideologies are not so wildly different that they shouldn't be able to sit down and negotiate like grown men and women instead of the current in vouge course of action which is yelling at each other through the media mouthpiece.

But they are that different now. That's another problem. Moderates don't tend to get elected which leads to a deficit of common sense and levelheadedness in governance from both sides. You don't get elected in the South unless you're a god fearing, gun-toting, evolution denying "good ol' boy". And conversely the left responds with Harvard educated, elitist "Karl Marx".

The further they pander to ever more extreme demographics, the further from moderate, reasonable governing you get. And it's all fueled by the "news" media fashioning it in to an exciting us vs them battle that the people eat up and then gladly spew back out. In reality it's all a distraction. They keep the people focused on the side show of left vs right and allow the spectacle to keep your attention while they rob you blind, deteriorate your rights, and rape your environment for their profit.

The people need to take back their government.

[Buddhas Hand]

But they are that different now. That's another problem. Moderates don't tend to get elected which leads to a deficit of common sense and levelheadedness in governance from both sides. You don't get elected in the South unless you're a god fearing, gun-toting, evolution denying "good ol' boy". And conversely the left responds with Harvard educated, elitist "Karl Marx".

The further they pander to ever more extreme demographics, the further from moderate, reasonable governing you get. And it's all fueled by the "news" media fashioning it in to an exciting us vs them battle that the people eat up and then gladly spew back out. In reality it's all a distraction. They keep the people focused on the side show of left vs right and allow the spectacle to keep your attention while they rob you blind, deteriorate your rights, and rape your environment for their profit.

The people need to take back their government.

Is that a right of life, when the young children of this country are being reared into a sphere which is more owned by 12 men that is by 120 million people?

Ladies and gentlemen, I have only 30 minutes in which to speak to you this evening, and I, therefore, will not be able to discuss in detail so much as I can write when I have all of the time and space that is allowed me for the subjects, but I will undertake to sketch them very briefly without manuscript or preparation, so that you can understand them so well as I can tell them to you tonight.

I contend, my friends, that we have no difficult problem to solve in America, and that is the view of nearly everyone with whom I have discussed the matter here in Washington and elsewhere throughout the United States -- that we have no very difficult problem to solve.

It is not the difficulty of the problem which we have; it is the fact that the rich people of this country -- and by rich people I mean the super-rich -- will not allow us to solve the problems, or rather the one little problem that is afflicting this country, because in order to cure all of our woes it is necessary to scale down the big fortunes, that we may scatter the wealth to be shared by all of the people.

We have a marvelous love for this Government of ours; in fact, it is almost a religion, and it is well that it should be, because we have a splendid form of government and we have a splendid set of laws. We have everything here that we need, except that we have neglected the fundamentals upon which the American Government was principally predicated.

How may of you remember the first thing that the Declaration of Independence said? It said, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that there are certain inalienable rights of the people, and among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"; and it said, further, "We hold the view that all men are created equal."

Now, what did they mean by that? Did they mean, my friends, to say that all me were created equal and that that meant that any one man was born to inherit $10,000,000,000 and that another child was to be born to inherit nothing?

Did that mean, my friends, that someone would come into this world without having had an opportunity, of course, to have hit one lick of work, should be born with more than it and all of its children and children's children could ever dispose of, but that another one would have to be born into a life of starvation?

That was not the meaning of the Declaration of Independence when it said that all men are created equal of "That we hold that all men are created equal."

Now was it the meaning of the Declaration of Independence when it said that they held that there were certain rights that were inalienable -- the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Is that right of life, my friends, when the young children of this country are being reared into a sphere which is more owned by 12 men than it is by 120,000,000 people?

Is that, my friends, giving them a fair shake of the dice or anything like the inalienable right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, or anything resembling the fact that all people are created equal; when we have today in America thousands and hundreds of thousands and millions of children on the verge of starvation in a land that is overflowing with too much to eat and too much to wear? I do not think you will contend that, and I do not think for a moment that they will contend it.

Now let us see if we cannot return this Government to the Declaration of Independence and see if we are going to do anything regarding it. Why should we hesitate or why should we quibble or why should we quarrel with one another to find out what the difficulty is, when we know what the Lord told us what the difficulty is, and Moses wrote it out so a blind man could see it, then Jesus told us all about it, and it was later written in the Book of James, where everyone could read it?

I refer to the Scriptures, now, my friends, and give you what it says not for the purpose of convincing you of the wisdom of myself, not for the purpose ladies and gentlemen, of convincing you of the fact that I am quoting the Scripture means that I am to be more believed than someone else; but I quote you the Scripture, rather refer you to the Scripture, because whatever you see there you may rely upon will never be disproved so long as you or your children or anyone may live; and you may further depend upon the fact that not one historical fact that the Bible has ever contained has ever yet been disproved by any scientific discovery or by reason of anything that has been disclosed to man through his own individual mind or through the wisdom of the Lord which the Lord has allowed him to have.

But the Scripture says, ladies and gentlemen, that no country can survive, or for a country to survive it is necessary that we keep the wealth scattered among the people, that nothing should be held permanently by any one person, and that 50 years seems to be the year of jubilee in which all property would be scattered about and returned to the sources from which it originally came, and every seventh year debt should be remitted.

Those two things the Almighty said to be necessary -- I should say He knew to be necessary, or else He would not have so prescribed that the property would be kept among the general run of the people and that everyone would continue to share in it; so that no one man would get half of it and hand it down to a son, who takes half of what was left, and that son hand it down to another one, who would take half of what was left, until, like a snowball going downhill, all of the snow was off of the ground except what the snowball had.

I believe that was the judgment and the view and the law of the Lord, that we would have to distribute wealth every so often, in order that there could not be people starving to death in a land of plenty, as there is in America today. We have in American today more wealth, more goods, more food, more clothing, more houses than we have ever had. We have everything in abundance here. We have the farm problem, my friends, because we have too much cotton, because we have too much wheat, and have too much corn, and too much potatoes.

We have a home-loan problem because we have too many houses, and yet nobody can buy them and live in them.

We have trouble, my friends, in the country, because we have too much money owing, the greatest indebtedness that has ever been given to civilization, where it has been shown that we are incapable of distributing to the actual things that are here, because the people have not money enough to supply themselves with them, and because the greed of a few men is such that they think it is necessary that they own everything, and their pleasure consists in the starvation of the masses, and in their possessing things they cannot use, and their children cannot use, but who bask in the splendor of sunlight and wealth, casting darkness and despair and impressing it on everyone else.

"So, therefore," said the Lord, in effect, "if you see these things that now have occurred and exist in this and other countries, there must be a constant scattering of wealth in any country if this country is to survive."

"Then," said the Lord, in effect, "every seventh year there shall be a remission of debts; there will be no debts after 7 years." That was the law.

Now, let us take America today. We have in American today, ladies and gentlemen, $272,000,000,000 of debt. Two hundred and seventy-two thousand millions of dollars of debts are owed by the various people of this country today. Why, my friends, that cannot be paid. It is not possible for that kind of debt to be paid.

The entire currency of the United States is only $6,000,000,000. That is all of the money that we have got in America today. All the actual money you have got in all of your banks, all that you have got in the Government Treasury, is $6,000,000,000; and if you took all that money and paid it out today you would still owe $266,000,000,000; and if you took all that money and paid again you would still owe $260,000,000,000; and if you took it, my friends, 20 times and paid it you would still owe $150,000,000,000.

You would have to have 45 times the entire money supply of the United States today to pay the debts of the people of America, and then they would just have to start out from scratch, without a dime to go on with.

So, my friends, it is impossible to pay all of these debts, and you might as well find out that it cannot be done. The United States Supreme Court has definitely found out that it could not be done, because, in a Minnesota case, it held that when a State has postponed the evil day of collecting a debt it was a valid and constitutional exercise of legislative power.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, if I may proceed to give you some other words that I think you can understand -- I am not going to belabor you by quoting tonight -- I am going to tell you what the wise men of all ages and all times, down even to the present day, have all said: That you must keep the wealth of the country scattered, and you must limit the amount that any one man can own. You cannot let any man own $300,000,000,000 or $400,000,000,000. If you do, one man can own all of the wealth that they United States has in it.

Now, my friends, if you were off on an island where there were 100 lunches, you could not let one man eat up the hundred lunches, or take the hundred lunches and not let anybody else eat any of them. If you did, there would not be anything else for the balance of the people to consume.

So, we have in America today, my friends, a condition by which about 10 men dominate the means of activity in at least 85 percent of the activities that you own. They either own directly everything or they have got some kind of mortgage on it, with a very small percentage to be excepted. They own the banks, they own the steel mills, they own the railroads, they own the bonds, they own the mortgages, they own the stores, and they have chained the country from one end to the other, until there is not any kind of business that a small, independent man could go into today and make a living, and there is not any kind of business that an independent man can go into and make any money to buy an automobile with; and they have finally and gradually and steadily eliminated everybody from the fields in which there is a living to be made, and still they have got little enough sense to think they ought to be able to get more business out of it anyway.

If you reduce a man to the point where he is starving to death and bleeding and dying, how do you expect that man to get hold of any money to spend with you? It is not possible. Then, ladies and gentlemen, how do you expect people to live, when the wherewith cannot be had by the people?

In the beginning I quoted from the Scriptures. I hope you will understand that I am not quoting Scripture to convince you of my goodness personally, because that is a thing between me and my Maker, that is something as to how I stand with my Maker and as to how you stand with your Maker. That is not concerned with this issue, except and unless there are those of you who would be so good as to pray for the souls of some of us. But the Lord gave his law, and in the Book of James they said so, that the rich should weep and howl for the miseries that had come upon them; and, therefore, it was written that when the rich hold goods they could not use and could not consume, you will inflict punishment on them, and nothing but days of woe ahead of them.

Then we have heard of the great Greek philosopher, Socrates, and the greater Greek philosopher, Plato, and we have read the dialog between Plato and Socrates, in which one said that great riches brought on great poverty, and would be destructive of a country. Read what they said. Read what Plato said; that you must not let any one man be too poor, and you must not let any one man be too rich; that the same mill that grinds out the extra rich is the mill that will grind out the extra poor, because, in order that the extra rich can become so affluent, they must necessarily take more of what ordinarily would belong to the average man.

It is a very simple process of mathematics that you do not have to study, and that no one is going to discuss with you.

So that was the view of Socrates and Plato. That was the view of the English statesmen. That was the view of American statesmen. That was the view of American statesmen like Daniel Webster, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, William Jennings Bryan, and Theodore Roosevelt, and even as late as Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Both of these men, Mr. Hoover and Mr. Roosevelt, came out and said there had to be a decentralization of wealth, but neither one of them did anything about it. But, nevertheless, they recognized the principle. The fact that neither one of them ever did anything about it is their own problem that I am not undertaking to criticize; but had Mr. Hoover carried out what he says ought to be done, he would be retiring from the President's office, very probably, 3 years from now, instead of 1 year ago; and had Mr. Roosevelt proceeded along the lines that he stated were necessary for the decentralization of wealth, he would have gone, my friends, a long way already, and within a few months he would have probably reached a solution of all of the problems that afflict this country.

But I wish to warn you now that nothing that has been done up to this date has taken one dime away from these big-fortune holders; they own just as much as they did, and probably a little bit more; they hold just as many of the debts of the common people as they ever held, and probably a little bit more; and unless we, my friends, are going to give the people of this country a fair shake of the dice, by which they will all get something out of the funds of this land, there is not a chance on the topside of this God's eternal earth by which we can rescue this country and rescue the people of this country.

It is necessary to save the Government of the country, but is much more necessary to save the people of America. We love this country. We love this Government. It is a religion, I say. It is a kind of religion people have read of when women, in the name of religion, would take their infant babes and throw them into the burning flame, where they would be instantly devoured by the all-consuming fire, in days gone by; and there probably are some people of the world even today, who, in the name of religion, throw their tear-dimmed eyes into the sad faces of their fathers and mothers, who cannot given them food and clothing they both needed, and which is necessary to sustain them, and that goes on day after day, and night after night, when day gets into darkness and blackness, knowing those children would arise in the morning without being fed, and probably to bed at night without being fed.

Yet in the name of our Government, and all alone, those people undertake and strive as hard as they can to keep a good government alive, and how long they can stand that no one knows. If I were in their place tonight, the place where millions are, I hope that I would have what I might say -- I cannot give you the word to express the kind of fortitude they have; that is the word -- I hope that I might have the fortitude to praise and honor my Government that had allowed me here in this land, where there is too much to eat and too much to wear, to starve in order that a handful of men can have so much more than they can ever eat or they can ever wear.

Now, we have organized a society, and we call it "Share Our Wealth Society," a society with the motto "every man a king."

Every man a king, so there would be no such thing as a man or woman who did not have the necessities of life, who would not be dependent upon the whims and caprices and ipsi dixit of the financial martyrs for a living. What do we propose by this society? We propose to limit the wealth of big men in the country. There is an average of $15,000 in wealth to every family in America. That is right here today.

We do not propose to divide it up equally. We do not propose a division of wealth, but we propose to limit poverty that we will allow to be inflicted upon any man's family. We will not say we are going to try to guarantee any equality, or $15,000 to families. No; but we do say that one third of the average is low enough for any one family to hold, that there should be a guaranty of a family wealth of around $5,000; enough for a home, and automobile, a radio, and the ordinary conveniences, and the opportunity to educate their children; a fair share of the income of this land thereafter to that family so there will be no such thing as merely the select to have those things, and so there will be no such thing as a family living in poverty and distress.

We have to limit fortunes. Our present plan is that we will allow no one man to own more than $50,000,000. We think that with that limit we will be able to carry out the balance of the program. It may be necessary that we limit it to less than $50,000,000. It may be necessary, in working out of the plans, that no man's fortune would be more than $10,000,000 or $15,000,000. But be that as it may, it will still be more than any one man, or any one man and his children and their children, will be able to spend in their lifetimes; and it is not necessary or reasonable to have wealth piled up beyond that point where we cannot prevent poverty among the masses.

Another thing we propose is old-age pension of $30 a month for everyone that is 60 years old. Now, we do not give this pension to a man making $1,000 a year, and we do not give it to him if he has $10,000 in property, but outside of that we do.

We will limit hours of work. There is not any necessity of having over-production. I think all you have got to do, ladies and gentlemen, is just limit the hours of work to such an extent as people will work only so long as is necessary to produce enough for all of the people to have what they need. Why, ladies and gentleman, let us say that all of these labor-saving devices reduce hours down to where you do not have to work but 4 hours a day; that is enough for these people, and then praise be the name of the Lord, if it gets that good. Let it be good and not a curse, and then we will have 5 hours a day and 5 days a week, or even less that that, and we might give a man a whole month off during a year, or give him 2 months; and we might do what other countries have seen fit to do, and what I did in Louisiana, by having schools by which adults could go back and learn the things that have been discovered since they went to school.

We will not have any trouble taking care of the agricultural situation. All you have to do is balance your production with your consumption. You simply have to abandon a particular crop that you have too much of, and all you have to do is store the surplus for the next year, and the Government will take it over. When you have good crops in the area in which the crops that have been planted are sufficient for another year, put in your public works in the particular year when you do not need to raise any more, and by that means you get everybody employed. When the Government has enough of any particular crop to take care of all of the people, that will be all that is necessary; and in order to do all of this, our taxation is going to be to take the billion-dollar fortunes and strip them down to frying size, not to exceed $50,000,000, and it is necessary to come to $10,000,000, we will come to $10,000,000. We have worked the proposition out to guarantee a limit upon property (and no man will own less than one third the average), and guarantee a reduction of fortunes and a reduction of hours to spread wealth throughout this country. We would care for the old people above 60 and take them away from this thriving industry and given them a chance to enjoy the necessities and live in ease, and thereby lift from the market the labor which would probably create a surplus of commodities.

Those are the things we propose to do. "Every man a king." Every man to eat when there is something to eat; all to wear something when there is something to wear. That makes us all sovereign.

You cannot solve these things through these various and sundry alphabetical codes. You can have the N.R.A. and P.W.A. and C.W.A. and the U.U.G. and G.I.N. and any other kind of "dad-gummed" lettered code. You can wait until doomsday and see 25 more alphabets, but that is not going to solve this proposition. Why hide? Why quibble? You know what the trouble is. The man that says he does not know what the trouble is just hiding his face to keep from seeing the sunlight.

God told you what the trouble was. The philosophers told you what the trouble was; and when you have a country where one man owns more than 100,000 people, or a million people, and when you have a country where there are four men, as in America, that have got more control over things than all the 120,000,000 people together, you know what the trouble is.

We had these great incomes in this country; but the farmer, who plowed from sunup to sundown, who labored here from sunup to sundown for 6 days a week, wound up at the end of the with practically nothing.

And we ought to take care of the veterans of the wars in this program. That is a small matter. Suppose it does cost a billion dollars a year -- that means that the money will be scattered throughout this country. We ought to pay them a bonus. We can do it. We ought to take care of every single one of the sick and disabled veterans. I do not care whether a man got sick on the battlefield or did not; every man that wore the uniform of this country is entitled to be taken care of, and there is money enough to do it; and we need to spread the wealth of the country, which you did not do in what you call the N.R.A.

If the N.R.A. has done any good, I can put it all in my eye without having it hurt. All I can see that N.R.A. has done is to put the little man out of business -- the little merchant in his store, the little Dago that is running a fruit stand, or the Greek shoe-shining stand, who has to take hold of a code of 275 pages and study with a spirit level and compass and looking-glass; he has to hire a Philadelphia lawyer to tell him what is in the code; and by the time he learns what the code is, he is in jail or out of business; and they have got a chain code system that has already put him out of business. The N.R.A. is not worth anything, and I said so when they put it through.

Now, my friends, we have got to hit the root with the axe. Centralized power in the hands of a few, with centralized credit in the hands of a few, is the trouble.

Get together in your community tonight or tomorrow and organize one of our Share Our Wealth societies. If you do not understand it, write me and let me send you the platform; let me give you the proof of it.

This is Huey P. Long talking, United States Senator, Washington, D.C. Write me and let me send you the data on this proposition. Enroll with us. Let us make known to the people what we are going to do. I will send you a button, if I have got enough of them left. We have got a little button that some of our friends designed, with our message around the rim of the button, and in the center "Every man a king." Many thousands of them are meeting through the United States, and every day we are getting hundreds and hundreds of letters. Share Our Wealth societies are now being organized, and people have it within their power to relieve themselves from this terrible situation.

Look at what the Mayo brothers announced this week, these greatest scientists of all the world today, who are entitled to have more money than all the Morgans and the Rockefellers, or anyone else, and yet the Mayos turn back their big fortunes to be used for treating the sick, and said they did not want to lay up fortunes in this earth, but wanted to turn them back where they would do some good; but the other big capitalists are not willing to do that, are not willing to do what these men, 10 times more worthy, have already done, and it is going to take a law to require them to do it.

Organize your Share Our Wealth Society and get your people to meet with you, and make known your wishes to your Senators and Representatives in Congress.

Now, my friends, I am going to stop. I thank you for this opportunity to talk to you. I am having to talk under the auspices and by the grace and permission of the National Broadcasting System tonight, and they are letting me talk free. If I had the money, and I wish I had the money, I would like to talk to you more often on this line, but I have not got it, and I cannot expect these people to give it to me free except on some rare instance. But, my friends, I hope to have the opportunity to talk with you, and I am writing to you, and I hope that you will get up and help in the work, because the resolution and bills are before Congress, and we hope to have your help in getting together and organizing your Share Our Wealth society.

Now, that I have but a minute left, I want to say that I suppose my family is listening in on the radio in New Orleans, and I will say to my wife and three children that I am entirely well and hope to be home before many more days, and I hope they have listened to my speech tonight, and I wish them and all their neighbors and friends everything good that may be had.

I thank you, my friends, for your kind attention, and I hope you will enroll with us, take care of your own work in the work of this Government, and share or help in our Share Our Wealth society.

I thank you

[Buddhas Hand]

He wanted to return the power to the have nots , then came the shot....Zack de la Roche

[Lancaster]

But they are that different now. That's another problem. Moderates don't tend to get elected which leads to a deficit of common sense and levelheadedness in governance from both sides. You don't get elected in the South unless you're a god fearing, gun-toting, evolution denying "good ol' boy". And conversely the left responds with Harvard educated, elitist "Karl Marx".

The further they pander to ever more extreme demographics, the further from moderate, reasonable governing you get. And it's all fueled by the "news" media fashioning it in to an exciting us vs them battle that the people eat up and then gladly spew back out. In reality it's all a distraction. They keep the people focused on the side show of left vs right and allow the spectacle to keep your attention while they rob you blind, deteriorate your rights, and rape your environment for their profit.

The people need to take back their government.

As weird as it sounds... the 2nd Amendment is partially in place to guarantee that right....

[SNACanuck]

Honestly I love being Canadian but threads like this are stupid. For one fact, the US is Canada's largest trading partner. So if you despise the US don't buy their products (that'll show 'em!). And vice-versa the US depends on Canada as well for trade.

I have never met a person in the US that has said "I hate Canada". In fact, they are very friendly to Canadians in the USA. Most Americans have visited Canada and love the friendliness of it. So when a thread pops up saying "I hate the USA" what kind of message are you sending?

If anyone should be looking at themselves it should be Canada. We kill more mammals (I'm talking seals in the north) than any other nation in the world. So how's that for killing, violence and murder in culture? Just for their damn fur. Granted they are animals, but I'm trying to give an example of our own dirty laundry. In the end, why waste energy hating the USA? We should thank them for employing many Canadian ex-pats... movie stars and NHL'ers included!

[Pouria]

I didn't say either of things. However the UK, Russia, and China all have long histories of interfering in other countries. Russia especially. So your logic that you hate the US more than those countries due to the fact those counties don't interfere was based on ignorance.

US interferes with every country more than Russia, China or UK. They are an aggressive superpower that don't listen to anyone and are more arrogant than all of those countries combined. You really think Russia or UK is more influential than the most powerful country in the world? think again.

I also never said those countries don't interfere with others but the US interferes with the foreign politics more than any other country and they flex their muscles every chance they get.

[SNACanuck]

I should clarify. The title and OP are annoying, but I do like that people are coming in and saying that a distinction needs to be made between the people and the government.

+1, Exactly. That's like saying "I hate Canada" because Harper is in power. Blame a whole country for an elected officials acts.