|
Post by princelh on Dec 16, 2006 11:43:06 GMT -5
I remember the day that George Bush won the Republican nomination from John McCain. I believed that John McCain was the right person to run for the Republicans because he was sincere and was an honest broker. My belief on that day, was it was another stunning victory for Corporate America. Again, Big Oil, Big Pharma and the Chiefs at Boeing had got their candidate and with their help, the next President. To me, it was another period of darkness for the average person and family in America.
The Democrats and their loony secularist friends had alienated the bible belt and small town America and ceded it to the Republicans. Then started the great schism that is predominate in western society. There was now a split in the ideals among Americans. Not, since the Great War of Southern Independence, had there been such a differing of opinions between two separate sections of U.S. society.
Fast forward four years, and the ideological spit has become more apparent. Look at the electoral map and see where this became entrenched. Large Northern States, West Coast States, becoming bedrock Democratic States. Southern and Midwestern States, becoming bedrock Republican States.
Why did this happen? The Democrats turned their back on traditionalist values and were punished by those who were religious and believed in family values. George W Bush, with backing of big business, exploited this and got himself two terms as President. The industrial war machine saw this as an opportunity to advance the cause of weapons sales at home and abroad. Big Oil used it to advance profits 600%! The pharmaceutical companies used an aging population to make record profits with overpriced prescription drugs. To me, this is the real Bush legacy.
Those people in in the United States and Canada, that believe that George W Bush is a Conservative do so under false pretension. Real Conservatives don't believe in large deficits or debt, but George W has the largest deficit in U.S. history. Real Conservatives believe in justice for all, but the Bush administration has the idea of supporting what is good for big business, is good for the country. This is not so. What is good for big business, is good for the shareholders, not the country. Real Conservatives believe that charity begins at home. The Bush administration pays lip service to the problem of illegal immigration but does little of nothing to stop it from happening. Many local governments, and state governments are buckling under the weight of health-care and policing costs, because there is no way to collect taxes or monies owed by over 13 million illegals, that are hiding in the United States. Many of the big businesses, Swift Meats comes to mind, use a lot of illegal immigrants to work in their slaughter houses and meat packing plants. Who benefits? Big business. Lower wages, lower standard of living = higher profits. Bush is not a Conservative but an industrialist.
Where does it go from here? In two years, the likelihood of the secular Democrats, winning the Presidency are at best 50 - 50. The two leading Candidates, Hillary Clinton, a woman, and Barack Obama, an African American, in all likelihood are the Democratic ticket. Although both have some good idea's, their secular beliefs are going to become political baggage to those in the breadbasket of America. The Republicans will purge most of the Bush Neo-Conservatives and elect a strong leader from the Democratic region of the United States. This will allow the Republicans to grab electoral votes from Democratic regions that they were not able to secure previously. There will be Bush electoral voting regions that may slip in to the Democratic column. It all depends on who the nominee is. Condolezza Rice, a smart, African American woman, who would make a great candidate, will always be seen as a Bush Republican and would be discounted. The before mentioned John McCain, is eight years older and has recently made enemies of those who supported the Iraq War and the troops in the field. The third Candidate, and maybe the best chance for a Republican renewal, is Rudolph Gulliani, former mayor of New York City, hero of 911. As a true Conservative, Mr. Gulliani seems to be the best fit as the Republican candidate. Now, lets see if big business gets their way, and divides Americans and hold on to their power base in Washington by slipping in another ringer.
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 16, 2006 14:49:32 GMT -5
Gulliani will crush anyone the Democrats field. In fact, no other Democrat wants to run agaisnt him other then Obama or Hillarious.
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Dec 16, 2006 15:47:48 GMT -5
Condolezza Rice ... will always be seen as a Bush Republican And rightly so.... Barf! He handled 911 as well as anyone could and deserves much credit for that (though I'm not sure why that makes him a hero). But his politics are the last thing America needs IMO. If he tries to use 911 to get himself elected he'll be taking a risk.
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Dec 16, 2006 15:54:47 GMT -5
It seems like the Republicans have already been punished. With "W" gone the Republicans won't have anybody to kick around anymore. Osama and Hillarious (credit to HabsAddict) aren't electable in Conservative states. (Hillary isn't electable in her own household). To all who complain about "Big Oil", I am a very modest shareholder in several NYSE oil companies. Big oil is owned by little guys like me and lots of mutual fund shareholders, widows and pensioners. The Alberta tar sands are largely responsible for the strength of the Canadian dollar as the North Sea is to Norway. If ya can't lick em, join em.
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Dec 16, 2006 16:03:04 GMT -5
Gotta have the money first, before I can join them. I'm no fan of big oil after the Katrina fiasco. There was no reason to hike prices throughout North America. It was gouging at it's finest. Our friend Stephen Harper really put a dent in to their schemes, when he cancelled the use of Income Trusts, here in Canada. They wanted to be tax free? Them that gouged and profiteered from other peoples misery. To hell with them!
On Gulliani, he's a natural leader and was a stand and deliver guy, in the face of the carnage in New York. The guy didn't seem to sleep for the first week. He was in the streets, the hospitals and in front of the microphone 24/7 while this catastrophe played out. People didn't forget that about him and he is indeed electable.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 16, 2006 17:09:58 GMT -5
Condolezza Rice ... will always be seen as a Bush Republican And rightly so.... Barf! He handled 911 as well as anyone could and deserves much credit for that (though I'm not sure why that makes him a hero). But his politics are the last thing America needs IMO. If he tries to use 911 to get himself elected he'll be taking a risk. Maybe he could get pregnant to attract the women's vote.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 16, 2006 17:15:26 GMT -5
It seems like the Republicans have already been punished. With "W" gone the Republicans won't have anybody to kick around anymore. Osama and Hillarious (credit to HabsAddict) aren't electable in Conservative states. (Hillary isn't electable in her own household). To all who complain about "Big Oil", I am a very modest shareholder in several NYSE oil companies. Big oil is owned by little guys like me and lots of mutual fund shareholders, widows and pensioners. The Alberta tar sands are largely responsible for the strength of the Canadian dollar as the North Sea is to Norway. If ya can't lick em, join em. Hillary, faced with stiff opposition, is trying to give her man an election?
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 16, 2006 21:16:25 GMT -5
I remember the day that George Bush won the Republican nomination . . . [etc] Look at that: a well thought out and readoned (and reasonable)) post, without any name calling. That wasn't so hard, now, was it?
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Dec 16, 2006 21:56:10 GMT -5
I am a very modest shareholder in several NYSE oil companies. As Howard Zinn said, you can't be neutral on a moving train....
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Dec 16, 2006 22:25:31 GMT -5
Just goes to show that many Conservatives are not Bush backers and cannot be tarred as pro Bush. I actually wanted Kerry to win last time, because it would have been good for Canada and not so good for big oil. I get sick of Liberal rehtoric, always trying to link the Conservatives in Canada, with the Republicans in Washington. I'll challenge anyone who wants to do this, in the name of political fairness.
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Dec 21, 2006 1:38:52 GMT -5
Just goes to show that many Conservatives are not Bush backers and cannot be tarred as pro Bush. I actually wanted Kerry to win last time, because it would have been good for Canada and not so good for big oil. I get sick of Liberal rehtoric, always trying to link the Conservatives in Canada, with the Republicans in Washington. I'll challenge anyone who wants to do this, in the name of political fairness. I backed Bush. I don't regret it. He was better than Kerry. We got rid of Saddam in short order with minimal fighting and loss of life. The economy is flying high despite a costly war and Katrina. Now I am somewhat disappointed in Bush. He is spending like a drunken Democrat. We are not in Iraq to help the Iraqis. We are there to get the terrorists, not for Iraq but for ourselves. We can not stop the Sunnis from hating the Sheites and we can't stop them both from hating us. We can't tell them who to elect and we can't find any nice guys to support against the bad guys. THe best we can do is stop them from attacking us. We can't solve their problems for them. They have to do it themselves. We can eliminate anyone whom we deem a threat to our national security. 9/11 gives us the right and the obligation to eliminate any terrorist that threatens us. No more Mr. Nice guy. I'm tired of seeing young American soldiers getting shot. There is no possible dialogue with religeous zealots who are ready and eager to die. They are ready to die to stop the Dutch from printing editorial cartoons. If they are that ready to die, I'm ready to premptively help them.
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Dec 21, 2006 17:28:33 GMT -5
Terrorists threaten the US because they see the US as evil. Thanks to Bush, many people now see the US as the most evil nation in history. The threat of terrorism has gone up enormously because of the invasion of Iraq. The threat of terrorism will continue to rise. On 9/11, Osama bin Laden made his point with "minimal loss of life." The next terrorist attack on the US will probably make 9/11 look like nothing. I wonder how many countries the US will use it to justify invading.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 22, 2006 16:42:52 GMT -5
Just goes to show that many Conservatives are not Bush backers and cannot be tarred as pro Bush. I actually wanted Kerry to win last time, because it would have been good for Canada and not so good for big oil. I get sick of Liberal rehtoric, always trying to link the Conservatives in Canada, with the Republicans in Washington. I'll challenge anyone who wants to do this, in the name of political fairness. I's be happy to do this. Any time. It's relatively easy for a person to define conservative values as no being the the things that conservatives voted for and are doing. It may be a personal conceit of one's imagination, but it has no more validity than my pointing out that Liberals and Democrats who support abortion are clearly standing in horrible opposition to human rights and are complicit in the deaths of some 44 million of the American young. Crimes against humanity are that wether perpetraited by Nazis, Canadian Liberals or Conservatives. Incidentally, Wilke, in his book "Handbook on Abortion" claimed that more democrats than republicans supported the pro-life movement. That info is dated, but to claim liberals and democrats are secularists is just outrignt false information. If you want to hold that Liberals and democrats have adopted fundamentally immoral policies, then you should of course include the tamed puppy Stephen Harper who was spokesman for the corporations and promised to be a good boy and not raise the abortion issue, if elected. That's a lot like "I'm opposed to lynching blacks but I'll support your right to do so." That leaves the 'social consrvatives' the completely misleading horsehip euphemism used by the media to isolate their own consciences as the fringe group while conservatives get on with their real task of looking after their wealth and clammering about poor immagrants, the "illegal aliens" ...God that;s funny. Harper, a right wing conservative had his bills paid for by the Coalition of Concerned Citizens, which was actually started by a corporate multi millionaire insurance magnate to keep Canadians from having access to the national health program. Of course the fact that he wanted to keep Canadians and the health of their children in the hands of big business, may just have been a conservative conincidence, (right) but big businesss and particularly big oil has backed this group of right wing whackos and their puppet, Stephen Harpur all along and continue to do so.
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Dec 23, 2006 0:10:21 GMT -5
[glow=red,2,300][/glow]
And you call me a racist for stating statistics from a recent book, "State Of Emergency" by Patrick J Buchanan. Just suggesting this, makes you implicant with the thought. You couldn't come up with something more politically correct, since that's what you seem to espouse, everytime I make a point about something non-white, Liberal or religious based?
At least I won't go whining to the administrators, to have you banned for putting some of this stuff in print, like you seemed to want to do with me.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 23, 2006 1:46:39 GMT -5
[glow=red,2,300][/glow] And you call me a racist for stating statistics from a recent book, "State Of Emergency" by Patrick J Buchanan. Just suggesting this, makes you implicant with the thought. You couldn't come up with something more politically correct, since that's what you seem to espouse, everytime I make a point about something non-white, Liberal or religious based? At least I won't go whining to the administrators, to have you banned for putting some of this stuff in print, like you seemed to want to do with me. Oh. So you think that was used in a racist way. That's really pathetic. I seldom have exchanges that are so dishonest. Get help.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 23, 2006 21:43:21 GMT -5
Keep it clean guys ....
Sorry mods, your job I know.
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 23, 2006 22:44:36 GMT -5
Terrorists threaten the US because they see the US as evil. Thanks to Bush, many people now see the US as the most evil nation in history. The threat of terrorism has gone up enormously because of the invasion of Iraq. The threat of terrorism will continue to rise. On 9/11, Osama bin Laden made his point with "minimal loss of life."The next terrorist attack on the US will probably make 9/11 look like nothing. I wonder how many countries the US will use it to justify invading. I can't believe what I just read......from you MC? MINIMAL LOSS OF LIFE? My cousins brother-in-law died there. He "deserved it"? If Afgan terrorist killed your family, will you blame Martin? How would you feel if someone said it was "only" your family? In the big scheme of things, would that be a "minimal loss of life". *sigh* C'mon MC, disagreeing with American policy is one thing but even remotly justifying terrorism is another.
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 23, 2006 23:04:16 GMT -5
[glow=red,2,300][/glow] And you call me a racist for stating statistics from a recent book, "State Of Emergency" by Patrick J Buchanan. Just suggesting this, makes you implicant with the thought. You couldn't come up with something more politically correct, since that's what you seem to espouse, everytime I make a point about something non-white, Liberal or religious based? At least I won't go whining to the administrators, to have you banned for putting some of this stuff in print, like you seemed to want to do with me. Oh. So you think that was used in a racist way. That's really pathetic. I seldom have exchanges that are so dishonest. Get help. I feel like a pedestrian in a bull fight. Consider yourself warned TH. Prince and TH, if you guys have something against each other, take it to pm. You are baiting each other and it's beginning to get out of hand. Anywho, now you two have a thread of your very own in the mods room.
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Dec 23, 2006 23:46:03 GMT -5
At least I'm not alone! LOL!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Dec 26, 2006 5:15:22 GMT -5
At least I'm not alone! LOL!!!! Sheites vs Sunnis............ Hatfields vs McCoys........... Green Catholics vs Orange Protestants............ French vs English.......... Israelis vs Palestanians.............. Hammas vs ....................and so on and so on Writing nasty posts is far better than murder. Habs vs Leafs UCLA vs USC friendly rivalries between civil partisans
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Dec 26, 2006 11:53:40 GMT -5
You forgot Dixie vs the Yanks!
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 26, 2006 20:36:36 GMT -5
At least I'm not alone! LOL!!!! Sheites vs Sunnis............ Hatfields vs McCoys........... Green Catholics vs Orange Protestants............ French vs English.......... Israelis vs Palestanians.............. Hammas vs ....................and so on and so on Writing nasty posts is far better than murder. Habs vs Leafs UCLA vs USC friendly rivalries between civil partisans Actually you forgot "Townie" vs "Bayman"
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Dec 26, 2006 22:28:30 GMT -5
Balboa vs Creed?
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Dec 27, 2006 6:21:33 GMT -5
Terrorists threaten the US because they see the US as evil. Thanks to Bush, many people now see the US as the most evil nation in history. The threat of terrorism has gone up enormously because of the invasion of Iraq. The threat of terrorism will continue to rise. On 9/11, Osama bin Laden made his point with "minimal loss of life."The next terrorist attack on the US will probably make 9/11 look like nothing. I wonder how many countries the US will use it to justify invading. I can't believe what I just read......from you MC? MINIMAL LOSS OF LIFE? My cousins brother-in-law died there. He "deserved it"? If Afgan terrorist killed your family, will you blame Martin? How would you feel if someone said it was "only" your family? In the big scheme of things, would that be a "minimal loss of life". *sigh* C'mon MC, disagreeing with American policy is one thing but even remotly justifying terrorism is another. Sorry if I caused offense, I was responding to HFLA's comment (hence the quotes around "minimal loss of life"): We got rid of Saddam in short order with minimal fighting and loss of life. This is in reference to the deaths of how many tens of thousands of people??? By comparison, 9/11 killed about 3000 people. I don't actually consider any loss of life to be "minimal", and I said nothing that justifies terrorism. But consider that the WTC was hit when it was mostly empty. If the attack had been more strategically timed, the death toll could easily have been 25,000 people. I don't know if that timing was intentional or accidental, and I'm certainly not excusing the attack in any way, but, if "minimal" can ever be used to describe the killing of human beings, then it applies just as well to 9/11 as to the deaths in Iraq. Putting politics aside, the attitude that 3000 "American" deaths are more significant than the deaths of over 50,000 Iraqi civilians is just blatant racism, and the arrogance displayed by the Bush-Cheney administration when dismissing the number of Iraqi casualties, the number of people fleeing the country, and the overall level of violence there, is astounding. 9/11 was terrible, but to hold it up as the mother of all evils is ridiculous. To put it in some perspective, when 3000 people died on 9/11, there was non-stop coverage on every news channel for a week, and the entire United States went into at least a month of mourning. 3000 US soldiers have since died in Iraq, and the men who sent them there have the audacity to complain that those deaths even make the news. Now, 3000 people reportedly flee Iraq every day. On a per-capita basis, that would be the equivalent of over 30,000 Americans flooding into Canada on a daily basis. Of course, what I've written here plays into the lie that there is even the remotest connection between Iraq and 9/11, other than the latter being abused to justify the invasion of the former. In short, over 50,000 civilians, 3000 American soldiers, and I've no idea how many other "combatants" are dead because of a lie, the authors of that lie now stand in front of a microphone on a weekly basis talking about "minimal" loss of life and other fairy tales, and millions of willfully ignorant people choose to go along with it.
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Dec 27, 2006 10:38:49 GMT -5
It's more about oil and the defense of Israel, why the U.S. is there. It invites the insurgents to come to Iraq and fight Americans, than it does to come to North America. Iran is the real threat, in the area, and needs action taken to discipline.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 27, 2006 13:43:20 GMT -5
Not defending anyone just adding .... that what HFLA wrote is what they call, in grammar, a "dangling participle". We got rid of Saddam in short order with minimal fighting and loss of life. This has two meanings. #1. As MC pointed out, HFLA could have meant that there was minimal fighting and minimal loss of life. #2. It could also mean that there was loss of life (no explanation as to the extent) and minimal fighting. So ... which was meant? The author should be given the chance to clarify.
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jan 2, 2007 1:31:15 GMT -5
Not defending anyone just adding .... that what HFLA wrote is what they call, in grammar, a "dangling participle". We got rid of Saddam in short order with minimal fighting and loss of life. This has two meanings. #1. As MC pointed out, HFLA could have meant that there was minimal fighting and minimal loss of life. #2. It could also mean that there was loss of life (no explanation as to the extent) and minimal fighting. So ... which was meant? The author should be given the chance to clarify. I've been away so I was slow to reply. The US won a short decisive war against Saddam and his Guard. Minimal loss of US lives in the process. I value US lives higher than Iraqi lives. No, it's not racism. I value my childrens lives more than strangers. In the old boat with one life preserver, I give it to my kid. I pay for my kids college tuition before I give to charity. The president of the US was elected by the people of the US, not Iraq or the UN. He is responsible to the people of the US first. I have no problem with a presidential pardon for the soldiers who killed Iraqi civillians. THey were in a desperate situation and just saw their comerads killed. Not trying to fan flames, but I don't think we suddenly began to love the wonderful people of Iraq. We're in this to protect ourselves. Without being racist, I have very little concern for the Kurds of Iraq and much less for the Sunnis and Sheites. Killing the bad Iraqis without hurting the good is like burning a haystack without heating the needle. "W" went over there and did the right thing. It's up to the leaders of the Sunnis and Sheites to do the right thing now and I see very little evidence of it.
|
|