Fortune magazine's "World's Greatest Leaders"

well as you know i am german living in germany. i personally would have wanted this women to be voted out of office last election by all means.

see, i m not looking at her role in the international picture, because in first row i m concerned what a german cancellor is doing for their own ppl. and i dont mean the germans as such, i mean the ppl living in germany.
i m very leftwinged in my personal political views.
a lot of ppl think she s doing a great job, coz after the crisis the german economy is still doing well and that this is a benefit of her lead and decisions.
far failed. things got rough in germany like everywhere on the world.
merkel and her party have made life miserable for many ppl.
they celebrate us having a low unemployment rate.
there s been times we had a higher unemployment rate, yes, but- ppl were in steady unlimited contracts, paid well and secured in their for any case happening, let it be sickness, jobdisability, pension. all this social benefits have been shortened down. many ppl work in unsolid contracts at disproportionate saleries by force from outsight. it s a devil circle. they force ppl into bad working conditions, which has them end up pulling money out of the social systems coz working alone isnt paying the bills anymore.
we had strict laws on dismissial protection. today they can fire easily without much of a good reason. you dont even have to do something bad.
merkels politics focuses on the wealth of a certain group only and is very lobby orientated.
poverty has increased ever since she got into office for the most of our society.
even the UN has noticed an alarming increase on child poverty in germany.
there is many points more, just wanted to name some that have me angry at her.

 

Books I love ya, but you need to fact check some of your beliefs,

1. Use of domestic Drones - Not only does the FAA regulate the commercial use of drones, it actually bans it. Still, the landscape is changing. At Congress’ direction, the FAA is drafting new regulations. How those rules will address privacy concerns, it's too soon to tell. But it's inaccurate to say there’s "no regulation." We rate her statement False.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ianne-feinstein/regulation-commercial-drones/

2. Killing innocents in drone stikes - "Rogers said Obama was responsible for "the assassination of at least four American citizens" in drone strikes. U.S. drone strikes reportedly carried out on Obama’s authority killed the citizens listed by Rogers. But three deaths were evidently not intended, while it’s debated -- and unsettled at best -- whether the killing of al-Awlaki, targeted for his al-Qaeda role, was an assassination.
We rate this claim, which presents these deaths out of context, as Half True.



Fighting terrorist will always bring about tragic collateral damage.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/sta...s-citizens-killed-obama-drone-strikes-3-were/


3. Benghazi - From Factcheck.org

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney repeatedly, and wrongly, said that the White House and State Department had changed just one word of CIA-authored talking points on the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi. The talking points, used by U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice on political talk shows, said the attack, which killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, started “spontaneously” as a protest. But that turned out to be false. The attack was premeditated and carried out by terrorists.
Carney said the White House and State Department only changed the word “consulate” to “diplomatic facility.” But news reports from the Weekly Standard and ABC News, which published 12 drafts of the talking points, show that State Department comments prompted the CIA to make many alterations, including deleting references to CIA warnings of al Qaeda-linked threats and the possibility of the al Qaeda-linked Ansar al-Sharia being involved. We’d note that Republicans asserted the changes amounted to an election-year cover-up, but there’s no evidence of that. One thing that was not changed was the false claim that the attack was the result of a spontaneous protest. That was contained in the original draft, and survived into the final version.

If you are still not convinced, here it is FROM A REPUBLICAN assigned to investigate

Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, R-Georgia, chair of a House Intelligence subcommittee,said incompetence is the likely culprit. "I don't think they knew what they were doing," he said.
He said the various arms of government involved -- the State Department and intelligence agencies -- "got their communications mixed up."
"I think what ended up happening, you had the State Department trying to tell one story and you had the security, the intelligence community that may have been trying to sell another story," Westmoreland said on CNN's "New Day."

http://www.newsmax.com/NewsmaxTv/lyn...1/18/id/537272




4. NSA - "It's important to recognize that you can't have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience," he said. "We're going to have to make some choices as a society. And what I can say is that in evaluating these programs, they make a difference in our capacity to anticipate and prevent possible terrorist activity." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/07/obama-defends-nsa_n_3406448.html


5. ACA - No doubt it got off to a bad start, having worked in IT in the past, any large scale launching of a new program will have problems, the ACA's problems were just in a major spotlight, and they were fixed pretty darn quickly.


Don't claim to have all the answers here Books, but would love to hear your responses.

 

rayer:rayer:rayer:rayer:

 

I hated the way that FOX news and Bill O'Reilly was shitting on Jolie's selection last nite. She is a multi-millionaire Academy Award winning actress who could just sit back and write checks to the Red Cross if she so chose. Instead, she has voluntarily placed herself in harm's way countless times as an ambassador, bringing clean water and supplies to refugees all over the third world.

Her charities spend millions each year to feed and clothe the poor and she actually gets off the couch to personally follow up on her expenditures and see that the money is being used effectively rather than stolen by tyrants and warlords. Bill doesn't do shit but write checks to Catholic charities probably . . . he hasn't visited any suffering refugees in person overseas.
He sounded bitter because Jolie and Pitt refuse to come on his show and give him a forum with their fans to boost his ratings and standing.

 

Exactly, which is very amusing. Now, with their income, they should be able to do the same and contribute somehow. However, the closest they've ever gotten contributing anything was through political contributions and the occasional tip at a minority-owned restaurant.